Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


BY DEFAULT, A MIRACLE CLAIM THAT CANNOT BE CROSS-EXAMINED SHOULD BE IGNORED

WHY BOTH SCEPTICS AND BELIEVERS KNOW EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE IS NEEDED FOR MIRACLE ALLEGATIONS

Sceptics require outstanding and careful evidence in support of supernatural claims. Why? Because nature cannot account for supernatural. You need to be sure science does not need revising or that natural regularity has not changed for good or will now be irregular. You need to be sure claimants are not the blind leading the blind.

Far-out claims such as magical ones need very good proof anyway for they implicitly ask for it. We know life and truth are under threat if we believe such things too easily. In this sense we must make an extraordinary effort. The claim should be seen as asking for that for it is a sign and you have to be sure. To demand extraordinary evidence is really saying that we must make a huge and complete effort.

Believers need such solid evidence both to show it is supernatural and to show that it cannot be natural. That is not two fields to be examined. To verify one is to verify the other for the natural and supernatural by definition. If a natural cause is impossible then its supernatural.

If you are a sceptic you are going to check the natural extraordinarily.

If you are a believer you are going to check the supernatural extraordinarily.

But it really does not matter.

The point is one wants extraordinary evidence about nature and the other about supernatural. They are both in the same boat. Thus believers who object to sceptics looking for better and solid evidence, extraordinary evidence, are hypocrites and shooting themselves down as well.