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?

 


Evidence that miracles violate nature or is it evidence that miracle claims are trying to declare a violation - or both?

Both sceptics of miracles and believers argue that miracles are bad if they violate nature and are unworthy of devotion.

It would be insane to imagine an all-powerful God having to violate nature to fix something or do something. And if there is no God then could it be that there still supernatural powers that do violations of nature? Unbelievers think nature is reasonably uniform and so things such as a statue coming to life cannot happen.

The religionists hold that miracles are exceptions to the law of nature but not violations. They only assume that. That is no good and is risking belief in violations of nature and such belief would be irrational and dangerous. Their view tells us a few things about them not least their arrogance.

Most miracles pose as evidence for a violation.

There are so many miracles reported in the world - most of which are spiritualistic in tone. Some of them seem to be saying a violation has happened. People who believe that miracles are a violation of nature experience miracles as evidence or confirmation that their understanding is right. It is only a few philosophers and theologians who deny that miracles are a violation. In popular spirituality, miracles are thought of as a kind of magic or almost as magic. If a miracle happens and is a sign, it only confirms beliefs the recipients already have and the main relevant belief is that the miracle is a contradiction of nature like the magic.

No matter how good the evidence is that a violation of nature has happened the religionists will reject the evidence or they will ignore it which is the same thing. Christianity believes that the miracles reported of witches in the Middle Ages didn't happen because they violated nature and were absurd. If miracles are contradictions of nature and that means they are impossible, it follows that believers are only accepting miracles that are not a contradiction of nature and ignoring the ones that claim to be contradictions. If many miracle reports describe a contradiction, how can ones that don't be trusted? How can you say that the evidence for a miracle that is not a contradiction may be accepted but if the miracle is a contradiction then it must be rejected? That is merely admitting that evidence is only receiving lip service and the evidence isn't the reason the miracle is accepted as real at all. Miracles then would be guilty of producing and encouraging deceit.
 
The fact that many miracles lead to harm and advocate lies may indicate that they violate nature.
 
Catholics guess that say the miracles of Lourdes back up the pope and the evil doctrine that he stands for. They think they show that God approves of the pope’s Church when he does miracles in that Church alone. They would reason that the wonders are signs that the Church is the most reliable source of the word of God and some logically refuse to use contraception for the Pope forbids it, with fatal and disastrous results. To invite people to run their lives by religious assumptions like yours is totally supercilious for people should run their lives by what the best evidence says is right. But this is assuming again? No. Recall that to assume nature works by unchangeable laws is better than to assume that the supernatural can intervene. You can live without the second assumption but you cannot live without the first.

There is no way a Christian can prove all the miracles reported in the Bible. There are too many miracle claims in the world to investigate them all. Religion cannot claim that miracles are not violations of nature for there is evidence that it is wrong. There can be evidence in favour of false miracles. Religion is merely picking out the miracles and proposing these for belief as long as they suit religion's aims and schemes. It has no business claiming to be rational and properly investigative.

Many feel that belief in miracles borders on belief in magical violations of nature. But as the distinction between miracle and magic is arbitrary it is clear that it is wise to say all miracles pose as violations of nature but some do more posing than others!