the parallel between this process and, say, christian proof is this.
early christians attempted to prove the validity of their faith by recourse to stories about one-off miracles. jesus turned water into wine. jesus raised lazarus from the dead. jesus turned a few fish into a feast.
so these are untestable instances used to support the notion that jesus was capable of making nature do things it doesn't normally do. if he could do these things, surely his teaching is also above nature. and then, surely he is the son of god.
the gospel writers are making a claim to prove jesus' divine nature using miracle stories to persuade believers it is true.
whereas science seeks to test itself by performing repeatable experiments. it seeks to demonstrate what lies within nature or show it ain't so. this provides a foundation for describing what nature is and how it works.
scientists create a theory and then attempt to disprove it. it is only if it withstands this attempt (and many others) - as a result of its survival - that a theory gradually crystallises into law.
disproof.
jesus corrects thomas. thomas seeks to disprove jesus' resurrection by checking out his wounds. he finds the wounds present. a scientist would say, sensible test. but, jesus tells tom, the blessings belong to those who believe without seeing.
faith points beyond nature - to the realm in which the laws of physics, chemistry and biology make no difference.
very different processes.
| 