I'll happily admit that I put my faith in science, and trust conclusions obtained by the scientific method. This is mostly because I think the ability to make accurate predictions of future events is the best evidence of "truth" a system can exhibit. That's my belief, and using that measuring stick, science kicks the shit out of every other game in town.

So I guess I don't fall into your "these folks annoy me" camp - I'm happy to acknowledge it: my root beliefs are just that - beliefs. But wow, are they useful beliefs!

John,

I suppose that science could be considered a faith of sorts-- there are things it can't prove (at least, not yet), and there are things that science does affirm the existence of (such as subatomic particles, which we can't perceive directly with our own unaided senses) that we take "on faith" as existing.

I am quite willing to take that "old apple-woman's word" that a murder did take place-- after all, murders do happen in this world, and have been known to happen since the dawn of mankind.

I will not take the old apple-woman's word that a miracle occured, not because I disbelieve in God's existence but because I think He may exist. I think God set this world in motion many eons ago, operating (physically and morally) according to a set of rules that man (through processes called science and faith) is slowly discovering.

God blows His whole Program out of the water if He performs a miracle:

1) All of a sudden, the world is shown to NOT work according to the rules He Himself laid down; and

2) His cover is blown-- His existence is no longer a matter of faith but of incontrovertible fact, with dire consequences for us given our psychology. How would you like to live in a fishbowl, knowing for a certainty that your every move and thought is being watched? And can you imagine the Hell unleashed on the rest of us by the zealots who imagine that their ways are God's ways, and have the indisputable fact of God's existence to at least give their claims plausibility?

In short, if God performs a miracle, it's "Game Over" for this world.

And I think God is too smart to pull a stupid stunt like that. He's got too much invested in this project we call "the World".

Interesting points, but they seem fuzzy to me...

"I suppose that science could be considered a faith of sorts-- there are things it can't prove (at least, not yet), and there are things that science does affirm the existence of (such as subatomic particles, which we can't perceive directly with our own unaided senses) that we take "on faith" as existing."

Not what I'm getting at at all. These are things within the realm of Natural Science. What science cannot test or verify is...itself. It can't stand outside itself and verify its underlying assumptions. For instance, to do science you assume that the universe our senses perceive is not an illusion or hallucination. BUT, science can't test that, since it must use data that's one way or another filtered through our senses. that's why it is a "faith."

"I will not take the old apple-woman's word that a miracle occured, not because I disbelieve in God's existence but because I think He may exist. I think God set this world in motion many eons ago, operating (physically and morally) according to a set of rules that man (through processes called science and faith) is slowly discovering.

God blows His whole Program out of the water if He performs a miracle:

1) All of a sudden, the world is shown to NOT work according to the rules He Himself laid down; and..."

Then what you are is a Deist, or something like it. But your logic is a bit circular. You say we are slowly discovering the rules, but also that the rules cannot include miracles. So when did we discover that rule?

"2) His cover is blown-- His existence is no longer a matter of faith but of incontrovertible fact..." Now THAT'S a sharp point---since we Christians usually explain the hard-to-find invisible quality of God by saying that for him to make Himself obvious would destroy Free Will. So what does a miracle do, if not that? You've stumped me, I don't have a good answer!

"...with dire consequences for us given our psychology. How would you like to live in a fishbowl, knowing for a certainty that your every move and thought is being watched? " Well, the effect is the opposite of dire, I can assure you. (And BTW a person doesn't think that most of the time; you are too busy with life to worry about it.) But why do you assume that your distant set-the-world-in-motion God can't do the same? Justify your premise.

"...And can you imagine the Hell unleashed on the rest of us by the zealots who imagine that their ways are God's ways, and have the indisputable fact of God's existence to at least give their claims plausibility?" Zealots will be zealots, whatever happens. But I suspect that if they think their ways are paramount, they have no desire to actually encounter God, especially in the person of Jesus, who was notoriously good at deflating know-it-alls. they are the last to want miracles.

"In short, if God performs a miracle, it's "Game Over" for this world." It's "Game Over" for Deism and atheism, and perhaps Pantheism. Other thought systems would not be affected. Science, for instance, does not deal with the supernatural, and so would mostly ignore a miracle. Despite what Richard Dawkins probably imagines, it makes no claim that there is no supernatural realm. Such a claim could only be a "leap of faith."

"And I think God is too smart to pull a stupid stunt like that. He's got too much invested in this project we call "the World"." I'll hasten to agree that he has a lot invested in this world. A scandalous amount.

Maybe God would perform miracles not to prove his (her? its?) existance; God could cure someone of cancer and leave it a mystery as to whether it was "God," "Allah," "Adonai," one of the compassionate avatars of the Buddha, or merely some detail of biology that we don't know about. And he could do so with multiple motives: out of compassion for the sufferer, or to deliver a message to humanity: be careful, YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING.

And another idea occured to me: perhaps Jesus cured the sick not to prove himself, but to set an example: _this_ is what a son of God was supposed to do, as opposed to what another rumored son-of-a-god, Alexander, did.