re: #54 EiMitch

…
And how many of these documented catholic miracles don’t have a natural explanation? More pertinent, what do catholics have to say about more naturalistic explanations of their miracles?

To reiterate: how is it untrue that most people believe that god’s interaction with this world are indistinguishable from natural events? Because (and pardon me if I’m a tad presumptuous here) they’ll claim otherwise at first, only to retreat to this rationale when cornered with facts and logic: that they “just know” god was involved, “felt god’s presence,” or something similar? How many people make claims of supernatural events that don’t boil down to that story when challenged? How many people believe without such a rationalization?
…

According to the RCC’s own rules, it isn’t a miracle if there is some easy natural explanation.

In any case, I certainly don’t agree with this program of asserting that religious believers all or mostly believe that divine intervention is indistinguishable from natural events. Religious believers mostly don’t write or talk that way, and there is no reason not to take that evidence at face value.

Here’s an easy counter-example. A non-material soul, usually immortal, is a common element of religious belief, and there is no naturalistic explanation for such a soul. Thus anyone who believes that god has something to do with souls (e.g., rewards and punishment in an afterlife) has beliefs about divine activity that are distinguishable from natural events.