SPINOZA’S MAIN ARGUMENT AGAINST MIRACLES FAILS

Spinoza’s main argument against miracles is that everything that happens is according to God’s will. Furthermore, God is not fickle nor does God act on the basis of whim or fancy. God KNOWS what God wants and everything that happens happens precisely because that was exactly what God wanted to happen. Thus, every event in the universe is determined by God’s eternal and unchanging will or plan.

Miracles are, according to Spinoza, contrary to the natural order of the universe. But for Spinoza, God is the natural order of the universe. That is, God’s will or plan for the universe is orderly and lawlike. God does not arbitrarily select this or that to happen, God wills unchanging universal laws or principles and everything that happens is determined by those unchanging universal laws.

The only way that something could happen that was contrary to the unchanging universal laws that direct everything and every event in the universe is for something to happen that is contrary to God’s will. But it is impossible for anything to ever happen that is contrary to God’s will, so miracles are impossible, because a miracle would require something to happen that is contrary to the unchanging universal laws that constitute God’s will.

Spinoza’s thinking here about miracles has some similarity to the thinking of Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, which is neither Christian nor scientific. Eddy reasoned this way:

1. Everything in this universe was created by God.

2. Everything created by God is perfectly good.

THEREFORE:

3. Everything in this universe is perfectly good.

THEREFORE:

4. There is nothing in this universe that is evil.

THEREFORE:

5. Evil does not exist in this universe.

THEREFORE:

6. There is no such thing as death or disease in this universe.

However, it is OBVIOUS that evil exists in this universe, and that death and diseases exist in this universe, so something must have gone haywire in Ms. Eddy’s argument.

Gottfried Leibniz also had a similar odd bit of reasoning:

10. God created this world.

11. If God creates a world, then that world is the best of all possible worlds.

THEREFORE:

12. This world is the best of all possible worlds.

However, it is OBVIOUS that this world is NOT the best of all possible worlds, so something must have gone sideways in Leibniz’s reasoning, as Voltaire sharply highlighted in Candide.

Here is Spinoza’s reasoning in a similarly brief bit of logic:

20. Everything that happens happens in accordance with God’s will.

21. God’s will is that everything that happens is determined to happen exactly how it happens in accordance with God’s unchanging and exceptionless universal laws.

THEREFORE:

23. Everything that happens is determined to happen exactly how it happens in accordance with unchanging and exceptionless universal laws.

It might not be OBVIOUS, but the conclusion of Spinoza’s argument is false. In the 20th century, science has rejected the idea of determinism. Past events do NOT determine exactly what happens next. Science has discovered that there are basic laws of nature that are essentially RANDOM, such as the laws of nature concerning radioactive decay.

In short, in order to formulate some of the exceptionless universal laws of nature, scientists had to formulate some of those laws in terms of probability and chance. That put an end to the plausibility of the idea of determinism. What happens in the future is caused by what happened in the past, but the nature of causation does not limit possible future events to one exact and precise outcome. Contrary to Einstein, God does play dice.

So, Spinoza’s main argument against miracles fails, because Spinoza, like Einstein, incorrectly assumed that the laws of nature were essentially deterministic and that RANDOMNESS was not an essential aspect of nature or of any laws of nature.

SPINOZA’S STRONGER ARGUMENT AGAINST MIRACLES

In Chapter 6 of Reasonable Faith (3rd Edition; hereafter: RF3), the Christian apologist William Craig discusses another argument against miracles by Spinoza, an argument that I think is a strong one:

…a miracle could not in any case prove God’s existence, since a lesser being such as an angel or demon could be the cause of the event.

(RF3, p. 249-250)

Craig admits that two important Christian thinkers who criticized Spinoza’s view of miracles, admitted that Spinoza was, to a large degree, correct on this point. According to Samuel Clarke:

From the miracle iteself taken as an isolated event, it is impossible to determine whether it was performed directly by God or by an angel or a demonic spirit.

(RF3, p.252)

According to Gottfried Less:

There are two types of miracles: first degree miracles, which are performed directly by God; and second degree miracles, which are beyond human power but are done by finite spirit beings. …no more than second degree miracles can be proved, since one cannot be sure when God is acting directly.

(RF3, p.255)

Because I argue that the term “miracle” should be understood as implying that God intentionally brought about the event in question, Spinoza’s point means that we cannot determine whether an alleged miracle is in fact a miracle, because we cannot determine whether an event was intentionally brought about by God as opposed to having been brought about by some other supernatural being.

Here is how I define the term “miracle” (in the context of discussing whether Christianity is true or fasle):

X is a miracle IF AND ONLY IF:

(a) X is an event in the physical universe, and

(b) X is an event that can be detected by means of ordinary human senses, and

(c) God intentionally brought about X.

(Here is a summary of my recent posts on the meaning of the term “miracle” along with links to those posts.)

If we cannot distinguish between an event brought about by God and an event brought about by some other sort of supernatural being, then we cannot determine whether an alleged miracle is actually a miracle, is actually an event that was brought about by God. Thus, this objection by Spinoza does NOT just eliminate one possible argument for the existence of God, it potentially eliminates any and all arguments for Christian beliefs that are based on an alleged miracle, such as the resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, this objection by Spinoza has the potential to demolish most arguments in support of basic Christian beliefs.

THE BIBLE IS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THIS OBJECTION

I was aware of this objection to miracles long before I learned from William Craig that Spinoza used this objection. I was aware of this objection because I have been familiar with the Bible since I first learned how to read many decades ago. Anyone familiar with the Bible is likely to already be aware of this objection, because it is strongly implied or suggested by various passages in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The Old Testament repeatedly warns about the problem of “false prophets”:

17 Then the Lord replied to me, ‘They are right in what they have said. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. 19 Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable. 20 But any prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 You may say to yourself, ‘How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?’ 22 If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.

(Deuteronomy 18:17-22, New Revised Standard Version)

13 Then I said: “Ah, Lord God! Here are the prophets saying to them, ‘You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you true peace in this place.’ ” 14 And the Lord said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. 15 Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the prophets who prophesy in my name though I did not send them and who say, ‘Sword and famine shall not come on this land’: By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed. 16 And the people to whom they prophesy shall be thrown out into the streets of Jerusalem, victims of famine and sword. There shall be no one to bury them—themselves, their wives, their sons, and their daughters—for I will pour out their wickedness upon them.”

(Jeremiah 14: 13-16, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 Mortal, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are prophesying; say to those who prophesy out of their own imaginations: “Hear the word of the Lord!” 3 Thus says the Lord God: Alas for the senseless prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! 4 Your prophets have been like jackals among ruins, O Israel. 5 You have not gone up into the breaches or repaired a wall for the house of Israel, so that it might stand in battle on the day of the Lord. 6 They have envisioned falsehood and lying divination; they say, “Says the Lord,” when the Lord has not sent them, and yet they wait for the fulfillment of their word! 7 Have you not seen a false vision or uttered a lying divination when you have said, “Says the Lord,” even though I did not speak?

8 Therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you have uttered falsehood and envisioned lies, I am against you, says the Lord God. 9 My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations; they shall not be in the council of my people nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel, and you shall know that I am the Lord God.

(Ezekiel 13: 1-9, NRSV Updated Edition)

Although the OT tells us that God wants us to listen to and follow the directions of prophets that God sends, it also tells us that we must be careful to NOT listen to false prophets and to NOT follow their directions. For anyone who is concerned about pleasing or obeying God, at least the God of the Bible, these ideas create concern and anxiety: How can we be sure that someone who claims to be a prophet or messenger from God is truly from God and NOT a false prophet?

In the Gospels, Jesus also warns about false prophets and false miracle-workers who will appear shortly before the end of the world:

²¹ And if anyone says to you at that time, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘Look! There he is!’—do not believe it. ²² False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. ²³ But be alert; I have already told you everything.

(Mark 13:21-23, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

3 When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” 4 Jesus answered them, “Beware that no one leads you astray. 5 For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Messiah!’ and they will lead many astray. 6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: 8 all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs.

9 “Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. 10 Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘There he is!’—do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25 Take note, I have told you beforehand.

(Matthew 24:3-13 & 24:23-25, New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition)

These teachings of Jesus also raise concerns for believers who want to follow and obey Jesus. It is clearly important to avoid following a false prophet or a false messiah, but apparently such fakers can “produce great signs and wonders”, which makes it difficult to figure out which prophets and miracle workers are real and which ones are fake.

Thus, both the Old Testament prophets and Jesus in the New Testament raise a concern about false prophets and false miracles. Believers have a duty to follow the guidance of true prophets and true miracle workers, but the Bible clearly teaches that there are false prophets and false miracle workers who can appear to be genuine.

Any alleged miracle thus raises this reasonable concern for a Christian believer who is familiar with the Bible: Is this a true miracle or is it a false miracle? The essense of this question is contained in a closely related question: Did God intentionally bring about this event, or did some other supernatural being bring it about? If God brought about the event, then it is a true miracle, but if the devil or a demon or a human with extraordinary powers (like a witch or wizzard) brought it about, then it is a false miracle. A false (or fake) miracle is like a false (or fake) diamond, because a false miracle is NOT a miracle at all, just like a false diamond is NOT a diamond at all.

Therefore, the question of whether an alleged miracle was brought about by God is a crucial question that the Bible itself teaches believers to be concerned about. It is this biblically encouraged concern that is the basis for the objection that Spinoza raised about the problem of determining whether an alleged miracle was an event that had been brought about by God, as opposed to by some other supernatural being, or by a human with supernatural powers.

TO BE CONTINUED…

In the next post in this series, I will examine the responses to this objection that William Craig discusses and provides in Chapter 6 of Reasonable Faith (3rd edition).