Science is our best effort attempt to describe the world around us. Science can't go beyond that. All models are wrong but some models are more useful than oth

Science is our best effort attempt to describe the world around us. Science can't go beyond that. All models are wrong but some models are more useful than others. It is unlikely that our models fit the data perfectly. Indeed we cannot know if we even have all the data in the first place. We should not mistake science for the real world, or the model for the data. Naturalists would say that there's nothing beyond that, nothing beyond the world around us as described by science. They have no rational reason to assert such a position. They have no philosophical or scientific tools to make such a claim. Indeed the scientific method was never intended to be used towards that end. Philosophy is similarly ill-suited. The mistake of naturalists is to conflate science with atheism and to confuse "faith" (conviction established by reason) with "blind faith" (unfounded conviction), two separate concepts. For example, "I have a degree of faith in you based on past performance" vs "I have a degree of faith in you based on whimsy". On the other hand, the supernaturalist believes there's something beyond the world around us. Likewise, the supernaturalist has no tools (philosophy, science) to assert such a position. Both the naturalist (represented by atheism) and the supernaturalist (represented by blind faith) are indefensible positions. Therefore there is no ground on which to outright reject or accept the possibility of miracles. This leaves the middle ground (represented by agnosticism). Here the position is such that we can't reach out and describe the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, unless it were to reach out and describe itself to us in a way that would clearly be supernatural. This would mean that we could only ever confirm the existence of the supernatural but never deny it. For that task, we would need to look to history, using the tools of historical inquiry, if indeed there is anything supernatural yet to be found in history. The claim of Christ, of the life and death and resurrection of Christ in history would be one such claim to examine: "I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God's church." - Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians