Spinoza: A cross-examination

It is so interesting to be around all these great minds. Spinoza seemed like he had a point about the laws of nature. But his critics look pretty eager to rebut him.

(Noisy chatter fills the room. 3 or 4 conversations are going on at once. We are in a room of sorts; I just don't know where. I see a stairway leading up to a source of light. I wonder where that leads? There are tables and chairs. Let me see if I can get their attention.)

Matt: Order! Order! I'm back! Can I get everyone's attention? Thank you. Thank you. As you well know, we've been talking about miracles for the last couple days. Spinoza gave his reasons why he thought miracles were impossible. And then Hume gave His reasons why we don't have a proof for miracles, and that even if we did, we couldn't identify them.

(Hume whispers over to Spinoza, while Matt's introduction continues in the background)

Hume: See how he over-simplifies our arguments?

Spinoza: Shhhhh! Let's just see what they have to say. It sounded like the gist of what you said to me?

Hume: I just hope they let us talk. I feel like we're about to be persecuted.

Spinoza: Oh stop griping. You had the floor. Now, out of fairness, let them ask us their questions.

(Continuing the introduction)

Matt: . . . ask for it to be quiet out of respect for those being questioned. The first questioner is Jean Le Clerc.

Clerc: Thank you Matt. I just have a couple questions for Spinoza. I'll be quick, and let the others have their say. How are you Spinoza?

Spinoza: Very well, thank you. Let's get down to the nitty-gritty. Just what about the laws of nature don't you like?

Clerc: I love the laws of nature. I think they exist. But you think they can't change. I think they can be suspended. And there's a reason why I think this. Have you looked into the evidence for Christ's resurrection?

Spinoza: I can't get into details, but I must say that the accounts are lovely metaphors for Christ rising again in His follower's hearts.

Clerc: I don't think the accounts were metaphors though. I think there's good reason to think they're not metaphors. I think there's good reason to think the Gospels' genre isn't that of mythology, but that of ancient biography.

Spinoza: Ancient biography? Says who?

Clerc: I can't get into that now. But I'll say this. If the Gospels are myths, they are the strangest myths ever written. There are scholars that read myths their whole lives who read the Gospels and don't think the Gospels are myths at all. It's just a completely different kind of genre of writing.

Spinoza: I don't know who these scholars are, but I guess I'll give them an ear if you'll talk with me after?

Clerc: Oh sure! As I was saying about the evidence for the particular miracle of Christ's resurrection. I believe the evidence for that outweighs the evidence for the laws of nature never changing.

Spinoza: Again. I'll have to see this evidence. As of right now, I'm in the dark.

Clerc: And that shall be provided as well. Hmmm. What do you think about Christ's resurrection and ascension? Are they natural events?

Spinoza: I think I said before that these were metaphors regarding Christ in the heart of His followers, didn't I?

Clerc: But are you willing to concede, that if you were given reasons for not regarding those events as metaphors, it would be impossible for those events to be natural?

Spinoza: I suppose I'd have to.

Clerc: Okay, let's talk about a simpler miracle. Jesus healed blindness? How do you explain that?

Spinoza: My point is that we don't automatically have to jump to miracle! It's possible there's an unknown natural law at work here, isn't there? My problem with Christians is that they immediately jump to saying it's a miracle when there's other possibilities to consider.

Clerc: I feel your frustration. But consider this. Why isn't blindness cured more often? That is, why doesn't it happen more often given it's the result of a natural law that we don't know about yet? Why did this cluster of so called 'natural events' happen just around the time of Jesus?

Spinoza: That is true. That would be quite improbable. I guess I'd have to say it's possible they've happened at other parts of the world at different times. But Enlightenment has happened. Why haven't we been able to observe such a strange event? Remember what I said though. All this depends on whether the evidence for them is good, which I'm suspending judgment on for the moment. If it is good, I will say that it does seem strange that those miracles happened only when Christ was around . . . .

Clerc: And consider something else. Isn't it more strange that the blindness was cured right when Christ said the words: "You are healed." Isn't that even more strange?

Spinoza: This is ONLY IF the reports are true, though.

Clerc: That will have to be another conversation. But I'll give you some books that will put you in touch with this evidence, and then we can have another talk about whether it is good.

Spinoza: I'd like that. But I am worried we're undermining the laws of nature. I don't like that at all. We need these laws for anything to be certain. I don't want to be lead down the path to atheism.

Clerc: I'm glad you brought that up. Samuel Clarke has some remarks about that issue.

(Clerc steps down. In his place, Samuel Clarke. He's confident and direct. A bit argumentative. And a staple Enlightenment thinker. This should be a good clash.)

Clarke: Thank you Jean. Gentlemen. Spinoza. I have a question about these laws of nature you're so concerned about.

Spinoza: You don't like them?

Clarke: By no means. In fact, I'm a huge fan of Newton. But you think these laws keep God from working miracles, right?

Spinoza: Right. It's like tampering with a perfect machine. It's an insult to the ingenuity of the designer! You don't see Michelangelo tampering with the Sistine Chapel after it was done. He painted the ceiling and left it alone. It was a masterpiece. To alter it anymore would defame it.

Clarke: I just disagree here. Let's talk about events in general. To me, from God's standpoint, all events are the same, whether they're miracles or not.

Spinoza: What preposterous sophistry is this?

Clarke: Just hear me out. Why do objects stay on the ground?

Spinoza: The law of gravity, of course.

Clarke: But why does the law of gravity make objects stay on the ground?

Spinoza: Because God's nature is the way it is. Remember, I said that the laws of nature reflect God's Nature.

Clarke: Understood. But let me ask you to do something for me. Pick up that pencil over there.

Spinoza: This is ridiculous.

(Picks up the pencil and waves it around like a baton).

Clarke: Wait a moment! Pencils don't float around contrary to the law of gravity. What's happening here?

Spinoza: I picked it up. I'm holding it in my hand.

Clarke: So, you're saying objects obey the laws of gravity unless they are interfered with. For instance, pencils fall to the ground given there's not a hand that's holding it.

Spinoza: Seems to make sense.

Clarke: Don't you see what this means? Perhaps miracles are "divine" interference. God raising a body from the dead is the same as you picking up a pencil. A law of nature hasn't been violated.

Spinoza: Yes it has! Bodies don't come back from the dead. That's against a law of nature.

Clarke: But the law only tells what will happen given there's no interference. It tells you nothing about what will happen if there IS interference. And there's no reason to think that the interference may not be human or divine.

Spinoza: I see what your saying. But . . .

Clarke: And this goes back to what I was saying. All events have a divine source, whether they be miracles or not. Even you admit that gravity is the way it is because it reflects God's nature, right?

Spinoza: Right, but you think God can violate His own nature by suspending gravity?

Clarke: You had no problem with that when you picked up the pencil, remember?

Spinoza: You're right. And I wouldn't want to say that we can do something God can't. Hmmm. What if miracles are the rarer ways God's nature is made manifest in the world, reflecting a more whole picture of what I thought God's nature was?

Clarke: Good question. And that's the gist of what I was thinking when I heard you talking to Matt yesterday. Miracles aren't against the laws of nature; they just express a different law that's more rarely expressed. Only in this case of miracles, there might be a law for divine interference with the laws of nature. This is along the same lines as when you picked up the pencil. The law of gravity isn't abolished once you picked up the pencil. Why?

Spinoza: Well, because we have other laws that explain why the pencil does what it does after it is grasped.

Clarke: My sentiments exactly.

(Clarke steps down. Matt ascends to the soap box.)

Matt: We'll take a short recess. If anyone needs to use the bathroom, it's located at the back of the room. Spinoza, did you need a handkerchief for your perspiration?

Spinoza: No, I'm fine.

Matt: Okay, the next speaker will be Jacob Vernet. And, yes, Le Clerc can meet Spinoza in the back of the room with that suggested reading list he promised. Thank you so far everyone. It's been a great discussion!