How dogmatic of you. It certainly is debatable. It is also debated.

I didn’t make up the confusion over the definition of religion; there simply is no consensus on the subject. Not among anthropologists (see below);

not at the Physform Science, Physics and Technology discussion forums:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19676

Not over at the Rational Response Squad:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17319

and, evidently, not among “religious” people themselves:
http://pluralism.org/news/article.php?id=7460

I do agree that words are meaning carriers. That is why words need to be defined clearly.

If you wish to say that “If you define religion as a supernatural belief system, then science is incompatible with religion,” fine. Without that caveat, it might be more precise (and intellectually more defensible), simply to say, “Science is incompatible with supernaturalism.”

From Wikipedia: “One major problem in the anthropology of religion is the definition of religion itself….According to Clifford Geertz, religion is ‘(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic’ (Geertz 1966)[10]…. Anthropologists have considered various criteria for defining religion – such as a belief in the supernatural or the reliance on ritual – but few claim that these criteria are universally valid” Wikipedia, Anthropology of Religion, italics added by me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion

True, but describing the sort of healing that I was talking about as a natural phenomenon is begging the question, is it not?

No, not describing. I was making a point that “flagrant suspension” could actually be natural phenomenon beyond our current knowledge. So I wouldn’t even go as far to say that it necessarily would be a “suspension” of said laws, but either mistaken observation or the laws being broken.

In the world I live in attributing events to unseen agents is not an explanation

And that’s because we live in a world where attribution of events to unseen agents has consistently turned out to be either wrong or unverifiable.

You’re quoting out of context again, I was specifically refer to your example which I quoted.

You’re crying wolf about being quoted out of context. If you had been specifically referring to my example, then you would have written something like, “It is irrelevant that this hypothetical healer attributes his power to Jesus.”

Natural phenomena have been attributed to the supernatural due to ignorance for a very long time.

True, but describing the sort of healing that I was talking about as a natural phenomenon is begging the question, is it not?

Indeed, isn’t a big part of our disbelief in miracles that we don’t see that kind of healing being documented, or any other unambiguous suspension of known physical laws? Or as Hume put it, “It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the perusal of these wonderful historians, that such prodigious events never happen in our days.”

J. J. Ramsey: Sure it is. We happen to live in a world where it isn’t a good explanation, but it is an explanation.

In the world I live in attributing events to unseen agents is not an explanation, if anything it only adds questions, not answers them. So the goal of an explanation is worse off than if none had been mentioned.

J. J. Ramsey: Not true in general. Relevance is dictated by how much knowledge the individual has of the event.

You’re quoting out of context again, I was specifically refer to your example which I quoted. Also the rest of the paragraph makes it clearer what I was writing about.

What an individual attributes an event to is irrelevant. Their involvement doesn’t mean their explanation is automatically sound in reason, and justified with evidence.

J. J. Ramsey: Um, yeah, there’s nothing about flagrant suspension of the known laws of physics that would warrant bringing magic into the picture. And flagrant suspension of these laws of physics done in the name of Jesus wouldn’t bring him in the picture either.

Um, yeah, I agree. The only thing that it suggests it that the person “healing” believes those things. Natural phenomena have been attributed to the supernatural due to ignorance for a very long time.

“Magic man did it” is not an explanation

Sure it is. We happen to live in a world where it isn’t a good explanation, but it is an explanation.

What an individual attributes an event to is irrelevant.

Not true in general. Relevance is dictated by how much knowledge the individual has of the event.

And Jesus or magic for that matter.

Um, yeah, there’s nothing about flagrant suspension of the known laws of physics that would warrant bringing magic into the picture. And flagrant suspension of these laws of physics done in the name of Jesus wouldn’t bring him in the picture either.

Except how this hypothetical healer is so flagrantly flouting the laws of physics.

“Magic man did it” is not an explanation, it’s an attributation. Not to me at least, it adds nothing to my comprehension of the event.

Yeah, because of course the performer of miracles would never have an inside line as to how they are performed.

If you believe in an “inside line” I have communed with the spirits, and they’re telling me a Nigerian prince is in need of a temporary loan, you will become rich.

What an individual attributes an event to is irrelevant. Their involvement doesn’t mean their explanation is automatically sound in reason, and justified with evidence.

And also because there is nothing in the context of the hypothetical healer’s activities that would warrant bringing Thor or Douglas Adams into the picture.

And Jesus or magic for that matter.

Each explanation doesn’t really explain anything …

Except how this hypothetical healer is so flagrantly flouting the laws of physics.

Aj:

The explanation from the person supposedly performing the miracles has no more weight than anyone else.

Yeah, because of course the performer of miracles would never have an inside line as to how they are performed.

Aj:

The Thor and Adams explanations are bizarre culturally …

And also because there is nothing in the context of the hypothetical healer’s activities that would warrant bringing Thor or Douglas Adams into the picture.

Say, for example, that we have a purported healer. Someone examines what he does and witnesses him healing an amputee, and even records the limb growing back. Someone’s eye gets poked out and is restored. Now the healer says that he does his work in the name of Jesus. Now there are several competing possibilities. Maybe he has magic powers that would work regardless of his religion. Maybe he is telling the truth about the source of his power. Maybe the Norse God Thor is behind this. Maybe Douglas Adams has come back from the dead as a healing spirit. Those last two sample possibilities are pretty strained, since no one has even brought up Thor or Adams, so as competing miracle possibilities, they are even more off-the-wall than the first two.

That’s not Occam’s Razor, there’s no difference in assumptions. Each explanation doesn’t really explain anything, just adds questions. No additional assumptions are made over the Jesus or magic power explanation. The explanation from the person supposedly performing the miracles has no more weight than anyone else. The Thor and Adams explanations are bizarre culturally but not unusual in any logical sense.

I’d like an example of competing miracle explanations that can be dealt with by using Occam’s Razor.

Say, for example, that we have a purported healer. Someone examines what he does and witnesses him healing an amputee, and even records the limb growing back. Someone’s eye gets poked out and is restored. Now the healer says that he does his work in the name of Jesus. Now there are several competing possibilities. Maybe he has magic powers that would work regardless of his religion. Maybe he is telling the truth about the source of his power. Maybe the Norse God Thor is behind this. Maybe Douglas Adams has come back from the dead as a healing spirit. Those last two sample possibilities are pretty strained, since no one has even brought up Thor or Adams, so as competing miracle possibilities, they are even more off-the-wall than the first two.

True, but one can have supporting evidence for purported events as well as theories, and miracles are most certainly purported events.

Purported events are just events with theories attached to them. Only scientific theories can have scientific evidence supporting them. If you want a lower standard of evidence I have some magic beans to sell you, my business partner has personally witnessed that they work.

Fixed it for you. The underdetermination problem is an issue even for non-miraculous purported events, and the tool for dealing with underdetermination is the same: Occam’s Razor.

Miracle explanations aren’t the same as scientific explanations. If something happens that goes against “natural laws” then they weren’t natural laws, one or possible more scientific theories have been falsified. If an explanation is found through science then it would be by making hypotheses, supporting with evidence, and developing theories.

Miracle explanations work in a different way to scientific explanations. Something happens that seemingly has gone against “natural laws”. People attribute this to a supernatural agency. This doesn’t suffiently answer the question, and adds more questions. The more assumptions, the more questions.

I’d like an example of competing miracle explanations that can be dealt with by using Occam’s Razor.