Near Certainty Bell Curve

Life is exceedingly complicated; however, that does not denote in any fashion supernaturalism. On the contrary, the gaps in human knowledge will always exist; nevertheless, the history of the God of the Gaps reveals that we are morally obligated NOT to fill in the holes with supernatural explanations which have exceedingly bad unintended consequences in regards to humans and what unscientific rubbish we will believe in because of it. A hypothesis such as “There is supernatural order in life” to be substantiated, explained and showed predictive powers (i.e., technical proof/evidence of actual miracles or magic interference in the world) must not rest on faith.  Prior common-sense credence (constant updates as Bayesian reasoning) dictates that we do due dilligence in regards to the actual facts. It must be opened to falsifiability, that is, mathematical evaluation such as Risk Probability Assessment (RPA). It behoves all sincere believers to place their intuitive certainty with bonifide scientific credentials on a simple bell curve somewhere between zero and one; zero being so close to certainty that the hypothesis is deemed wrong or so close to one for it to be a near certainty (that it is true or as true as we are scientifically able to ascertain presently or the probability of its reality is so low that it should not be believed in, in earnest).

Picture now the heliocentric movement of the solar system, gravity in general, relativity, evolution, cosmological expansion, and other laws of nature which are time after time systematically confirmed through the numerous branches of science and many thousands of independent investigator-scientists. They are all so close to one on our simple bell curve that it is a near certitude they are all true (and surely false in some other ways not yet figured out by the self-critical future models of reason and science).

Again, let’s take the proposition, “There is supernatural order in life”. If you could try to imagine where such a proposal would scientifically sit on this simple bell curve we might be able to advance to an important insight on the restrictions of faith, intuition and emotional-need in supplying useful knowledge to humans. So, is it hovering near the mean—i.e., in the middle somewhere, but not by popular accord among believers—but by scientific analysis and valid evidence—of its supposition? The old philosophic canard of the mystic and his and her believers has always been that no one can prove a negative; such as “There is definitely no supernatural order in life and I can prove it” so that in turn we humans can believe what we want no matter what the evidence from the scientific community, that is, the burden of proof is so high and the break so wide as to allow Muhammad’s jihadists through. Yet with recent modern devices such as risk assessment mathematical models, that is exactly what reason and science can now do; smash away that decrepit religious soother which fundamentalists and Marxists alike so dearly love, “i.e., "it’s my theory and I can believe what I want all facts to the contrary” or to quote Thomas Sowell: "Reality is optional." Well actually, no you cannot anymore.

Why you can't dismiss reason and science any longer in the stead of faith is due philosophically to these  mathematical,  epistemological  and  scientific  instruments that we have recently developed. If you predict the end of the world, the end of capitalism, the end of whatever or the beginning of the Rapture or suchlike predictions and the dates go by over the centuries but you just keep recalibrating, this alone is unsatisfactory and makes your theories so close to zero on our simple curve that they are most certainly false just on the face of it. Many other explanations and substantiations exist of course in these realms of theological ideas, flat-earth illusions and outright false and unsupportable beliefs which are also in the hard sights of reason and science impossible to both hold and be a reasonable human being at the same time; I am sympathetic to the hard working women and men of the world; in some respect given our evolution, it is a reasonable assumption that the earth is flat, the sun rotates around us, that there is a prime-mover, an immortal soul in humans, that time is absolute and what we see, intuit and feel is accurate; yet reason and science show us over and over again that none of these things are in fact true.
Error abounds among us and we must as always work through our blunders, but some mistakes, such as “There is supernatural order in life” have been resolved by science and if you still hold them, it is through moral cowardice. If you believe such things as prayer and go to a hospital rather than a church when you are sick, then you are a hypocrite. If you hate the market with its constant human innovation and are not running naked in the fields and forests with Jacques Rousseau and Margaret Mead, you’re self-deceitful, and shame on you. If you are a Marxist or Neo-Marxist who mourned the death of Marx, Mao or Che, you’re grieving mass-murderers and intellectuals who approved of it or ignored it. If you are a follower of the legend of Christ — the Jesus myth — and claim to be logical, you’re lying to yourself—he didn’t exist; it’s a fable: see, here, and here, and here. If you’re a Muslim and claim equal rights for women, LGBTQ2, children and non-Moslems, you haven’t read nor understood the Koran. If you’ve been abducted by aliens and avatars, your ancestors were likely snatched or possessed by demons and devils; it’s not that unique; it’s a hallucination humankind has had for time immemorial. Or as Neil deGrasse Tyson is fond of saying, "Just because you can't figure out how ancient civilizations built stuff, doesn't mean they got help from Aliens." If you're a clever QAnon anti-vax revolutionary and fight the man but during random sex the condom breaks, you contract syphilis and go get antibiotics so you don't die a horrible painful death, you are beyond a fool.  I won’t go on in this manner. If you can’t stop believing in supernatural hogwash, or theories without evidence, at least don’t press it onto your kids until they are adults who can make up their own minds; by then they’ll be mature enough to ignore your indefensible beliefs.
I do think I just proved a negative (at least as well as anyone can).