Miracles in Bible and Science
Morris Engelson
I discuss miracles at several places in my
book The Heavenly Time Machine. This essay uses
the same material, in a somewhat different context, in order
to connect the idea of miracles to the Is the Bible Fact or
Fiction? essay posted on this web site. Let us consider miracles
from three perspectives: common usage, the Torah and science.
The miracle in common usage
John Doe buys one lottery ticket involving
one hundred million numbers, and he wins the big prize. Is that
a miracle? Most people would say, no. We are used to people winning
lotteries. Where is the miracle? Now let's change the story a
bit. John and Jane Doe, who are very nice people, have a young
daughter, little Miss Doe. Miss Doe has just been diagnosed with
a terminal illness. Unfortunately the only possible cure is experimental
and the medical insurance will not pay for it. The Does pray
for guidance and John eventually buys a lottery ticket. John's
ticket wins the lottery and little Miss Doe is cured. Was this
a miracle? Many people say, yes. But why is this situation different
from the first instance? The odds are a bit different because
of the cure. But is the difference from one hundred million to
three or four hundred million to one that big a probabilistic
difference? No. If one hundred million to one odds does not make
a miracle, then two, three or several hundred million to one,
or more odds should not make a miracle. The difference is because
we now know, and like, the Doe family. The odds have nothing
to do with it. Indeed, winning a lottery against odds, no matter
how high, is arguably the worst science-based example one can
choose as an indicator for a miracle, as I will shortly explain.
The Doe family are likable people. Now let
us consider someone who is not so easy to like. Jim Crackhead
is a miserable character. He not only uses the stuff but he also
sells it to children. One day he is offered a bet with, what
to him seem to be, terrific odds. He is offered one hundred-to-one
odds that he can not flip a coin 27 times and get 27 heads in
succession. Jim knows that for one flip the chance of getting
a head is even at one-to-one. He decides that 27 flips yields
a chance of 27 to one against it. The offer of 100 to one looks
good, and he accepts the bet. Jim does not understand that in
reality he is facing an almost impossible task with 134 million
to one odds against him. Well, you guessed it. Jim flips the
coin 27 times and he gets 27 heads in a row. He now has more
money than he needs for his drugs, and he invests the excess
in the only item he trusts – guns. One day, while under
the influence, Jim starts shooting and he kills all three members
of the Doe family. Virtually no one will suggest a miracle here
when I ask this question during a lecture. People simply can
not conceive that this horrible person would get Divine help
so that he could kill the Doe family. But if anything is to have
scientific credibility as a miracle, it is the coin flips and
not the lottery win, even though we are dealing with virtually
identical odds. Equal odds does not mean equal likelihood or
credibility, as I will soon explain.
So far I have dealt with "natural"
occurrences and no rules or laws of nature have been violated.
It is incredible to believe that someone could flip 27 heads
in a row, but it is not impossible. But suppose we have a situation
where something impossible happens? What does "impossible"
mean? "Impossible" means that we violate a law of nature.
Suppose we place a wick in vinegar and this "lamp"
burns all day, as if the vinegar were oil? Many people would
start thinking miracle as a logical explanation. After all, we
"know" that vinegar does not burn. Miracle is the only
possibility left after we exclude all other explanations.
So which of the above scenarios defines a
miracle? The answer is, none. The above stories are not definitions,
but simply the evidence to be tested against a definition. Most
people would agree that a miracle involves Divine intervention.
If the evidence points to Divine intervention then we have a
miracle. Otherwise we do not have a miracle. Most people would
say that a violation of natural law requires Divine intervention
and is indicative of a miracle. Many people would also say that
to prevail against incredibly high odds also calls for Divine
intervention. But "prevail" is not a simple concept.
I illustrate this with the "circling the arrow" analogy
in my book. Here is how this works. An archer shoots an arrow
at ten million tiny targets and hits one. The archer then, truthfully,
claims to have hit a target involving ten million to one odds.
So what? The archer circled the target only after it was hit.
Any target is just as good as any other target. There is no skill
involved here and no miracle is implied. The same holds for the
winner of the lottery. Indeed, it is a certain event that someone
will win if enough tickets are sold. Someone has to win, and
it makes no difference who that is. But getting 27 heads in a
row is in a totally different category. There is nothing at all
certain about this happening. And if we extend the string of
heads to one hundred and beyond, then ultimately science has
to step in to look for an answer. This is no longer "natural",
even though it is not impossible. Could there be a miracle here,
as in Divine intervention?
The point of the matter is that it is the
Divine intervention that makes the miracle. Taken to the extreme,
we could say that any event, no matter what the odds, or how
it comes about, or who is involved, is a miracle if it is due
to Divine intervention. This common-sense approach is also the
approach taken by the Torah, as discussed next.
The miracle in Torah
When most of us refer to miracles in the Torah
we are talking about Divine intervention to change the natural
order of the world. These so called "open", or obvious,
miracles are described by Rabbi Dessler, whom I quote extensively
in my book. He notes that "[O]n rare occasions... Hashem
will override the laws He has written into the cosmos and perform
open miracles which have no physical cause." We also have
hidden miracles which can be ascribed to a natural cause, but
the Torah informs us that the event was due to Divine intervention.
In other words, it was a miracle because the Torah tells us so.
But we have no obvious physical proof of it. There is yet a third
category of miracle which most people are not aware of. The Torah
assures us that all happenings, including that which we call
nature or the laws of nature, are due to ongoing Divine intervention.
These then are miracles also, if we go by the basic definition
that Divine intervention means "miracle." Here is how
Rabbi Dessler explains it in his book Strive for Truth.
"What is the difference between the natural and the miraculous?
... We call G-d's act a 'miracle' when He wills an occurrence
which is novel and unfamiliar to us and which consequently makes
us aware of the hand of G-d. We call G-d's acts 'nature' when
He wills that certain events should occur in a recognizable pattern
with which we are familiar."
Indeed, to get back to the "natural"
after a miracle can be as difficult, or even more difficult,
than to get the miracle in the first place. We have a principle,
noted in Talmud Tractate Taanith, that to undo
a miracle is a greater miracle than to produce the original miracle.
Rabbi Akiva Tatz provides an example in his book World
Mask. Why was it necessary for Moses to stretch out his
staff to bring the waters back to their original condition after
the Israelites had crossed the miraculously dry sea? The waters
simply had to go back to their natural, meaning normal, condition.
This should have happened on its own once the miracle was finished.
But there is no naturally normal condition that the waters want
to assume. Whatever condition G-d chooses is the normal condition
at that time, and it takes miraculous Divine intervention to
get something else. Even when that something else is what we
are used to. This is because, as Rabbi Tatz tells us, "nature
is miraculous no less than its rarest exceptions... The only
difference is that we are used to the one and the other is unexpected...
a miracle is no more wonderful than the natural."
Here is another well-known story about miracles
that illustrates our point. We have the following story, about
the exceptionally pious Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, in Talmud Tractate
Taanith page 25a. One Friday, near twilight, he saw that
his daughter seemed upset, and he asked what was the matter.
The daughter explained that she had mistaken a bottle of vinegar
for a bottle of oil and she poured the vinegar into the Sabbath
lamp. The implication being that they would not have any light
on the Sabbath because vinegar does not burn. I do not know how
the reader would react. But I must confess that my reaction would
not be the same as for Rabbi Hanina. But then I am not as Rabbi
Hanina in spiritual potential. He simply looked at his daughter
and told her not to be sad. "This has nothing to do with
you. He who tells the oil to burn can also tell the vinegar to
burn." And we are told that the vinegar did actually burn.
The immediate reaction is to note that Rabbi Hanina was not surprised
by the open miracle of burning vinegar. But there is a more subtle
message here. Rabbi Hanina made it clear that oil, no less than
vinegar, needs a Divine command to burn. Burning oil is no less
a case of Divine intervention than burning vinegar.
It is clear from the above, and other Torah-based
examples, that while the Torah does recognize unique events that
people call open miracles, ultimately all that transpires is
of the same miraculous category. There is no "nature."
Everything is one continuous miracle. Clearly this is contrary
to science. And it would appear that Torah is opposed to science.
But that is not the case. The Torah is actually in full agreement
with science in spite of the above analysis. This is because
the Torah also holds that all can be described as part of "nature",
even open miracles. The Torah holds two realities to be true.
One is the reality of this world of "nature" described
by scientific laws. This is the world that we physically live
in and interact with. The other is the spiritual world which
is the cause of the physical result. Some people who are at a
high enough spiritual level, such as Rabbi Hanina, can perceive
the spiritual and it is as real to them, or even more real to
them, as the physical world that we live in. But most of us only
get an occasional glimpse of the spiritual, given our strong
attachment to the physical. Yet both realities are true.
The Torah insists, absolutely insists, that
we have free will to believe as we wish. That means that there
must be the possibility of a scientific, naturalistic, explanation
for everything, even though the underlying reality is the cause
of it all. Here is how Rabbi Dessler puts it. "Nature has
no objective existence; it is merely an illusion which gives
man a chance to exercise his free will... What is real is the
will of Hashem and nothing else." But how many of us are
at a spiritual level to actually perceive this? To most of us
it is the physical that is the real reality. And the Torah accepts
this because, even though "Someone who has no idea of the
underlying purpose which these two different modes of perception
serve, will see a conflict.... The perception of causality is
also necessary so that we may discern the hand of G-d behind
the causes." "[W]e may discern", but we are not
compelled to discern. We have free will to choose. The Torah
provides for the possibility that there will be those who choose
a purely natural universe, devoid of any spiritual dimension.
This is a universe explained only by science. And even an open
miracle, such as burning vinegar, is included. Let's take a look
at how this works.
The miracle in science
Richard Dawkins, who holds that belief in
the Bible is not only wrong but actually damaging, tells us in
The Blind Watchmaker that that which we call miracles
are just "improbable natural events." Science insists
that all can, or eventually will be, explained on a natural basis.
Science does not agree to Divine intervention. Hence science
does not agree to miracles. Furthermore, the Torah says that
this is how it is supposed to be. How else can we have absolute
freedom to choose what to believe? Surely we would be compelled
to believe in the Bible if science agreed in principle to Divine
intervention in "nature?"
Here is how Rabbi Dessler explains the scientific
position respecting miracles. "They would look for, and
find, some twist in a physical theory which would account for
the miracle in materialistic terms, or they would invent an entirely
new theory; in one way or another they would inevitably assimilate
the miracle to the naturalist scheme. The miraculous would become
'nature'." Not only does science try to "account for
the miracle in materialistic terms", but science actively
searches for "miracles" for this purpose. This is how
science makes progress. The Nobel prize is not given to investigators
who replicate a previously known result. Rather the honors and
awards go to those who find something new that previous theory
and experiments did not anticipate. There was great excitement
in physics, early in 2001, because the standard model had finally
been broken. That is, it looks like we finally have experimental
results that do not fit the model. Now we can learn something
new as the model is modified to incorporate these results or,
if necessary, a new model will be crafted. As Rabbi Dessler says,
"they would look for a new theory" and the results
that can not currently be explained as natural (i.e., miracles)
will be "assimilated ... to the naturalist scheme."
This is how science works. This is how science progresses. The
Torah accepts that this is what science must do. The Torah recognizes
the legitimacy of science. Yes, there are serious disagreements
with certain science-based results. But there is no quarrel with
science, per se. But science is not that generous to Torah.
Science refuses to agree to the Bible or to miracles. What are
we to do?
What are we to do? I address this issue in
my book The Heavenly Time Machine. We can examine
two questions. To what degree do modern science and ancient Torah
agree? The answer is that these agree to a most remarkable degree.
That is the substance of the book. Another question that we can
examine is whether science does, in fact, point to miracles,
even though it is not supposed to. Surprisingly, the answer is
yes.
Officially, science does not recognize a miracle,
and even open miracles are eventually assimilated into "nature."
But how many coincidences can the mind accept before one starts
to wonder? Science tells us that it is not impossible for all
the air in a room to suddenly concentrate in one corner leaving
the rest of the room in a vacuum. But how many atheistic scientists
would not start to consider, even a little bit, at the idea of
a miracle? The possibility for this universe to be here with
creatures like us has been estimated by Oxford mathematician,
Roger Penrose, as less than one chance in a googolplex. A googolplex
is a one followed by a googol of zeros. And a googol is a one
followed by 100 zeros. A googolplex is an impossible number to
visualize. Suffice it to say that the air in the corner example
is no big deal on this scale of probability. And it is all made
up out of a number of independent highly improbable events. How
many coincidences can one accept before one starts to wonder
if there is not some hidden mechanism controlling it all?
The Earth is at just the right place; not
too hot and not too cold. But planetary formation processes say
that there should not be any planet here. Planets should be spaced
at a distance ration of roughly double each distance from the
sun. This works perfectly if we include the asteroid belt as
a planet that did not stick together, and we exclude Pluto as
not a real planet. Venus is in the right place. Mars is in the
right place. So what is the Earth doing in the middle where it
does not belong? We need liquid water. Our type of life could
not exist without liquid water. But solids are usually denser
than the liquid state, and solid water should sink and not float.
This would cause oceans and rivers to freeze from the bottom
up and this would destroy the possibility of life. But ice is
less dense than water and it floats, contrary to the rules. All
life on Earth depends on carbon. But carbon should really not
exist. Except that it does. On and on, the coincidences keep
piling on till we get into the googolplex range. No wonder the
world renowned scientist, Stephen Hawking, tells us in A
Brief History of Time that, given our current state of
scientific knowledge, he is compelled to consider this universe
"as evidence of a Divine purpose in creation." Astronomer
Martin Rees asks in Just Six Numbers how this universe
can be explained. He rejects coincidence as impossible and is
left with just two explanations, providence or a conjecture that
ours is one among many existing universes.
Over and over again, science at the highest
levels, points to Divine intervention. A cover story in the July
20, 1998 issue of Newsweek tells us that "Science
Finds G-d.... And although it cannot prove G-ds existence, science
might whisper to believers where to seek the divine." To
repeat from Rabbi Dessler, science and "causality are necessary
so that we might discern the hand of G-d behind the causes."
Science does not compel anybody to believe in miracles, but it
is not forbidden, and science even points in that direction.
We have freedom to choose. And that may be the greatest miracle
of all.
|
