Miracles Contradict God's Reason, Λόγος?

[Geremia]

Pope Benedict XVI quoted the Byzantine emperor Manuel II in his Regensburg lecture; he said: “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God.” Does not the fact that God performs miracles contradict that He is the Λόγος? Is not a miracle a capricious act? St. Thomas Aquinas defines a miracle as thus:

These works that are sometimes done by God outside the usual order assigned to things are wont to be called miracles: because we are astonished (admiramur) at a thing when we see an effect without knowing the cause. And since at times one and the same cause is known to some and unknown to others, it happens that of several who see an effect, some are astonished and some not: thus an astronomer is not astonished when he sees an eclipse of the sun, for he knows the cause; whereas one who is ignorant of this science must needs wonder, since he knows not the cause. Wherefore it is wonderful to the latter but not to the former. Accordingly a thing is wonderful simply, when its cause is hidden simply: and this is what we mean by a miracle: something, to wit, that is wonderful in itself and not only in respect of this person or that. Now God is the cause which is hidden to every man simply: for we have proved above that in this state of life no man can comprehend Him by his intellect. Therefore properly speaking miracles are works done by God outside the order usually observed in things.

Of these miracles there are various degrees and orders. The highest degree in miracles comprises those works wherein something is done by God, that nature can never do: for instance, that two bodies occupy the same place, that the sun recede or stand still, that the sea be divided and make way to passers by. Among these there is a certain order: for the greater the work done by God, and the further it is removed from the capability of nature, the greater the miracle: thus it is a greater miracle that the sun recede, than that the waters be divided.

The second degree in miracles belongs to those whereby God does something that nature can do, but not in the same order: thus it is a work of nature that an animal live, see and walk: but that an animal live after being dead, see after being blind, walk after being lame, this nature cannot do, but God does these things sometimes by a miracle. Among these miracles also, there are degrees, according as the thing done is further removed from the faculty of nature.

The third degree of miracles is when God does what is wont to be done by the operation of nature, but without the operation of the natural principles: for instance when by the power of God a man is cured of a fever that nature is able to cure; or when it rains without the operation of the principles of nature.

—Summa Contra Gentiles, lib. 3 cap. 101​

“[T]he usual order assigned to things” by whom? If God assigns this “usual order,” then there is a contradiction since God’s actions would contradict His nature, His reason. If we humans assign it, with our imperfect intellects, then miracles simply result from our inability to understand nature completely, and God would not be capricious. I think this latter position is the correct one, right?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Pope Benedict XVI quoted the Byzantine emperor Manuel II in his Regensburg lecture; he said: “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God.” Does not the fact that God performs miracles contradict that He is the Λόγος? Is not a miracle a capricious act? St. Thomas Aquinas defines a miracle as thus:
“[T]he usual order assigned to things” by whom? If God assigns this “usual order,” then there is a contradiction since God’s actions would contradict His nature, His reason. If we humans assign it, with our imperfect intellects, then miracles simply result from our inability to understand nature completely, and God would not be capricious. I think this latter position is the correct one, right?

I think the only problem is in Aquinas’ second and third degree definitions.

He seems to be contradicting himself. But perhaps that is due to customary language use during his time.

A “miracle” is an event “thought to be impossible” as Aquinas points out. In his latter definitions, he is implying that a miracle actually is an event that was impossible.

 

[Areopagite]

“[T]he usual order assigned to things” by whom? If God assigns this “usual order,” then there is a contradiction since God’s actions would contradict His nature, His reason. If we humans assign it, with our imperfect intellects, then miracles simply result from our inability to understand nature completely, and God would not be capricious. I think this latter position is the correct one, right?

There are three kinds necessity (and I believe you could call these “orders” too):

Metaphysical (or Logical) Necessity: that which must be the case, for the alternative is something inconceivable and self-contradictory (e.g. a square circle). Not even God can go against this necessity.

Physical (or Natural) Necessity: applies to creatures and the boundaries within which they naturally have the power to act. This applies to the laws of physics, for example. God, however, is not bounded by this and can act in such ways that do not conform to physical laws (e.g. miracles).

Moral Necessity: applies to the conformity of one’s will to a moral code (but any imperfect free agent can go against this … God can go against human laws of course but not against the eternal law for that is included in His essence).

God did not create the Metaphysical Order, since this pertains to the very unchangeable nature of Being … and hence pertains to His own nature as it always has been and shall ever be. On the other hand, He DID create the natural order, and there is no reason why He himself should conform to it, since it only applies to natural things (i.e. created things). It would be absurd to think that God binds himself to the laws of physics, for He would contradict the laws of physics when He first created the physical realm (for it is not natural that something can come from nothing). God also could have created physical laws different from what we have now. There is nothing intrinsic to God that they should be in a certain way (i.e. nothing about the particular laws of physics is necessary for the fulfillment of God’s nature).

This is what I would say. Does this make sense?

 

[James_S_Saint]

This is what I would say. Does this make sense?

Not to me, although well said.

To me, the idea that “God could have” done anything other than He did (and does), is an illusion. But the OP probably wasn’t really asking of me.

 

[Geremia]

There are three kinds necessity (and I believe you could call these “orders” too):

Metaphysical (or Logical) Necessity: that which must be the case, for the alternative is something inconceivable and self-contradictory (e.g. a square circle). Not even God can go against this necessity.

Physical (or Natural) Necessity: applies to creatures and the boundaries within which they naturally have the power to act. This applies to the laws of physics, for example. God, however, is not bounded by this and can act in such ways that do not conform to physical laws (e.g. miracles).

Moral Necessity: applies to the conformity of one’s will to a moral code (but any imperfect free agent can go against this … God can go against human laws of course but not against the eternal law for that is included in His essence).

God did not create the Metaphysical Order, since this pertains to the very unchangeable nature of Being …

Are you sure about that? Are not angels in the “Metaphysical Order?” They do not pertain to God’s essence; they are distinct from Him, right?

and hence pertains to His own nature as it always has been and shall ever be. On the other hand, He DID create the natural order, and there is no reason why He himself should conform to it, since it only applies to natural things (i.e. created things). It would be absurd to think that God binds himself to the laws of physics, for He would contradict the laws of physics when He first created the physical realm (for it is not natural that something can come from nothing). God also could have created physical laws different from what we have now. There is nothing intrinsic to God that they should be in a certain way (i.e. nothing about the particular laws of physics is necessary for the fulfillment of God’s nature).

The term “laws of physics” appears equivocal. I think there is a difference between laws of physics per se—the order God created in nature—and laws of physics that are really just man-made models of nature, e.g., Newton’s 2nd Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Theory of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc. If we were to come to a perfect understanding of nature, then our models would match the laws of physics per se, and God would have to constrain Himself to them because if He did not, then He would be deceiving us by acting illogically and contrary to our perfect models. He cannot act illogically because His charity and logos forbids deception. For this reason I do not think there is such a thing as an intrinsic miracle, “something, to wit, that is wonderful in itself and not only in respect of this person or that.” Yet since “God is the cause which is hidden to every man simply: for …] in this state of life no man can comprehend Him by his intellect,” we must not be able to understand the physical world perfectly, either. And neither would God have to be constrained to it. Wow, one obtains absurdities when one thinks, like the Cartesians and Kantians, that one can attain perfect knowledge in this life or that God is constrained to our laws—moral, physical, etc.

This is what I would say. Does this make sense?

Yes, your three “orders” delineated above helped.

 

[MindOverMatter]

“[T]he usual order assigned to things” by whom? If God assigns this “usual order,” then there is a contradiction since God’s actions would contradict His nature, His reason. If we humans assign it, with our imperfect intellects, then miracles simply result from our inability to understand nature completely, and God would not be capricious. I think this latter position is the correct one, right?

This is my take on miracles. A miracle is a relative concept. A miracle is certainly a miracle from our perspective and nature. But a miracle is not a miracle for God. God is not doing anything that is not already logically true of his being and nature. That is to say God is not doing the logically impossible as in to do something contradictory to his nature, since miracles are an outgrowth of Gods natural abilities.

People who say that God does the logically impossible cannot mean that in the sense of metaphysical truth since God is the root of all metaphysical truth; something is true because of Gods nature.

 

[Areopagite]

Are you sure about that? Are not angels in the “Metaphysical Order?” They do not pertain to God’s essence; they are distinct from Him, right?

Good question. The word “metaphysical” here is not synonymous with “immateriality.” In fact, equating the two seems to be a recent fad, apparently stemming from neo-Paganism. But I might be totally off about that. I could go into the Thomistic meaning of “metaphysical” if you want.

Angels are actually in the Natural/Physical order. Now let me explain: Angels are incorporeal, immaterial, and even non-physical, depending on what you mean by “physical.” They are non-physical if you equate that to immaterial/incorporeal. However, under the old Thomistic definition of “physical” it simply meant “actually existing.” Hence, angels were said to be physical beings. But the usage of that word changed (somewhere in the 20th century?). So it’s kind of confusing.

You could say they are in the “natural order” if you don’t mean the “corporeal/material realm.” The word “natural” (as you may know) can have multiple meanings. But it is true that angels have their own natures, and they cannot go beyond their natures unless God assists them. So, in that sense, they cannot go against the natural order (I’m open to correction on this). On the other hand, can they go against the natural order in terms of the laws of physics? Or do they do everything within establish physical laws? Good question. I think theologians/philosophers are divided on this. One theory is that all angelic action is caused by God, but done so at the prayer of the angel (whether a good or evil angel). But, I frankly have no idea.

The term “laws of physics” appears equivocal. I think there is a difference between laws of physics per se—the order God created in nature—and laws of physics that are really just man-made models of nature, e.g., Newton’s 2nd Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Theory of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc. If we were to come to a perfect understanding of nature, then our models would match the laws of physics per se, and God would have to constrain Himself to them because if He did not, then He would be deceiving us by acting illogically and contrary to our perfect models. He cannot act illogically because His charity and logos forbids deception. For this reason I do not think there is such a thing as an intrinsic miracle, “something, to wit, that is wonderful in itself and not only in respect of this person or that.” Yet since “God is the cause which is hidden to every man simply: for …] in this state of life no man can comprehend Him by his intellect,” we must not be able to understand the physical world perfectly, either. And neither would God have to be constrained to it. Wow, one obtains absurdities when one thinks, like the Cartesians and Kantians, that one can attain perfect knowledge in this life or that God is constrained to our laws—moral, physical, etc.

Hmm. Interesting thoughts. You might be right.

However, I’m not quite sure why God would be morally bound to doing something within the confines of created natures. I’m also a bit unclear what you mean by “perfect” with regard to the universe. Perfection can have various meanings. In one sense, perfection means something whose natures are fulfilled and preserved, but in another sense, perfection can mean that which has all being and goodness. In the latter sense, nothing is perfect except God. And so all of creation would lack perfection in that sense. Creation intrinsically falls short of this kind of perfection, because it is not God. It would seem to me that God being able to transcend and do things beyond the confines of physical laws would be fitting. No?

Maybe you’re right though. But I can’t say for sure. Need to think about it some more.