BARUCH A/K/A BENDICT DE SPINOZA’S ARGUMENT AGAINST MIRACLES
Baruch a/k/a Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677) was Dutch philosopher of the Enlightenment that came to be considered one of the great rationalists of the 17th century.
The other major objection to miracles was set forth in the 1670s by Baruch a/k/a de Benedict Spinoza, a Jewish pantheist (those who believe God is the forces and laws of the universe). Spinoza’s argument against miracles is as follows.
- Miracles are a violation of natural laws.
- Natural laws are immutable.
- It is impossible to violate immutable laws.
- Therefore, miracles are impossible.
The first problem with Spinoza’s argument is that it begs and presumes the answer to question as to whether miracles are possible. If you define natural laws as immutable, then obviously miracles are impossible. But no one has proved that all natural laws are immutable. If God exists, then miracles are possible. The greatest miracle of all that already has occurred is the creation of the universe out of nothing. Creation itself demonstrates that natural laws are not immutable, because something naturally does not come out of something. The second problem with Spinoza’s argument is that we know that natural laws are not immutable because natural laws are only descriptions of what happens, not prescriptions of what must happen. Natural forces can be interrupted and overpowered. For example, a baseball player that catches a baseball interrupts and overpowers the force of gravity on the baseball. If finite beings like humans can interrupt and overpower natural forces, then certainly an infinite being like God who created those forces also can do so. Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), chapter 8, 203-204.