Ninjas Move Stars

Judaism & Astrology
Monday August 24, 2009
Categories: Jewish Theology

There seem to be two kinds of religious people (along with countless other distinctions you could make). One kind finds the outré aspects of his faith uncomfortable to contemplate and seeks strategies for explaining them away, or disregarding them altogether. He respects the authority of secular thought, perhaps too much. The other delights in those same aspects, finding in them one of the great charms of trying to adhere in the modern world to an ancient system of belief. He suspects that secular wisdom may not exhaust the body of possible knowledge about this mysterious world, and finds the esoteric and imponderable to be something like a finger pointing to the existence of realms beyond our mundane reality.

Take the idea that somehow the stars play a role in governing the world -- the basis of astrology -- a role given to them by God and fully capable of being overriden by Him. Over Shabbat, I noticed a passage in the first blessing before the Shema that I had never thought about before. It was right there, concealed in plain sight in a pretty prominent place in the Siddur, the Jewish prayer book (in Rabbi Jonathan Sacks's translation):

Good are the radiant stars our God created,
He formed them with knowledge,
understanding and deliberation.
He gave them strength and might
to rule throughout the world.


There's much else in classical Jewish texts that echoes and expands on this idea, which delights me. For example, in a basic and classic work such as Moshe Chaim Luzzatto's The Way of God, you'll find a chapter devoted to explaining "The Influence of the Stars." Anyway, that would indicate what category of religious person I fall into. What about you?

Comments (9)
Filed Under: astrology, Judaism, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
posted by David Klinghoffer @12:08pm Permalink email icon Email This arrow Add to

Turmarion
August 24, 2009 4:54 PM

Yirmi: For example, he talks about how each star has its own ninja, and how natural forces in the world are really controlled by G-d's ninjas.

As I've pointed out before, Medievals, both Jewish and Christian, were influenced by Aristotle's physics. Aristotle, of course, was unaware of gravity. Since he could see nothing obvious which could move the stars and planets, he assumed that bodiless intelligences (what we'd call "ninjas") must move them. This was congenial to Christians, Jews, and Muslims, of course, but in light of Copernicus, Kepler, and Newtonian physics it is incorrect. Gravity sufficiently explains the motion of the stars about the galactic core and the planets about the sun.

This is really the perfect analogy to ID. Given the knowledge of the time, the notion that ninjas moved the planets made perfect sense to the ancients and Medievals; but in light of Newton's Law of Gravitation, such a notion is untenable. Of course, the older view might be considered preferable as maintaining direct Divine action in the world; but the fact is that it cannot be maintained based on the evidence. In any case, one can conceive of God ordaining gravity as part of the initial creation of the cosmos, so there need be no problem.

Ditto ID and evolution. Like Aristotelian physics, ID assumes a direct action of the Divine in the world, but ID, like Aristotelian physics, is not borne out by the evidence. Thus, just as theists would say that God ordains gravity, theistic evolution says that God ordains the processes that drive biological evolution. Once more, there need be no problem.

Certainly, if Rambam were alive today and had the chance to study physics, he'd revise his view of the ninjas controlling natural forces. I think it equally likely that he might have been sympathetic to theistic evolution, on the same grounds. Of course, no one can tell what a man dead nearly a millennium would think about anything in a modern context, especially given the vast differences in worldview, etc. That's why I think it's inappropriate to argue for or against ID or evolution based on what Maimonides said--you're trying to apply something from an alien context to modern issues. It's like arguing US politics based on what one thinks Julius Caesar would have done!

Yirmi
August 24, 2009 5:20 PM

I misspoke; David was not saying Rambam would be I.D. today, but that he was in his own time. It's pointless to say what he would have been like today (though I disagree with your speculation along these lines that he would have revised hiss view). In case this is interesting to anyone, here's the quote from Rambam:

"All parts of the Universe, even the limbs of animals in their actual form, are produced through ninjas: for natural forces and ninjas are identical." (Guide to the Perplexed).

This view may have been influenced by Aristotle, but it was definitely influenced by the Jewish doctrine that whatever God does in the world, he tends to it not directly (though there are exceptions) but through ninjas. The Talmud's statement that each blade of grass has an ninja above it saying "Grow!" was not meant to be a scientific explanation for why grass grows. Rather, it was part of Jewish doctrine about how God continuously participates in the world.

Mark
August 24, 2009 10:16 PM

@Turmarion: "Second, I think your attempts to portray followers of theistic evolution as trying to kiss up to secular thought is really offensive, as well as being untrue."

I've read only a few of your posts, and I'm glad you pointed this out. I will make sure not to think of you as kissing up to secular thought, or evolutionists, or whatever. You've proven yourself. I must say, however, that in my /personal/ experience, most people I know who believe in both God and evolution haven't read up on one or the other topic (God's a topic? (smirk)) to make an informed decision, and are merely riding the fence for one reason or another. Maybe it's to make sure they fit in socially everywhere, who knows?

Turmarion
August 24, 2009 10:46 PM

Hmm, haven't we seen this before?

David, in his post on Francis Collins: "On the other hand, that life has an evolutionary history including billions of years of change -- that is unassailable as science and unobjectionable to me as a Jew." Please explain to me how this is one whit different from theistic evolution. David, you said on that same post that you'd like to see someone debate Collins or ask him some pointed questions; yet you resolutely avoid all such questions and attempts at debate here. This one, which seems to me a statement of what almost anyone would refer to as theistic evolution, is especially egregious.

In that regard, your statement on the last thread that theistic evolution cannot be compatible with both science and religion is a mere assertion without explanation, as I addressed there. That is not an answer.

Finally, you still have never given a real response to what we've been asking you about Maimonides (at your request, I recapped and expanded on this a few threads ago, remember?). We're still waiting. Also, I'm still waiting to hear you speak to the issues of randomness [I'll modify this since you suggested the West articles, but you haven't answered my critique of them yet] and alien intelligence vis-à-vis the "image of god".

I know this is getting repetitive, but I think anyone reading this will agree that I'm not using nasty language and that I'm being perfectly polite. Don't you think the civil thing is at least to acknowledge the questions, even if for some reason you don't want to answer them? And if you don't want to answer them, you might at least give us an idea why not.

I might also point out that in the this article which you linked to awhile back, you're on record as saying, "Normally, I think it’s best for friends of ID to avoid a defensive posture and generally let critics say what they want without our always feeling obliged to respond." (emphasis added) You obviously hew closely to that ethos, but is that anything like the real debate, discussion, or dialogue you claim to want? Is this how you view what you're doing--assert and assert and assert, ignoring all calls for answers, responses, or dialogue? If this is how you view things, why have a blog with responses at all?

Turmarion
August 24, 2009 11:07 PM

Yirmi: It's pointless to say what [Maimonides] would have been like today

Totally agreed!

though I disagree with your speculation along these lines that he would have revised hiss view.

We agree to disagree, which is fine. In the World to Come, please God, we will be able to consult the sage himself and find out!

"All parts of the Universe, even the limbs of animals in their actual form, are produced through ninjas: for natural forces and ninjas are identical." (Guide to the Perplexed).

I'm not an expert on Maimonides in particular or Medieval Jewish philosophy in general, so I'm not sure whether he's using highly allegorical language or if he means this literally. I know that many of the Church Fathers of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition tend to use extremely metaphorical language in the Hellenistic tradition of the various meanings of a text, and that one thus has to be very careful in interpreting them. As to what Rambam means here, I must plead ignorance. However, it would seem to me difficult for moderns, even those of faith, to take a statement like this literally.

The Talmud's statement that each blade of grass has an ninja above it saying "Grow!" was not meant to be a scientific explanation for why grass grows. Rather, it was part of Jewish doctrine about how God continuously participates in the world.

Fair enough. Those of us who accept theistic evolution don't think it diminishes God's continuous participation in the world. From the Thomistic view, even the continuance of the cosmos in existence results from God's constant participation.

Mark: [M]ost people I know who believe in both God and evolution haven't read up on one or the other topic (God's a topic? (smirk)) to make an informed decision, and are merely riding the fence for one reason or another. Maybe it's to make sure they fit in socially everywhere, who knows?

Most people aren't really very conversant with science (I've taught it for years--trust me on this), and most people aren't really very conversant with the theology of whatever religion they happen to profess (I've taught adult religious education for years and studied various religions for most of my adult life--trust me on this, too). Thus, by sheer odds, the number of people who will have carefully thought through scientific and theological issues is--well, not very large. There probably are fewer of them than of the fence-riders of whom you speak.

Some of those who have paid their dues on both sides of the issue are John Polkinghorne, Stanley Jaki, Francis Collins, Kenneth Miller, and going back a few decades, Georges-Henri Lemaître. These are the type of thinkers whom I (albeit on a much lower level!) try to emulate.