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.
