Answering Atheist about Torah miracles

Question

How do we explain our belief in the story of Yonah living in a Fish, the Splitting of a sea, and all the other fantastic Miracles described in the Torah to a person who was not brought up religious; and maybe in fact does not believe in religion because of these parts of the Torah? also is saying the story of Jonah Allegorical heresy?

Answer 1

I think it is fruitless to try to prove torah to non-believers, though people try (e.g. the "torah codes" folks looking for hidden messages in the text). Faith is not science.

As for explaining our belief in the truth of torah, one can ask: Is there anything that Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu cannot do? The torah describes miracles, which were either performed on the spot by God (the pshat) or programmed into the creation of the world (Rambam, I believe, but no cite). God can act in the world; this doesn't obligate Him to do so in the future ("why don't we see giant fish swallowing people nowadays?"), but it also does not preclude it (e.g. resurrection).

Answer 2

As I understand it, Maimonides in his Guide to the Perplexed mentioned that some Jewish philosophers had gone so far as to say the very existence of Biblical characters such as Abraham was allegorical -- that's going too far. Maimonides himself interprets certain episodes of angelic interaction in the Torah as dreams, allegories, or the like, which (unsurprisingly) ruffles some traditionalist feathers.

My understanding is that the standard, normative understanding of Jewish faith would be that the Jonah story actually occurred. I think, and I could be wrong here, that if someone chose to understand it as allegory or a dream or the like, however, Jewish Law would not treat him/her as a heretic (koifer in your question), as their belief would not be in violation of the Thirteen Principles of Faith (while "I believe that all the words of the prophet are true"; a dream or allegory could be "truth", I presume); just as the rabbis of the Talmud themselves debated whether Ezekiel's vision of the Dry Bones was a physical reality, or just something seen in a prophetic trance. (Though Ezekiel opens the story with a prophetic-vision experience...)

To agree with Monica, I don't think there is going to be the a-ha, gotcha! that's going to do it for an atheist, certainly with regards to a story like this. We believe that G-d can do anything, including bending the laws of nature as needed.

A more interesting question is to transcend the how and ask why (as Lord Sacks likes to say, science is the how, religion is the why): why the whale (or "great fish", whatever it was)? As I read it, Jonah's job was a prophet, and he had to go warn Nineveh. Now he had all sorts of reasons why he didn't want to do his job -- Nineveh was the capital of Assyria, which would go on to attack Israel, not to mention make us look awfully bad that we ignored all our prophets' calls to repent). But that's not our place. G-d is G-d, and we are humans. Once Jonah started by breaking that order, he starts to see the laws of physics go topsy-turvy around him. This explains the epilogue to the book that the Midrash fills in, where Jonah bows down and says, "Okay G-d now I get it; the world is Yours and You do with it as You wish."

Answer 3

Although belief in miracles is an important belief in Judaism, I do not think it is kefirah to believe that the laws of nature are never broken, even if it is not the traditional Jewish view. If a person believes God created absolute rules that He never breaks, its probably OK, as long as he accepts that there is some form of Divine Guidance in this world.

There were some scholars who tried to give rational explanations for many miracles. For example, the Ralbag often tries to explain how certain miracles didn't violate the laws of nature (Although he's not exactly a fully traditional source).

There were no physical laws necessary for the sea to split, just very large unlikelihoods. Similarly, many miracles can be just explained as statistically unlikely quantum events. This is acceptable, for clearly God is behind the events. Some may wish to go further and say the splitting of the sea was just a very low tide or something. That is probably not heretical either. Those who do not accept Judaism may find such that explanation more reasonable.

As for the story of Yonah, there were those (possibly the Vilna Gaon) who explained it allegorically.

Answer 4

As to your question of explaining miracles: You don't. It is quite logical that if an omnipotent G-d wanted our people to know of His interaction with humanity, He would have to display this clearly at least once, subsequently being passed down to future generations. (Yonah was a private miracle, only publicized later. I don't know the purpose of the miracle, buy perhaps it is for the remez that can be learned.)

This person has a fundamental issue with an Omnipotent G-d.

A kofer? It would seem not. The Seforno Breishis 3:1 learns that there was no Nachash in Gan Eden, but that "nachash" is the Yetzer Harah and the verbal conversation never took place.

Answer 5

How to explain to an atheist? Don't look to Johnny:

Nine-year-old Joey was asked by his mother what he had learned in Sunday School.

'Well, Mom, our teacher told us how God sent Moses behind enemy lines on a rescue mission to lead the Israelites out of Egypt . When he got to the Red Sea, he had his army build a pontoon bridge and all the people walked across safely. Then he radioed headquarters for reinforcements. They sent bombers to blow up the bridge and all the Israelites were saved.'

'Now, Joey, is that really what your teacher taught you?' his Mother asked.

'Well, no, Mom. But, if I told it the way the teacher did, you'd never believe it!'

We don't change the Torah or our religion in order to make it more palatable to atheists. If they don't believe it because of miracle X, and they do not believe in miracles, then that is fine. If you deliberately strip out all the miracles, such that Moses builds a pontoon bridge to cross the Red Sea, then you are left without religion or belief in God's intervention in the world anyway.

That is not to say that other concerns should not lead to a naturalistic explanation of Biblical miracles. Various Rishonim were led by their philosophic beliefs to believe that miracles which violated the natural order would reflect a flaw in the original plan of creation, and thus tended to explain miracles in natural fashion. (See e.g. Ibn Ezra.)

And there is a rather strong basis in the Biblical verses to say that God manipulated nature. For instance, see how the wind dried up the waters in the Reed Sea. Or how the wind carried the locust plague in Egypt, where we know from observation nowadays that locusts regularly migrate along that path.

And I would be extremely willing to say that Yonah is metaphor. Not because of the big fish part. But because as a student of literature, Yonah reads to me like a morality play and a lesson about the importance and nature of repentance, and theologically why God allows it. The prophet delivering the message, the sailors, the city of Ninveh, and even the animals all repent. I think Chazal possibly saw it as metaphor as well.

But don't water it down just to make it palatable for an atheist.

Answer 6

I agree very much with Monica; in my experience it is generally not a great idea to discuss beliefs with people in general and particularly not in this situation.

I was raised in a Christian home to a very religious family (missionary relatives, church every Sunday, etc.) and am now an atheist. I left my parent's religion because I have spent most of my adult life studying science and the logic of science is more appealing to me than the illogic of religion. Nonetheless, and I expect I'll get a lot of flack for saying so, I am converting to Judaism.

It is true that I don't "believe" literally the stories told in the Torah, but that actually does very little to my impression of Judaism as a whole. It seems to me that people who are raised and stay in a religion their whole life see it as a set of beliefs where people outside of the group see it as a set of practices. This would explain why, when violence is committed in the name of (any) religion, people of that religion say "They aren't really (insert religion of choice here), they just say they are." whereas people outside of that religion say "Wow, look how violent (insert same religion here) is!"

In a situation in which an atheist raises your beliefs, they are likely trying to get you to evaluate them from an outside perspective. If you are comfortable with doing this, the best policy is to be honest. On the other hand, if you happen to be talking to an atheist and no one mentions beliefs, don't bring it up; instead, try to focus on what the practices of the religion mean to you.