Miracles? Hume, science, Dawkins

A few times lately I've been a little annoyed that the New Scientist has been a little cavalier about religious matters -that is not engaging the best of it rather than the fruitcake or under-thought-out end of the scale. Here, as if to redress the balance, is a NS op piece which has some interesting and more careful things to say, all the more interesting because I would say from the hints in the piece, that the writer is not a religious believer. Here's some of what is written: "what Dawkins says does not completely settle the matter, far less settle it in favour of atheism. Suppose the correct answer is: no, Jesus did not have a human father. This would no more establish the truth of religion than the opposite falsifies it. If Jesus was born of a virgin, it does not follow that a law of nature was violated. To say 'if A, then B' is not to say that there will be a B only if there is an A." See the whole thing here: Opinion: Do you believe in miracles? - opinion - 05 August 2009 - New Scientist: It nearly gets to CS Lewis' useful point on the issue that miracles would have to be inserted into the regular causal nexus of spacetime and so would have scientific 'explanations' (better 'accounts') for large chunks of them ...