If nobody believed in superstition it would be unable to hurt anyone


Scientific proof for the resurrection of Jesus is not possible. Jesus would need to die and rise again in a lab under strict conditions in order for science to say there is such proof. Scientific proof depends on an effect being repeatable.

Suppose the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event. Then it follows then that when you say the law of nature is that people do not come back from the dead you have to say there have been at least one exception Jesus. So all miraculous statements are in opposition to science which needs reality to be able to work out what is out there and what is happening for a scientist cannot talk that way. Jesus weakens the strength of the claim that people do not come back from the dead.  
Critics say that miracles are unrepeatable events and are very improbable. They say that the evidence for repeatable events like winter coming at the end of every year in Europe is better than any evidence for miracles. So they conclude that miracles are not believable even if they do happen. It is wrong to say that the evidence for the repeatable is always better for the unrepeatable for we have evidence that the unrepeatable happened. They won’t give belief in miracles a chance and just reject them outright without considering them.
COMMENT: Evidence is based on the idea of repeatable. If unrepeatable events like miracles happen you cannot be sure of anything evidence says. Thus if you want to believe in the value of evidence you are only weakening that idea by taking on the notion of miracles. It is more reasonable to hold that miracles shouldn’t be believed in. The repeatable is more important than any miracle or unrepeatable supernatural event. It happens more. So the evidence is naturally going to be better for the repeatable. This is not dogmatically refusing to give miracles a chance. It is simply doing what we have to do.
Miracles blaspheme human intelligence. The religion of miracle is also the religion of bigotry, intolerance, unfairness and deceit. The best miracles can do is give people a “holiness” and piety that reposes on self-deceit and self-inflicted blindness.
Antony Flew argued that miracles are uncommon and unrepeatable events. Christians agree with that. Flew said that even if miracles are possible they are not believable because you can't for example prove that Jesus rose from the dead by making him repeat it. He is saying that the evidence for the general and the repeatable will always be necessarily better than the evidence for the particular and unrepeatable. Christians deny this. The Christians are saying in effect that something you can scientifically test in the lab and repeat is not as convincing as human testimony to miracles or the sight of a very sick person who was miraculously healed and is now the picture of health. We have only human testimony to the resurrection of Jesus and it is extreme fundamentalism to argue that such testimony is better than any experiments we can do.