Spinoza's odd argument that God performing miracles would cause atheism..

[amorphous_constellation]

So this actually an argument I hadn't read before, I would think that most atheists and others of the agnostic shades would react far more positively to an actual miracle. He writes this in chapter 6 of a 'Theologico-Politcal Treatise:'

"Neither do I recognize any difference between an event against the laws of nature and an event beyond the laws of nature (that is, according to some, an event which does not contravene nature, though she is inadequate to produce or effect it)—for a miracle is wrought in, and not beyond nature, though it may be said in itself to be above nature, and, therefore, must necessarily interrupt the order of nature, which otherwise we conceive of as fixed and unchangeable, according to God's decrees. If, therefore, anything should come to pass in nature which does not follow from her laws, it would also be in contravention to the order which God has established in nature for ever through universal natural laws: it would, therefore, be in contravention to God's nature and laws, and, consequently, belief in it would throw doubt upon everything, and lead to Atheism."

He goes onto say that basically, a 'miracle' is better defined as something natural which occurs outside the scope of our understanding, and elsewhere that the bible hints at miracles always being preempted or surrounded by certain peripheral actions, though the importance of these actions are understated. That is to say, the science would lie heavily in the details which the bible may fail to fully elucidate, per Spinoza probably the fallacies latent in the subjective minds of the writers and prophets.

But overall I still think it's an odd argument, I suppose it's sort of a pantheist's argument. I always had always presumed that if God was not actually omnipotent, then something about that would be running counter to plainer intuition about the possible qualities of God. The Bible itself seems to have miracles occurring frequently enough, and even with the nuance of metaphor and allegory I don't feel that these are everywhere part of the intent. Isn't there a verse somewhere describing plainly that God is all powerful and can do anything, because that would counter much of Spinoza's thinking.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So this actually an argument I hadn't read before, I would think that most atheists and others of the agnostic shades would react far more positively to an actual miracle. He writes this in chapter 6 of a 'Theologico-Politcal Treatise:'

"Neither do I recognize any difference between an event against the laws of nature and an event beyond the laws of nature (that is, according to some, an event which does not contravene nature, though she is inadequate to produce or effect it)—for a miracle is wrought in, and not beyond nature, though it may be said in itself to be above nature, and, therefore, must necessarily interrupt the order of nature, which otherwise we conceive of as fixed and unchangeable, according to God's decrees. If, therefore, anything should come to pass in nature which does not follow from her laws, it would also be in contravention to the order which God has established in nature for ever through universal natural laws: it would, therefore, be in contravention to God's nature and laws, and, consequently, belief in it would throw doubt upon everything, and lead to Atheism."

He goes onto say that basically, a 'miracle' is better defined as something natural which occurs outside the scope of our understanding, and elsewhere that the bible hints at miracles always being preempted or surrounded by certain peripheral actions, though the importance of these actions are understated. That is to say, the science would lie heavily in the details which the bible may fail to fully elucidate, per Spinoza probably the fallacies latent in the subjective minds of the writers and prophets.

But overall I still think it's an odd argument, I suppose it's sort of a pantheist's argument. I always had always presumed that if God was not actually omnipotent, then something about that would be running counter to plainer intuition about the possible qualities of God. The Bible itself seems to have miracles occurring frequently enough, and even with the nuance of metaphor and allegory I don't feel that these are everywhere part of the intent. Isn't there a verse somewhere describing plainly that God is all powerful and can do anything, because that would counter much of Spinoza's thinking.

It's been quite a while since I've considered Spinoza, but I think he was speaking more from what God would do than what God could do.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

It's been quite a while since I've considered Spinoza, but I think he was speaking more from what God would do than what God could do.

I'm really not so sure about that, he seems quite adamant that content in biblical scripture can't contradict natural laws, and all through his chapter on miracles he describes everything as being immutable and fixed. I'm not even entirely sure what kind of power Spinoza's God even possesses at this point.

 

[siti]

I think you have to remember that for Spinoza, deus sive natura underpins his philosophy - so to say that God (by which he means God/nature) contravenes nature by causing an event that it is above or beyond Nature (by which he means God/nature) is absurd - and therefore can never happen...and further, he says, that by sub-categorizing apparent "miracles" by having the kind of miracles that are entirely beyond nature in principle as one kind and those that are 'within' nature in principle but which nature itself would not under normal circumstances produce (as Thomas Aquinas and others after him had done) does not help the argument in favour of miracles at all. His argument is: if God/nature doesn't produce it by natural means then it simply never happens and to say to that some event is (truly) miraculous is to deny the power of God/nature to control the natural outworking of nature - which he then seems to be arguing - is tantamount to saying that God/nature is not God/nature after all - hence 'atheism'.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

His argument is: if God/nature doesn't produce it by natural means then it simply never happens and to say to that some event is (truly) miraculous is to deny the power of God/nature to control the natural outworking of nature - which he then seems to be arguing - is tantamount to saying that God/nature is not God/nature after all - hence 'atheism'.

Yes, that's sort of it in a nutshell isn't it. I guess a problem is that I'm not sure I agree with his conclusion there. I don't see how a miracle with the caveat of inexplicably suddenly induces atheism, where alternatively a miracle that might be eventually understandable would be perceived any differently. If anything, an inexplicable miracle might increase one's wonder. Either way it would not be understood, the mind automatically would see a miracle as inexplicable whether it was somehow possible or not. And also, he wants to obviate much miraculous language with metaphor if possible. So I guess I'm starting to doubt the genius of Spinoza as I fail to see how these propositions are all that intriguing. Either that or something's going way over my head.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm really not so sure about that, he seems quite adamant that content in biblical scripture can't contradict natural laws, and all through his chapter on miracles he describes everything as being immutable and fixed. I'm not even entirely sure what kind of power Spinoza's God even possesses at this point.

More so that God created nature. Or maybe God is nature. If God is all powerful then nature is all powerful. A miracle should make us re-assess our boundary of what is natural.

I don't think he was suggesting there is a limit, per se, but that the limits are the limits of God. Remember, too, Spinoza's God is not a Biblical God.

 

[siti]

Yes, that's sort of it in a nutshell isn't it. I guess a problem is that I'm not sure I agree with his conclusion there. I don't see how a miracle with the caveat of inexplicably suddenly induces atheism, where alternatively a miracle that might be eventually understandable would be perceived any differently. If anything, an inexplicable miracle might increase one's wonder. Either way it would not be understood, the mind automatically would see a miracle as inexplicable whether it was somehow possible or not. And also, he wants to obviate much miraculous language with metaphor if possible. So I guess I'm starting to doubt the genius of Spinoza as I fail to see how these propositions are all that intriguing. Either that or something's going way over my head.

I think you have to put it in the context of the time as well - the world that Spinoza was trying to explain was a tick-tock universe that consisted - as far as anyone could tell - of thousands, tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of stars and, for most people, even if no other miracles were required, all this at the very least required the constant "hand of God" to maintain the orbs in their orbits. God was explicitly "not the author of confusion" - but of exquisite order (1 Corinthians 14:33). The Deists were divided on the issue of intervention - Leibniz (for example) ridiculed the idea that God had to "wind up his watch" again every now and then, Newton was convinced he had to. With retrospect, its easy to see Leibniz' as the most sensible position, but he probably didn't grasp the implications of Newtonian gravity as well as Sir Isaac. In the midst of all that, people were trying to make sense of Biblical miracles by suggesting that they might simply be natural events that just didn't ordinarily happen because nature alone - whilst perfectly up to the task of the ordinary - needed a little divine nudge now and again to achieve the extraordinary. Spinoza did not see any difference between that and an out and out naturally impossible miracle - both were a denial of his concept of God and nature as one and the same thing. To him - denying nature the power to determine what may or may not happen, was exactly the same as denying God that power - and what kind of God is it that cannot decide what (his) creation may or may not do? I'm pretty sure that is what he meant - and it makes perfect sense to me. But then my view is probably best described as close to naturalistic pantheism...so I would say that wouldn't I?

 

[blü 2]

So this actually an argument I hadn't read before, I would think that most atheists and others of the agnostic shades would react far more positively to an actual miracle. He writes this in chapter 6 of a 'Theologico-Politcal Treatise:'

"Neither do I recognize any difference between an event against the laws of nature and an event beyond the laws of nature (that is, according to some, an event which does not contravene nature, though she is inadequate to produce or effect it)—for a miracle is wrought in, and not beyond nature, though it may be said in itself to be above nature, and, therefore, must necessarily interrupt the order of nature, which otherwise we conceive of as fixed and unchangeable, according to God's decrees. If, therefore, anything should come to pass in nature which does not follow from her laws, it would also be in contravention to the order which God has established in nature for ever through universal natural laws: it would, therefore, be in contravention to God's nature and laws, and, consequently, belief in it would throw doubt upon everything, and lead to Atheism."

He goes onto say that basically, a 'miracle' is better defined as something natural which occurs outside the scope of our understanding, and elsewhere that the bible hints at miracles always being preempted or surrounded by certain peripheral actions, though the importance of these actions are understated. That is to say, the science would lie heavily in the details which the bible may fail to fully elucidate, per Spinoza probably the fallacies latent in the subjective minds of the writers and prophets.

But overall I still think it's an odd argument, I suppose it's sort of a pantheist's argument. I always had always presumed that if God was not actually omnipotent, then something about that would be running counter to plainer intuition about the possible qualities of God. The Bible itself seems to have miracles occurring frequently enough, and even with the nuance of metaphor and allegory I don't feel that these are everywhere part of the intent. Isn't there a verse somewhere describing plainly that God is all powerful and can do anything, because that would counter much of Spinoza's thinking.

I've never looked deeply at Spinoza's thought, but based on your summary, he appears to assume that all believers know that ─

(a) God established the rules of nature / physics, and
(b) without God there wouldn't be any such rules, so that
(c) breaches of the rules (miraculous or not) would therefore invite the interpretation that they demonstrate the absence of God.

 

[Twilight Hue]

More so that God created nature. Or maybe God is nature. If God is all powerful then nature is all powerful. A miracle should make us re-assess our boundary of what is natural.

I don't think he was suggesting there is a limit, per se, but that the limits are the limits of God. Remember, too, Spinoza's God is not a Biblical God.

While a little bit off in my opinion, using God as a metaphor for nature I can certainly relate with.

For all practical intents and purposes, the entire universe can be regarded as a 'God' given that we manifested through natural processes, although it would probably be more appros just to leave out God entirely, and just stay with what we know as our actual creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like the Babel Fish Argument:

 

[lewisnotmiller]

While a little bit off in my opinion, using God as a metaphor for nature I can certainly relate with.

For all practical intents and purposes, the entire universe can be regarded as a 'God' given that we manifested through natural processes, although it would probably be more appros just to leave out God entirely, and just stay with what we know as our actual creator.

Not my opinion either, but one I find interesting.

 

[Sanzbir]

"Neither do I recognize any difference between an event against the laws of nature and an event beyond the laws of nature (that is, according to some, an event which does not contravene nature, though she is inadequate to produce or effect it)—for a miracle is wrought in, and not beyond nature, though it may be said in itself to be above nature, and, therefore, must necessarily interrupt the order of nature, which otherwise we conceive of as fixed and unchangeable, according to God's decrees. If, therefore, anything should come to pass in nature which does not follow from her laws, it would also be in contravention to the order which God has established in nature for ever through universal natural laws: it would, therefore, be in contravention to God's nature and laws, and, consequently, belief in it would throw doubt upon everything, and lead to Atheism."

So if I'm reading this correctly, he's basically stating that if miracles were incredibly commonplace than it would reveal flaws in the creation of the universe due to how frequently God would need to contravene his own creation.

Like how if an artist is constantly meddling with their work after its creation and trying to change it or fix perceived errors in it we begin both questioning the original art and the artist themselves, somewhat like J.K. Rowling's recent misadventures.

I think it makes some sense at a glance, supposing a non-standard definition of "atheism" perhaps, since a perfect being would be capable of perfect creation, and a creation would need no contravening unless imperfect, thus commonplace miracles would suggest an imperfect creation, and would thus suggest an imperfect creator.

So while commonplace miracles would show definitively a god existing, it would disprove the notion of God as typically understood as being perfect, IE it would show a perfect God does not exist, being incapable of creating a world whose laws did not need violation to properly function.

That only works at a glance, however, as I suppose digging deeper Spinoza overlooks the idea of a miracle not as a contravention of creation, but as a facet of creation. Miracle as part of the laws of the universe, not as a violation of such. A theological application of computer science's "It's Not A Bug, It's A Feature".

 

[charlie sc]

So this actually an argument I hadn't read before, I would think that most atheists and others of the agnostic shades would react far more positively to an actual miracle. He writes this in chapter 6 of a 'Theologico-Politcal Treatise:'

"Neither do I recognize any difference between an event against the laws of nature and an event beyond the laws of nature (that is, according to some, an event which does not contravene nature, though she is inadequate to produce or effect it)—for a miracle is wrought in, and not beyond nature, though it may be said in itself to be above nature, and, therefore, must necessarily interrupt the order of nature, which otherwise we conceive of as fixed and unchangeable, according to God's decrees. If, therefore, anything should come to pass in nature which does not follow from her laws, it would also be in contravention to the order which God has established in nature for ever through universal natural laws: it would, therefore, be in contravention to God's nature and laws, and, consequently, belief in it would throw doubt upon everything, and lead to Atheism."

He goes onto say that basically, a 'miracle' is better defined as something natural which occurs outside the scope of our understanding, and elsewhere that the bible hints at miracles always being preempted or surrounded by certain peripheral actions, though the importance of these actions are understated. That is to say, the science would lie heavily in the details which the bible may fail to fully elucidate, per Spinoza probably the fallacies latent in the subjective minds of the writers and prophets.

But overall I still think it's an odd argument, I suppose it's sort of a pantheist's argument. I always had always presumed that if God was not actually omnipotent, then something about that would be running counter to plainer intuition about the possible qualities of God. The Bible itself seems to have miracles occurring frequently enough, and even with the nuance of metaphor and allegory I don't feel that these are everywhere part of the intent. Isn't there a verse somewhere describing plainly that God is all powerful and can do anything, because that would counter much of Spinoza's thinking.

That quite was a fun read.

I read it as, a miracle is thought of as a metaphysical event. However, if a miracle occurs, it will only demonstrate the malleable nature of reality, not the impossibility of nature. God is understood as a metaphysical entity, but the more miraculous events that occur, which are against god laws of nature, the less we think of god as metaphysical entity or understand god at all. Therefore, atheism.

Meh, I dunno

 

[amorphous_constellation]

That quite was a fun read.

Sort of.... I'm almost halfway through the book now, and even having read the bible and having studied it somewhat, (to at least a slightly above average degree, though not to a masterful extent) I'm having some trouble following some of spinoza's twists and turns. It comes down mostly to the antiquated phraseology I think.

I read it as, a miracle is thought of as a metaphysical event. However, if a miracle occurs, it will only demonstrate the malleable nature of reality, not the impossibility of nature. God is understood as a metaphysical entity, but the more miraculous events that occur, which are against god laws of nature, the less we think of god as metaphysical entity or understand god at all. Therefore, atheism.

I guess it depends on what we mean by metaphysical, or what power is supposed to exist to something metaphysical. By definition, I would think intuitively that the existence of metaphysical force would break all kinds of rules by merit of its existence at all.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I think it makes some sense at a glance, supposing a non-standard definition of "atheism" perhaps, since a perfect being would be capable of perfect creation, and a creation would need no contravening unless imperfect, thus commonplace miracles would suggest an imperfect creation, and would thus suggest an imperfect creator.

I don't know, it's just not how I intuitively read the function of gods in religion and myth. I think a founding premise in many religions is surely that we are the imperfect beings thrown into an imperfect situation. Or at least a sort of situation of inequality between the structure of the mind (which probably is often connected with the divine) and the body, which is considered finite, weak, and mortal.

 

[Thief]

so in this discussion?.....a miracle....
is the will of the man
over the everyday flow of chemistry

 

[charlie sc]

Sort of.... I'm almost halfway through the book now, and even having read the bible and having studied it somewhat, (to at least a slightly above average degree, though not to a masterful extent) I'm having some trouble following some of spinoza's twists and turns. It comes down mostly to the antiquated phraseology I think.



I guess it depends on what we mean by metaphysical, or what power is supposed to exist to something metaphysical. By definition, I would think intuitively that the existence of metaphysical force would break all kinds of rules by merit of its existence at all.

He seems to define god or god’s laws as beyond the laws of nature. I’m just calling this metaphysical so it makes more sense, but he’s calling it beyond. I’m not sure where against the laws of nature come in play but I don’t think it’s needed for the quote.

I’m just interpreting what’s quoted. I read a bit of Spinoza a long while ago