Even if we accept your distinction between miraculous means and natural means of cures for what was once incurable ...
OK
... we must admit natural miracles - such as giving sight to the blind through advances in medical science
I don't think so, as clearly such advances in medical science are just that, and not by any definition of the term, 'miraculous'.
... are greater since they are replicable, whereas miraculous miracles are not.
Clearly, as miracles occur through no human agency.
One-time miracles are no longer impressive,
That's a quality v quantity argument, so I disagree.
but a medical advancement that can cure anybody suffering from a certain disease now and in the future is.
Not disputing that.
Then how come most ancient Greeks accepted the geocentric model of the universe?
The discussion loses traction here – you're not comparing like with like – I'm talking about the Humanities, you're talking about Physical Sciences as if they're the same thing – they're not.
Clearly had the Greeks microscopes, telescopes, etc., they might well have come up with some surprising conclusions. Their understanding of the physical world left a lot to be desired, but philosophically they laid the foundations and their arguments are still relevant today.
Significant in Greek philosophy was the role of reason and inquiry, with an emphasis on rationality and logic and the practice of impartial observation of the natural world. Their contributions to maths and science is considerable – geometry, the concept of mathematical proofs.
Even without telescopes Aristarchus of Samos 300BC proposed the heliocentric theory, and that the stars were suns.
But Greek philosophy – Alfred North Whitehead summed it up: “All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato.”
As for the novel and the lack of inner life – I simply disagree.