Could miracles prove anything other than our own ignorance?

The classical rationale of Jews for belief in God and the divinity of the Torah are the miracles allegedly performed by God witnessed by multitudes. In fact, the Torah itself beckons the Jewish people to accept Gods existence on this basis. Of course, to prove the validity of Judaism on this account requires demonstrating that these miracles did indeed occur; this is an entirely different subject and is not the focus of this post. This post instead challenges the validity of accepting God or Torah on the basis of miracles, assuming the miracles as prescribed in the Torah did occur.

It is generally accepted that if miracles did occur this is testimony to Gods existence, His ability to interact with the world, and His control over nature.

However, to prove the divinity of the Torah, or the veracity of biblical prophecy, from the miracles of the exodus is unwarranted speculation. For even if it be granted that the exodus occurred and that it was intentional acts by a supreme being, how do we know the Torah is not a fabrication of say, Moses, as opposed to the word of God. Even if we grant that there was a heavenly voice heard on Sinai, we cannot know its true meaning and purpose. Any deduction here is pure speculation. As we are talking about a supreme being totally unknown to us, any speculation concerning the intent of this being’s actions is unwarranted. 

Furthermore, it should be noted that even as far as proving God, at most it can perhaps be said that miracles prove some unknown thing can affect nature, its essence and extent of power remains completely mysterious. As such to use this argument to prove a personal God, an omnipotent God, and virtually any other theological claim, is unwarranted as well. 

However, the argument from miracles is illogical and flawed, even as far as proving the existence of some kind of unknown God. To use this argument to prove God it is necessary to presuppose that otherwise the miracle could not have occurred. The basis for this assumption is that in nature we don’t find these miracles. Yet this is only because we have never experienced such an event. However, insofar as the miracle did occur this demonstrates that in nature this event does occur, contrary to our previous knowledge of nature. Scientific explanations for the laws and behavior of nature may have to be rewritten, but being that this event occurred in our world this proves we had a faulty knowledge of nature. It is illogical to deduce from a miracle that nature is in everything but this one event, that this event is actually an act of God; this is flawed for the same reason it’s illogical to deduce such from any other event we witness in this world. Nature refers to anything that occurs in this world, so long as this occurred in the world this must be classified as nature. As obscure and unintelligible, marvelous and irregular, as a miracle may be, logically speaking it cannot prove anything more than another aspect of natural law, previously unknown. 

Perhaps one will counter that as this aspect of nature is, to us, not explainable it must be an act of God. This sort of argument is extremely flawed for we don’t know enough about nature, nor about the exact events of the supposed exodus story, to determine that no naturalistic explanation can be given. It should be mentioned as well, that such an argument can be used without miracles as well, for in the natural world there is much we don’t understand, one can turn to any one of these phenomena and deduce God. Of course, this would be extremely foolish, but my point is that miracles add nothing new to the question of Gods existence.

Even if one were to disagree with this, though I cannot imagine how, there is a further problem with the argument from miracles. For even if one is qualified in determining that this event cannot be explained via natural phenomenon, one can only determine that there is a second nature in this world, that the currently accepted and understood nature is but one code of reality, there exists along it an entirely different code. (Many polygamists have already claimed that there exists dual natures in the universe, the scientific understanding of the unity of the universe is primarily a result of the monotheistic worldview.) To insist that this is but an intentional act of God is unfair, a miracle simply reflects the existence of a second nature. A second nature is no more remarkable than the first, if the fact that such a nature exists is proof of God, then it is proven from the first nature as well. Miracles or second natures add nothing new.

Perhaps the argument is not from the fact that a miracle is supernatural, for this can only demonstrate new information concerning nature, or at best that a second nature exists. Perhaps the argument is instead from the fortuitous nature of the miracles, they aren’t mere supernatural events, rather they appear to be intended and purpose-driven. Accordingly the argument would actually be another case of the argument from design. The argument from design is much discussed; philosophical rebuttals to that argument (as opposed to scientific rebuttals such as Darwinian evolution) would apply to this as well.  

Man in the image of God or God in the image of man?

Immanuel Kant, who demonstrated the invalidity of popular proposed arguments for the existence of God, offered a novel explanation for mankind’s insistence on faith. He theorized that when one looks upon the universe one feels a sense of unity and a sensibility behind it all which leads to the concept of God.  As Albert Einstein would later proclaim, “that deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” (Although Einstein preferred to leave it at that; he didn't see the need to posit the existence of some kind of superman.)

Kant further suggested that indeed there is a reasoning power behind it all, ourselves, and this is mistaken for an objective reality, viz. God. In an effort to make sense of the various phenomena we encounter we formulate an interpretation of reality, a world model if you will. Thus, when speculating upon the universe we feel that there is a uniting force and a sense of reason and inherent order behind it all.

Indeed, theology is a way of making sense of the universe, of giving it a sense of order; this is theologies essence and its attraction. The source of this need for order, in a universe which is, in Einstein’s words, incomprehensible, is best understood in terms of our own nature; our nature as rational beings and as Kant says the fact that we perceive the universe only through giving it a sense of order. To be conscious would be impossible if all phenomena were perceived as distinct and unrelated; our nature as conscious beings includes a perception and model of unity and sensibility.

That this is the foundation of faith is recognizable from the nature of the preposterous circular arguments suggested for proof of God’s existence. All arguments presuppose objective order to demonstrate God exists, although it is absurd to talk of order without already supposing that the universe was designed and created intentionally.

The teleological argument is most apparent of this, by insisting the universe is designed, and then proving a designer, despite the fact that it can only be considered objectively designed after it is established that there is a designer.

However, other arguments are guilty of this absurdity as well. The cosmological argument, for instance, presupposes that there is a rationale for the universe’s existence and thus concludes God exists, in a sense it presupposes God exists to demonstrate God exists. Even the purely conceptual ontological argument presupposes the inherent symmetry between our minds and reality.

The argument from desire (which argues that there is no desire without an actual object of that desire in existence, it further insists that every man desires God, as such He must actually exist) also presupposes the order and sensibility of the universe, by presupposing that every desire must have an end, to demonstrate that God exists.

It is therefore quite evident that the presupposed order of reality is given form through postulating the notion of God.

St. Augustine argued for God’s existence from the existence of absolute truths which he felt could only be understood in terms of God’s ideas. This is explicitly arguing from the sense of reason behind all things.

For Plato this sense of reason and order caused him to postulate his famous doctrine of the forms; for theologians this causes them to postulate the notion of God. For Kant this caused him to recognize the nature of the human mind.

Journey through Time: Polytheism to Monotheism to Atheism

Richard Dawkins, a fervent contemporary Atheist, quipped teasingly as follows. He said (wording my own) that originally people believed in multitudes of gods; as people progressed they evolved to recognize the fallacy of their misguided beliefs, and painfully began disbelieving in more and more gods. Today, we have narrowed it down to one. Alas, only one more god needs to be rejected and we would be entirely free of this primitive superstition!

Although his perspective is amusing, this is not a proper conceptual representation of the evolution of god(s). Monotheism and Atheism are not the result of simply disbelieving in gods. In fact, it is a great conceptual progression, worth meditating on, the progression of Polytheism to Monotheism to Atheism.

In early times people saw the world as wholly mysterious and divine; the world appeared to them to be full of gods. Further, they could only relate to things in terms of themselves and so assumed that things, specifically the powerful ones, were beings like themselves.

Monotheism wasn’t the result of viewing the gods as baseless and unnecessary, but the result of the contrary; an increased awareness of the mysterious and divine nature of the world led people to realize that the gods were inadequate explanations. The difference between Monotheism and Polytheism is not one of quantity but of quality, not one of degree but of type. Polytheism assumes the existence of gods in the world. Ultimately, however, the gods are a part of the world, as are all things. So Monotheism was born, preaching that the gods are not merely beings within the world but rather the entire universe, including even space and time, is nothing but the creation and continuous production of a god. The plurality of gods is a nuisance to such an understanding; when gods function within the world then just as the world contains many powers, so too the gods must be many, but when god is seen as being the cause and authority behind the world, as a far greater god which is omnipotent, there is only place for one perfect god.

Until Monotheism, when the world was thought to be subject to various gods, there was no belief in the symmetry and perfect unity of the world. Further, it was absurd to imagine natural explanation of phenomenon, the very concept of Naturalism was absurd; where would such power come from? Only a god was attributed with power. With the advent of Monotheism the world was seen as the production of one perfect god, as such unity was expected, and natural explanation, now having a god behind the structure, was to be expected. The world was gods designed machine, it would be reasonable to understand how that machine functions. As such, monotheism gave birth to modern science which relies heavily on both the belief in the unity of the world and the belief that the world is a machine which can be understood (notwithstanding confusion of QM). In a sense, Monotheism gave birth to Naturalism; Naturalism is the structure God has created and designed.

Eventually, as the machine was revealed to be more and more sufficient for accounting for the events in the world, people began to view God as superfluous, He was no longer needed for anything, the machine seemed to run great without His intervention, and people began to wonder why the wondrous machine needed a god behind it at all. As a result of Monotheism God emerged, not merely as a part of the world, but as its creator and master, as such he permeated all of existence. Since God came to be understood in terms of all of nature, people began to wonder why nature herself could not be god. Because god was everything and everywhere in the view of monotheism, there suddenly was no need for the actual god, it was redundant. Enter: Atheism. In a sense, then, Atheism is simply an abridged Monotheism.

Although I do agree with Dawkins that it’s high time we reject this primitive superstition… 

Ideas on the Ideas

Plato’s doctrine of the forms remains one of the most profound worldviews ever attained and created. Its practical acceptance has admittedly been small, however its grandeur and intellectual attraction has caused it to live on in the hearts if not minds of philosophers for centuries. Eventually, it fell to the iron grip of organized religion, translated by St. Augustine into a religious doctrine[1], and was thus stripped of its natural beauty and philosophical achievement.

The theory was born out of various philosophical difficulties which have been the cause of great controversy ever since. The most notable of difficulties influential and fundamental to the theory is known as the problem of universals. Universals are concepts that reflect not a specific object but an underlying universal prototype that has instances of particular expressions of it. For example, the concept man refers to no specific object but to a prototype which is reflected through all men. In a sense, all men are not man itself, but partake in the concept man. The problem with such phenomena is that the concept is valid despite its abstractness and lack of physical expression, which indicates the inadequacy of the physical universe alone to account for conceptual reality. Physical objects seem to be based on prototypes that are real and recognizable, existing on their own, and they seem to form and rationalize all of reality. In subsequent generations this would mostly be considered a psychological difficulty; however, to Plato our minds reflect absolute truth and objective rationality and so psychological explanations are necessarily inadequate[2].

Plato thus acknowledged that universals are actually real, existing as pure ideas, and that all of physical reality is expressions and instances of these ideas. A dual world was thus created and defined; the world of ideas, pure and eternal, and the world of physical expressions and instances of these ideas, ever-changing and mortal. The eyes are the sense for the physical reality, while the mind or intellectual soul is the sense with which we grasp intellectual reality[3].

Interestingly, Plato used this theory to refute Parmenides’s argument which philosophers had grappled with for years. Parmenides’s argument raises the following difficulty: to speak of something not in existence is senseless as there is nothing which is referred to. Thus, to speak of change, which includes speaking about that which went out of existence, is senseless. As such the concept change is meaningless and is invalid. Put short, the argument demonstrates that one cannot have a concept of nothingness, for there is nothing which it refers to, therefore all talk of nothingness is necessarily senseless. Plato replied based on his theory, that nothingness is indeed nothing in the physical universe, but remains an idea, which has existence and meaning forever beyond the physical universe[4].

Naturally, Plato occupied himself with discovering and perceiving the ultimate and eternal reality, the world of ideas. One of Plato’s important conclusions was that the idea of goodness is the light through which all other ideas are discernible. However, it remains unclear why he thought so. Perhaps his reasoning was as follows. All human knowledge is only understood subjectively, after all, the very act of understanding is subjective and personal. Also, one only understands for one’s particular purposes in that moment, consequentially, one is further prejudiced towards it. Therefore, we cannot properly access objective knowledge. Our personal minds are unable and unwilling to reach out objectively to grasp pure objectivity not having any personal meaning assigned to it. Therefore, it is only through the idea of goodness, which forms all values, and hence all meaning[5], that we can properly access objective knowledge. Through our subjective value assigned to it we can grasp it as subjective and personal knowledge. Indeed, it is the light which enables us to interpret and discern all other ideas.

We must ask ourselves, why do we so easily dismiss Plato’s proposition as philosophical fantasy?   Generally people believe their sensory input reflects an objective reality, despite the fact that all arguments for this belief are circular and no one has yet devised a sound argument demonstrating this. However, as this is accepted by virtually everyone, it seems inconsistent that the existence of the world of ideas is generally unaccepted. After all, in both cases we have information concerning objective reality that suddenly appears to us, why decide the visual information and perception reflects objective reality any less than ideological information and perception does? Ideas, too, are perceived by us as representing absolute truth and objective credulity, and so should be accepted as real and objective things.

Furthermore, modern quantum mechanics seems to provide adequate evidence for the truth of the doctrine of the forms. Quantum mechanics seems to indicate that the universe without an observer potentially exists as every possibility, but actually exists as none, until one observes. These terms however, of potential existence and the existence of numerous possibilities, cannot be understood as physical phenomena. Various theories have been introduced to explain this bizarre finding, each one more surprising and ludicrous than the next. Yet this seems to be quite obviously a demonstration of the existence of ideas; every possibility simultaneously exists as ideas. Through these ideas, a world of actual objects is continuously formed, and so whenever we observe we see a world of actual phenomena, but when we don’t observe we can recognize that in reality, the ‘real object’ is the idea of that object, not the object itself, and so exists in a set of infinite possibility. Somewhat randomly, different ideas are chosen to form changes in reality.

But we need not rest on the mysterious and obscure findings of quantum mechanics to gain modern support to this ancient view. In fact, the entire science demonstrates its truth. Science is founded on the assumption of natural law, a concept which requires explanation, and without the existence of forms is utterly senseless. What are, after all, the laws of nature? It seems this concept arose out of Christian scientists, specifically deists, who regarded the world as created and controlled by the dictations of God. However, this picture fails to explain and account for the laws, for it leaves open the question: how do God’s laws and desires affect the nature of reality? The most obvious explanation of contingent law’s and properties which control reality is that these laws aren’t actually laws but ideas, which the physical universe, being an expression of these ideas, abides to.

We live in a world which seems to be surrounded and defined by ideas. Mathematics, for example, defies explanation and philosophers have long wondered what exactly numbers, and all mathematical truths and principles, are. Yet again, the most obvious explanation is that these are ideas. Particularly, this accounts for the massive success of mathematics in terms of its explanatory power over physical phenomenon. This reflects the absolute submission of physical phenomenon to the ideas. Similarly, logical truths can be accounted for as ideas. Morality, as well, has no place in a world of physical objects and is indication of ideas existing beyond physical objects, defining and controlling the natural order. Perhaps ideas are the secret behind aesthetics, as well. A song, for example, which is a grouping of various tones and chords, somehow when put together in the ‘correct’ ways, sounds symmetrical and beautiful in a way that is forever beyond our psychological selves. We recognize good music to be on-tune and can even discern rules which define what constitutes as musical. These rules, utterly out of place in a physical universe, can best be described as ideas; music is an instantiation of ideas. 

Perhaps there is no physical universe, but it itself is an idea composed of ideas. After all, isn’t our perception of the physical universe itself nothing more than a very grand and detailed idea? Why don’t we naturally assume, then, that ideas are real, and the physical universe is but one of the mysterious ideas?

With the modern age came at last the advent of Atheism and the possibility for new sophisticated worldviews. The new god of the atheists is materialism, and they have caused much of the religious and spiritual psychic, fundamental to humans for centuries, to die out. However, let us not forget that we live in a mysterious world, and our eyes are only one sense. The most important sense is, of course, the mind, which discerns logical credulity, and analyzes and accounts for physical sensory information. When we use the mind to explain reality we are faced with a very different picture of reality; we see a very spiritual and intellectual one. Let us not forget about the most important sense of the body, and let us not forget that as much as science has shown us, the universe is prepared to show us much more, if we would only apply ourselves with an open mind and not be blinded by the baseless assumptions of science or religion.

---

[1] St. Augustine preached that these ideas are God’s ideas and prototypes for the world. He thus maintained that through philosophical investigation one can enter God’s mind and perceive His underlying ideas of the world, a belief which has helped philosophy gain popularity in the Western Christian world.

[2] Similarly, Plato struggled to comprehend how one can make a mistake, for it seems impossible to understand something irrational, as such if one thinks s/he understands, s/he must actually understand. Again, today this is mostly understood as a psychological question, to Plato this is a philosophical one questioning the nature of rationality and the law of the excluded middle.

Another example is Plato’s conviction that if one understands properly why the good is good, he will necessarily choose the good, for everyone wants that which is best, and the good describes that which is best. Reality seems to disagree with Plato on this; Plato recognized this and was forced to explain the reality in a somewhat desperate and unlikely way because of his a priori reasoning. Here yet again, most would consider this a psychological phenomenon, but to Plato the mind is necessarily rational and objective.

It’s worth noting that Aristotle, who was amongst the founders of modern psychology, disagreed with Plato on this, and also disagreed on Plato’s insistence on the objectiveness of ideas.

[3] Plato himself didn’t view it this way; he thought one is born with all ideas already in place. He argued that otherwise one can’t be convinced of truth, for how does one know if something is true unless he has the information deep inside him already. For various reasons this was not included in the text.

[4] I have been bothered by a similar question to Parmenides’s argument, but one that I feel is more difficult to answer: how could there be truths about states of absolute nothingness, there is nothing to have truths about? Yet there certainly are such truths, such as the truth that it is indeed a state of nothingness. Possibly, an idea of nothingness explains why there are truths about it. Indeed, without the idea of nothingness as well, there would be no truths, but of course we don’t understand this for we have never imagined a true state of nothingness, for that is impossible, as Parmenides demonstrated.

[5] Although some philosophers would disapprove of such grouping, Plato would not be among them. He understood goodness as personal and profitable, as seen through his argument that if one understands properly the good he will doubtlessly do the good, as quoted in the previous footnote.

The Paradox of Faith and Reason

Throughout history theologians have preached two opposing doctrines simultaneously; faith on the one hand and reason on the other. Generally it is thought that this paradox is due to the inadequacy of reason alone to demonstrate the validity of dogma and the unworthiness of faith alone to cause rational beings to accept dogma, resulting in the collaboration of the two. However, faith is generally stressed on as the ultimate foundation of belief, while reason seems to be the business of the faithful, which indicates that the relationship between the two is more complex. Indeed, although theologians have always spoken of arguments and logic faith is still the word connoting belief in God. If the foundation of belief is indeed faith, then one wonders what the place of reason is.

Maimonides rules that to doubt God’s existence, even momentarily is an act of heresy. This leaves us wondering why it was that Maimonides occupied himself with demonstrating God’s existence using logical arguments, for surely Maimonides at the time of his inquiries didn't consider himself a heretic. Evidently then, he had already concluded that God exists. Why then, seek to prove God at all?

Further, Maimonides lists as a commandment belief in God. His contemporaries have attacked Maimonides on this that this is superfluous, for in order that a commandment have any meaning to someone he must already accept the commander as existent. One of the suggestions offered by Maimonides’ defenders is that Maimonides indicates that the commandment isn’t merely to believe, but rather to rationally prove one’s beliefs. This as well indicates that to Maimonides arguing for God’s existence is something to be done even after a conviction that God exists.

To understand this we must first familiarize ourselves with the general theme of Maimonides’ philosophy. The fundamental concept Maimonides stresses on is the incorporeal nature of God and the awareness that God can never be understood by material beings. As per this philosophy Maimonides puts the central focus of Judaism on the mind as opposed to physical actions for to Maimonides the physical bears no relation to the divine and the only possible way of attempting connection with the divine is through the mind. Thus reason becomes a central tool to connect with the divine. Arguments for God’s existence become a religious experience, a ritual of connection with the mystical.

In different extents this is apparent in various theological philosophies. The theologian is willing to reason upon his beliefs but only to an extent, and only when he stands with nothing to lose. This attitude seems quite unworthy of scholars. However, theists aren’t validating their beliefs, this they do on faith; rather they are associating in a ritual of logic. The only way one can connect with the divine is through reason, for the divine cannot be seen nor imagined; only the demonstration of the necessity of a first cause can be attained. 

Fated to Loneliness

We never experience the world itself; we represent it in our minds, and experience this representation. Thus, everything in our world’s is completely our own.

Relationships with other persons are not a relationship with them, for we don’t know them; they are but relationships with aspects of our mental pictures. In the same vain we have profound relationships with other aspects of our mental pictures, if only that aspect captures our attention. The powerful feeling of oneness in the universe, produced through meditation, is a radical example of such a relationship.

The implication of empathy, that we care for them, is obviously wrong, because we never know others, so we certainly don’t care for them. Empathy is but one scenario of self-caring. We care for others because the experiences associated with mental pictures of them form a crucial part of our own worlds.

Now that we have established the solitude of every man and his world, mans life is revealed to be utterly lonesome. Man constantly attempts to connect with objective reality through representation, but despite the effort, consciously, man knows only his own mind. Society reflects one aspect of man’s projections, the world another. The true place of man is in neither; it is in his own mind.

The desperate search for an internal companion, a real connection with another, has led western man to develop the concept of God, a loving being which permeates all of existence, including one’s own mind. The mind was said to be a soul, which in the deepest way is connected directly to God. Thus, man could finally rid himself of his loneliness. Eastern man has instead developed the concept of Spirits and doctrines of the underlying unity of the universe, stressing the unity of souls.

The truth-seeker, who refuses to participate in any of these popular childish fantasies, must face his inevitable loneliness. It is curious that man, who is only himself, is so unsatisfied with remaining himself. But this longing is necessary for our development and well-being, for it motivates us to constantly represent new phenomenon and learn new information about our supposed surroundings.