News has recently revealed improvement in Rep. Gabrielle Gifford's condition after being shot through the head by Jared Lee Loughner late last week. Gifford has shown movement in her left hand since Monday, and was able to move her arms and legs and sit up with assistance. The attending neurosurgeon, Dr. Michael Lemole calls her improvement "a major milestone" and added, "We're wise to acknowledge miracles."
Claims of the miraculous, or phenomena that apparently break with the constitution of nature have never been substantiated by scientific or even conventional means. Hearsay and unfounded speculation are the main currency of miracles.
The common source of purportedly miraculous results is divine intervention. It must be asked: is a god capable of miracles truly doing us a service by creating or allowing problems and then fixing them? Would it not be better if such things were prevented? One might argue that these are tests, that these occurrences make us stronger. Any evidence to support the existence of a god or to support this myopic notion have yet to be presented. What business does a god have in testing or making us more resilient? Is that just or fair? Is that loving, as many fundamentalist Christians would argue? If one is able to prevent harm but does nothing, at the very least it is indifferent, perhaps even curious. At worst it is malicious. If this god is the source of harm it is fair to say it is not benevolent. Thankfully, the evidence for such a deity does not exist.
Theists would contend that our actions are not prevented, only judged so as to determine one's suitability for a heavenly existence. In this context free will is sacrosanct and for that reason alone, God will not intervene to stop a shooter, a suicide bomber, biological warfare, or any sort of catastrophe that was spawned in the depths of humanity. A deist might argue in contradiction to this benighted supposition by suggesting that a creating deity is not in control of its creations, merely responsible for bringing them into being. In either case the burden of proof rests with them, not with the scientific community that seeks to deduce the world using protocol, evidence, and reason.
Claims of the miraculous, or phenomena that apparently break with the constitution of nature have never been substantiated by scientific or even conventional means. Hearsay and unfounded speculation are the main currency of miracles.
The common source of purportedly miraculous results is divine intervention. It must be asked: is a god capable of miracles truly doing us a service by creating or allowing problems and then fixing them? Would it not be better if such things were prevented? One might argue that these are tests, that these occurrences make us stronger. Any evidence to support the existence of a god or to support this myopic notion have yet to be presented. What business does a god have in testing or making us more resilient? Is that just or fair? Is that loving, as many fundamentalist Christians would argue? If one is able to prevent harm but does nothing, at the very least it is indifferent, perhaps even curious. At worst it is malicious. If this god is the source of harm it is fair to say it is not benevolent. Thankfully, the evidence for such a deity does not exist.
Theists would contend that our actions are not prevented, only judged so as to determine one's suitability for a heavenly existence. In this context free will is sacrosanct and for that reason alone, God will not intervene to stop a shooter, a suicide bomber, biological warfare, or any sort of catastrophe that was spawned in the depths of humanity. A deist might argue in contradiction to this benighted supposition by suggesting that a creating deity is not in control of its creations, merely responsible for bringing them into being. In either case the burden of proof rests with them, not with the scientific community that seeks to deduce the world using protocol, evidence, and reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment