From: nadel@aero.org (M.H. Nadel)
Subject: Re: more on miracles
Keywords: miracles, natural
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:05:51 GMT

Some of the material and translations in this are from a sourcebook that was
put together some years ago for a shiur series I attended.  I want to give
credit to Sara Luban and Sol Krupka who edited that sourcebook (and make
me look more knowledgeable than I am!)


In article <mannj.702064024@acf9> mannj@acf9.nyu.edu (Jordan Mann) writes:
>nadel@aero.org (M.H. Nadel) writes:
>
>>Somehow, I don't see the problem.  When we try to explain a miracle
>>rationally, all we're talking about is *mechanism.*  
>
>Yes, that's exactly the point.  We're discussing the mechanism, although we 
>all agree that a miracle is a miracle anyway.  Your next paragraph shows 
>that you see the value of discussing this.
>
It wasn't clear to me that everybody did agree it was a miracle anyway.  I'm
sorry if I was misreading the discussion - it seems to me that people often
use rational explanations of miracles as a means to justify atheism
and I wanted to point out that mechanism is an alternative approach.

>>I'd have to dig it out, but it seems there is Talmudic evidence that
>>miracles which seem "natural" are better.  I'm thinking of the story of the
>>man whose wife died and who sprang breasts to feed his babies.  The discussion
>>essentially concludes that if he had been more worthy, there would have been
>>a different sort of miracle, one which would have been less "unnatural."
>
>I'm not familiar with the story, but I think most men would be uncomfortable
>suddenly sprouting female breasts, and perhaps the point was that if he had
>been more worthy, his babies would have been saved without his body being
>deformed.
>
The incident is discussed in Shabbat 83b.  In response to this miracle
Rabbi Joseph said "how great this man must be that such a miracle happened
to him."  Abaya responded "on the contrary, how loacking is this
person that through him the order of creation was distorted."  Rashi comments
that if the man were more worthy, his monetary needs would have been
satisfied.

The interpretation of this by the Maharal of Prague was that Abaya felt
the person was lacking because nature was changed in a way that couldn't
be explained by natural means, that anything which digresses so fra from
nature is bad.

>>And, remember, that not all miracles are the big ones.  Judaism very
>>decidedly views nature itself as a miracle.  (Think about various brachot.)
>
>"Very decidedly" ?  Which brachot are you referring to?  The only one I can
>think of which seems to support what you're saying is asher yatzar, which
>ends "rofeh chol basar umafli la'asot" ("Who cures all flesh and does 
>wondrous things.") That's not much to go on.
>
That's one example.  I was thinking more just of the fact that we say
brachot over some rather ordinary things, continually reminding us of
the role of G-d in the world.  

Most Jewish authorities disctinguish between a nes niglah (visible miracle)
and a nes nister (hidden miracle).  Visible miracles are what most people
think of in terms of miracles.  It's worth remembering that living in
an orderly universe, despite the drive to entropy, is itself a miracle.

>I admit, though, that Nachmanides supposedly says somewhere (I've never
>seen it myself) that there is no such thing as physical laws.  Or something
>like that.
>
I think you're talking about his commentary on Bereshit 46:15.  He writes
"In the entire scope of the Torah there are only miracles and no nature or
custom."  He goes on to explain that it isn't natural that those who
violate negative mitzvot are punished and that the righteous enjoy good
fortune.  He also says "...all our prayers are founded on miracles and
wonders, except that there is no heralded change in the nature of the 
world."

>>How do you distinguish what is "nature" and what is "miraculous" when you
>>consider how inadequate many of our replacements for the "natural" are?
>
>What do you mean by "replacements"?

I was thinking about the relative effectiveness of prostheses vs. natural
limbs.  Even something as (relatively) simple as dentures isn't close to
the performance of real teeth.  The pattern recognition capabilities of
machines are far from those of the human mind.  (I admit to remaining
skeptical about artificial intelligence, so one might use the argument
that in the future we'll do better.)  Personally, having taken some
classes in biomedical engineering, worked with robotics and studied 
on control issues for closed environmental life support systems, has only
strengthened my belief in G-d.

Miriam Nadel
-- 
"UCLA's fans are so totally mellow, nine out of every 10 have no idea where in
the world Duke University is located, or whether it was endowed by John Wayne
or named after Patty."     - Mike Downey
nadel@aerospace.aero.org