Nature and Magic

Nature: Activity or Intelligence?

 

            We observe nature and conclude that the remarkable order it displays tells us of the existence of a Creator and an "organizer" outside of nature.  The forces of nature are blind, mechanical forces, unlike man, who sees, plans and contrives.  Our world is guided by forces and causes.  Rihal termed this mechanistic reality "avoda," literally, work, or activity.  In the human sphere of consciousness, we find intention and objective; in Rihal's words, "chochma," or intelligence.  The striking order in the world bears witness to the presence of an intelligence, of a hidden hand, which leaves its fingerprints on our world.  It confirms that non-mechanical components have had an influence on our surroundings.

 

            Regarding the question of nature Rihal attempts to teach us a significant principle that must guide us on our philosophical path.  Often people use a technical, scientific or philosophical term, which only serves as a screen to shield them from facing the actual problem.  The term becomes a route to run away from the problem, and escape from the inevitable answer.

 

            A man observes an ant and feels that he is encountering the marvels of creation.  The wonders of creation know no limits.  The advice to observe the ant is an ancient suggestion.  Today we can examine much smaller creatures than the ant.  The cell, any cell, is no less complex and wondrous, despite its small size.  It is actually an entire city.  Man is amazed by the wonders that the complex and complicated system of the cell reveals.  And he asks: what is the explanation for the marvels that we witness daily?  If we were to ask the average person, who is not interested in hearing the religious response, he would use the magic word: "nature."  Let us stop here to discuss this and other magic words.  This type of usage, Rihal claims, is a mistake, or even worse, a lie.  There are two options, and two options only:

 

            1.  By the term "nature" we refer to a hidden reality possessed of wondrous qualities which make it similar to or even  identical with God.  In that case the solution is merely semantic; we assign God a different name:

 

            I see that with these names the wise men have fooled us and caused us to view nature as [God's] equal partner, since we say: "Nature is wise", "Nature acts", and in   their view it is possible to say, "Nature creates."           [1:76]

 

            2. When we use the term "nature," we are trying to construct an actual alternative to God.  In that case, we must account for the way this alternative functions.  However the seeker will not receive such an accounting, in the deep sense of the word.

 

            'Nature' is thus a magic word.  The use of such magic words deludes and deceives us in a number of different ways.  This deception succeeds in "making an impression on the listeners" [1:75], and on us as well, because through it we transfer the question to a different domain.  We believe that there is some meaningful content to what we refer to as "nature."  It is similar to paying a check without money to cover it, or using a currency that has suffered from inflation.  Sometimes we hint with this word to another group whom we "believe" has the answer.  Consciously or unconsciously, we assume that there are experts in this field, and that the experts certainly can solve the question that we cannot answer.  Or, and this is a third option, we assume that in the future, in ideal science, the question will be resolved in a rational way without compelling us to accept the assumption that we find uncomfortable.  The common denominator between all of the options is that we are relieved of the obligation to deal seriously with the facts, and can go on with our lives.  Rihal endeavors to teach us that in dealing with this question we must stop leaning on experts who do not exist, or on theories that have not yet been born, and accept what simple logic teaches us almost instinctively: the ant bears indisputable witness to the existence of its Creator.

                       

Nature and the Divine Plan

 

            What is deceptive about the term "nature"?  Rihal explains this in detail when he points out the need to distinguish between two different concepts [1:77]:

           

            Indeed so!  The elements, the sun, the moon, and the stars have mechanisms such as heating and cooling and wetting and drying, etc.  However these actions require  that we ascribe to their executors not intelligence but  merely activity.

           

            We must begin with the assumption that objects such as simple elements, complex materials, etc., exist in nature.  Each one of these is activated and functions according to rules that science investigates and formulates.  All these actions may be included in an overall framework, which, echoing Rihal, we may call "activity."  The conglomeration of acts that are performed within the framework of the natural order are functions of activity and not intelligence.  Until this point, the natural explanation fits perfectly.  Whatever occurs, occurs according to nature.  And indeed, the role of science is to study these traits and laws, that are essential and not accidental. 

 

            Let us assume that these forces exist.  So far the meaning of the term "activity" is clear.  However, even assuming that this concept poses no difficulties, it cannot explain how actions and forces become arranged in greater units, whose structures bear witness not to "activity" but to intelligence.  Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, in his admirable commentary on the vision of Isaiah (chapter 5), explains that the cherubim who hide their eyes with their wings represent the blind forces of nature, which do not appreciate or recognize their own purpose.  They do their Creator's bidding, fulfilling the Divine mission, but they do so blindly.  In this they are different from Man, who is (or can be) mindful of the objective.  The big picture, the desire to better the world, does not interest them.  The forces of nature that Rihal spoke of are blind forces; they do not know how to create an ant, nor  are they interested in creating one.  Each of them functions in utter blindness. 

 

            We will use a simple analogy to explain both the terms which we have used and Rihal's position.  Think of an commonplace object, a spring.  This spring has various physical properties, such as flexibility.  These are the natural properties that science investigates, and in medieval philosophical terms they are called qualities "in the object" or "in nature."  The spring has other qualities that are "accidental," "biographical" facts, such as the fact that the spring was constructed in a certain factory, and sold at a particular store.  These are, as we said, accidental qualities, as opposed to the physical properties of the spring that are essential, and define its role, such as the type of vibrations it can produce. 

 

            A significant philosophical distinction is made here between essential and accidental motion.  Thus for example the movement of the spring from the store to the watch is an "accidental movement," and it would be futile to search in physics books for the underlying principle.  However the release of the taut spring, and the resultant motion of the cogwheels in the watch, is essential motion.  It is a function of the flexibility of the spring.  This is the type of motion that the natural sciences investigate. 

 

            We must add that the concept of motion in classical thought is very encompassing and comparable to the concept of an "event" in our modern language.  Every event has a cause.  In the words of Rihal, nature is a general name for all those essential and not accidental qualities and laws which explain motion and rest.

 

            Physics discusses these traits that are "in the object" and "in nature."  However this discussion is only a first stage.  Let us assume that I have achieved a comprehensive knowledge of springs.  I have still not solved the problem of the invention of the spring-operated watch.  When I think of the watchmaker putting together different parts and making them into a watch, I know that the watchmaker uses the physical properties of the various parts, but these physical properties are not enough.  The watchmaker adds to the parts and their characteristics the arrangement of the parts into a greater whole.  To the activity of the parts he adds his intelligence.  Nature, then, may be the basis for the watchmaker's activity, however the watch is not a solely natural creation.  It is a product of engineering, the result of the operation of intelligence upon activity, upon the properties and laws of natural objects.  Causality responds to the past.  Intentionality responds to the future.  Human activity in general, and engineering in particular, constitute examples of the attempt to channel the blind forces of nature, and arrange them so that they may help the "seeing."  Thus intentionality makes use of mechanical forces.  We witness this in every field of human endeavor.

 

            Our situation is similar to that of a Robinson Crusoe, who has been shipwrecked on a desert island and finds a watch.  Rihal claims, no matter how strenuously we resist, that this watch is proof of the existence of another person, despite the fact that the island appears to have been completely uninhabited since the six days of creation.  And if a watch proves this, how much more so does an ant.  Rihal's claim is that the life and activities of the ant are not to be compared to the saltiness of salt or the qualities of an amino acid, but rather the result of a wondrous organization, that bears witness to a guiding intelligence.  Intelligence is the irrefutable divine stamp.  Rihal adds, "the formation of a shape, the determination of size and character, any action which demonstrates intelligence, can only be attributed to the Master of intelligence, who is Master of capability and rulership as well."

 

            In truth, the example of the watch does not express the situation in all its complexity.  Perhaps we will be more successful if we think about the creation of a newborn.  His parents are, of course, the cause of his creation, despite the fact that they know nothing about embryology, the process of fetal development.  The parents act upon the basis of a complex system of law which they do not understand.  The causes that function in nature are causes in the same manner that the mother and father are causes, causes which function on the basis of more penetrating forces, which are marks of the divine: "And let not it seem improbable to you that grand marks of the divine appear in this lower world when the materials have been prepared to accept them."  We have called this divine evidence fingerprints of Godly activity.  By either name, it is this intelligence that enables the fetus to develop, or allows the creation of that organic "watch" that we meet at every step.

 

            Thus, the difference between activity and intelligence is parallel to the difference between the mechanistic, causal system and the intentional, teleological system.           

  

(This lecture was translated by Gila Weinberg.)

 

Copyright (c)1997 Prof. Shalom Rosenberg, Yeshivat Har Etzion.   All rights reserved.