# "Scientific" vetting of miracles is incompatible with Christian faith **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2013, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511 "2013-01-08T18:04:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/41 "2013-01-08T21:43:43Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Emphasis mine. As well they should have; the Bible isn’t an instrument to understand the physical world the way science is, and shouldn’t be used as such. That’s not what the Bible is for. This is the modern view - for lots of people, at least. But if you are sitting 250 years ago with no idea at all of how the world formed and the universe worked, why not take the explanation of what you firmly believe as an inspired book as the starting point? While the Copernican revolution was disruptive to a lot of church teachings, geocentrism really isn’t an explicit teaching of the Bible. If you believed that the Bible was divine, taking the Bible story as the null hypothesis really wasn’t all that unreasonable. Things got interesting when the null hypothesis got falsified. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/42 "2013-01-08T21:48:07Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Such use of (pseudo)science is incompatible with Christianity. Christianity is based upon **faith** in Christ, “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). If one is compelled to use science to “prove” the divinity of Christ, one is not demonstrating this faith. Except if they feel lead by the Holy Spirit to use science to do that. To me science is a toy, much like one might give a child a telescope, spectroscope, metal detector or rock tumbler, that is how I feel the angels view our science that they have given us to play with. For the real stuff we need their help and their highly advanced technology that appears as magic to us. And that is the issue here, you are trying to use educational toys meant for God’s children’s development to prove something that God never intended it to be used for. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/43 "2013-01-08T21:50:44Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Completely? There’s no concept of salvation or grace or active faith in ancient religions. You don’t know that. The OT was written as if God is self-evident, with the ancient stories of God directly intervening given as fact. In that context they don’t discuss faith, because it is not necessary when dealing with an omnipresent God. What people who were not priests actually thought is a different matter. > [@](#): > > The essence of Christianity isn’t Genesis, it’s the teachings of and faith in Christ. Scientific understanding doesn’t factor in to that. There is no God and Jesus is his son. Got it. One Creationist argument is that Jesus mentioned the Flood and Adam and Eve as if they were real, and Jesus was divine, so if they were not Jesus was lying which is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/44 "2013-01-08T21:55:34Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > . . . If something cannot be tested by the scientific method, is there another term you’d prefer? The proper scientific term is a bit rough, and has unfortunate non-academic connotations: it is “nonsense.” A modern catch-phrase is “not even wrong.” If science can’t study something…it must ignore it. It is of no interest. Note that this can apply to factual, material, real-world things too. For many years, there simply was no progress made on the double-refraction of Iceland Spar Crystal. It was a mystery. But, after centuries, somebody figured out polarized light, and the mystery was solved. It was believed for a long time that the chemical make-up of the stars could never be known (unless we actually went out there and brought a chunk back.) But spectography came about, and now we do know. It seems to be hubristic to declare that the spiritual world is not explorable “by definition,” as this pre-empts the idea of any further advances and discoveries. Who the hell knows? Maybe we’ll invent a “ghost camera” or an “angel radar” some day. Or…maybe ghosts and angels simply do not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/45 "2013-01-09T00:37:38Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It seems to be hubristic to declare that the spiritual world is not explorable “by definition,” as this pre-empts the idea of any further advances and discoveries. Who the hell knows? Maybe we’ll invent a “ghost camera” or an “angel radar” some day. Or…maybe ghosts and angels simply do not exist. All those who believe in it have to do is to show us conditions where the appearance of a ghost is reproducible (even if it takes a while.) That’s one of the (many) things that bugged me about the sequel to Ghostbusters. If that had really happened, every scientist and her brother would be applying for grants to study it. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/46 "2013-01-09T01:13:10Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Indeed - it’s interesting to note that not only had Charles Darwin the much reviled started out as a man of faith - he’d studied to become a clergyman ; but his voyage on the \*Beagle \*was originally intended to prove creationist theories. > > It’s only later in his life that he really started doubting (partly due to his newfound understanding of natural selection, and partly due to the problem of evil). And consequently died a very conflicted agnostic. Well, Darwin was only studying to become a clergyman because he had dropped out of medical school (basically because witnessing an operation as carried out before the age of anesthetics freaked him out). He was a conventional believer, but he had no great enthusiasm to join the church. (Making them into Church of England clergymen was basically how the English upper classes of the time provided for their younger sons if they did not appear to be much use at anything else.) The voyage of the Beagle was not intended to prove anything. The purpose of the voyage was to chart the waters around South America, and Darwin went along because the captain wanted someone of his own social class and educational level along to keep him company (and Darwin volunteered for the job partly because he wanted to put off actually becoming a clergyman for as long as possible). It is true, though, that at the start of the voyage, and, indeed, throughout it, and for some time after, Darwin shared the view (almost universal amongst naturalists of the time) that the study of Natural History could be expected to reveal more and more evidence of God’s intelligent design of living things, and that his own study of Natural History was at least partly motivated (or justified, anyway) by this belief. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/47 "2013-01-09T01:38:23Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; historically it was considered perfectly compatible. The idea that science has nothing to say about Christianity was created when science kept coming up with the answer “it’s wrong”. Perfectly true, although it might be better to substitute “logic” for “science” – see [Natural theology.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology) From _A History of Western Philosophy_ (1945), by Bertrand Russell, Chapter XIX, “Rousseau”: > [@](#): > > In theology he [Rousseau] made an innovation which has now been accepted by the great majority of Protestant theologians. Before him, every philosopher from Plato onward, if he believed in God, offered intellectual arguments in favor of his belief. The arguments may not, to us, seem very convincing, and we may feel that they would not have seemed cogent to anyone who did not already feel sure of the truth of the conclusion. But the philosopher who advanced the arguments certainly believed them to be logically valid, and such as should cause certainty of God’s existence in any unprejudiced person of sufficient philosophical capacity. Modern Protestants who urge us to believe in God, for the most part, despise the old “proofs,” and base their faith upon some aspect of human nature – emotions of awe or mystery, the sense of right and wrong, the feeling of aspiration, and so on. This way of defending religious belief was invented by Rousseau. It has become so familiar to us that its originality may easily not be appreciated by a modern reader, unless he will take the trouble to compare Rousseau with (say) Descartes or Leibniz. > > “Ah, Madame!” Rousseau writes to an aristocratic lady, “sometimes in the privacy of my study, with my hands pressed tight over my eyes or in the darkness of the night, I am of the opinion that there is no God. But look yonder: the rising of the sun, as it scatters the mists that cover the earth, and lays bare the wondrous glittering scene of nature, disperses at the same moment all cloud from my soul. I find my faith again, and my God, and my belief in Him. I admire and adore Him, and prostrate myself in His presence.” > > On another occasion he says, “I believe in God as strongly as I believe any other truth, because believing and not believing are the last things in the world that depend on me.” This form of argument has the drawback of being private; the fact that Rousseau cannot help believing something affords no ground for another person to believe the same thing. > > \ > > The rejection of reason in favor of the heart was not, to my mind, an advance. In fact, no one thought of this device so long as reason appeared to be on the side of religious belief. In Rousseau’s environment, reason, as represented by Voltaire, was opposed to religion, therefore away with reason! Moreover, reason was abstruse and difficult; the savage, _even when he has dined,_ cannot understand the ontological argument, and yet the savage is the repository of all necessary wisdom. Rousseau’s savage – who was not the savage known to anthropologists – was a good husband and a kind father; he was destitute of greed, and had a religion of natural kindliness. He was a convenient person, but if he could follow the good Vicar’s reasons for believing in God he must have had more philosophy than his innocent naivete would lead one to expect. > > Apart from the fictitious character of Rousseau’s “natural man,” there are two objections to the practice of basing beliefs as to objective fact upon the emotions of the heart. One is that there is no reason whatever to suppose that such beliefs will be true; the other is, that the resulting beliefs will be private, since the heart says different things to different people. Some savages are persuaded by the “natural light” that it is their duty to eat people, and even Voltaire’s savages, who are led by the voice of reason to hold that one should only eat Jesuits, are not wholly satisfactory. To Buddhists, the light of nature does not reveal the existence of God, but does proclaim that it is wrong to eat the flesh of animals. But even if the heart said the same thing to all men, that could afford no evidence for the existence of anything outside our own emotions. However ardently I, or all mankind, may desire something, however necessary it may be to human happiness, there is no ground for supposing this something to exist. There is no law of nature guaranteeing that mankind should be happy. Everybody can see that this is true of our life here on earth, but by a curious twist our sufferings in this life are made into an argument for a better life hereafter. We should not employ such an argument in any other connection. If you had bought ten dozen eggs from a man, and the first dozen were all rotten, you would not infer that the remaining nine dozen must be of surpassing excellence; yet that is the kind of reasoning that “the heart” encourages as a consolation for our sufferings here below. > > For my part, I prefer the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the rest of the old stock-in-trade, to the sentimental illogicality that has sprung from Rousseau. The old arguments at least were honest: if valid, they proved their point; if invalid, it was open to any critic to prove them so. But the new theology of the heart dispenses with argument; it cannot be refuted, because it does not profess to prove its points. At bottom, the only reason offered for its acceptance is that it allows us to indulge in pleasant dreams. This is an unworthy reason, and if I had to choose between Thomas Aquinas and Rousseau, I should unhestitatingly choose the saint. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/48 "2013-01-09T01:39:39Z")
Religion starts with the answer - “God did it” - Science starts with the question “prove it”. [QUOTE=1 Thessalonians 5:21] Test everything. Hold on to the good. [/QUOTE] If ‘Christians’ would follow their own teachings, they would realize that very simple instruction applies to the very ‘teachings’ they are taught - validate - if its true, it will hold up to that validation - if it will not, then it should be tossed aside. Funny thing is - that they actually use this concept with Thomas - “prove that you are who you say you are, show me the holes” - now, of course, in that story, it was proven to Thomas - but why are we, today, supposed to take that story as valid if no proof is available? This does not mean that they cannot have ‘faith’ in thier ‘god’ or believe that there is value to the “christian philosophy”, but they would soon realize that the religions of the world have but one thing in common - keeping people “praying” and not “thinking”. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/49 "2013-01-09T02:11:17Z")
> [@simster](#): > > . . . Science starts with the question “prove it”. . . . Or with the unofficial motto of Missouri: “Show Me.” Religion says, “Glory to God.” Science says: “Wow… Do that again. Slowly. May I? Hm… Hey, looky! Rainbows!” ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/50 "2013-01-09T02:15:53Z")
I’m not really prepared to get into Isis, Hinduism, the life of Darwin, ghosts, or whether religion is a scam to accrue followers. So, I’ll just make some general remarks. Practice of Christianity is contingent on faith, and this faith cannot be replaced by scientific inquiry, because a) faith is an irreducible part of the religion, b) such inquiry is not the purpose of the Bible, and c) such inquiry does not support the literal truth of the Bible, and efforts to skirt around this with pseudoscience are harmful to all concerned. It is easy to evaluate Christianity from a scientific perspective and find it wanting. To be a true Christian is to believe anyway, based on irrational spiritual truths. Thanks for your input, all. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/51 "2013-01-09T02:17:35Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Or with the unofficial motto of Missouri: “Show Me.” > > Religion says, “Glory to God.” > Science says: “Wow… Do that again. Slowly. May I? Hm… Hey, looky! Rainbows!” exactly - Not afraid to question “why” it is - unwilling to accept the answer that it “just is” - we may not ever find all the answers - but I would rather spend my life with the ability to ask the question(s) than not. ---
**Author:** ![Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/52 "2013-01-09T02:41:16Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Practice of Christianity is contingent on faith, and this faith cannot be replaced by scientific inquiry, because a) faith is an irreducible part of the religion, b) such inquiry is not the purpose of the Bible, and c) such inquiry does not support the literal truth of the Bible, and efforts to skirt around this with pseudoscience are harmful to all concerned. A scientific inquiry does not support a literal understanding of the Bible, but it _should_ support a literal understanding of the Bible if the Bible wasn’t mostly fabricated mythology. If you’re applying faith to _history_ (and you know, archaeology _is_ a science), then what is stopping someone using ‘faith’ to believe in any version of history they wish? Well, clearly nothing is stopping people, that’s why we have holocaust deniers. It really does seem to take unusually extreme effort to sustain this cognitive dissonance. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/53 "2013-01-09T02:49:46Z")
> [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](#): > > A scientific inquiry does not support a literal understanding of the Bible, but it _should_ support a literal understanding of the Bible if the Bible wasn’t mostly fabricated mythology. Some aspects of the Bible, yes, would be supported and yet are not. > [@Fake Tales of San Francisco](#): > > If you’re applying faith to _history_ (and you know, archaeology _is_ a science), then what is stopping someone using ‘faith’ to believe in any version of history they wish? Well, clearly nothing is stopping people, that’s why we have holocaust deniers. As you say, nothing is. That’s the nature of faith. > [@Fake Tales of San Francisco](#): > > It really does seem to take unusually extreme effort to sustain this cognitive dissonance. I’m sure, and this no doubt fuels much of pseudoscience I mentioned, an attempt to resolve the dissonance into a singular belief. This is only needed, however, if one is unduly focused on the literal truth of the religion, rather than its spiritual teachings. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/54 "2013-01-09T02:57:12Z")
The most beautiful aspect of blind faith is that it gives you the strength to believe anything in the face of all evidence to the contrary. The most horrible aspect of blind faith is that it gives you the strength to believe anything in the face of all evidence to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/55 "2013-01-09T03:13:09Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > This is only needed, however, if one is unduly focused on the literal truth of the religion, rather than its spiritual teachings. For most, the only reason they buy into the “spiritual teachings” is due to being taught that those teaching have some basis in literal truth. “Christianity” (as a religion) would not survive if it were not for the threat of Hell and the Promise of Heaven, based on the “LITERAL truth” that Jesus was resurrected and/or done all the “miracles” that he was given credit for doing. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/56 "2013-01-09T03:24:02Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > To be a true Christian is to believe anyway, based on irrational spiritual truths. No doubt. But [my church](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius) has **better** irrational spriritual truths. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/57 "2013-01-09T03:57:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The most beautiful aspect of blind faith is that it gives you the strength to believe anything in the face of all evidence to the contrary. > > The most horrible aspect of blind faith is that it gives you the strength to believe anything in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Well said. > [@simster](#): > > For most, the only reason they buy into the “spiritual teachings” is due to being taught that those teaching have some basis in literal truth. > > “Christianity” (as a religion) would not survive if it were not for the threat of Hell and the Promise of Heaven, based on the “LITERAL truth” that Jesus was resurrected and/or done all the “miracles” that he was given credit for doing. By “literal truth”, I meant more the idea that casting doubt on Genesis discredits Christ’s teachings. It needn’t. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No doubt. But my church has **better** irrational spriritual truths. It may well. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/58 "2013-01-09T04:01:10Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > …The supernatural is beyond the purview of science _by definition._ Which is simply another way of saying 'believe anything you want as long as you do so on faith alone." Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. There is simply no debate between evidence and faith. As long as believers accept that, they can make-up anything they want. But said beliefs and nothing equal the same thing. Don’t like it? Sorry. It’s a very simple truth. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/59 "2013-01-09T04:31:21Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > By “literal truth”, I meant more the idea that casting doubt on Genesis discredits Christ’s teachings. It needn’t. So, you get to pick and choose out of that “Holy Book” what to believe and what not to, what’s literal and whats figurative - since damn near everyone does that now, what’s to make your ‘choices’ better than any others? While Christ’s “teachings” in places have much merit, those that have the most are not unique to him - those that are more unique (his return, his resurection) are demonstrably false or, at the least, unverifiable. Casting doubt on Genesis - casts doubt on the veracity of the work itself, since the ‘whole’ is purported to be “GODS WORD”. If “GODS WORD” cannot be taken at face value - what good is any of it as “GODS WORD” ? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2013, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511/60 "2013-01-09T05:09:00Z")
Look, all of you, Jesus of Nazareth (or maybe 'twas that whirling bastard Saint Paul, or even Father Abraham who should’ve died at birth, makes no practical difference now) committed the most horrible, evil, pernicious spiritual crime in all of human history: He made a **virtue** of **faith!** And faith, sir-or-madam, is no virtue. Faith is a **vice,** and a damned wicked one, too! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientific-vetting-of-miracles-is-incompatible-with-christian-faith/646511.md?page=4)