The "science" of Miracles

Show me a scientific paper that attributes it to a miracle. On the contrary, Wikipedia mentions the miracle of the sun. The Catholic Church calls it a miracle. Science does not. That's how the word "miracle" is actually used. Why would a flashlight be called a miracle by somebody who doesn't know the cause? You provided a fairy tale. I provided a real example, the miracle of the sun. It is considered a real miracle by the Roman Catholic Church but science does not acknowledge that any scientific laws were broken. Why can't you discuss the real example?

Does a scientific consensus ever call something "inexplicable"? It seems to me that there are likely to be a handful of possible explanations, none of which are accepted by a consensus.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

​

Clarke's Third Law

Nope. I am not my own source. Reality is. Why not stick to reality? Look at the miracle of the sun. Science has several possible explanations. That's all I'm saying. A miracle is something that is labelled a miracle by somebody who can't explain it.

If the rapture happened exactly as told in the fairy tale, only fundamentalist Christians would interpret it as "the Rapture". Some other religious minds might interpret it as a miracle. Scientific minds would come up with possible explanations.

Responding to your recent messages...Responding to your Message 405 to Phat: Of course science doesn't accept miracles. Science only accepts that for which there is sufficient evidence to form a consensus. This thread is attempting to ask the question, "What if there were scientific evidence of a miracle? How would science respond?"We understand you're not interested in addressing this question, indeed, are even hostile to the question being posed, so a better question for you is a rhetorical one: If you're not interested in the subject of this thread, why are you here?Responding to your Message 406 to me: Your two week absence has caused you to forget the context. The issue was attribution. You had incorrectly claimed that attribution was important. By way of arguing that attribution isn't important I asked you, "To what does he attribute the choice of slit?" The answer is obvious - the choice of slit has no attribution, no cause. If choice of slit requires no attribution, in other words, if some scientific phenomena require no attribution, why should a miracle? That's only one way "miracle" is actually used. In this thread we're discussing miracles in a scientific context by considering the question, "What if a phenomenon occurred that presented us sufficient scientific evidence to form a consensus within science that it was a miracle?" You've forgotten the context again, which is science. We're not talking about the conclusions of ignorant or unscientific observers. We're talking about a phenomenon studied scientifically. How would it make it any less a miracle if there were no attribution? You're still forgetting that we're talking science. From the perspective of science the sun is an entirely natural phenomenon, the Catholic Church notwithstanding. The sun is not a scientific miracle.And I did not provide a fairy tale. I described a phenomenon that were it to happen would be regarded as a miracle by science.Responding to your Message 407 to me: But science has never encountered a true miracle before. I described a phenomenon inexplicable according to natural or scientific law, i.e., a miracle. That the phenomenon is inexplicable according to science is part of the scenario.The actual problem is your refusal to consider a hypothetical miracle. Think of it like Isaac Asimov's thiotimoline. While a graduate student preparing to write his first scientific paper, as an exercise he first wrote a paper about a hypothetical substance that he made up that was so soluble in water that it dissolved 1.12 seconds before the water was added. He tried to consider all the scientific implications and include them in the paper.We're doing something similar here, considering a hypothetical phenomenon that has all the characteristics of a miracle.--Percy

That question is self-contradictory. If there is scientific evidence for an event, there are necessarily possible scientific explanations and by definition it is not a miracle. Attribution is by a person. There is no person choosing a slit so there is no possibility of attribution. The situation we're talking about is where Reverend Jim attributes the choice of slit to a supernatural cause while Scientist George says he doesn't know why or how the choice was made. But scientist George doen't call the choice a "miracle"; he just keeps looking for the why and how. Why would we discuss that? We know that scientific consensus would never call something a miracle. You might as well discuss a scientific consensus on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Yes we are. Those are the only people who call something a miracle. It's only the attribution to supernatural causes that makes it a "miracle". Look at the miracle of the sun. The Catholic Church attributes it to a supernatural cause. Science does not. The Catholic Church attributes a particular observation of the sun's activity to supernatural causes. Science does not. A miracle is the attribution of an event to supernatural causes. And science has never encountered a true fairy before. That's why the "phenomenon" of fairies is called a fairy tale. Nothing is "inexplicable" according to science. It may be unexplained temporarily. The actual problem here is that you refuse to consider what people actually call miracles. Look at the miracle of the sun. It is called a "miracle" by people who can't explain it but it is not called a miracle by science. Science tries to explain it.Your what-if scenario is like closing down the Patent Office because everything possible has already been invented. Science isn't going to quit just because you make up a fairy tale about a flying bridge. Science is never going to conclude "insert miracle here".

So you are suggesting that one cannot ever ascribe something as miraculous if they have any scientific education? Why is it so important to avoid the terminology? Why is it not simply a matter of choice? I wouldn't be too sure about that statement. You are giving science far more faith than it warrants. No wonder you never became a believer. You put way more faith in science than it has earned. The bigger philosophical questions will never be concluded by experiments. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

If you take your car to a mechanic, do you expect him to say, "It can't be fixed," or "It's going to cost a lot to fix it"?People who are science-minded will say, "I wonder how that happened," and try to figure it out. I'm not avoiding the terminology. I'm saying that science doesn't use it. Nonsense. I didn't say that science "will" find all the answers or even that it "can" find all the answers. I'm said that it will never quit trying. Yes I did. I became a believer the same way you did, by swallowing hook-line-and-sinker what my society said was "the Truth". Then I became an unbeliever by recognizing that it wasn't true. Nonsense. I could have ZERO faith in science ever finding the answer to anything. What I'm talking about is the fact that science will keep looking, no matter how good or bad their record is. The bigger philosophical questions are mostly garbage.

All he's doing Phat is saying that miracles can't exist for definitional reasons. After that there's nothing left to say. It's a semantic argument of no intrinsic worth. Because he's arguing terminolgy :-) Tedious isn't it? It doesn't allow for an actual miracle, he just defines it out. Pointless.

Responding to your last two messages:Regarding your Message 412 to me: It does not follow that just because scientific evidence exists that scientific explanations exist. It also does not follow that just because possible scientific explanations exist that by definition it isn't a miracle - it isn't guaranteed that one of the possible scientific explanations will pan out, or that any scientific explanation will ever pan out. Your earlier two week vacation has still left you lost as far as the context of the discussion about attribution. No one ever claimed that the inability to attribute a cause means something is a miracle. Let's go back to where this started.
You said in Message 364: But the attribution is *not* inherent. There can be an absence of attribution. That's why I referenced the two-slit experiment, where there is no attribution of a cause for which slit an electron passes through. Events in science do not require a cause, and so if a miracle were to occur there is no requirement that there be a cause. Obviously you don't want to discuss it, so I don't even know why you're here. You don't seem to want anyone else to discuss it, either. Tentativity rules out such absolute declarations. You're drawing a false equivalence. This ancient question makes a point about the irrelevancy of arguing over things not known, while the question being considered here considers a hypothetical scenario where things *are* known.But if data about angels were to somehow come to light, we could meaningfully discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. No, you are wrong. In my bridge scenario there would be many scientific observers calling it a miracle. You seem to have forgotten that we've been over this attribution thing before. There is no requirement that a miracle have an attribution, and even among the possible attributions the supernatural is only one. Plus science would likely invent new terminology. Rather than the term "miracle" they might say "nonconforming phenomenon" or some such, but it would still be a miracle. Right. And we're looking at this from the point of view of science, not religion. You're repeating yourself. We've been over this. This is false. So can I guess that you'd also be unwilling to consider the hypothetical scenario of uncovering evidence for fairies? Sorry, but that's part of the scenario, that the phenomenon is inexplicable according to known science. If you don't feel like discussing that scenario that doesn't mean no one else can. You *could* just sit on the sidelines and sadly shake your head.I also think, as Tangle has noted, that you're too caught up in terminology. "Inexplicable" isn't a synonym for "inexplicable forever." Science is tentative and will change in light of new evidence or understanding. Boy, you really like this "miracle of the sun" business. Science is under no obligation to use the exact same definition of miracle as the Catholic Church. Defining miracle as inexplicable according to natural or scientific laws is a perfectly acceptable scientific definition. Of course science tries to explain it. Trying is not the same thing as succeeding. I created a thought experiment, which has a long and distinguished history. My bridge scenario is as legitimate as Einstein riding a light beam.Regarding your Message 414 to Phat: Not at present. But if the right phenomenon presented itself, one inexplicable by natural or scientific laws, then the terminology couldn't be avoided, could it. And as I said earlier, science would likely invent its own terminology, but the meaning would be the same. Not the contemplative type, I guess.--Percy

Show us an example of something that is actually called a miracle where there is no attribution. That's the opposite of tentativity. Tentativity in science means that even if something seems to be a miracle, we can never rule out the possibility that a natural explanation will be found. That's why scientists don't call things miracles.Look at the miracle of the sun. The Catholic Church calls it a miracle. Scientists do not. So give us some examples of scientific papers where scientists call an event a miracle. You haven't shown that. In the miracle of the sun, the only distinction between the Church's attitude and the scientists' attitude is that the Church attributes the event to supernatural causes. We've had evidence of fairies. Science determined that it was faked. That's what makes the scenario nonsensical. Nothing is "inexplicable" to science, even if it is temporarily unexplained. You're the only one who seems to want to. But science doesn't define "miracle" at all. It doesn't need to. Of course it could. It has been avoided for centuries despite the observation of phenomena that were temporarily unexplained.

Not really. You are saying that *you* don't use it.
You don't have the authority to speak for all who use science on a daily basis---either as a career or as a tool. Many of them attend churches, some are believers, and others are not, but the fact is that science as a discipline only extends as far into their daily lives as they choose to let it do. Thus to say that *science* doesn't use this or that nor do this or that is simply your linguistic hangup and not an actual fact of reality. Science is used as far as an individual takes it. There is no rule regarding where science stops and faith and belief begin. You are projecting. What you again seem to be saying is that *you* will never stop trying.This is similar to an argument that you and I once had regarding the term evidence. Thus the evidence in your mind was evident to you...but not by decree to everyone!

No. I'm saying that science doesn't use it. It has nothing to do with authority. If you know of examples where science refers to miracles, please post them. When they're doing science, they don't refer to miracles. Nonsense. Science is collective. Of course there is. Science stops at the evidence. Nonsense. I'm not a scientist at all. I never even started trying. Evidence is evident to everybody. That's what evident means.

Seen in context with our discussion regarding the science of miracles... Can Science Prove The Existence Of God?A good article! Some notable quotes for fodder: The author, a scientist, voices his perspective on faith and science. The article that I quoted never referred to intelligent life as a miracle, but indicated that science has stopped at the evidence thus far and that nothing evidently has been proven regarding human uniqueness vs math probability of replication throughout the universe. For the time being, our existence is statistically rare, if not miraculous. (But what of the atomic clock?)Edited by Phat, : added clock comment