I’d actually say that supernatural explanations are easier to accept, or at least that we feel more tempted to embrace them. Was reading an article lately written by a nonbeliever (on Richard Dawkins’ website, I think)…he was explaining how he felt pushed to jump to the conclusion that some ghost or something had nudged him on the shoulder after being awaken by such a sensation, with his room locked up and no one inside it. A nonbeliever on Mark’s (the atheist guy from a year ago that took the site down now, you would post many articles about him) was also implying that he believed in ghost-like things concerning some displaced object in his (at the time of the alleged occurrence) empty house. You often have to reason yourself out of such a trap, examine things in a rational way in order to escape the urge to jump to super-naturalistic conclusions. Nonbelief isn’t about intuition in any way, it WOULD follow most people’s intuition that a God exists, for one thing.

When I spoke about mass hysteria, I wasn’t really thinking about Paul, whom I think would fit into a hallucination instead, having allegedly seen Jesus appear to him in a glowing light, not having directly been converted by the resurrection itself, I think having been more isolated from everyone else. I was mostly talking about the resurrection in my previous post, not about all believers. I don’t think it wouldn’t be hard for someone of the time to make such drastic changes after hallucinating, they were more superstitious, I think, than we are today…

You shouldn’t underestimate the power of suggestion…it’s very possible that it could influence those people into believing EVEN something that went against their previous faith, their intuitions, etc…take the first case of mass hysteria in the link I provided above: who in the world thinks sea water is sweet? Yet all those people were convinced it was for some time, it doesn’t support their previously held beliefs…that said, I’m no psychology expert, so maybe the article and I shouldn’t be using the expression “mass hysteria”…I remember a teenager (a family member) I know who was convinced, after his teeth bled a little more than usual, that he had advanced periodontal disease, that his teeth were going to fall off in a matter of days, panicking after reading things online. He would show us all how his teeth were loose (without touching them, of course, afraid they would fall prematurely), how they had already been displaced (yes, he would go in front of the mirror and insist that his teeth looked different than usual). The dentist explained that it was all in his head, that his teeth were as solid as ever, that he had mild gingivitis. But I guess I shouldn’t be providing personal anecdotes. This kind of thing can be contagious (check the “penis panic” case in the article)…

I agree about Fatima, and I’m not satisfied with the scientific explanations that I hear for it either. But I’m not going to conclude that Mary REALLY appeared to the children because I have no better explanation! That explanation TOO would be unsatisfying, it brings in so much more unexplained baggage…the other ones ARE still better, however weird and unlikely…The Ancients and scientists of previous centuries weren’t satisfied with the scientific explanations for why the sky was dark at night instead of being ablaze with light (with all the stars that were up there)…that didn’t stop them from finding a satisfying one in the 20th century. Not having a satisfying explanation shouldn’t force one to embrace something that otherwise goes against all evidence (that Mary actually visited the three children, that the Catholics are right about everything else concerning her, like the virgin birth, ect–I brought up Fatima because I thought you didn’t accept it, not being a Catholic. It is my favorite miracle, fascinates me…but it is well known that the Sun itself didn’t move that day, as nothing unusual was picked up in observatories all around the world….many factors may have come together to explain Fatima, mass hysteria just being one, the wet clothes being dried by something else)…

That said, there are miracles in other faiths too, as the Hindu milk miracle in the article above. There is also the guru Sri Baba’s current miracles (though I guess they aren’t terribly impressive). There are also countless Eucharist miracles (I’m sure you don’t accept that Jesus literally becomes the bread on Sunday). Hell, I’m from Haiti and we have people allegedly buried and being seen years after, remember a case last year where the guy’s death had allegedly been documented (though I guess people used to make mistakes about death since a long time, used to even put bells on graves for the possibly-buried-but-still-alive to use if they woke up…I think making a mistake is more likely than actual zombifications)…

The weaker your house, the less strongly it stands, the more reinforcement it needs. You need VERY strong evidence to support something like a resurrection. Personally, I think much anything short from SEEING IT (and of course, having doctors verify it really occurred and all, I’m not doctor myself, can be easily fooled), or if some forensic evidence could be collected in some way (something of that sort) that would show that someone rose from the dead, would be too weak for something like that. Of course, if one could somehow SHOW that no other explanation for the testimonies and such is possible would help also…supernatural explanations often FIT better, I agree, explain all the aspects of a miracle, but they are more unlikely by their nature (supernatural: doesn’t conform to the laws of nature as we know them => unlikely, since we judge likelihood through those laws to begin with)…in this case, things are a little different from trying to explain a miracle (=A marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of a divine agent -Wordweb)…the resurrection doesn’t fit into usual historical events like the assassination of a monarch, the invasion by an army of a nation, etc; things that do not violate natural laws and of the type that occur to this day…to establish a resurrection, we can’t use customary historical evidence…

I wrote a lot, I guess…I’ll just add something about science…I’m certainly not alone: in science, when an observation is seen to inescapably go counter to established scientific theories, the latter are modified…OBSERVED…but sometimes scientists will go out of their way to hold on to well supported scientific theories…for instance, they invented dark matter and dark energy at least partially to explain discrepancies between their observations, not wanting to throw out theories that worked everywhere except when concerned with the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (if I have all that right, I think it’s at least roughly correct)…they didn’t throw out the otherwise well established scientific laws…and the two “darks” are called so because they are so weakly understood, I think…if not, I’m sure it’s because of something around those lines (so these explanations are unsatisfying too, just like the naturalistic explanations for the resurrection and Fatima, etc…saying that the known laws are wrong would explain the discrepancies, but would be less likely given all previous observations…it’s the same situation)…and the observation of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is more solidly established (as I guess it is more than most historical facts, since they have less evidence at their disposal), I think, than the fact that there were so many to support the idea of Jesus’ resurrection…