How does one answer the question of why, if they experienced miracles, we don't?
Many sources (including Seforno, the Ran, the Maharal, and R Dessler, among others) suggest that miracles that unnaturally convince the observer to believe in G-d and that He intervenes in human affairs could be considered a violation of free will. Which is why Par'oh could only be on the receiving end of the Ten Plagues after his heart was immobilized; he was kept from being influenced by supernatural proofs.
And so, only people who believe so deeply already that the miracle doesn't prove anything more to them ever experience miracles. Like R Chanina ben Dosa, whose daughter was upset that she filled the Shabbos lamps with vinegar. He didn't understand why anyone would consider vinegar burning any more miraculous than oil, and indeed for him that vinegar did indeed burn.
We aren't there, so we don't get miracles. But wouldn't the evidence of historical miracles pose a lesser version of the same problem? People would be influenced toward belief by the evidence of Hashem violating the natural order.
Whatever answer you have for why we don't see miracles, odds are it also explains why we shouldn't expect to see evidence of them.
It's a really good question. I don't have an opinion on this fully formulated but my gut says there's a difference between types of miracles like the Splitting of the Sea, Ten Plagues, etc and miracles like "trash being cleaned up." The former easily compel one toward the existence of God while the latter need not. Furthermore, assuming the latter miracle based on our current faith doesn't lead us to find proof or support for our theology in the absence of evidence. It only gives us the prior assumption that there isn't much archeological evidence to find. The conformation of that doesn't convince anyone who wasn't already a believer and doesn't give the believer any more support to convince non-believers, even though it does align with the believer's prior assumptions about what sort of evidence they might (or might not) be able to uncover. I hope that made some form of sense.
I don't understand those statements you quote from Seforno, the Ran, the Maharal, and R Dessler (would you be able to give the mareh makomos?) Since the Chumash is explicit that the miracles were meant for the Egyptians also. As well as the fact that most of the Jews were idol worshippers, and the miracles were meant for them also.
The Seforno and Ramban's point is that this is exactly what justifies the hardening and strengthening of Par'oh's heart. Had Egypt been able to be convinced by miracles, it would have defied the system. Hashem making sure they weren't swayed by miracles was actually a *preservation* of free will, not overriding it!
Hi Rabbi Gottlib. Last year I wrote a parody post about the lack of archaeological evidence. Not sure how relevant it is to your article, which seems to a priori assume that the relative lack of archaeological evidence (or more accurately, relative lack of archaeological evidence according to the opinions of many) means something. But many people found it entertaining.
About the post-script:
How does one answer the question of why, if they experienced miracles, we don't?
Many sources (including Seforno, the Ran, the Maharal, and R Dessler, among others) suggest that miracles that unnaturally convince the observer to believe in G-d and that He intervenes in human affairs could be considered a violation of free will. Which is why Par'oh could only be on the receiving end of the Ten Plagues after his heart was immobilized; he was kept from being influenced by supernatural proofs.
And so, only people who believe so deeply already that the miracle doesn't prove anything more to them ever experience miracles. Like R Chanina ben Dosa, whose daughter was upset that she filled the Shabbos lamps with vinegar. He didn't understand why anyone would consider vinegar burning any more miraculous than oil, and indeed for him that vinegar did indeed burn.
We aren't there, so we don't get miracles. But wouldn't the evidence of historical miracles pose a lesser version of the same problem? People would be influenced toward belief by the evidence of Hashem violating the natural order.
Whatever answer you have for why we don't see miracles, odds are it also explains why we shouldn't expect to see evidence of them.
It's a really good question. I don't have an opinion on this fully formulated but my gut says there's a difference between types of miracles like the Splitting of the Sea, Ten Plagues, etc and miracles like "trash being cleaned up." The former easily compel one toward the existence of God while the latter need not. Furthermore, assuming the latter miracle based on our current faith doesn't lead us to find proof or support for our theology in the absence of evidence. It only gives us the prior assumption that there isn't much archeological evidence to find. The conformation of that doesn't convince anyone who wasn't already a believer and doesn't give the believer any more support to convince non-believers, even though it does align with the believer's prior assumptions about what sort of evidence they might (or might not) be able to uncover. I hope that made some form of sense.
I don't understand those statements you quote from Seforno, the Ran, the Maharal, and R Dessler (would you be able to give the mareh makomos?) Since the Chumash is explicit that the miracles were meant for the Egyptians also. As well as the fact that most of the Jews were idol worshippers, and the miracles were meant for them also.
The Seforno and Ramban's point is that this is exactly what justifies the hardening and strengthening of Par'oh's heart. Had Egypt been able to be convinced by miracles, it would have defied the system. Hashem making sure they weren't swayed by miracles was actually a *preservation* of free will, not overriding it!
Hi Rabbi Gottlib. Last year I wrote a parody post about the lack of archaeological evidence. Not sure how relevant it is to your article, which seems to a priori assume that the relative lack of archaeological evidence (or more accurately, relative lack of archaeological evidence according to the opinions of many) means something. But many people found it entertaining.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/january-6th-unearthed