"We have to assume there aren't miracles because otherwise we cannot rely upon science."

[Boojatta]

I think that a statement along those lines was made, but I don't recall the wording. Perhaps someone would like to revise that to convert a straw man position into a real position?

For the same reason ("because otherwise we cannot rely upon science"), do we have to assume that there aren't living among us extraterrestrials who have technology much more advanced than human technology?

[baldguy]

1. "We have to assume that science doesn't work because otherwise we can't rely upon miracles."

[Grey]

3. The message in my christmas card this year. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. good word --

assume.

[Sinti]

4. You can assume that an apparent 'miracle' is just something that can't yet

be explained by science. Everything, existence itself is a miracle.

[Boojatta]

5. Kick

[omega minimo]

6. What are you talking about?

:shrug:

[skepticscott]

7. If by a miracle

it is meant something involving a suspension of the laws of nature (as opposed to something that science simply can't explain yet or that fundies choose to be ignorant about), then yes. If physical laws at their most fundamental do not operate, then there is no reality to investigate usefully by the means of science.

[Boojatta]

8. "usefully"

Are you claiming that even though theories might have a variety of applications, they aren't "useful" unless they accurately describe reality always and everywhere?

Isn't that a bit like saying that, given the existence of Kryptonite, we must conclude that Superman doesn't have any capabilities that can be useful to society?

[Deep13]

9. That would be arguing the consequent.

It's similar to saying, "There has to be a god, because otherwise there is no morality." It assumes that because the result is bad, that the premise must be true. And that just isn't so.

The reason I assume there are no miracles is because there has never been a miracle that has been sufficiently demonstrated to rule out all naturalistic causes. Further, miracles are inconsistent with everything else I know about the world and the universe. It is a proposition that so far is supported by the facts.

[blueworld]

10. Why do all miracles have to be outside the laws of science?

Most of the miracles in my life have been more a matter of timing. And if you accept the definition of miracle as "outside of known scientific law", I think they're 2 sides of the same coin. Like "mountain" & "valley" - neither would have any meaning without the existence of its opposite.

[tama]

11. Anomalies

That's what "miracles" are in science jargon, empirical evidence that cannot be explained in the frame of generally accepted scientific theories. When you think about it, all mental phenomena are as such anomalies as the reductionistic hypothesis cannot really explain them as anything but "emergent epiphenomena" mumbo jumbo.

[blueworld]

12. Partially, perhaps

but my point was that in my personal experience, miracles are often more a matter of timing. Something that happens well within the bounds of scientific knowledge, yet "what are the odds"?

[tama]

13. Ah, "synchronicity"

as Jung called the phenomenon you speak about. Yup, "what are the odds" beat the statistical expectations of the standard scientific explanatory frames and are thus statistically significant anomalies.

My advice, in case someone wants it, is to just accept those kinds of "miracles" as they keep happening and get used to them... "there's nothing to fear but the fear itself". :)

[blueworld]

14. My advice is to explore other options & not be so sure you own the truth for everyone else. n/t

[tama]

15. Good advice

"Owning the truth for everyone else" is what Euro-American universalism and colonialism of manifest destiny and white mans burden have been doing: conquering, assimilating and homogenising other cultures; owning the "truth" by copyrights and patent laws and what not.