I think there are two types of miracles:
- A supernatural act caused by God (or other being)
- An extremely unlikely event caused by God (etc)
Science, by definition, is completely blind to either because science requires repeatability (and possibly a naturalistic cause).
Therefore, the answer to Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles? is a fairly easy “yes”:
But it’s a good question because many Atheists would probably say “no” and be dismissive of the validity of miracles. And many Christians would say “no” and dismiss the validity of Science.
This is a big problem because:
A) Christianity is founded on miracles that validate Jesus as the Messiah and validate the Apostles as having the Holy Spirit, and
B) Dismissing something you don’t understand is a form of lying and bad Atheism or bad Christianity.
Therefore “miracles don’t exist” is not a scientific claim. It is a kind of faith.
-Stefan
___________________________________________________________________________________
Can a miracle have a natural/ scientific explanation?
I think “yes” if it is improbable but caused by God. Catholics seem to disagree.
Can there exist non-natural, non-scientific events (that look like a miracle)?
According to modern science, almost nothing is scientifically impossible, just improbable. So a scientist may say that my cancer is in remission but I might think it is answered prayers.
How do we know if it is a miracle?
I think the conviction of the Holy Spirit can be more real and valid than a logical argument with a lot of assumptions. Does it matter if it is just fortunate, and not a miracle?
Can Science help our faith to not treat something as a miracle if it can be reasonably explained?
I think honesty leads to faith. For example, to think that I got a green light when I was late was a miracle is kinda cheap and takes power away from a legitimate healing. However I probably can’t judge other people’s convictions, just mine. Maybe the green light was from God.