Preliminary outline and cover for a book on the Kuzari Argument.
Chapter 1: Introduction
What the Kuzari argument is; the importance of the argument
to many frum people as a "proof"; the purpose of this book.
Chapter 2: The Kuzari
Argument
The various formulations of the Kuzari. The popular version
in circulation. The original (from the sefer Kuzari), Ramban's, R' Chait, and R' Gottlieb.
The Kuzari argument
as a a series of syllogisms:
Premise 1: Either
Matan Torah happened as recorded in the Torah, or someone made it up.
Premise 2: Millions of people will not accept that they or millions of their ancestors witnessed something and that there was a continuous tradition about that event unless they had heard about the event from their parents (or other elder family members). They would have rejected the claim out of hand.
Conclusion 1: Therefore it can't be that Matan Torah and the mesorah were made up, because no one would have accepted it.
Premise 2: Millions of people will not accept that they or millions of their ancestors witnessed something and that there was a continuous tradition about that event unless they had heard about the event from their parents (or other elder family members). They would have rejected the claim out of hand.
Conclusion 1: Therefore it can't be that Matan Torah and the mesorah were made up, because no one would have accepted it.
Premise 3: If it were possible for mass revelation events
to be faked or to develop organically, we would expect more religions to use a
mass revelation as their origin stories.
Premise 4: We don't see any other religions use a a story like matan Torah: a mass revelation to the entire nation that was passed on to the descendants of the original witnesses as their origin story.
Conclusion 2: Therefore it must be that mass revelation stories can't be faked or develop organically, and the mass revelation at Har Sinia must be a real event.
Premise 4: We don't see any other religions use a a story like matan Torah: a mass revelation to the entire nation that was passed on to the descendants of the original witnesses as their origin story.
Conclusion 2: Therefore it must be that mass revelation stories can't be faked or develop organically, and the mass revelation at Har Sinia must be a real event.
Premise 5: (From
C1 and C2) We can be sure that matan
Torah happened, just as we are sure that other historical events happened.
Premise 6: If Hashem gave the Torah on Har Sinia, then Judaism is true and all Jews are obligated in the mitzvos.
Conclusion 3: Therefore Judaism is true and all Jews are obligated in the mitzvos.
Premise 6: If Hashem gave the Torah on Har Sinia, then Judaism is true and all Jews are obligated in the mitzvos.
Conclusion 3: Therefore Judaism is true and all Jews are obligated in the mitzvos.
The argument as a syllogism with all sub-premises:
Premise 1: Either
Matan Torah happened as recorded in the Torah, or someone made it up.
Sub-premise A: If it was made up, someone tried to convince everyone that it is true, like a guy standing on a soapbox in the street.
Sub-premise A: If it was made up, someone tried to convince everyone that it is true, like a guy standing on a soapbox in the street.
Premise 2: Millions
of people will not accept that they or millions of their ancestors witnessed
something and that there was a continuous tradition about that event unless
they had heard about the event from their parents (or other elder family
members). They would have rejected the claim out of hand.
Sub-premise A: There were millions of
witnesses at matan Torah
Sub-premise B: The millions of witnesses
at matan Torah passed down their experiences
to
their children through the generations, giving us millions of lines of
faithful witness that matan Torah happened.
Sub-premise C: Each link in the chain of
the mesorah is equally reliable.
Sub-premise D: There is an unbroken
mesorah that proves matan torah was a real event, and the mesorah is valid.
Sub-premise E: The first generation
would have had to believe they experienced matan
Torah for them to tell the story to their children as history. People are/were aware of history as such and
valued it. Family and community elders wouldn't deliberately lie or distort the
history they pass to their children in the service of what they regard as a
greater religious good. And the first generation wasn't forced to accept the
story and pass it on as truth to their kids
Sub-premise F: people in the distant past
were skeptical in the same way that people are today, (thought the same way
about things as people do today) and so would have rejected the Sinia story if
it wasn't true.
Sub-premise G: Large numbers of people
can't become convinced they (or their ancestors) witnessed something if it
didn't really happen.
Sub-premise H: The people saw God give
the Torah, not some sort of trick.
Sub-premise I: It is reasonable to
accept other people's testimony that they have witnessed a miracle.
Conclusion 1:
Therefore it can't be that Matan Torah
and the mesorah were made up, because no one would have accepted
it.
Premise 3: If it were possible for mass revelation events
to be faked or to develop organically, we would expect more religions to use a
mass revelation as their origin stories.
Sun-premise A: Religions
(except Judaism, which is the truth) are invented by charlatans who are looking
to use the best justification, or religions will naturally develop the best
justification.
Sub-premise B: Mass revelation is the
best, or at least a very good, justification for a religion, so we would expect
more religions to use it.
Premise 4: We don't see any other religions use a a story
like matan Torah: a mass revelation
to the entire nation that was passed on to the descendants of the original witnesses
as their origin story. ( R' Gottlieb's NET.)
Sub-premise A: The uniqueness
of the Sinai story is proof that it happened, because it shows that a story like
matan Torah can't be made up or evolve
through myth formation.
Sub-premise B: There are no
mass revelations in other religious traditions comparable to matan Torah.
Conclusion 2:
Therefore it must be that mass revelation stories can't be faked or develop
organically, and the mass revelation at Har Sinia must be a real event.
Premise 5: (From
C1 and C2) We can be sure that matan
Torah happened, just as we are sure that other historical events happened.
Sub-premise A: The Kuzari
Proof establishes the historicity of matan
Torah in the same way and with the same or similar confidence as other
events we consider historical (having actually happened).
Premise 6: If Hashem gave the Torah on Har Sinia, then
Judaism is true and all Jews are obligated in the mitzvos.
Sub-premise A: There is a solid mesorah about what our ancestors witnessed at matan Torah.
Sub-premise B: If matan Torah was a real event, then the Torah we have today is the
Word of God and Judaism as it is now is obligatory.
Sub-premise C: People will
not accept new doctrines as binding unless it is attested to through mesorah. Jews
have accepted the burdensome commandments in the Torah and subsequent halacha unless matan Torah really happened.
Conclusion 3: Therefore Judaism is true and all Jews are
obligated in the mitzvos.
Chapter 3: Premise 1-A
Premise + sub-premise
Discussion and refutation
(Same for every "premise" chapter)
Chapter 4: Premise 2-A
Chapter 5: Premise 2-B
Chapter 6: Premise 2-C
Chapter 7: Premise 2-D
Chapter 8: Premise 2-E
Chapter 9: Premise 2-F
Chapter 10: Premise 2-G
Chapter 11: Premise 2-H
Chapter 12: Premise 2-I
Chapter 13: Premise 3-A
Chapter 14: Premise 3-B
Chapter 15: Premise 4-A
(Includes review of R' Gottlieb's NET.)
Chapter 16: Premise 4-B
Chapter 17: Premise 5-A
Chapter 18: Premise 6-A
Chapter 19: Premise 6-B
Chapter 20: Premise 6-C
Chapter 21 : Summery
of Discussion
Premises, sub-premises, and conclusions, with short summaries
of the refutations to each.
Implications of the failure of the Kuzari Argument.
Looks pretty damn comprehensive. Nice.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward.
ReplyDeleteRe "Sub-premise I: It is reasonable to accept other people's testimony that they have witnessed a miracle.". I think most formulations are careful to only accept testimony from multiple sources, not just to believe "other people;s testimony" in general.
Yes. But the question is, is it more reasonable to accept, say, a million people's testimony that they witnessed a miracle, or to conclude that they had a mass hallucination?
DeleteI totally agree. The point is that the premise as you word it sets up a potential strawman. The stronger premise of:
Delete"...Sub-premise I: It is reasonable to accept other people's testimony that they have witnessed a miracle provided that it comes from sufficiently reliable or numerous sources."
(or similar) would be a more reasonable way of stating the actual sub-premise that is embedded here. That would no longer be a strawman and I agree it is still not a valid premise.
I see. You're right. Thanks!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs there a typo "Sub-premise C: People will not accept... Jews {would not} have accepted the burdensome commandments in the Torah and subsequent halacha unless matan Torah really happened.
ReplyDeleteTypo Sinia ?
ReplyDeleteSeems like Kellemn's version is not being fully addressed. He talks about past, present, future theories. And the Applewhite Theorem. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VarUODJ9uPo
ReplyDeleteWhat a classic video that is! The delicious irony starting just after 11:50
Delete“Let’s go back to the moment where the charismatic cult leader - in this place played by kellerman - will persuade the charismatic cult followers - yes thats you - that the whole thing is true.”
And then exactly that happens.
Does he even appreciate the beautiful irony of it? So absolutely classic!
I have long said that the best disproof of the kuzari principal is the kuzari principal.
@Yoni2 Keen insight. The Irony of it !
DeleteHere is more Irony. RG claims there are no false NETs. But he himself believes in what most likely is a false NET, the Sinai Story. My biggest problem with the Kuzari argument is the Torah is factually wrong on much, and the 600000 figure is phony. If you claim a story is true and Torah divine they should not have phony figures in it.
Is RK ignorant of ancient Israelite/Jewish charismatic leaders ? Lets start with Abraham and the forefathers, then move on to Moshe and Aaron, the numerous Priests, prophets, Kings, Scribes and finally Ezra. Yep, we just can not think of ANY cult leaders in Jewish history. Give me a break.
DeleteBtw for another what I always thought of as perfect counter example of a NET (and yes i am aware of falling into the trap of giving credence to the whole idea of NET) you have the samaritans. They not only have a similar myth. It is basically an identical one. So the KP can just as equally be valid to show that it was the ancestors of the samaritans, not the jews who received the torah. Of course traditional judaism believes that the samaritans are actually the descendants of the cuthim, who “hijacked” judaism. So who was the cult leade that convinced *them* that *their* ancestors saw the revelation, and how on earth did he manage to create that false NET?
Delete@Yoni2 you have made an excellent point. The Samaritans claim descent from Israelites and Talmud claims they are cuthim. Both are probably correct in the sense migrant cuthim migrated into an Israelite population and became mingled ! But like you wrote - How could the Samaritans claim to be Israelites if they were not Israelites ? Applying RG principles and accepting the Talmud we have a false NET ! Moreover, the Samaritans claim they have the true Torah while Rabbinic Judaism claims they do not. So yet another false NET. With you permission and giving credit to you maybe I will add a post on Samaritans and KUzari argument.
DeleteFeel free.
DeleteI am fairly certain Rabbi Kelemen concocts the Applewhite theorem. It is very unlikely the academic community accepts his invention. I have written several more posts directly about Rabbi Kelemen. start here https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/03/kuzari-argument-part-16-permission-to.html
Delete"I am fairly certain Rabbi Kelemen concocts the Applewhite theorem"
DeleteGoogled it and at first glance it looks like you are right. Needs a little more research.
If you are correct then the Applewhite theorem disproves itself as it seems that people were perfectly willing to believe it is a real theorem despite the fact that it is (relatively) easy to check whether it is or not (google).
Of course it is pretty obvious. People will believe all sorts of weird things whether easy to check or not all depending on why they want to believe it vs. not want to. Critical thinking is difficult and can be quite confusing, so most will largely go with the flow.
Regarding you Samaritan point, I don't see how that it disproves KP. The Samaritans' belief (if false) merely shows that once a nation believes a true NET, another group of people may get sucked in and believe that their ancestors were also part of the nation that experienced the NET. But how does that empirically display that a nation will believe a false NET ex nihilo?
Delete@Are Roster The point is that a nation has accepted a false national history. Yet the Kuzari argument claims there are no false national traditions. As I wrote above "How could the Samaritans claim to be Israelites if they were not Israelites ? Applying RG principles and accepting the Talmud we have a false NET ! Moreover, the Samaritans claim they have the true Torah while Rabbinic Judaism claims they do not. So yet another false NET."
Delete@Are Roster - AFAIK there is no ex-nihilo requirement for the Kuzari argument. Are you now adding yet more requirements to the Kuzzari argument. Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
DeleteI am not adding requirements. You claim that it is possible for a nation to believe in a national event which never happened. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL evidence that a nation can believe in a national event which never happened? You don't. The Kuzari argument never claims anything, in my opinion. It merely respectfully asks for empirical evidence for YOUR CLAIM that nations can believe in events which never took place.
DeleteAccording to the Kuzari argument, you must substantiate your claims. Thus, if you claim that no miracles took place in Sinai and the belief in miracles sprung up or evolved subsequently, you must provide empirical evidence that non-events can subsequently morph into "national history." The mistaken, non-false-NET beliefs of the Samaritans are useless for your claim.
@ Are Roster - I need to research the Samaritan claim. Do they claim they are of the Israelites that received their Torah at Sinai ? If so, would that would qualify as a national event for the Samaritans ?
Delete@Are Roster - some of my posts provide examples of large mass of people believing in events which took place, but the people were most likely mistaken and sometimes known to be mistaken on what took place. Why doens't that count as a violation of the Kuzari principle ? Maybe something happened at Sinai but people interpreted it incorrectly. And the burden of proof is on you to show "national" beliefs of "national" events are always true. Hint - they are not. Nor am I sure a tribe (that may or may not have been at Mt Sinai) that witnesses something in a desert qualifies as a national event.
Delete@Are Roster - so what do you think of G*3's premises etc: for sefer Kuzari, Ramban's, R' Chait, and R' Gottlieb. ? Do you think his outline would apply to your version of the Kuzari argument ? If not, what would your premises consist of ? Definitions help. Why must it be a "nation", why not a large group of people ? What qualifies as a national event ? Does it have to be something like Sinai where an alleged mass of people gather at one place and witness a single event ? What if an event took place over a period of time and over many places ? etc:
Delete@ Are Roster from my blog post http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/03/kuzari-argument-part-17-apple-white.html "The Palestinian leadership and people tell their history and stories about how events unfolded prior to the creation of the State of Israel and subsequently. No doubt, many of them believe it." They have a national history of national events, hence it must be true right ?
DeleteRe Samaritans: Yes, the Samaritans (we will assume, for the sake of the argument, mistakenly) believe that they descend from the Jews who received the Torah. But all that proves is that when one nation believes a true event, another group of people can mistakenly believe to have descended from that nation. It is an additional, unsubstantiated step to thereby conclude: we have proof that an event which didn't happen at all can be believed by a nation.
DeleteI am not sure what you mean by the false national history of the Palestinians. I am not an expert in the topic, and I am not sure what exactly the Palestinians on the ground believe. Nor do I think that they are completely mistaken about public events (perhaps they believe that the Jews never lived here 2000 years ago? Or they believe that MORE Palestinians lived in Israel pre-1900 than actually lived there? Or that Jews expelled some of them? None of these satisfy as a NET. But, again, I'm speculating).
You say "And the burden of proof is on you to show "national" beliefs of "national" events are always true." Incorrect. I never claim that national events are always true. I am merely saying that we have no evidence that it is a fallible form of evidence. So I have no choice but to accept it. I read through all of your examples, and I don't see how they provide any evidence that the evidence for the Torah is a fallible form of evidence. They don't seem even remotely similar to the form of evidence for the Torah. So where is your evidence?
Where should you look for false NETS, if you are seriously trying to find one? Read through elementary or high-school national history textbooks. I will explain.
The Jews' national belief in the "false" events that took place at Sinai had a tremendous effect on the nation. It wasn't merely a national event, it was an event which required immediate and everlasting commemorations for the entire nation (i.e., observing the sabbath every "seventh" day after that event, and 37 specific commemorations for the Exodus). So the authors of some elementary school textbooks, though they obviously don't believe in the miracles, are compelled to catalog the belief in the false NET of Sinai in order to explain why the Jews act the way they do. If such a false NET exists with any other nation -- say, the English observe 37 daily commemorations for a national event -- the history textbooks would surely tell us about the event. To qualify as a NET, by definition it must be a belief which would have an lasting effect on the nation. I read through one high school history textbook, cover to cover. And there are no false NETs recorded therein, except Sinai (which I believe to be a true NET). So I'm skeptical of any claim that someone has found a false NET (if such a belief exists, why wasn't in reported in the textbook I read?) [To be clear: the textbook records many non-NET events, such as the resurrection of Jesus, the visions of Muhammad and even the Aztec migration myth (which some mistakenly claim to be a NET)].
Regarding the Kuzari-premises, as I outlined in my blog, I don't believe in any of the premises in this page. So I can't imagine there is anything in the book which will convince me away from belief in the Kuzari argument, which is based on premises which are (slightly) different from those mentioned herein.
I would post the premises, but it would take me some time to get them exactly right, so I would rather not post them at this point. My argument is basically exactly like RG's except that I (possibly) remove some of the fluff that he puts in and (possibly) add some fluff.
But I think your request for premises is itself questionable. THERE IS NO KUZARI ARGUMENT. YOU are making the argument. You are asserting that national belief is a fallible form of evidence. Prove it.
@ARE ROSTER - 1) Can you give me some examples of TRUE NET, that are not related to Jews at all. 2) Can you define what a NET is and provide definitions of any terms used. Thank You.
Delete@ARE ROSTER "Regarding the Kuzari-premises, as I outlined in my blog,..." Can you provide this link.
Delete@ARE ROSTER "Regarding the Kuzari-premises, as I outlined in my blog, I don't believe in any of the premises in this page." I presume you disagree with the premises of G*3. Can you explain which and why. Thanks
DeleteWhy would I need to provide a true NET, in order for the Kuzari argument to be justifiable? Nevertheless, I would say that the Jews' belief in the Second Temple - an edifice witnessed by the entire nation (or the vast majority of it), an edifice whose existence was believed to have been immediately and perpetually commemorated with everlasting commemorations (e.g., Tisha B'av) is an example of a true NET (I understand that you were asking for a true NET not related to Jews, but I think the example I gave is the best one available). Now, my belief in the Sinai miracles is stronger than my belief in the existence of the Second Temple, since the Sinai miracles were more heavily commemorated than the Second Temple was, but nevertheless I think (as Iv'e said) that these two events share similarities.
DeleteHere is my blogpost. http://kuzariproof.blogspot.com/2018/05/are-kuzari-critics-familiar-with-kuzari.html. I basically disagree with every one of Second Son's premises (I didn't provide any reasoning, so it needs to be updated . . . someday).
@Are Roster - I really appreciate you taking the time to engage with me, so a big thank you. Since your are using the term NET, you need to define it, which so far you have not done. PLEASE provide a definition of NET. Also, examples help clarify what a NET is.
DeleteYou sort of claim NETS are good evidence. I assume you examined many NETS and found them all to be true. So were is your list showing all these true NETS that have been examined ?
A NET is any event which has evidence which is similar to the evidence for the Sinai events. What is the evidence for the Sinai events? a) millions of people who claim that b) millions of their ancestors (who were repeatedly counted), c) witnessed an extended event (14,600 days), d) an event which they believe they were commanded to immediately and perpetually commemorate with 37 (daily) commemorations, e) by a nation which was literate and genealogically astute, f) who are willing to incur tremendous sacrifices based upon this belief (i.e., people might be more willing to accept beliefs which don't require any sacrifice on their part, but might be more skeptical when they have to sacrifice based upon this belief).
DeleteThat is the evidence for the Sinai events. Do you know of any instance wherein this evidence OR EVEN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR EVIDENCE has shown itself to be fallible? If not, why are you certain that it is fallible?
You claim that the evidence for the Sinai events is fallible. So we are entitled to ask: do you know of any examples wherein this sort of evidence has shown itself to be fallible? The fact that you, in your armchair, can conjure up a scenario how the evidence "could be" fallible is insufficient to prove that it is in fact fallible.
@ ARE ROSTER who wrote “A NET is any event which has evidence which is similar to the evidence for the Sinai events. What is the evidence for the Sinai events? a) millions of people who claim that b) millions of their ancestors (who were repeatedly counted), c) witnessed an extended event (14,600 days), d) an event which they believe they were commanded to immediately and perpetually commemorate with 37 (daily) commemorations, e) by a nation which was literate and genealogically astute, f) who are willing to incur tremendous sacrifices based upon this belief (i.e., people might be more willing to accept beliefs which don't require any sacrifice on their part, but might be more skeptical when they have to sacrifice based upon this belief).
DeleteThat is the evidence for the Sinai events. Do you know of any instance wherein this evidence OR EVEN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR EVIDENCE has shown itself to be fallible? If not, why are you certain that it is fallible?
You claim that the evidence for the Sinai events is fallible. So we are entitled to ask: do you know of any examples wherein this sort of evidence has shown itself to be fallible? The fact that you, in your armchair, can conjure up a scenario how the evidence "could be" fallible is insufficient to prove that it is in fact fallible.”
1) I think you have designed a category that has few if any members, except the Sinai story.. That is why I am asking you to provide examples of NETS. If all you have is one story we can not draw firm conclusions about NETS.
2) I think you are have committed the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
3) Because [allegedly] millions of people believe something does not make it true or even likely true.
4) You are also committing ad-ignorantiam fallacy - arguing that something is true because it has not been shown to be false.
5) I am not sure you are following RK or RG or even Rabbi Chait’s Kuzari argument. I think your argument is much weaker and moer fallacious than theirs.
@ ARE ROSTER consider this “A PNET is any event which has evidence which is similar to the evidenceof the WBCW events. What is the evidence for the WBCW events? a) Thousands of people who claim that b) hundreds or thousands their ancestors c) witnessed a supernatural being d) an event which they received religious rituals - including the foundation of their religion e) received an artifact from that supernatural being f) that they revere the artifact and supernatural being since the event g) are willing to undergo torture in order to fulfill their religion.
DeleteThat is the evidence for the WBCW events. Do you know of any instance wherein this evidence OR EVEN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR EVIDENCE has shown itself to be fallible? If not, why are you certain that it is fallible?
You claim that the evidence for the WBCW events is fallible. So we are entitled to ask: do you know of any examples wherein this sort of evidence has shown itself to be fallible? The fact that you, in your armchair, can conjure up a scenario how the evidence "could be" fallible is insufficient to prove that it is in fact fallible.
------------------------------------
So, ARE ROSTER, do you find my PNET category valid ? Does it convince you of the truth of WBCW story ? If not wehy not ?
I will respond to your first reply today, the second tomorrow:
Delete1) "I think you have designed a category that has few if any members, except the Sinai story.. That is why I am asking you to provide examples of NETS. If all you have is one story we can not draw firm conclusions about NETS." I have not "designed" anything. You claim that the Sinai evidence is fallible. I am merely asking: Do you know of any similar event that has shown itself to be fallible. Once again: I AM NOT ARGUING ANYTHING. I am merely asking, do you have any evidence that the evidence for the Sinai events - or even anything similar to the Sinai events - are fallible?
2) "I think you are have committed the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy." How can I commit that fallacy when I have yet to argue ANYTHING? I am simply asking: DO YOU HAVE ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE SINAI EVENTS IS FALLIBLE? In order do have empirical evidence that the evidence for the Sinai events is fallible, you will need to provide evidence that is similar to the evidence for the Sinai events. Until you do, how I am committing a fallacy?
3) "Because [allegedly] millions of people believe something does not make it true or even likely true." I do not argue that it is likely true (at this point). I am merely stating that it is evidence (just as our tradition about the existence of the Second Temple is evidence).
4) "You are also committing ad-ignorantiam fallacy - arguing that something is true because it has not been shown to be false." I am not doing so. I am merely stating that WHEN YOU CLAIM THAT OUR EVIDENCE IS FALLIBLE, YOU MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS. I am not claiming that the evidence for Sinai is infallible. I am merely stating that you have no evidence that it's fallible.
@ARE ROSTER - How does this sound to you: "I [ACJA} am merely stating that WHEN YOU CLAIM THAT OUR EVIDENCE [WBCW] IS FALLIBLE, YOU MUST PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS. I am not claiming that the evidence for WBCW is infallible. I am merely stating that you have no evidence that it's fallible."
DeleteARE ROSTER - your are committing logical fallacies. Your (alleged) evidence is NOT accepted unless the evidence is shown to be true. You need to demonstrate your alleged evidence is valid. This you have not done. BUT IT IS WORSE FOR THE SINAI story. We have good reasons to reject the Sinai story, thus your alleged evidence is fallible.
DeleteYou claim that I am committing "logical fallacies" my "evidence is NOT accepted unless the evidence is shown to be true. You need to demonstrate your alleged evidence is valid. This you have not done. BUT IT IS WORSE FOR THE SINAI story. We have good reasons to reject the Sinai story, thus your alleged evidence is fallible."
DeleteYou are making two points. First, you argue that I have the burden to show that the Kuzari evidence is true. I actually disagree with your assertion, but, regardless, at this point, I am not arguing that the evidence is true: I am merely giving you the opportunity to provide evidence that the evidence for Sinai is fallible, evidence that you can somehow get millions of people to mistakenly believe that millions of their ancestors experienced an event and were commanded to never forget this event, and perpetuate the memory of this event forever. How can you be so certain about how nations may act when you have not a shred of evidence to back you up?
Then, you argue that we have evidence that the Sinai events never took place. I will avoid responding, because I'm afraid it will get us off the Kuzari topic, a topic which, once sufficiently clarified, will allow you to realize that the Kuzari argument has sufficient power behind it to prove that the Sinai events took place, notwithstanding the evidence you claim disproves the Sinai events.
Once again, I will hold off on responding to your Buffalo story to a later time, though feel free to thump your chest in the mean time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ARE ROSTER who writes "I am merely giving you the opportunity to provide evidence that the evidence for Sinai is fallible, evidence that you can somehow get millions of people to mistakenly believe that millions of their ancestors experienced an event and were commanded to never forget this event, and perpetuate the memory of this event forever. How can you be so certain about how nations may act when you have not a shred of evidence to back you up?"
DeleteI have no obligation to disprove your alleged evidence. You have the obligation to show it is true.
I have devoted blog posts explaining why I think your alleged evidence is fallible. Also, the Sinai story is fallible because AFAIK no living archaeologist or living historian accepts the biblical account of Exodus as true to history, especially the large figures 600000 plus. That is a big strike against your so called evidence. If millions believe your Sinai story that is evidence that your evidence is fallible.
@ ARE ROSTER consider this “A SNET is any event which has evidence which is similar to the evidence of the Miracle of the Sun events.
DeleteWhat is the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun ? a) Thousands of people who claim that b) thousands of their ancestors c) witnessed miraculous astronomical events and other miracles d) an event which plays a role in the political direction of the nation e) the miracle site is claimed to heal the sick f) millions participate in the apparition cult. Every year several million travel from around the world to the apparition site.
That is the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun events. Do you know of any instance wherein this evidence OR EVEN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR EVIDENCE has shown itself to be fallible? If not, why are you certain that it is fallible?
You claim that the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun events is fallible. So we are entitled to ask: do you know of any examples wherein this sort of evidence has shown itself to be fallible? The fact that you, in your armchair, can conjure up a scenario how the evidence "could be" fallible is insufficient to prove that it is in fact fallible.
------------------------------------
So, ARE ROSTER, do you find my SNET category valid ? Does it convince you of the truth of Miracle of the Sun story ? If not why not ?
You write: "I have no obligation to disprove your alleged evidence. You have the obligation to show it is true."
DeleteIf you claim that evidence is fallible, why in the world would you not have to justify your claim? If, for example, a thousand witnesses directly tell you that they ate manna, and you still say, "the evidence provided by way of a thousand witnesses is surely fallible," do you not have justify your claim? Now, if you would merely claim, "I simply don't know whether this evidence is fallible or not," then you'd be correct. But you ARE making an assertion: "you can convince millions of people regarding a false national event." But you have no evidence for this assertion! Regarding historians etc., they aren't experts in whether the evidence is fallible or not (they don't even address the issue). They merely argue (unconvincingly) that it is an exceedingly unlikely, implausible and improbable event. I am still waiting, though, for you to provide evidence for YOUR claims, that our evidence is fallible. You have none.
Regarding my Kuzari argument, you claim that this argument will lead to the illogical result of being forced to accept other beliefs, such as WBCW and the Miracle of the Sun. Before seriously addressing your claim, the problem is that your making assertions without evidence is equally untenable and illogical (claiming that you can surely corrupt a nation's history without a shred of evidence for your claim). Why is making one illogical claim ("I know that national history is fallible, despite having no evidence") more preferable than another (perhaps illogical) claim (we are forced to admit that some other myths cannot be deemed fallible)?
Before moving along, I will say that I haven't sufficiently studied the WCBW or sun miracles (though I have blogged about them briefly). On first glance, not that I think it's terribly relevant, it does seem that these events are supported by fallible evidence. There are numerous stories of masses of people suffering from BRIEF delusions when staring at the sun. So the "Miracle of the Sun" of Fatima has SIMILAR counterexamples. Furthermore, at least according to Wikipedia, we aren't told about the number of people who saw the Sun moving. Perhaps it was a handful? EVIDENCE tells us that a handful of people testifying is a fallible form of evidence. Similarly, regarding the WBCW claim, this website http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/white-buffalo-calf-woman-healer-teacher-and-inspirational-spirit-lakota-021067, among others, discusses the event. I have seen numerous versions of it. I am not sure what people on the ground actually believe, so your claim that people "believe" that hundreds or thousands of their ancestors witnessed the event is questionable. Furthermore, I haven't been able to locate the figure "hundreds or thousands." Please provide a source (you might be right, I just actually want to discuss the version of the myth you are presenting). Furthermore, the actual miraculous event was extremely brief, and we have evidence that even large groups of people's perception can be distorted regarding brief events.
But what if you do actually find an event which contains evidence which we have no reason to assume is fallible? To the extent the event contradicts Judaism, we can weigh the evidence. So Judaism claims that there are no other Gods. The WBCW belief (arguably) contradicts Judaism. So even if (according to your claim) there is possibly-infallible evidence for WBCW, that doesn't mean that we are forced to accept the beliefs, when their evidence contradicts the evidence which (I would argue) is stronger.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI will also point out that I DID provide an example of a true NET, so your argument that I am tailoring the evidence specifically for Sinai is invalid (I happen to believe that, even if valid, it is irrelevant, because I am not making any argument. I am merely, at this point, desperately asking for evidence). I showed a true NET of the Second Temple. There are thousands of nations. Do you know of a single false NET? So how do you know that it's a fallible form of evidence?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ARE ROSTER who writes referring to historians "They merely argue (unconvincingly) that it is an exceedingly unlikely, implausible and improbable event."
DeleteThe fact is historians and others have shown you alleged evidence is fallible because the biblical exodus as you understand it is exceedingly unlikely, implausible and improbable event as you put it. Also, I think historians really mean the The Exodus story does not map well against the historical and archaeological record. In fact, it hardly maps at all. So writes Propp.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ARE ROSTER - do you think the Kuzari argument assumes a G-d already exists ? Is the Kuzari argument evidence for G-d ?
Delete@ARE Roster Regarding sun miracle check out http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/06/kuzari-argument-part-13.html
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ARE ROSTER WHO WRITES 1) "Do you know of a single false NET?" 2) "So how do you know that it's a fallible form of evidence?"
DeleteLets assume my response to your first question is no.
Lets assume my response to your second question is I DO NOT KNOW. Meaning lets assume maybe it is fallible and maybe it is not.
Given those responses what is it you ARE ROSTER are arguing for or trying to prove ?
@ Are Roster - maybe will get back next week. In meantime, let me ask you this. "Do you know of a single false SNET ? So how do you know that it's a fallible form of evidence?"
DeleteTHe examples you gave do not meet the requirements of a SNET. a) Thousands of people who claim that b) thousands of their ancestors c) witnessed miraculous astronomical events and other miracles d) an event which plays a role in the political direction of the nation e) the miracle site is claimed to heal the sick f) millions participate in the apparition cult. Every year several million travel from around the world to the apparition site.
Read more about the Miracle of the Sun http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/06/kuzari-argument-part-13.html and http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/08/kuzari-part-13-miracle-of-sun-continued.html
@ARE ROSTER regarding miracle of sun. The Sun Danced - Myth, Miracles, and Modernity by Jeffrey S. Bennett 2012. Page 116 “For the vast majority of those present, there was no doubt that something supernatural had occurred.”
DeleteARE ROSTER - thousands believed WITOUT A DOUBT miracle(s) occurred.
@ ARE ROSTER who writes ..a thousand witnesses directly tell you that they ate manna, and you still say, "the evidence provided by way of a thousand witnesses is surely fallible," do you not have justify your claim?
Delete---------------------
Thousands of 'witnesses' does not mean the alleged events actually happened the way they claim or for the reasons they claim. THat is a known fact derived about human history. About Manna see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-part-2-or.html and http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-or-kuzari.html
@ ARE ROSTER
DeleteThis is going to be a long response.
A) Regarding WBCW - I guesstimated for WBCW in the hundreds up to about 1000 witnesses based on tribal band size estimates found in some literature I came across. Population sizes for WBCW story would require more research and maybe impossible to determine. I have supplied Indian Chief testimony, ordinary Dakota people and other evidence that informs the story was not considered fictional and is still not considered fictional by many Dakota. I have supplied information documenting the WBCW story foundational to the Dakota religion. For example - One of the 7 important religious ceremonies is The Girls Puberty Ritual also called the Buffalo Ceremony. It marks the passage into womanhood and also establishes the girls relationship with WBCW. For more documentation see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i.html
B) The population size estimates for miracle of sun are known to be in the thousands, and thousands believed miracles occurred. See http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/06/kuzari-argument-part-13.html
C) We do not know how many ‘descendants’ of ancient Israel by date really believed in the story. There is evidence suggesting that sometimes not all that many did. Nor do we know how many Israelites where at Mt Sinai nor do we know what they believed. We have excellent reasons for believing the the Exodus 600000 plus figure is bogus. Thus, if you think the Sinai qualifies as a Net, it is very likely a false NET. So far you have only supplied two stories for NETS. My guess is there very few NETs making it very difficult to draw any sort of conclusions about NETs. The Exodus-Sinai story is a nation foundation myth and such are known to not always be reliable.
D) The second temple NET is not as fallible as the Sinai NET because 1) There are many lines of evidence for the second temple 2) It does not involve supernatural. See my discussion of miracles and Hume.
E) Palestinians have a national history of national event(s) that changed their nation. These events are commemorated. The events include that the Jews engaged in ethnic cleansing in 1948, (maybe even earlier. ?) and since then. Do you accept their testimony ? If not why not ?
F)ARE ROSTER writes "you {ACJA} can convince millions of people regarding a false national event."
I am not sure I ever wrote such a thing. I can not remember - maybe cite one of my comments or blog posts.
However, I have written posts how a mass of people can come to believe in a story that is not fully true. I suggest you read eery one of my KUZARI blog posts. They are based on human psychology and known human behavior.
G) ARE ROSTER writes “Furthermore, the actual miraculous event [miracle of sun] was extremely brief, and we have evidence that even large groups of people's perception can be distorted regarding brief events.”
So how long did the Sinai revelation last ?
Regarding Manna see my posts on miracles.
Do you have some examples where thousands claimed miraculous events for 10 minute or longer ?
You claim that the evidence for the miracle of the sun events is fallible. So we are entitled to ask: do you know of any examples wherein this sort of evidence has shown itself to be fallible? The fact that you, in your armchair, can conjure up a scenario how the evidence "could be" fallible is insufficient to prove that it is in fact fallible.
Recall the evidence consists of thousands claiming miraculous events occurred some lasting at least for ten minutes.
@ARE ROSTER - to clarify regarding D) where I wrote: Do you have some examples where thousands claimed miraculous events for 10 minute or longer ?
DeleteI mean to say for events like the miracle of the sun - astronomical miracles and other miracles that occurred that day.
@ARE ROSTER Regarding your proposed NET 'second temple' you may have addressed this someplace but how does it satisfy your NET requirement "f) who are willing to incur tremendous sacrifices based upon this belief (i.e., people might be more willing to accept beliefs which don't require any sacrifice on their part, but might be more skeptical when they have to sacrifice based upon this belief)." Thanks
DeleteSince there are many points to address, I will only address the points that, I think, are the most important and crucial for the Kuzari argument. Particularly regarding the WBCW and Sun miracles, I think you made some points that are incorrect, but since I don't have the time to properly research, I don't think that I could do it justice. Regardless, I don't think that the fact that other events have possibly-infallible evidence somehow implies that the Kuzari evidence is fallible. Unfortunately, I failed to address some of your other points, due to lack of time. If you believe that they are crucial, I guess you can raise them again.
Delete1) In response to your question, I don't believe that the Kuzari argument presupposes the existence of God.
2) You said that the historians show that the evidence for the Sinai events are exceedingly improbable, and that itself shows that the evidence for the Exodus is fallible. I don't follow: are you saying that whenever evidence points to an event which is exceedingly improbable that proves that the evidence for the improbable event is fallible? If, for example, a million witnesses tell you that they ate manna, would you say, "This is proof that a million witnesses can lie?" Regarding your statement that the exodus doesn't map at all, it is in actuality merely a probabilistic argument. There is no, or very little, direct evidence against the exodus. Indeed, according to Yigal Levin of Bar Illan University (who believes that archaeology shows that the Exodus is a myth), agrees that tomorrow morning that could potentially be flipped, with finding a papyrus that alludes to the Exodus. So once we have even mediocre positive evidence that the Exodus happened, it seems it would outweigh all the absence-of-evidence arguments against the Exodus.
3) If we have no way of knowing whether the Kuzari evidence is fallible or not, you must be at least 50% sure that the Sinai events took place, based on the Kuzari evidence alone.
4) Perhaps you are right that there are too few NETs to be able to draw conclusions, to use your words: which is exactly why you have no right to assert that that it is fallible (nor do I have a right to assert that it is infallible).
Delete5) Regarding the descendants of ancient Israel believing the story, it is clear that TODAY millions of people who claim descent from the ancient Jews BELIEVE the story. I am not sure (admittedly, because I haven't done proper research) whether the people who claim descent from the WBCW village actually believe the story or what people believe about the sun miracles (again, the fact that I don't have the time to do the research doesn't mean I'm right; it just means that I can't address your point at this time).
6) I agree that there might be other evidence for the Second Temple, but I don't see how that is relevant, other than to prove that people's beliefs regarding NETs have been confirmed to be true. Similarly, the fact that the Second Temple is a nonmiraculous event is irrelevant: at this point we simply trying to determine whether the evidence for the Sinai events is definitively fallible (not whether the Sinai events actually happened or not). As of yet, you have failed to provide even a shred of evidence that the evidence for your dogmatic confidence in the notion that the evidence for Sinai is fallible.
7) While the "tremendous sacrifices" for the belief in the Second Temple aren't as extreme as the sacrifices for our belief in the Sinai events (which is why I am more confident regarding our belief in Sinai than our belief in the Second Temple), Jewish commemorations for the Temple do require significant sacrifices. For example: the fast days which commemorate the destruction of the Temple. The Talmud records that some people refrained from eating meat for some time after the Temple was destroyed (if I remember correctly), until the rabbis advised them that this was too extreme a practice.
8) The manna fell for 14,600 days, among other daily miracles recorded in the text. According to the belief, millions of Jews ate manna for 14,600 days, an item which fell six days a week, but did not fall on the sabbath. I could not locate your post re manna, but does it argue that the BELIEF that I spelled out above is does not exist?
Oid Chazone Lamoed...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ ARE ROSTER I would really appreciate if you could respond to this as well.
DeleteA MS-NET is any event which has evidence which is similar to the evidence of the Miracle of the Sun events. What is the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun ? a) Thousands of people of a nation who claim that they witnessed an event b) accounts of the event are passed down as family history. c) an event which played a role in the political direction of the nation d) millions from that nation keep participating in remembrance or celebration of the event.
That is the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun events. Do you know of any instance wherein this evidence OR EVEN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR EVIDENCE has shown itself to be fallible? If not, why are you certain that it is fallible?
You claim that the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun events is fallible. So we are entitled to ask: do you know of any examples wherein this sort of evidence has shown itself to be fallible? The fact that you, in your armchair, can conjure up a scenario how the evidence "could be" fallible is insufficient to prove that it is in fact fallible.
------------------------------------
.
Does it convince you of the truth of Miracle of the Sun story ? If not why not ?
@ ARE ROSTER - I appreciate your dialogue, and thanks for answering some of my questions.
Delete1) ARE ROSTER writes “If we have no way of knowing whether the Kuzari evidence is fallible or not, you must be at least 50% sure that the Sinai events took place, based on the Kuzari evidence alone.”
Why 50% ?
To be clear, you do not have positive evidence for the Biblical Exodus -Sinai stories as you understand those stories. What you have is (a) Many Jews believing in a story in a book 2) An argument using (a) and something called NETs.
2) How does this sound to you “If we have no way of knowing whether the MS-NET evidence is fallible or not, you must be at least 50% sure that the Miracle of Sun events took place based on the MS-NET evidence alone.”
3) About Manna I think you should carefully read http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-part-2-or.html and http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-or-kuzari.html
4) Fallible as I understand it means something is liable to be wrong. Or Fallible as I understand the term may mean capable of being mistaken. Or fallible means unreliable. How do you understand the term ?
AFAIK Historians and archeologists do not think the biblical account is true to history. The Exodus-Sinai story is a National Foundation myth, a class of myths that are known not to be always fully reliable. I think that supports the fallibility of NETs, assuming Exodus - Sinai story qualify as NET.
5) ARE ROSTER writes “Perhaps you [ACJA] are right that there are too few NETs to be able to draw conclusions, to use your words: which is exactly why you have no right to assert that that it is fallible (nor do I have a right to assert that it is infallible).”
I understand Fallible to include unreliable. Sort of like if you have only a couple of data points the data is unreliable to draw reliable conclusions.
6) I think my point about the Palestinians is important. Here it is again: Palestinians have a national history of national event(s) that changed their nation. These events are commemorated. The events include that the Jews engaged in ethnic cleansing in 1948, (maybe even earlier. ?) and since then. Do you accept their testimony ? If not why not ?
(For the sake of argument assume what I have written about Palestinian beliefs and practices are accurate.)
I would be interested in a response to 6.
Thanks.
1) Why should we be at least 50% sure that the Sinai events are true? Because we have no more reason to assume that the evidence is fallible than to assume that it is not fallible. Why should any other percentage be appropriate? If you assume (for the sake of the argument) that we simply have no evidence that you could possibly convince the Jews that millions of their ancestors experienced the heavily-commemorated miracles, then we simply don't know whether the evidence is fallible or not. Until evidence tells us otherwise, it more reasonable to be 50% sure that it is fallible, than to be 51% or 49% sure that its fallible.
Delete2) I can't respond to your Miracle of the Sun, because I don't have the time to properly research the miracle. If, for the sake of the argument, we have no similar evidence which has shown itself to be fallible (I believe we do, but at this point, I can't do justice to this topic), then of course we would need to be at 50% sure that the events took place: unless it contradicts other evidence. Many would argue, for example, that the fact that the rest of the world didn't see the sun move, or the fact that none of the people managed to capture a picture of the miraculous sun is powerful evidence against the event. But again, I don't want to discuss this with you, since it would take time to go through all the details.
3) Regarding manna, you seem to give naturalistic explanations for the manna. However, those explanations don't fit with the text, which (was believed by the population and) states that a double portion fell from on Friday, but nothing on the Sabbath, and fed millions of people for 40 years.
4) Fallible, as I am using it, means capable of being mistaken. Infallible means is simply impossible to, for example, get the Jews to believe that millions of their ancestors experienced miracles. If you have few data points, then you don't know if the evidence is reliable or not, you don't know if you could convince the Jews regarding a false national history.
5) The Palestinians don't believe that their entire nation was ethnically cleansed. Perhaps they believe that a thousandth of their nation was ethnically cleansed. So it's not a NET. It is not similar to the Sinai evidence. Furthermore, (though I'm not an expert) it is possible that some were ethnically cleansed, but the Palestinians then exaggerated the number who were ethnically cleansed.
ACJA: Though you think that the this formulation of the Kuzari argument "is much weaker and more fallacious" than the standard formulations, would you agree that Second Son premises fail to address it?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ ARE ROSTER
DeleteFor now assume the miracle of the sun as described in my blog post is accurate.
A MS-NET is any event which has evidence which is similar to the evidence of the Miracle of the Sun events. What is the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun ? a) Thousands of people of a nation who claim that they witnessed an event b) accounts of the event are passed down as family history. c) an event which played a role in the political direction of the nation d) millions from that nation keep participating in remembrance or celebration of the event.
That is the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun events. Do you know of any instance wherein this evidence OR EVEN SOMEWHAT SIMILAR EVIDENCE has shown itself to be fallible? If not, why are you certain that it is fallible?
You claim that the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun events is fallible. So we are entitled to ask: do you know of any examples wherein this sort of evidence has shown itself to be fallible? The fact that you, in your armchair, can conjure up a scenario how the evidence "could be" fallible is insufficient to prove that it is in fact fallible.
---------------------------------------------
Can you now address the argument. The fact that other people did not witness the event is not relevant. Thousands claimed they did witness the event(s) that is sufficient is apply the PS-NET. Nor is the camera issue relevant for PS-NET. It was a miracle and so maybe it could not be captured. Please provide a false PS-NET.
@ARE ROSTER: I really think we need to explore PS-NET and the Palestinians.
DeleteHere is your NET defined
a) millions of people who claim that b) millions of their ancestors (who were repeatedly counted), c) witnessed an extended event (14,600 days), d) an event which they believe they were commanded to immediately and perpetually commemorate with 37 (daily) commemorations, e) by a nation which was literate and genealogically astute, f) who are willing to incur tremendous sacrifices based upon this belief (i.e., people might be more willing to accept beliefs which don't require any sacrifice on their part, but might be more skeptical when they have to sacrifice based upon this belief).
Here is the event I propose
A very large numbers of Palestinians (thousands) claim they witnessed ethnic cleansing of large parts of their people over a very long period of time and other ‘atrocities’ perpetuated on them; by the Jews.. They commemorate this disaster. They are willing to die for their claim.
NOW assume that is an accurate portrayal of large segments of the Palestinian population. I understand it needs to be justified.
Does that satisfy for NET ?
TYPO I meant MS-NET not PS-NET in my "Alter Cocker Jewish AtheistMay 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM: comment
Delete@ARE ROSTER who writes "ACJA: Though you think that the this formulation of the Kuzari argument "is much weaker and more fallacious" than the standard formulations, would you agree that Second Son premises fail to address it?"
DeleteShort answer. I am not sure.
I think I questioned G*3 about NETs. Then I think I questioned him about RK's past, present, future dichotomies. Then there is RK's BOMB. BTW way I have tried to directly address RK's arguments as found in RK's video and Permission to Receive.
I am beginning to think it would be better if RG and RK and Rabbi Chait are all addressed separately.
Our conversation has encouraged me to think more about about NET. I have been trying to articulate, snot always clearly admittedly, some of the problems with NETs both here and in some of my blog posts. Thanks again for continued conversation.
TYPO I meant MS-NET not PS-NET in my "Alter Cocker Jewish AtheistMay 29, 2018 at 5:17 PM: comment
Delete@ARE ROSTER who writes “1) Why should we be at least 50% sure that the Sinai events are true? Because we have no more reason to assume that the evidence is fallible than to assume that it is not fallible. Why should any other percentage be appropriate? If you assume (for the sake of the argument) that we simply have no evidence that you could possibly convince the Jews that millions of their ancestors experienced the heavily-commemorated miracles, then we simply don't know whether the evidence is fallible or not. Until evidence tells us otherwise, it more reasonable to be 50% sure that it is fallible, than to be 51% or 49% sure that its fallible.”
DeleteResponse
It is somewhat a side issue but I am confused by your response above.
Why should we be at least 50% sure that the Miracle of the Sun events are true? Because we have no more reason to assume that the evidence is fallible than to assume that it is not fallible. Why should any other percentage be appropriate? If you assume (for the sake of the argument) that we simply have no evidence that you could possibly convince the thousands (millions ?) Portuguese that thousands of their ancestors experienced a commemorated miracle, then we simply don't know whether the evidence is fallible or not. Until evidence tells us otherwise, it more reasonable to be 50% sure that it is fallible, than to be 51% or 49% sure that its fallible.
How does that sound ?
THIS IS NOT AN IMPORTANT POINT FOR NOW. I mention it as a concern.
----------------------------------------------------
I am more concerned about (A) My MS-NET category and miracle of son - see my May 29, 2018 at 5:17 comment to you; and B) My proposed Palestinian story May 29, 2018 at 5:33 PM (assuming it represents their beliefs); is that a NET ? If not pls explain why. THanks
@ARE ROSTER OOPS, just saw you already basically responded to my May 31, 2018 at 1:12 AM comment. You wrote "If, for the sake of the argument, we have no similar evidence [like miracle of sun] which has shown itself to be fallible (I believe we do, but at this point, I can't do justice to this topic), then of course we would need to be at 50% sure that the events took place: unless it contradicts other evidence."
DeleteI think you are being more or less consistent with what you wrote about Sinai.
@ARE ROSTER It seems you are assigning an arbitrary probability of 50% to the miracle of sun.
DeleteEven if we assume the probability that the class of MS-NETs being true is 50%, it does not follow the probability of the miracle of sun ‘ is 50% true. Each story in the MS-NET category gets it’s own individual probability.
Some stories in the MS-NET category should receive a higher probability of being true and others may be assigned a zero or undefined or unknown probability of being true.
Since the miracle of the sun involves a miracle it’s probability of being true is undefined or unknown or arguably zero if based on verifiable empirical data. I suggest we reject the story because of Hume’s criteria without worrying if a miracle ‘really’ occurred. It may also be rejected because there are plausible natural explanations what may have occurred. There are also contrary evidence for the miracle of the sun - for example some people did not believe the miracle.
All the same applies to the class of NET and the Sinai story as you understand it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1. I am not sure what is the purpose of your MS-NET miracle scenario. If I could somehow prove that the evidence supporting the sun miracle is fallible (which I might be able to do, though it would take some time- and patience- consuming dialogue between us) would you then accept the Kuzari argument? If not, what do I gain by addressing the argument? I have already stated that, as far as I am concerned, a) I suspect that I could convince you that there is a relevant counterexample to the sun miracles is fallible, and that some of the elements are questionable but that b) if, indeed I am wrong, and we would have no evidence that SNETs are infallible, we should of course accept the sun miracles (assuming that we have no contradictory evidence against the sun miracles).
Delete2. Though I see no point in addressing the sun miracles as they seem to be irrelevant to your dogmatically-held belief that NETs are surely a fallible form of evidence, I will nevertheless respond to one point: The fact that thousands did not see the sun move is powerful counter-evidence, which outweighs the evidence for the sun moving. (For example: If we would go back in time to the Sinai desert, and we would interview a thousand witnesses who were in the desert who state that manna did not fall, I would admit that the counter-evidence outweighs the NET evidence. Similarly, the fact that fact that thousands didn’t see the sun move is sufficient proof that the sun did not move, and thus also evidence that SNETs are fallible.)
3. Regarding the Palestinians, I believe that they are to an extent right—though they exaggerate the number. Some of them were indeed killed by Jews because they were Arabs; they were ethnically cleansed. So, among other reasons that I need not address, I don’t see how this is an example of a completely-false NET (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that it is actually a NET)..
4. You mentioned that the fact that I provided a true NET – the existence of the Second Temple – is insufficient, because you need “more true NETs.” What number of true NETs do I need to provide to make you happy? Five? Ten? Another arbitrary number? (To be clear: I have already argued that I have no need to provide even a single true NET, as I am not arguing anything, other than we simply don’t know whether the evidence is fallible or not. To make you happy, I provided the Second Temple an example of a true NET, but that was apparently insufficient. . .).
Delete5. Your claim that Hume’s argument would destroy the Kuzari argument is incorrect. The first step is to determine whether the evidence for Sinai is fallible. If we have no evidence either way, we have no choice but to be 50% sure(no other percentage is logical). Once you are 50% sure that the evidence is infallible, it is irrelevant how inherently-likely the events were, even miracles. Even Hume admitted that powerful evidence is sufficient to prove the occurrence of a miracle.
6. I agree (and I don’t think I claimed otherwise) that not all NETs or SNETs are to be deemed to have a 50% likelihood of being true (indeed, I am more sure than 50% that the Temple exists and that even more sure that the Sinai events happened, for reasons that I believe that I can justify at a later point). Rather, I am merely arguing that we must be no more an no less than 50% sure that the evidence for all NETs is fallible (or SNETs, assuming we don’t have any counterexamples).
@ARE ROSTER - thanks for continued dialogue and clarifications. Time permitting will get back to you. I bring up the Palestinians to demonstrate the weakness of 'mass' traditions or beliefs - NETs are not reliable. Moreover, millions of Israelis will have a 'mass' tradition of NO ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Thus NETs are fallible. People come to "believe" religions or nation founding myths for many reasons having nothing to do with reality.
Delete@ARE ROSTER - a mass of people believing something is not reliable for determining truth. You want to special plead for the Jews. That will not fly.
DeleteYou use the NET argument for Sinai. If we replace NET with MS-NET and Miracle of SUN for Sinai your same arguments can be used to argue for the Miracle of Sun. FYI - there are rational explanations consistent with human psychology,ancient human beliefs, ancient Israel history etc: to explain how the Sinai story came about. But you reject those explanations asking for a false NET. SO I ask you for a false MS-NET. You explaining how Miracle of Sun could be 'false' is just like me explaining how Sinai story could be 'false'. You ask me to provide false NETs.
Delete@ARE ROSTER I do not reject the Sinal story because of dogma. But because the story is extremely unlikely per historians, logistics, populations studies, archaeology...And then there is Hume's argument which see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-or-kuzari.html
Delete@ARE ROSTER here is what Hume writes of your Sinai story. “Here then we are first to consider a book [Bible], presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in all probability long after the facts which it relates, corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those fabulous accounts, which every nation gives of its origin. Upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and miracles. It gives an account of a state of the world and of human nature entirely different from the present: Of our fall from that state: Of the age of man, extended to near a thousand years: Of the destruction of the world by a deluge: Of the arbitrary choice of one people, as the favourites of heaven; and that people the countrymen of the author: Of their deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable: I desire any one to lay his hand upon his heart, and after a serious consideration declare, whether he thinks that the falsehood of such a book, supported by such a testimony, would be more extraordinary and miraculous than all the miracles it relates; which is, however, necessary to make it be received, according to the measures of probability above established.”
DeleteHume would not accept your Sinai story.
@ARE ROSTER - you have provided NO EVIDENCE for the Sinai story. You have alleged a mass of people believed something happened a long time ago. What exactly each of those people believed is unknown. Why each person 'believed' what they believed is unknown. You think they believed because the Sinai story as you understand it really happened over 2000 years ago. But that need not be so.
DeleteACJA WROTE: “I bring up the Palestinians to demonstrate the weakness of 'mass' traditions or beliefs - NETs are not reliable. Moreover, millions of Israelis will have a 'mass' tradition of NO ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Thus NETs are fallible. People come to "believe" religions or nation founding myths for many reasons having nothing to do with reality.”
DeleteYou claim that Israelis have a tradition of NO ethnic cleansing. I am not sure why you assume that that is true. Even if it is true, that is no proof that NETs are fallible, since the ethnic cleansing didn't occur on a national scale (and even Palestinians don’t believe that all Jews engaged in ethnic cleansing, only [some of] the soldiers). If you want to continue discussing the Palestinian issues, it would be helpful if you a) specify exactly which false belief you are referring to and provide proof that the b) specific false belief is actually believed by the population. With all due respect, as of yet, I haven’t seen anything the list bit compelling.
ACJA WROTE: “a mass of people believing something is not reliable for determining truth. You want to special plead for the Jews. That will not fly.”
DeleteYou claim that a nation's tradition about the national events of their ancestors is not reliable. And you may be right. But you have provided ZERO evidence that you are right. You have provided no empirical evidence that you are right. I am not specially pleading for Jews; I am actually not pleading at all. I am merely patiently waiting for you to provide some actual evidence for your belief system.
ACJA WROTE: “You use the NET argument for Sinai. If we replace NET with MS-NET and Miracle of SUN for Sinai your same arguments can be used to argue for the Miracle of Sun. FYI - there are rational explanations consistent with human psychology,ancient human beliefs, ancient Israel history etc: to explain how the Sinai story came about. But you reject those explanations asking for a false NET. SO I ask you for a false MS-NET. You explaining how Miracle of Sun could be 'false' is just like me explaining how Sinai story could be 'false'. You ask me to provide false NETs.”
Yes, it is THEORETICALLY possible for other events to have powerful evidence (MS-NETs, for example). I don't see how that is relevant to your as-of-yet unjustified confidence that NETs are fallible. You then assert that your confidence regarding what our nation would believe is derived from human psychology, etc. But your theorizing of "how the Sinai story came about" is not grounded in reality. In order to assert that nations can believe false national events, you must show that it is possible for nations to believe false national events. Religious people can also come up with many arguably-"plausible" scenarios of how our nation was duped into believing the Sinai events, or even the existence of the Second Temple. Yet we are forced to reject those scenarios, because they are not grounded in reality, and surely provide no evidence for your CONFIDENCE that NETs are SURELY fallible. At this point, we have as much evidence that NETs are fallible as that they are infallible: none.
ACJA WROTE: “I do not reject the Sinal story because of dogma. But because the story is extremely unlikely per historians, logistics, populations studies, archaeology...And then there is Hume's argument.”
DeleteIf the evidence for the Sinai events is infallible, I don't see how you can reject the event merely because it is unlikely. Infallible evidence is sufficient to prove that unlikely events happened. For example, if you’d go back in time and interview a thousand of our civilized and intelligent ancestors who report that they, in fact, experienced 40 years of miracles, you would presumably accept their testimony despite the archaeological evidence and despite the fact that they are reporting the occurrence of miracles. Until you show me that NETs are fallible, Hume’s argument and archaeological arguments seem wholly irrelevant and woefully insufficient (though, to be honest, I don’t believe that Hume’s and the archaeological arguments are correct in the first place).
•
ACJA WROTE: “here is what Hume writes of your Sinai story. “Here then we are first to consider a book [Bible], presented to us by a barbarous and ignorant people, written in an age when they were still more barbarous, and in all probability long after the facts which it relates, corroborated by no concurring testimony, and resembling those fabulous accounts, which every nation gives of its origin. Upon reading this book, we find it full of prodigies and miracles. It gives an account of a state of the world and of human nature entirely different from the present: Of our fall from that state: Of the age of man, extended to near a thousand years: Of the destruction of the world by a deluge: Of the arbitrary choice of one people, as the favourites of heaven; and that people the countrymen of the author: Of their deliverance from bondage by prodigies the most astonishing imaginable: I desire any one to lay his hand upon his heart, and after a serious consideration declare, whether he thinks that the falsehood of such a book, supported by such a testimony, would be more extraordinary and miraculous than all the miracles it relates; which is, however, necessary to make it be received, according to the measures of probability above established.”
Hume would not accept your Sinai story.”
Regarding Hume, it is true that he doesn't believe in the Sinai story. But we must analyze his reasoning (why do you roll over and play dead?). First, even if our ancestors were barbaric, there is no evidence that being barbaric leads you to believe false national events. Secondly, as even many secularists have admitted, the ancient Jews were, in certain ways, quite civilized relative to other nations. This raises and obvious question: Why would ONLY the relatively-civilized Ancient Jews believe in a false national event (though I want to be clear that there is no credence to Hume's argument that the mere fact that Jews were barbaric is sufficient to confidently believe that NETs are fallible.)
Hume then correctly engages in an appropriate form of argumentation: He asserts that the Sinai tradition is clearly fallible because other nations also believe in similar myths (i.e., he appears to be cognizant of HIS burden to provide counterexamples). The problem is that he doesn’t show that the myths are similar to the Sinai events, the latter of which were believed to have been experienced by the entire nation and believed to have been immediately, perpetually and burdensomely commemorated (my count has 37 commemorations). So I am forced to assume that Hume wasn’t sufficiently versed in the Bible and its commemorations. Had he been aware of the commemorations, it would seem that he would have accepted the historicity of the Sinai events.
ACJA WROTE: “you have provided NO EVIDENCE for the Sinai story. You have alleged a mass of people believed something happened a long time ago. What exactly each of those people believed is unknown. Why each person 'believed' what they believed is unknown. You think they believed because the Sinai story as you understand it really happened over 2000 years ago. But that need not be so.”
DeleteYou claim that it "need not be be so" that the Sinai events happened. I wholly agree to your final point. It is certainly theoretically possible that the evidence for Sinai is fallible. But I am still waiting for actual evidence for that assertion.
Honestly, stop for a moment. We are talking here about millions of our devoted ancestors (who were literate and genealogically astute [e.g., The Later Prophets and Chronicles report that Cohanim and Levites had genealogical scrolls detailing their descent from the tribe of Levi]) claiming a tradition from their ancestors about the ENTIRE nation (who were repeatedly counted) experiencing varied and extended miracles and that the ENTIRE nation was commanded to COMMEMORATE and PERPETUATE the memory of this event FOREVER. There are numerous, varied commemorations to never forget the miracles of the Exodus. How can you possibly be CONFIDENT that this EVIDENCE is CERTAINLY fallible? Were is your skepticism?
I challenge you to re-read the book of Deuteronomy. You could read through it in a couple of hours. As you read, remind yourself: "Do I really have any evidence for my confidence that this story could have been concocted? Or am I blindly following the dogmatism that pervades secular society?"
As with most of these sorts of conversations, this has been terribly frustrating to follow.
DeleteI am probably overcoming my better judgement by interjecting at all, but here goes anyway...
A few points.
Firstly with regards the Samaritans point, the reason that it is such a perfect counterexample to KP is that is essentially has all of the same features of KP but is held to be untrue. It makes no difference whether the initial event was or was not true, all that is needed is the claim that it is not true that it happened to *their ancestors* as claimed. Effectively KP claims that it is impossible to get a nation to believe a history that never happened to them and that is exactly what we have here.
If you make a separate case not that it is impossible to implant a false national narrative, but that it is impossible to implant a false historical event (irrespective of whom it happened to), this is also disproved by Samaritans, although more subtly. The Samaritan case shows that the myth can spread from nation to nation. By analogy we can equally say a myth can spread say from tribe to tribe, and from clan to clan within a tribe and from family to family within a clan. Thus we need only on family to start such a process off and you no longer have KP, you have typical myth formation.
2: a note on probability
DeleteAR claims that if a form of evidence is of entirely unknown strength we should a-priori have a 50% expectation that it is "infallible". He then defined infallible as impossible to be mistaken (I will hopefully address that definition itself shortly).
To show the clear flaw in this argument we need only bring in a new category set. Let's define a "terrible" set of evidence as any evidence that has a zero probability of being correct (i.e. using it to attempt to verify an event actually totally disproves that veracity of that event). The opposite is say "not terrible", i.e. evidence that may or may not disprove an event. Now when coming up with a new category of evidence, by AR's logic it should have a 50% probability (a-priori) of being "terrible" and 50% of being not terrible. However it should also have a 50% probability of being "infallible" and 50% of being "fallible". As infallible and terrible are mutually exclusive forms of evidence we have a 100% probability of being either "infallible" or "terrible". That is clearly ridiculous as not all forms of evidence fit into either category (actually no natural forms of evidence fall into either category as I will try to show later).
What is happening here is drawing a false equality between two very unequal categories. The underlying assumption is that a form of evidence is just as likely to be infallible as fallible. In actuality for a form of evidence to be infallible means that no matter strength of any evidence against it (other than infallible evidence in which case you would be stuck) you need to accept the event as fact. That is a very strong threshold and a-priori we should not give any form of evidence anywhere near a 50% probability to it being the case (probably the probability should be 0% or close to it).
This brings me to 3: is there such a thing as infallible evidence (as defined by AR)?
DeleteSuch evidence, as stated above needs to be so strong that irrespective of any counter-evidence we still accept it as verifying an event. I would assert that no such evidence can (even in theory) exist.
What would such evidence look like? However it is transmitted to the recipient surely it is subject to tampering (malicious or otherwise), at least in theory? It may seem far-fetched in some cases, but that is not the same as impossible. So surely no evidence is (or can be) infallible as described.
So you would need to rework the definition of infallible to having some sort of threshold of reliability (say 99.99% reliable). Firstly I do not believe that even this definition makes sense (more on that later), but for now that even further strengthens my earlier point around you not being able to draw a 50% threshold of confidence around evidence being infallible. For the definition of 99.99% is arbitrary. If you claim that there is a 50% chance of a category of evidence (a-priori) having that level of reliability, what had we defined the threshold for infallibility as 99.9% would that have a lower probability? If so why?
Which leads me to 3 - on why the entire percentage probability thing makes no sense in the context we are talking about.
DeleteA category of evidence can not be infallible, nor does it have a set percentage chance of being correct or incorrect. What evidence does is update our already existing a-priori expectation of the veracity of an event. The strength of the evidence will update our assumed probability for an event based on Bayes' theorem. However that only works given that you have some set of a-priori probabilities (around the probability of the event in absence of the evidence and the evidence in absence of the event).
So if we truly have evidence that we have no idea as to its level of reliability what "probability" should we assign to it? The answer is simply that it should have no effect on our a-priori probability of an event occurring - i.e. we should entirely ignore the evidence.
To be clear I don't necessarily thing that, say, a strong tradition etc. fall into the category of evidence with no idea on it's level of reliability. I am merely pointing out that AR's argument (that if we have no idea whether there is a way that the evidence is falsifiable or not we should assign it a 50% probability) is fallacious.
In essence what I believe (AR's version, but to some degree the other versions too) of KP tries to do is to amalgamate a number of forms of evidence to make a new "super-category" of evidence that is claimed to be infallible.
DeleteSo the argument goes that if an event is attested to by:
-claim of many witnesses
-chanin of transmission
-rememberence
-etc.
Then it is a new category of event altogether. Of course from a probability theory perspective this would seem to be untrue. Each of the pieces of evidence adds up to the entire picture and will have an effect on our a posteriori probability of the event, however mounting lines of evidence don't produce a new category of evidence, merely somewhat stronger evidence with the increased strength dependent on the strength of each factor and their interplay.
I would note that the same basic argument can be made against the claim that 1 million witnesses to an event is of a category on its own compared to a somewhat smaller number. It is not in a separate category, we can at least in theory deal with each witness separately, updating our probabilities as we add witnesses. If you think about it that way, you can quite easily (I hope) see that by adding witnesses there is only marginal benefit to the strength of the overall testimony. How much stronger is, say, the witness statement of 1 million witnesses compared to say half a million (I guess pretty much insignificant). How about one thousand compared to 500? etc. I think the vast majority of the benefit of multiple testimonies comes in the first few and then there is little marginal additional benefit by adding witnesses. As noted by ACJA, in the case of Exodus the numbers actually work against the account as there is decent evidence that those numbers were simply not available in the region in that era.
5
DeleteThis leads on to the "but why don't you find this particular set of evidences elswhwere". You could similarly ask "If testimony of 1 million witnesses is not far stronger that 1,000 - or 100, then why don't we have anywhere as many cases of false testimony of 1 million witnesses compared to 100?". The answer is simply that it is far less usual to have a gathering of 1 million than 100 and therefore the set of opportunities is smaller. Similarly the particular conglomeration of a number of lines of evidence become increasingly less likely as the details grow thereby reducing the probability that you will find a comparable set of evidence in very different circumstances (i.e. ACJA's "texas sharpshooter fallacy")
@ARE ROSTER - Thanks for your insights. I am going to bow out for now and allow YONI2 and you to have the floor if either of you care to continue the discussion. Good Shabbas
Delete@ACJA It was nice chatting. Thanks for giving me the last word, though I know you have what to respond.
Delete@Yoni I will respond hopefully over the next couple of days, but possibly as late as 6/16/18.
@YONI2 (ARE ROSTER - please do not bother to respond to this comment since you and YONI2 have the floor. This is for YONI2 - I wonder what he thinks.)
DeleteYONI2 What do you think of this ?
If a hypothesis is contrary to the overall if not every expert opinion, the prior probabilities are set very low. Also, if a hypothesis is contrary to science the prior probabilities should be set very low.
The Sinai story as Are Roster understands it, involves millions of people. Expert opinion rejects such a notion thus the priors are set low. Miracles violate science and thus should be given a very low prior probability.
National Foundation myths are unreliable. Ancient peoples understandings and writings of events are not reliable. So such ‘evidence’ does not change our very low priors very much.
@ACJA
Delete"If a hypothesis is contrary to the overall if not every expert opinion, the prior probabilities are set very low. Also, if a hypothesis is contrary to science the prior probabilities should be set very low."
- Pretty much, yes. I think you need to be careful with use of "expert opinion", as what makes someone an expert? It is more about building up an overall picture of the world and how it operates (i.e. science) and then seeing if a new hypothesis is expected to occur or not. That level of expectation *is* the prior probability.
All that evaluation of evidence is really is is the process of updating the framework, which changes the probability from the prior (the probability we assign to the event in a world that excludes the evidence) to the posterior (the probability that we assign to the event in the world that includes the evidence). Poor evidence is evidence that doesn't really change our view of the world much (with respect to the event we are analysing); "good" evidence does...
... As for the rest of your statement, I agree. We have an event with a very low prior probability. It is unclear how strong the evidence needed to support such an extreme claim (even were it a well attested event through multiple lines of documentary evidence clearly written contemporaneously to the event it would seem that the likelihood would be that the event was actually very different to that reported but that it was somehow misinterpreted by the witnesses at the time). However the actual evidence for the event is, as you say, not particularly strong at all. The prior worldview allows far more easily for the evidence to arise absent the event than for the event to arise (with or without the evidence).
DeleteI am not sure if I will have the time to continue this back and forth for to much longer, so I will leave you with the last word after this response (perhaps in a few weeks I will have the time to pick it up again, but perhaps not):
DeleteYoni wrote: “Firstly with regards the Samaritans point, the reason that it is such perfect counterexample to KP is that is essentially has all of the same features of KP but is held to be untrue. It makes no difference whether the initial event was or was not true, all that is needed is the claim that it is not true that it happened to *their ancestors* as claimed. Effectively KP claims that it is impossible to get a nation to believe a history that never happened to them and that is exactly what we have here.
I considered the Samaritans counterexample vis-a-vis the KP before I noticed that you raised it, so I guess we think alike. However, upon even a bit of scrutiny, it fails. Miserably.
You first claim that “KP claims that it is impossible to get a nation to believe a history that never happened to them.” I do not believe KP claims anything of that sort. All KP claims is that we have no evidence that you could get a nation to believe in a false national event. We merely ask for evidence.
I don’t see how the fact that the Samaritans are mistaken about their ancestry (a common mistake) shows that the Sinai history might be false (an uncommon mistake). By way of example, I am friendly with an individual who did not know he was adopted until he was 11 years old. Up till that point, he believed that 1) millions of Jews witnessed the existence of the Second Temple and that 2) he was a descendant of those original Jews. The fact that he was mistaken about his ancestry doesn’t necessarily force us to assume that it’s plausible that our belief regarding the existence of the Second Temple is fallible or weak.
What do you, Yoni, assert? You claim that, though the Jews believe that their ancestors witnessed the Sinai events, it is possible that the Sinai events NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL. To provide empirical evidence for such a possibility (that’s all we are asking for!), you need to show that people can believe in an event believed to have happened to the nation WHICH ACTUALLY NEVER HAPPENED AT ALL. You have no empirical evidence for that belief.
Yoni stated: “If you make a separate case not that it is impossible to implant a false national narrative, but that it is impossible to implant a false historical event (irrespective of whom it happened to), this is also disproved by Samaritans, although more subtly. The Samaritan case shows that the myth can spread from nation to nation. By analogy we can equally say a myth can spread say from tribe to tribe, and from clan to clan within a tribe and from family to family within a clan. Thus we need only on family to start such a process off and you no longer have KP, you have typical myth formation.”
DeleteThere is no “separate case.” Or any case at all, for that matter. All we are asking is for you to provide actual evidence for your beliefs. Contrary to your claim, the Samaritan case does not show that “a MYTH can spread from nation to nation.” It merely shows that belief in a TRUE event can spread from nation to nation. Additionally, you claim that we need “only on[e] family to start such a process.” How do you know? The mere fact that a small group of people can be swallowed into a large nation’s beliefs doesn’t NECESSARILY imply that one family can convince an entire nation that they all experienced a national miracle. Indeed, the belief is that millions of our ancestors experienced miracles. How could one family convince all the millions of other Jews that all their ancestors experienced miracles? The mere fact that AFTER A NATION BELIEVES AN EVENT, a small group can be swallowed into that group doesn’t necessitate your extravagant, implausible, and even outragious assertion.
Additionally, you claim that the Samaritans’ beliefs are “held to be untrue.” But why are they held to be untrue? The primary evidence for the untruth of their beliefs is because God’s Bible states that it’s untrue. Essentially, you are arguing the following: “I can presume that NETs are fallible, because God informs us that NETs are fallible.” That argument would only work for someone who believes that God inspired the Bible, but shouldn’t work for one who doesn’t believe in a divinely-inspired Bible (i.e., how could the author of the Book of Kings be trusted regarding the history of the Samaritans who lived far from him?).
Additionally, we must inquire regarding the date when the Samaritans developed the belief that they actually descend from Israelites (rather than from converts). We have no good evidence (as far as I am aware, although you might be able to show me otherwise) regarding how far back their belief regarding their descent from Israelites goes (perhaps a few hundred years). Perhaps this belief developed recently, after the Samaritans’ numbers dwindled to a small group of 800 people, who lived 3,000 years after the events. Their false belief regarding their ancestry doesn’t necessarily imply that thousands of Jews who lived 500 or rather 1,000 years after the events could believe in a false NET.
Additionally, even if we trust the Book of Kings that the original Samaritans were converts, there is no evidence that Israelites from Northern Israel didn’t eventually join, mix-with and eventually outnumber the Samaritans. So the Samaritans’ belief might be true: the vast majority of them may actually descend from Israelites (genetic studies, for whatever they are worth, seem to render this sort of compromise, according to Wikipedia).
Yoni wrote “a note on probability AR claims that if a form of evidence is of entirely unknown strength we should a-priori have a 50% expectation that it is "infallible". He then defined infallible as impossible to be mistaken (I will hopefully address that definition itself shortly).
DeleteTo show the clear flaw in this argument we need only bring in a new category set. Let's define a "terrible" set of evidence as any evidence that has a zero probability of being correct (i.e. using it to attempt to verify an event actually totally disproves that veracity of that event). The opposite is say "not terrible", i.e. evidence that may or may not disprove an event. Now when coming up with a new category of evidence, by AR's logic it should have a 50% probability (a-priori) of being "terrible" and 50% of being not terrible. However it should also have a 50% probability of being "infallible" and 50% of being "fallible". As infallible and terrible are mutually exclusive forms of evidence we have a 100% probability of being either "infallible" or "terrible". That is clearly ridiculous as not all forms of evidence fit into either category (actually no natural forms of evidence fall into either category as I will try to show later).”
I don’t see any “clear flaw.” First your example of a “terrible set of evidence” that has a “zero probability of true” is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. Once a fact is shown to be evidential, it cannot be terrible evidence. I have already displayed that our tradition is of evidentiary value (I have multiple proofs for this assumption, including the fact that our tradition regarding the existence of the Second Temple has been proven true, thus implying that national traditions are of evidentiary value). So your hypothetical has no application whatsoever. We can be 100% certain that the evidence for Sinai isn’t “terrible.”
In actuality, one might be able to argue that there is more than a 50% chance that the evidence for Sinai is infallible. I will explain. It is clear that a true event can create a NET belief. Until I have evidence that a false event can create a NET belief, I will assume that it cannot. Meaning, you are claiming that there is some sort of “myth-making-process-that-can-create-false-NETs” or flying-spaghetti-monster (for that matter), that could justify your assumption that people can be forced to gobble up false natoinal beliefse. However, I am entitled to assume that those processes and flying-spaghetti-monsters do not exist, until I have some evidence that they do exist. Thus, at this point, one might be able to argue that we can be more than 50% sure that NETs are not fallible. At the very least, we can be at least 50% sure that NETs are infallible.
If the term “fallible” rubs you the wrong way, then apply the term “sufficiently-strong-to-prove-a-miracle” (Hume gave an example of this sort of a strong form of evidence). Why are you sure that the evidence for Sinai is sufficiently weaker than Hume’s hypothetical evidence? Why do you assume that it is in any way weaker than Hume's evidence? Do you have any evidence that the Sinai evidence is sufficiently weaker than Hume’s hypothetical evidence? If you don’t have any evidence that it weaker than Hume’s evidence, shouldn't you be unsure whether the Sinai evidence is sufficient to prove that a miracle happened?
At some point, you have to provide support for your beliefs. You claim that one could convince a nation that millions of their ancestors witnessed an false event. Yet you provide no support for your assertion.
Yoni wrote: “What is happening here is drawing a false equality between two very unequal categories. The underlying assumption is that a form of evidence is just as likely to be infallible as fallible. In actuality for a form of evidence to be infallible means that no matter strength of any evidence against it (other than infallible evidence in which case you would be stuck) you need to accept the event as fact. That is a very strong threshold and a-priori we should not give any form of evidence anywhere near a 50% probability to it being the case (probably the probability should be 0% or close to it).”
DeleteI fail to understand your point. Perhaps if I rephrase it it would be helpful. You are arguing that it is certain that Jews could believe in a false national history, since if Jews posses the strength to resist believing in a false national history, that would mean than in a hypothetical, fanciful sumo-wrestling match between Sinai and a fallible form of evidence, the Sinai evidence would win. Your point is tautological. It is is also irrelevant: It also puts the perverbial horse before the cart.
Indeed, just imagine a “prophet” trying to convince the Jews to accept his false national history. Unsurprisingly, the educated, intelligent, and literate Jews respond, “We know enough about our history to know that your are lying.” The “prophet” responds: “Well, if you don’t believe my version of history, that would mean that this form of evidence would win a hypothetical sumo-wrestling match against all other fallible forms of evidence. This is an unconscionable! So, G-d damn it, you Jews must accept my version of history.”
You claim that we should be 100% sure that the evidence for Sinai is fallible, due to your hypothetical sumo match. What about the evidence for the existence of the moon? Are you 100% sure that the evidence for the moon is fallible? Are you 100% sure that the evidence for the Civil War is fallible? I would assume not. So why are you 100% sure that the evidence for the Sinai events is fallible? Why is only Sinai evidence subject to your hypothetical sumo match but not Civil-War evidence?
Yoni wrote “This brings me to 3: is there such a thing as infallible evidence (as defined by AR)?
DeleteSuch evidence, as stated above needs to be so strong that irrespective of any counter-evidence we still accept it as verifying an event. I would assert that no such evidence can (even in theory) exist. What would such evidence look like? However it is transmitted to the recipient surely it is subject to tampering (malicious or otherwise), at least in theory? It may seem far-fetched in some cases, but that is not the same as impossible. So surely no evidence is (or can be) infallible as described.”
You claim that any evidence is “surely subject to tampering.” Is there some law of nature that demands that all evidence be subject to tampering? Indeed, are you stating that you are 100% certain that it is possible for the evidence for the existence of the State of New Jersey to be fallible? If yes, why are you so certain?
@YONI2 (ARE ROSTER pls do not respond) "All KP claims is that we have no evidence that you could get a nation to believe in a false national event." One of my responses to this was the palestinians- that their version of history does not match the Israeli version. Another response is a small group can accept a false event, and as the population grows you have thousands accepting a false event. That is one way myths, rumors... can become accepted by a large mass of people.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@YONI2 (ARE ROSTER pls do not respond)I have repeatedly shown that Hume would not accept the Sinai story and that AR keeps misrepresenting Hume's see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-or-kuzari.html
Delete@YONI2 (ARE ROSTER pls do not respond) "All KP claims is that we have no evidence that you could get a nation to believe in a false national event."
Delete1) The alleged event at Sinai was not a national event. It occurs to a tribe of escaped slaves in a desert someplace unknown. 2) an event at Sinai may have occurred, but it does not mean something supernatural occurred. 3) The tribes are from the nation Egypt. Also, the Egyptian people had no Sinai tradition. In a sense they accepted a false national tradition.
@AR (et al)
DeleteI have read your response a few times and to be honest I haven’t seen anything there that really rebuts anything I said, so I'm (mostly) going to leave it there -other than a few minor clarifications. If anyone else feels that there is a point I haven’t adequately addressed please do try to explain which point and maybe elaborate and I will try to give it a go. As noted earlier, these arguments tend to be exercises in futility, so I won't go on needlessly repeating myself.
Clarifications:
1- Samaritans - nothing AR has said has explained away the salient point that Samaritans prove that the story can spread. Unless there is a clear line that can be drawn at a point between 1 person believing the story (or a version of it) and all the people that currently believe it then Samaritans demolish KP. (they actually really show why KP doesn't need demolishing at all. It is trivial that any story can spread and therefore given time any story can become accepted no matter the content. ergo national narrative of any sort is only weak support for an event).
2 - probabilities. As said, there is no such thing as a form of evidence that has a probability of being right or wrong, merely factors to change priors. However strong the evidence it is by definition fallible against an event with a low enough prior.
3 - fallibility. Yes, the evidence for the moon, Brookline, the civil war and AR's existence (from my perspective - there may be an argument that from his perspective the evidence for him is infallible, but even if that is true it is the exception to the rule). Evidence needs to help fit an event into the otherwise known (actually assumed) background picture. That is all evidence is.
Mini anecdote (because I can't help myself). I got a taxi ride the other day and the driver told me he is from Somaliland. I hadn't realised that country existed (I know, and indictment on my education!), but on him telling me that and me asking a few simple questions, I immediately incorporated the existence of Somaliland into my assumed knowledge. This despite the clear paucity of evidence I had for its existence. I have yet to check on Wikipedia, so I have some doubts, however even if I did so and found a page on it, that would still be fairly scant evidence for something so large as a country's existence. Clearly in my mind there is a high prior to there existing additional countries I have never heard of - but *also* a low probability threshold for me accepting that one does as an assumption. Why? As it has little impact on my life day to day, and on the rare occasion that it does the worst I am risking by assuming its existence is some minor embarrassment fairly easily explained away. Was it to become a significant driver of life decisions (because Somaliland exists I must, say, donate $50 a month to some cause) I would do significantly more research before accepting its veracity. Were it to drive pretty much all decisions in my life the threshold would be far, far higher. Certainly from one taxi-driver saying it I wouldn't give it much credence at all *despite* the high prior.
Finally (to AR; will respond to ACJA separately) - I have been thinking about how much poorer AR's version of KP is to e.g. RG's. On contemplation, however I think all he has done is removed all of the sophistry around it. That is actually a favour to everyone as the sophistry could confuse but didn't really have much of a point. AR's version does not really need a rebuttal as simply reading it one can see the massive work that "Until I have evidence that a false event can create a NET belief, I will assume that it cannot" needs to do in the argument, with nothing to support an assertion that it can do that work.
DeleteI think we are done here unless there are any new points. Not trying to be rude or anything, but I believe all the other points have already been adequately addressed, so refer to my previous comments and if they don't work for you then we will have to just agree to disagree (despite me being right ;) )
@ACJA
DeleteRe the Palestinians, that as well as pretty much any other national belief happily refutes AR. As noted above, his version of KP is so stripped away that it barely needs a counterexample as he has not given any specific reason to accept this particular national history vs. any other. He notes that it is near unique as national beliefs go, however gives no particular reason to assume that the factors that make it unique also make it uniquely reliable. As such all national beliefs (the vast majority of which are at least partially untrue) disprove his KP. Other KPs make an attempt at creating sophisticated argument to treat Sini as a unique case specially deserving of belief that the tradition would be robust against either spreading or tampering (deliberate or otherwise) from the start. That adds more “fluff” to the argument, but essentially there remains no evidence for any of those claims.
Re Hume – need to be careful about argument from authority. Hume’s personal acceptance or otherwise of Sini is fairly irrelevant. However the Hume argument is fairly robust (I have never actually read it from Hume, only others) and seems to be essentially my point about priors vs. posteriors. A low enough prior means that even post strong evidence we are left with the assumption that the evidence is faulty even if the prior likelihood of that is low too, provided that the prior of the event is lower. Actually I think we could potentially push that even further as the posterior threshold for accepting the belief that the evidence is faulty is probably far lower than the posterior threshold for believing the event (assuming that the event is life changing). Potentially some sort of reverse Pascal’s wager – need a little more thought.
Re your final point – I don’t see how the alleged event was not a national event. Taken as written the people at the time had become a nation (or became a nation through the event) thus it is a national event. Your 2 is reasonable, but your 3 I don’t get as assuming it was a false tradition would surely be circular?
It appears to me that you haven’t addressed some of my responses, and so I just want to be sure that you understood them (against my better judgment, I couldn't resist). I will be as brief as I can be, for the sake of clarity. I will not raise all of my arguments:
Delete1. You assert that all evidence must be fallible. Do you have any logical basis for your assertion? Please elaborate. You state when evidence “is transmitted to the recipient surely it is subject to tempering, at least in theory. It may seem far-fetched in some cases, but that is not the same as impossible. So surely no evidence is (or can be) infallible as described.” I quite simply could not follow your logic here. Please elaborate. Specifically, you argue that you are 100% sure that the evidence for Brookline is fallible. While I agree that it is possible that we are living in a matrix of some sort, why are you 100% sure that such a matrix could exist? Do you have any evidence that it is possible for a matrix to exist? Similarly, do you have any evidence for your assertion that it is the evidence for, say, Australia, is SURELY fallible and curruptible?
2. You claim that it is more likely, a-priori, that the Jews would believe in a false national history than that miracles took place. Do you have any evidence for your assertion?
3. What evidence do you have that the Samaritans’ beliefs about the fact that they descend from the ancient Israelites is entirely false?
4. Do you have any evidence regarding at which point in history the Samaritans’ false belief about their ancestry developed? If your evidence does not conclusively show the antiquity of the Samaritans’ false belief about their ancestors, do you not agree that there is a may be a conceivable difference between the false beliefs of a group of 800 people who lived 3,300 after the events, and the beliefs of millions of people who lived much 500-1000 years after the events.
5. You claim: Unless there is a clear line that can be drawn at a point between 1 person believing the story (or a version of it) and all the people that currently believe it then Samaritans demolish KP. (they actually really show why KP doesn't need demolishing at all. It is trivial that any story can spread and therefore given time any story can become accepted no matter the content. ergo national narrative of any sort is only weak support for an event).” You claim that the fact that the Samaritans accepted the story from the Jews proves that the Jews themselves could have been duped into believing the story. You state that a clear line cannot be drawn between the two scenarios. Leaving aside the other critiques I have regarding your analogy, are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE and inconceivable for it to be easier for history to spread once it has been entrenched and believed by a nation than it would for it to gain traction on its own. In other words, you claim that just as the Samaritans accepted the story from millions of Jews, the Jews themselves would have been willing to develop and accept this story. However, do you not agree that it is conceivably more difficult for the belief to gain traction than it would be for it to spread after it was already accepted by millions of people? Do you have any proof that there is absolutely no distinction between the two situations? Similarly, is it not conceivable that it is easier for a belief regarding a true national event to spread than a belief regarding a false national event? Do you have any evidence that there is absolutely no distinction between the two situations?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete6. For the sake of clarity, my version of the KP does not assert that "Until I have evidence that a false event can create a NET belief, I will assume that it cannot." To the contrary, I have asserted that we should be unsure whether a false event can create a NET belief, we should be unsure whether a false event can create a NET belief. I was merely asserting that “one might be able to argue” that we should assume a false event cannot create a NET belief (this is Bertrand Russell's teapot argument). In other words, although I don’t think that it is absurd to make such an assumption (that NETs are infallible), that it not a part of my version of the KP.
Delete7. How does your hypothetical (that if NET evidence is infallible, and it would hypothetically face off against a fallible form of evidence, we would [obviously] be forced to reject the fallible form of evidence) render the Jews belief about their history less reliable?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete8. I would like to engage your apriori argument a bit more (though it is seems to me that your apriori argument is devastatingly flawed, even when applied to non-NET situations).
DeleteI would assume that you would agree that if we were to go back in time 3,300 years and interview 1,000 Jews and they all say, "We experienced miracles for 40 years," you would say that despite the low apriori likelihood of miracles, and despite the lack of archaeological remains, we should accept their testimony. I would assume that if we'd go even 150 years after the Sinai event, and we were to interview 1,000 witnesses who state "we heard from our grandfathers who testified that their fathers experienced miracles for 40 years and were commanded to perpetuate and commemorate these events forever," you would also accept that it is more likely that a miracle took place, than that the Jews' history of events that took place 150 years earlier is false.. The further we go away from Sinai, you assume that this somehow flips (i.e., if we'd interview a thousand witnesses who lived 1,000 years after Sinai, you would say that it is more likely that the history is false, than that miracles took place).
In other words, you are assuming, that once we go far enough away the veracity of the testimony dips sufficiently for you to assume that it is more likely that the Jews would believe in a false national history than that miracles took place. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the veracity of the history dips to such a large extent after, say, 1,000 years from the event? I have yet to see any. So while I agree that it is possible that the veracity dips to some extent, I simply am unwilling to confidently assert that it is obvious that it dips sufficiently for us to assert that it is more likely that the Jews would believe in a false national history, than that miracles would take place (BTW, I have more to say about the Samaritans, but I will leave that for a later point in the discussion).
@YONI@ (ARE ROSTER PLEASE DO NOT REPLY> THANKS) your wrote "Re your final point – ..., but your 3 I don’t get as assuming it was a false tradition would surely be circular?" I am not assuming Sinai is false. What I am saying there are two 'national' histories. 1) The Exodus story 2) Egyptian history. The former has an Exodus, while the latter does not. Now some religious may claim Egypt does not record defeats. But that proves my point. That people, in this case ancient Egyptians accepted a false history.
Delete@YONI2 (ARE ROSTER please do not respond) - I have a category called MS-NET: A MS-NET is any event which has evidence which is similar to the evidence of the Miracle of the Sun events. What is the evidence for the Miracle of the Sun ? a) Thousands of people of a nation who claim that they witnessed an event b) accounts of the event are passed down as family history. c) an event which played a role in the political direction of the nation d) millions from that nation keep participating in remembrance or celebration of the event.
DeleteI have argued that whenever ARE ROSTER mentions NET and Sinai story, we simply replace those words with MS-NET and Miracle of the Sun respectively. That shows the weakness of the structure of his argument.
FYI - I cited Hume to demonstrate that ARE ROSTER was misreading Hume, as if Hume would accept Sinai. See this post for more http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-or-kuzari.html
(Yes, I am aware that I am being drawn back into an argument that I previously decided to quit. Sue me!)
Delete@AR
1 – I think you are conflating the truth of an event with our knowledge of its truth. It is possible that Brooklyn exists (indeed I consider that possibility as fairly likely). Even if it does exist, that does not mean that our knowledge of its existing can ever be perfect. To go to your (extreme) example, I can’t know for sure that the matrix *does* (or even can) exist, however I also can’t know for sure that it *doesn’t*. So I can’t know anything for sure (apart from possibly my momentary experience as it occurs).
2 – the definition of miracle demands it.
3 – I don’t need any. The premise you are trying to support asserts it.
4 – yes, there is a conceivable (although likely minor) difference of a quantitative, but not qualitative nature. However the case proves the possibility of the spreading of myth.
5 – It is conceivable that the myth gets easier to spread as it grows, however there is evidence against that hypothesis in that the story grew to the Samaritans but not further; i.e. it did not get significantly easier to spread following that growth. Far more likely the probability of the story spreading is dependent more on the geopolitical realities of the place it is spreading from and too rather than either of their absolute or relative numbers. Again I need no proof for any of this, it is the initial assumption as it fits better with our day-to-day experience of the world (no supernatural interventions, testimony being unreliable etc.)
6 – no idea what you are talking about.
7 – again, no idea what you are talking about, but I would note that I reject the categories fallible and infallible with respect to evidence.
@AR
Delete8 – you assume waaay too much! I’ll engage your hypothetical for a little just to show how far off we are from each other here. If I was placed in Israel of 2488 (by our Anno Mundi calendar) and a hoard of people crossed the border pillaging and plundering etc. I then got the opportunity to individually interview a significant number of them and got pretty much the biblical story (plagues manna, sini etc.) from all of them, I would likely still be fairly sceptical with respect to at least *some* of the details of the story. I would likely at that point accept that they had been wandering in the desert for a number of years, had originated in Egypt etc. The supernatural bits, and for that matter a lot of the not supernatural, just less reasonable bits I would be at least somewhat sceptical of. In order to verify those parts of the story I would want (some or all of):
a - to cross examine the testimony bearers with respect to details and see how consistent the detail was across the witnesses.
b – some sort of corroborating evidence around the more extreme parts of the story. Multiple written accounts of details put down pretty much immediately after the event (within days), other physical evidence (some left over manna to lab test would be nice; examination of the Luchos etc. would all be helpful).
c – corroborating evidence from a distanced party (interview some Egyptian’s, Moabites etc. for their testimony)
etc. etc.
The degree to which I would then accept these parts of the story would depend largely on the degree to which I would expect to be able to find additional evidence vs. the amount of additional evidence I found, the consistency of the testimony etc.
Were my hypothetical interviewing of the Israelites to happen several years later, and certainly if it was decades later, I would put a higher degree of burden on the alternative forms of evidence. If the events in question were commemorated in group format on a regular basis in the intervening years that would further strengthen my need for corroborating evidence, as it would have given the story time to even out amongst the eyewitnesses thus making their independence a less reliable factor. Once we get to a point where there are no eyewitness accounts left (let alone 150 years after the event!) I wouldn’t give it much more credence than I do now without some sort of additional evidence. Interviewing the children of the descendants of the eyewitnesses would only really be useful to the degree that they had preserved the different accounts across their ancestors.
You may think that I am treating this claim with more scepticism than I would any other. In part I am, due to the extreme nature of the claim (both in its nature and in its impact). But in part I am fairly sceptical of all events. Every day when I read the news I take it with a healthy degree of scepticism despite it being sent to me by large organisations set up for the purpose of collating and distributing facts. I recognise that these organisations are subject to bias, sloppiness, over acceptance of poor evidence, etc. I therefore will give greater reliability reports of events that are credible than to those that are less credible (weighted by the amount of data sources I have, information of what *their* data sources are etc.)
@ACJA
Delete1 - I disagree that not remembering a historical reality is the equivalent of acceptance of an inaccurate story. I think the mechanism through which a nation forgets a national event (effectively the event not serving a particular national purpose with respect to remembering it) is different to the mechanism through which a nation accepts a false history (myth formation). So evidence for one is not necessarily evidence for the other.
2 – re MS-NET. Yes, that or any other myth happily destroys KP. What KP tries to do is show that Sini is somehow a special category of event (for which the rules of evidence differ), that the evidence for Sini is a different category of evidence from any other category (and therefore is far, far more reliable) or some combination of the two. Unfortunately, as every example of an event or a piece of evidence is unique it is possible to do the same for any proof of any event (however far fetched). In order to support KP a clearly outlined category of events / evidence would need to be presented with a set of examples to use to test the hypothesis (the set would need to be large enough to avoid statistical error, i.e. to have a higher confidence in the result a larger set would be required).
@YONI2 and @ARE ROSTER I appreciate both of you taking the time to respond to my comments and questions. I hope this long discussion will be of some help to second son, us and anybody else who may stumble upon it.
Delete@YONI2 (ARE ROSTER PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND) - I have written a few posts that something may have happened at Sinai. For many people back then it could have been understood as a divine event of some sort. That was how they could have understood it. But it does not mean it REALLY really involved supernatural. Or it is possible it was all a later fabrication...; and I have written about that a bit as well.
Delete@Yoni. I will respond late next week. So you could relax for the mean time.
Delete@Second Son: Will you ever join the discussion?
@ACJA. Although we agreed not to restart our debate (and I don't intend to restart it), I am curious where you stand. If you'd go back in time to 150 years after Sinai, and you'd ask 1,000 to confirm or deny whether miracles took place, and they confirm that "yes, our grandfathers told us that they experienced miracles." Would you, as does Yoni, confidently and derisively reject the testimony of these thousand witnesses? Would you become a 50/50 agnostic (which would allow you to keep your acronym). Or would you admit that it is more likely than not that a miracle took place? You do not need to justify your response. I am merely curious where you stand.
Delete@ARE ROSTER- my response is very similar to Yoni2. Some of my Kuzari blog posts would apply even if it was the day after Sinai.
Delete@Yoni
Delete1. I need to clarify what I am proposing, because it seems that we are talking past each other. I fully agree that we can never be sure that evidence is infallible. However, that doesn’t render it impossible that a particular form of evidence is infallible. Specifically, I cannot know for sure that the evidence for the Civil War is infallible. But I have to be open to the POSSIBILITY that it is infallible. I will give an extreme example. It may be literally impossible to convince a nation to collectively get together and amputate their legs (though I can never know for sure that it’s inherently impossible). Why? Because it might be that our psychological makeup simply isn’t elastic enough to allow for an entire nation to be convinced to collectively amputate their legs. Similarly, it might be simply impossible to get an entire nation to develop a large mass of fraudulent evidence for a nationally-commemorated event that never happened in the first place. Thus, it is possible that it is impossible for the evidence for the Civil War to be fallible. For someone to claim that it is SURELY or even PROBABLY possible that the evidence for the Civil War is fallible, he would need to bring evidence for that assertion, just as one would need to bring evidence for the assertion that it is certainly or probably possible to convince an entire nation to amputate their legs. Which brings me back to my initial question: Do you have any empirical evidence that NETs are a fallible form of evidence? Do you have any evidence that NETs are an insufficient form of evidence to prove miracles?
2 – I am not sure what you mean when you assert that the definition of a miracle demands that it is more likely that the Jews would believe in a false national history than that a miracle took place. Our history is merely positing that a force of nature exists that possesses the intelligence, power and desire to carry out the events recorded in the Torah. Why is that apriori less likely than that the Jews would believe in a false national history?
3 – You imply that you don’t need to bring evidence that the Samaritan’s belief is false, because assuming the Torah is true, the Book of Kings must be trusted (regarding the Samaritans’ false belief regarding their ANCESTRY). Even if the Torah being true necessitates that the Book of Kings is true (which you are assuming without evidence), your argument still fails. Indeed, even if God Himself on Mount Sinai said, “BTW, NETs are a highly unreliable form of evidence. It is pure sophistry, special-pleading, and a laughable jumble of illogical and self-refuting propositions that expose the inner doubts and desperation of Kuzari proponents. Though I, God, exists, please, please know that the Kuzari argument is a disaster and all who utter it should be called out for their error”--you would still not be allowed to presume that NET evidence is fallible, if you don’t believe that God spoke at Sinai. If the Torah says that NETs are fallible, then indeed we can be sure that NETs are fallible, but are we are left with the following two choices: We believe that NETs are fallible because a) God told us that NETs are fallible or because b) we can presume without any evidence that NETs are fallible. It is obvious that the second option (option b) is completely illogical (assuming things without evidence), and so we’d be forced to accept option a: we believe NETs are fallible because God told us that NETs are fallible. But then we’d be required to believe in the Torah.
In short, the mere fact that you believe that the Torah implies that NETs are a fallible form of evidence, that doesn’t support your claim that we can PRESUME that NETs are fallible.
@yoni 5 – If it is conceivable that myth gets easier to spread as it grows, as you admitted, then you don’t have a proper counterexample with the Samaritans (the fact that it didn’t spread from the Samaritans is no proof whatsoever. It could be exceedingly difficult for NETs to spread [which is why it didn’t spread after the Samaritans had adopted it], but ever harder for them to develop, so you have no evidence that our belief regarding national history is certainly fallible).
Delete6 – I will address this point later, because it is not central to my argument.
7 – Again, you will need to bring evidence that all evidence must be fallible.
8 – You claim even if you could interview a thousand Jews who lived 150 years after the Exodus, you still would not give their testimony much credence. Again, I will pose my question: Why do you assume that it more likely their belief is false than that God exists? Furthermore, you do give a hypothetical of evidence that suits your (arbitrary) tastes that would be sufficient for you to accept the belief in the miracles (sending the manna to a lab, examining the luchos). However, if, as you have stated, miracles are apriori the least likely eventuality, one wonders why you would accept even your hypothetical evidence?
To me, it seems irrational to ignore good evidence, merely because the evidence points to unlikely events. Indeed, you claim that you are even skeptical of newspapers, because of their bias, etc. I fully agree that, for example, the New York Times is a highly fallible form of evidence. Indeed, they admit their fallibility nearly every day when they post “corrections.” Now: let’s apply your “apriori argument.” According to you, when the New York Times publishes highly unlikely events, they should be wrong the vast majority of the time. But that is obviously not true. Indeed, I don’t believe that there is any empirical evidence that the New York Times’ percentage of accuracy is ANY LESS when they publish regarding a highly unlikely event (e.g., when the New York Times reported that there is a new law of physics which resulted in a large explosion over Hiroshima and Nagasaki – events which had exceedingly low apriori likelihood, just as low as the Sinai events – the likelihood that they were mistaken probably wasn’t that much lower than when they report events which had a very high apriori likelihood.) Do you have any empirical evidence that when a powerful form of evidence, such as the New York Times, reports regarding low apriori events it has a significantly higher likelihood of being inaccurate? (And even if your apriori argument is correct, regarding NETs the argument regardless fails, since we don't have any evidence that a miracle occurring is less likely than that Jews could be convinced to believe in a false national history).
Does anyone (other than @AR) think there is anything substantive left to respond to?
Delete@yoni
DeleteIt was nice chatting with you. Perhaps I am just too skeptical for my own good, but I just don't see any evidence for your claims.
@Second Son. Although both Yoni and ACJA vehemently disagreed with the formulation of the Kuzari argument that I have been presenting ("We can't assume that NET's are fallible [or insufficient evidence to prove that a miracle happened], unless we have evidence that it is fallible or insufficient"), ACJA has explicitly stated that he is not sure whether this formulation is addressed by your Kuzari book (though ACJA believes that this formulation is much worse than any other formulation of the argument).
DeleteCan you please discuss whether your book addresses this formulation of the argument, and, if yes, how?
I havn't been following the discussion here.
DeleteNETs are not a real thing. It's a catagory R' Gottleib built around matan Torah in order to be able to claim 1. that matan Torah is unique and 2. that matan Torah is an NET, there are no false NETs, therefore matan Torah is true.
There's lots of reasons to dismiss NETs. Mass revelations in other traditions, the lack of a real mesorah from matan Torah until today, the impossibility of millions of witnesses at matan Torah (and R' Gottlieb's stipulation that a few thousand people is not enough to count as an NET) and so on.
@G*3 see this post http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/09/kuzari-argument-part-6.html
DeleteG*3 I think it makes sense for you to read the YONI2, ARE ROSTER and my comments. Not to respond to any of it, just to get a feel of various perspectives.
@YONI2 (ARE ROSTER DO NOT RESPOND) Our [Miracle of Sun witnesses and their descendants] history is merely positing that a force of nature exists that possesses the intelligence, power and desire to carry out the events recorded in the stories of the Miracle of the Sun narrative. Why is that apriori less likely than that those peoples would believe in a false mass history?
Delete1. I just wanted to point out I was using NET as a shorthand, and to note that this version of Kuzari was inspired by (or even copied from, with some possible modifications,) R' Gottlieb's version.
DeleteWe know what our tradition states, but it bears repeating: a) millions of our ancestors who were repeatedly counted experienced an b) extended event of multiple miracles, who were c) commanded to immediately and perpetually commemorate this event with numerous commemorations, d) the numerous commemorations of this event require some serious sacrifices by the descendants, e) and the nation that reported it was literate and genealogically astute (the element of the commemorations strikes me as most decisive).
In order to prove that such a form of evidence is fallible (or insufficient to prove that a miracle took place), one would need to provide a counterexample wherein this form of evidence—or a similar form of evidence—was found to be false. Now, if you would come forward with a situation where one witness falsely testified, and you would argue, "See I found a counterexample where one witness was caught lying," the Kuzari proponent could easily respond, "One witness lying isn't sufficiently similar to millions of people testifying about their national history." This is obvious, which is why the above-mentioned hypothetical counterexample (one witness lying) is never used even by the most strident Kuzari critics. What about a "national" event involving only 100,000 witnesses? This would mean a counterexample which involves a thirtieth of the number of witnesses that were by Sinai. To say that a thirtieth of our evidence proving itself to be fallible necessarily implies Sinai is fallible doesn't necessarily follow. Which is why 100,000 is probably an insufficient counterexample (let alone the fact that the counterexample would also need to provide commemorations). So we aren't claiming that matan torah is per se unique. We are merely asking whether you have any evidence whatsoever that a similar form of evidence has ever shown itself to be fallible? If not, what is the source of your dogmatism?
2) Regarding mass revelations in other traditions, that is certainly true, but I have yet to see any that have the number and degree of commemorations that are found in the Torah. And, perhaps without fail, they are brief accounts, which can be explained as an optical illusion, which is not necessarily true of the Sinai events, which occurred over a 14,600-day period.
3) For you to argue that our evidence is fallible because there is a "lack of real mesorah," you would need to bring evidence that there is something real missing in our mesorah. For example, millions of Jews believe that millions of our ancestors witnessed the existence of the Second Temple. For you to argue that our tradition regarding the existence of the Second Temple is fallible, you can't merely assert that "there is a lack of real mesorah!" You would need to prove, using evidence, that at one point in our history the entire nation did not believe in the existence of the Temple, and that the belief in the existence of the Temple arose at a later point in our history. In short, although I am open to your evidence, as of yet I see no evidence for your claim that belief in the miracles of the Exodus did not exist until some later point in history—until your provide the evidence for it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete4) I'm not sure what you mean by the "impossibility of millions of witnesses." I assume you mean the fact that archaeology tells us that the population sizes didn't allow for millions of people to have existed at that time (perhaps you mean something else, I'm speculating). Do archaeologists claim that it is impossible for millions of people to been at Sinai or that it is EXCEEDINGLY IMPROBABLE for millions of people to have been at Sinai? If the latter (which is actually the case), that would just mean that our NET evidence is pointing to an exceedingly unlikely event. I do not reject evidence merely because it points to extremely unlikely events (there are additional flaws in your argument, but I don't raise them, because I am not entirely sure what you were referring to). Finally, even if it is proven that millions of people weren't at the Sinai events, I am not entirely sure if that completely defeats the Kuzari argument (I would need to bounce the idea off other people before I vouch for it fully).
Delete@g*3 and Yoni2 (ARE ROSTER PLEASE DONT RESPOND) ARE ROSTER who writes "In order to prove that such a form of evidence (NET) is fallible (or insufficient to prove that a miracle took place), one would need to provide a counterexample wherein this form of evidence—or a similar form of evidence—was found to be false.
DeleteThis same exact argument works for my MS-NET category:
"In order to prove that such a form of evidence (MS-NET) is fallible (or insufficient to prove that a miracle took place), one would need to provide a counterexample wherein this form of evidence—or a similar form of evidence—was found to be false.
@ACJA - you are just repeating yourself. Yes, I agree. As @G*3 says "NETs are not a real thing". It is a category built to support the argument, then throw in some burden of evidence shifting and you have a theory.
DeleteI had four (or five, depending how you count) responses which display the irrelevance and incorrectness of ACJA's MS-NET argument. However, I don't raise them again now, because I don't want to restart the debate with ACJA.
Delete@Second Son Would you agree that the formulation of the Kuzari argument presented here relies on none of the premises you outlined for the Kuzari argument?
Are Roster, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you copy the formulation of the Argument you're referring to as a new comment below?
DeleteI don't think you can construct a Kuzari Argument that's not made exclusively of some of the premises I have here, let alone none of them.
@G*3 - I think ARE ROSTER argument boils down to: There are no known false NETS. Thus we should give our Sinai tradition a 50% chance of being valid evidence for the stories. I hope ARE ROSTER responds to G*3.
DeleteIf so, that's addressed by Premise 4 and its sub-premises.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePremise 4, especially as defined in its subpremises, asserts that there are no false cases of mass-revelation. I am not making such an assertion. At most, I simply don't know whether there are false stories of public events. Similarly, I disagree with Conclusion 2 that "it must be that mass revelations stories can't be faked." I simply don't know whether they can be faked. Additionally, and this is a central point, I actually believe that there are false stories of mass events. I, however, have yet to see false stories that involve immediate and perpetual national commemorations of the event (as well as the other elements contained in the Sinai events that could conceivably or arguably render the tradition more reliable, such as literacy and the duration of the events). So, for multiple reasons, I not only disagree that Premise 4 is a necessary premise for the Kuzari argument, I actually hold that the premise is factually incorrect.
DeleteIn short: 1) Your premise refers to "national revelations," but that it not the evidence that I am vouching for. I am vouching for the evidence for the Sinai events, which is conceivably stronger than that. 2) Even regarding the evidence that I am vouching for (the Sinai evidence), I don't assert that no counterexamples exist or that it is impossible or even unlikely for the evidence to be fallible. I am merely pleading ignorance. Meaning, as of yet, I have YET TO SEE an example of a false NET, although there may very well be many false NETs out there (using NET as a shorthand for an event which contains evidence somewhat similar to the Sinai events).
Although not a necessary element of the Kuzari argument, I happen to be supremely confident that there are no false NETs. As I have mentioned before in this blog, I have read through two high school history books. In neither book was there any reference to any false NETs (a belief in an event which would have had a profound impact on the daily life of the nation). The fact that neither textbook recorded any false NETs implies that they too are unaware of any false NETs.
@ARE ROSTER - I appreciate your clarifications. Does your argument boil down to: There are no known false NETS. Thus we should give our Sinai tradition a 50% chance of being valid evidence for the stories.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOnce you allow that false NETs are possible, the argument falls apart. It is always more likely that a particular supernatural event is false than that it's true, since everything in our experience tells us that supernatural events are either very rare or nonexistent.
DeleteThe argument only works if NETs are *never* false. Only then can the Kuzari Argument work in the face of the odds. Then it can be said, Supernatural events are rare or nonexistent, BUT, NETs are never false, therefore if there is an NET, it must be true, even when it's a supernatural event.
@G*3 (ARE ROSTER DONT RESPOND) "NETs are never false, therefore if there is an NET, it must be true, even when it's a supernatural event." Not so fast. We are comparing two probabilities, and we have extreme uncertainty (a high variance in the estimated probability) for NETs, but a much lower variance in the probability estimate for supernatural. On a separate point check out http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/09/kuzari-argument-part-6.html
Delete@G*3 I don't "allow that false NETs are possible." Rather, "I simply don't know whether false NETs are possible." In other words, it is conceivable that Jews know enough about their history to be capable of rejecting all false NETs. It is also conceivable that they are incapable of rejecting false NETs. If so, I am 50% sure whether NETs are a sufficient form of evidence to prove that a miracle took place.
DeleteYou are claiming that Hume's argument against miracles disproves the reliability of NETs. But Hume himself stated that there is a form of evidence that would be sufficient to prove a miracle. Why are you sure that NET evidence is sufficiently weaker than Hume's form of evidence to allow you to conclude that NETs are CERTAINLY insufficient to prove that a miracle took place?
In addition, if your entire argument against this version of the Kuzari argument is Hume (again, I don't think that Hume would disagree with this version of the argument), you are skating on thin ice, as many philosophers believe that Hume's argument is incorrect (and have empirical evidence, that Hume is incorrect).
@G*3 FYI I think Are Roster is misinterpreting Hume. I have called him out on this several times, but he ignores and keeps repeating. For what Hume actually write see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-or-kuzari.html
Delete@ACJA I'm not sure what you mean that I keep ignoring your point regarding Hume. What did I fail to respond to? I fully admit that Hume was an atheist. I fully admit that Hume believe that the Sinai events were mythical. I am unsure, however, whether he was aware of the commemorations recorded in the Torah, and, even if yes, if he was aware of this version of the Kuzari argument.
DeleteSo it is all speculation. All I am saying is that his central argument against miracles does not seem, in my eyes, to be a valid response to this version of the Kuzari argument, as even Hume admits that some evidence is sufficiently strong to prove miracles, and I am thus open to the possibility that the commemorations of our history render NETs sufficient evidence to prove even a miracle.
@ARE ROSTER I I take issue with your comment "...even Hume admits that some evidence is sufficiently strong to prove miracles" Hume seems to hedge - and also he reject s Sinai. (BTW He almost certainly knew of Passover and other Jewish holidays and so of commemoration.) Hume hedges see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-or-kuzari.html Please read it carefully.
Delete@ARE ROSTER who writes "..(and have empirical evidence, that Hume is incorrect)." Such as ?
Delete@ARE ROSTER MY entire argument against any version of the Kuzari argument is not only Hume, but Hume is a strong argument against the KUZARI. IMHO It is you and those other philosophers (who I suspect are all religious) that argue against Hume who are skating on thin ice.
Delete@ACJA I will respond to your points later this week.
Delete@Second Son Will you respond to my points?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1. It is true that Hume does hedge, saying that the eight days of darkness perhaps aren't a miracle. I would actually go further: it is obvious that the eight days of darkness aren't a miracle, since they don't display any particular INTELLIGENCE or PURPOSEFULNESS in the anomaly of eight days of darkness (so his eight days of darkness is a straw man, because no one would argue that it's a miracle). The events we are discussing - a split sea and 40 years of manna and other miracles - display the intelligence and purposefulness of nature (i.e., the anomalies that happened in desert display that nature wanted to save the Jews). Just as we know, when observing dogs, that they are intelligent (their actions evince that they are working for a particular purpose), so too the cause of the Sinai events almost certainly must have been intelligent (in addition, Moses reported that this force of nature informed him that He was the cause of these events, and this force of nature has gained our trust, by repeatedly telling us the truth regarding impending miracles).
DeleteRegardless, at this point my goal is to show that there is no good reason to assume that the Sinai events did not happen. If you are willing to admit that they did happen as recorded in the Torah, but that they were not caused by an intelligent force of nature, I think the Kuzari argument has done it's job.
2) Although Hume was probably peripherally aware of some commemorations (though he may not have known when they were believed to have started), he wasn't cognizant of its implications. Indeed, Undercover Kofer claims that "most of the people in those days didn't have a clue of their own history," which is undoubtedly true (even nowadays the vast majority of Jews don't know about many national events). Yet, that is irrelevant. We aren't talking about national events. We are talking about heavily commemorated events. So it is surely conceivable that people do know enough about these events to be able to reject a false history of this sort (how many Jews don't know that there ever was a Second Temple). It seems obvious that Undercover Kofer was not COGNIZANT of the commemorations when attacking the Kuzari argument. So Hume, as well, was not cognizant of the commemorations.
3. The Empirical Evidence against Hume's argument is mentioned above in the comments regarding the New York Times' report of the atomic bombs in Japan.
4) Regarding your point that philosophers who attack Hume are religious, that is correct (but that should be expected; once you are willing to accept evidence for miracles, it's common to come to the conclusion that God exists). I have a friend who was a student of David Johnson, while a student at Yeshiva University (it was through this friend that I first was exposed to Johnson's book against Hume and the argument from miracles over twenty years ago). MY FRIEND IS AN ATHEIST (he is now a professor himself, whatever that is worth). But he told me that David Johnson is the MOST intelligent person he has ever met (Johnson is nominally religious, but a strong believer in God). So we should not flippantly attack those who criticize Hume, as they are as intelligent and reliable as those who defend Hume (and even Fogelin's critique of Johnson essentially admits [if I remember correctly, and I might be wrong] that Hume's argument cannot be justified when it makes the excessive claims that many atheists assume and hope Hume's argument justifies.)
@ARE ROSTER - For now, forget Sinai. I do not think you have understood HUME's example nor what Hume was arguing. I suggest rereading my miracle blog post.
DeleteYou write "If you are willing to admit that they did happen as recorded in the Torah, but that they were not caused by an intelligent force of nature, I think the Kuzari argument has done it's job." If you had read my Kuzari blog posts I offer some possibilities there may be some actual historical events underlying the Exodus story and the Sinai story. The point is even if the Kuzari works it can not prove or provide valid reason to support supernatural. Please read all my Kuzari posts. I think Rabbi Kelemen is aware of this point and he mentions it in his book.
THe Atom Bomb is exactly what HUME was hedging on when he gave his darkness example. Rather than refuting Hume you have supported him !
BTW Hume makes no excessive claims. I have no Idea what you are talking about.
I suspect that you are conflating two points. There are two responses to the Sinai events: a) that they never happened OR did not happen as recorded in the Torah; b) that even if they did happen EXACTLY as recorded in the Torah, there is no proof that the events were caused by a an intelligent force of nature.
DeleteThe Kuzari argument merely addresses the first attack against the Sinai events, by gently yet insistently demanding that the skeptic must provide evidence for his dogmatic skepticism. For example, many skeptic admit, "Yes, something happened at Sinai, but it wasn't exactly as recorded in the Torah. Although [for example] the Torah says that millions ate manna which fell doubly on Friday, I am confident that what actually happened was less exotic, and can be explained by known forces of nature; namely, it was only a few people who ate a desert plant that was later construed as something much grander and fantastical." Regarding this claim, we ask the skeptic if he has any evidence for his dogmatism that history can evolve this way. If he has none, we respectfully respond that we must skeptically reject his claim.
If you claim, however, "I agree that millions of Jews saw the ten plagues, walked through a split sea, ate something which fell from the sky for 14,600 days, and all the other events recorded in the Torah, but I don't believe that it was caused by God," then the Kuzari argument isn't a proper response. Nevertheless, other rational arguments can justify the belief that God was the cause of the Sinai events.
You failed to respond to the point I was making regarding the New York Times' report of the atomic bombs in Japan.
Hume does make excessive claims. According to Hume, if a form of evidence was wrong even once, it can no longer prove the existence of new forces of nature. This leads to absurd results, and is empirically invalid.
I might be wrong. I am not an expert in Hume's argument (although I have read three books on the topic, my knowledge is that of a layman's, andI can't follow many of the technical arguments that either side makes). However, I am confident that most atheists, including Second Son and Yoni, when basing their beliefs on Hume's argument, haven't even attempted to see both sides of the argument. Based on the tone of their comments, I can almost swear that they haven't read a single book that is critical of Hume's argument. I hate using personal attacks when debating, but the lack of skepticism displayed by Second Son and Yoni is appalling.
Once I'm in the mode of personal attacks, I might as well get it out of my system. I appreciate, value and even respect both Yoni's and your efforts to discuss the Kuzari argument with me; at least you are subjecting your views to debate and criticism. But Second Son's unwillingness or inability to respond to my points is emblematic of contemporary atheism. He writes an entire book critiquing the Kuzari argument, but can't subject his views to smidget of criticism and debate?! This displays a dangerous and foolhardy overconfidence in his position, which is something that most contemporary atheist contain is great measure (I much prefer the atheists of yesteryear, who display an independence of thought and willingness to justify their positions. With few exceptions [you are one of the few exceptions], atheists no longer feel the need to justify their beliefs).
@ARE ROSTER "You failed to respond to the point I was making regarding the New York Times' report of the atomic bombs in Japan." I may have missed it, but you never elaborated how the atom bomb refutes Hume. After reading by post on HUme do you think the atom bomb refutes Hume ?
DeleteRegarding you’re a); I argue in some of my posts an Exodus-Sinai could have happened, but maybe not exactly like the Torah - the 600000 plus, and some other details to be excluded. etc: I strongly urge you to read all my Kuzari posts to give you better understanding of my thoughts on the Kuzari argument.
DeleteExcept for the words exactly , I also agree with “b) that even if they did happen EXACTLY[roughly] as recorded in the Torah, there is no proof that the events were caused by a an intelligent force of nature [lets just write the Lord].”
FYI - IT not clear EXACTLY what the Torah is writing.
I also argued some place, story could be based on a kernel of truth, that gets elaborated on for theological and or political reasons. Nor can we rule out the entire story has no basis of truth at all.
@ ARE ROSTER "According to Hume, if a form of evidence was wrong even once, it can no longer prove the existence of new forces of nature. This leads to absurd results, and is empirically invalid." I do not think that is what Hume is arguing. Hume is arguing about past stories of miracles - how should we evaluate them today. He is comparing the probability of the past miracles being true vs the probability on the laws of nature being violated. I don't think Hume intends to rule out new discoveries in science, if that is what were getting at. That was his hedge - we need to investigate. If we can not investigate, we should not accept the past miracles as true.
Delete@ARE Roster In defense of Second Son - he may not have the time to respond. He may think your arguments are not worth responding to. Maybe he will respond in his book. Also, he has responded to some of your comments. Maybe he is thinking more about it. You are not paying for his time...
Delete@ARE ROSTER per HUme "For I[HUme] own, that otherwise, there may possibly be miracles, or violations of the usual course of nature, of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony; though, perhaps, it will be impossible to find any such in all the records of history."
DeleteSee - you need to find a miracle that overcomes Humes arguments against us today accepting them. He mentions Sinai and rejects them for rational reasons.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1) The atomic bomb refutes Hume's argument for the following reason. Yoni had presented Hume as the following: It is more likely, a priori, that (e.g.) the Sinai events did not happen, than that the Jews would believe a false national history (I responded, inter alia, that we have no reason to assume that it is more likely a priori that the Jews would believe a false national history than that the miracles would happen). But I did agree that his interpretation and presentation of Hume was pretty sound (from my layman's limited point of view).
DeleteThen, I tried applying Hume's a priori argument to an instance where the New York Times reported that two giant, fantastical, unprecendented city-sized fireballs, with extreme and absurd temperatures reaching 180 millions degrees (unlike common fires which reach a mere few thousand degrees), crushed two Japanese cities to smitherines. And the cause of this explosion? A heretofore unknown force of nature, which is contained in essentially infinitesmal atoms, which yet contain an essentially omnipotent force.
What was the a priori likelihood that this force of nature (atomic force) existed and that it would cause two cities to disappear in an instant? I would say as low as the likelihood that a force of nature (called intelligence) would cause the Sinai miracles. What is the a priori likelihood that the New York Times would report a false story? Very low, but certainly higher than the a priori likelihood that a new omnipotent force of nature would destroy two cities. The New York Times is a certainly a highly-fallible form of evidence, and it posts corrections nearly every day (See, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/us/correcting-the-record-times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception.html)
Based on Hume's argument, when reading the New York Times article we should reject it immediately. Yet, the report was proven correct. In fact, the rate of accuracy of events recorded in the New York Times DOES NOT GO DOWN when reporting events that have a low a priori likelihood (the fact that Hume was discussing only "miracles," is irrelevant and itself curious, as it exposes an unjustified bias against the law of nature called "intelligence," over an above other causes of nature that are heretofore undiscovered).
2) You claim that the events recorded in the Torah did not happen exactly as recorded. Do you have any evidence that national history is insufficient to prove that the Sinai events happened exactly as recorded in the Torah? Also, please describe what you mean by "roughly."
3) I had read through all your Kuzari posts a while back and I re-read them today. I was especially struck by your quotation of Spinoza. When reading his words, it dawned on me that perhaps he would have been a believer had he existed in the internet age, when he would have been exposed to a critique of his arguments, rather than reinforcing his skepticism in his echo-chamber.
4) In light of your response, I withdraw my comments regarding Second Son.
I don’t believe that I ever “presented" Hume. My views may have been informed by Hume but I don't think I tried (or would / should try) to present his point of view. I certainly am not qualified to do so, having never read him. If I did I apologise.
DeleteAs an aside, your NYT example is pretty weak. As you note yourself, NYT level of reliability is inversely correlated with size of claim. Quite the opposite for myth. Additionally, to an informed viewer the claim was not as unbelievable as you make out. Finally, whatever the appropriate degree of scepticism to a reader at the tike the story broke, the fact that it proved real would only have a marginal impact on the level of scepticism she should take the next time a story of equality improbable believability occurred as it is only a single data point.
@ARE Roster when I have time will read then try to address your critique of HUme with the atom bomb. Regarding your 2) you do realize there really is no 'exactly' as recorded because the Torah story is a bit muddled. Read my Kuzari posts to understand what I intend by roughly. Regarding "Do you have any evidence that national history is insufficient to prove that the Sinai events happened exactly as recorded in the Torah?" We have been thru this sort of argument before and if I recall correctly you want to use a 50-50 chance. I do not think I have anything to add to Yoni's or our prior conversations and to what I wrote in my KUzari blog posts. I think it would be a good Idea to read all my Kuzari blog posts - I am guessing you have not yet. BTW I do not accept 50% chance Torah story as 'exactly' recorded should be given a 50% chance as true. Because of what Propp wrote regarding historians and archaeology and for other reasons that may have been mentioned here, but are mentioned in my Kuzari blog posts.
Delete@ARE ROSTER - hopefully you have been reading all my Kuzari posts.
DeleteYou claim "Based on Hume's argument, when reading the New York Times article we should reject it [Atom bomb on Japan] immediately." That is not how I understand Hume. A) I suggest something like that would fall under what I called the Hume's hedge. Be Investigated. B) Bombs are consistent with science, so why should we immediately reject a story involving a bigger bomb ? C) Interestingly many Japanese did not believe the A-Bomb events at first, that is because they had no Idea such a bomb was possible. However, that is not our standard. Many scientists thought an A-Bomb was possible and was consistent with science so it is those people that we should rely on not the some everyday people in Japan.
REgarding your 3) Spinoza comment. It is a tribute to Spinoza that he saw thru the fallaciousness of Orthodox Judaism at a time when religions were so dominant, when the scientific method did not exist, when our knowledge of ancient near east was so limited etc: Spinoza has been vindicated and would have been an even greater skeptic today.
Delete@ ARE ROster it is Orthodox Judaism that is in an echo chamber. Repeating the same old weak arguments, inventing new silly ones, rejecting logic, reason, science, archaeology, history, bible criticism, etc: See http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/04/some-reasons-to-reject-orthodox-judaism.html
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete1) What was the a priori likelihood that an atomic bomb would explode? It was certainly lower than the possibility that the New York Times would publish a false story. Nevertheless, our repeated experience tells us that it is rational to trust the evidence. Your (Yoni's) point that some on the inside (CIA, KGB, and a few scientists) knew about the bomb before it exploded isn't relevant to those who did not know about the bomb. Imagine you go to heaven and you tell God, "I didn't believe in Sinai because TO ME it had a low a priori likelihood." And God were to respond, "No, the Sinai events had a high a priori likelihood, because angels knew about My plans of making the Sinai events." God's response would be irrelevant (assuming the a priori argument is a good argument, which of course it is not). The point is that we see that the New York Times is a powerful enough form of evidence to to sufficiently prove events which "we" (non-insiders) believe to have a low a priori likelihood. Do you believe it would have been rational for the vast majority of Times' readers to reject the accuracy of the story, because the story was positing a new law of nature, a law of nature that we had never experienced before? Of course not. Evidence doesn't have to be infallible for it to be sufficient to prove the existence of new laws of nature (although, to be sure, NET evidence may in fact be infallible).
Delete2) Although bombs are consistent with the laws of nature (although I have never seen a bomb, I trust the fallible media that bombs do exist), the atomic bomb demands the existence of a new law of nature. So the fallible New York Times is sufficient evidence to prove that a new law of nature exists. You claim that this new law of nature, atomic energy, is consistent with science, unlike the Sinai events. But that is just special pleading, artificially excluding God from the definition of science.
3) Regarding Spinoza, he believed in the dominance and immutability of the laws of nature. Had he been exposed to the big bang theory (that the laws of nature were created and the the universe did not always exists), the main pillars of his philosophy would have been toppled. Furthermore, had he been exposed to the reality of the fine tuning of the laws of nature (which demands that there is an infinite number of universes which have alternate laws of nature), he would have rejected the claim that the laws of nature are immutable. I am confident that, based on his writings, he would have rejoined Orthodox Judaism had he been aware of these accepted facts (e.g., the big bang theory).
4) I don't reject logic, reason, science, archaeology, history, or bible criticism. Reason tells me that I must remain skeptical to your dogmatism that NETs are CERTAINLY fallible (which violates the first commandment of Russell: "Do not feel absolutely certain of anything"). Similarly, there is nothing in science, archaeology, history or bible criticism that is RELEVANT to our claims (so I even need to address these disciplines).
@Are Roster - Regarding Spinoza - I was referring to his commentary on the Torah, not about the details of his philosophy which I am not an expert on. FYI you are misunderstanding BB and also I have no idea if BB refutes Spinoza's philosophy or not. Yo also misunderstand 'fine tuning'. PLEASE see my index of posts and read my Big Bang post, Fine Tuning Post, and the two on the kalam arguments.
Delete@ARE ROster - who write "I don't reject logic, reason, science, archaeology, history, or bible criticism:. Good so you accept bible criticism, science, history and archaeology. Thus you should reject the orthodox Jewish narrative.
Delete@ARE ROster - Not sure I can much to my explanation defending Hume, except to repeat Hume I do not think Hume is writing that it is impossible for there to be miracles. Rather he is addressing how we should react to a) ancient reports of miracles b) even new reports of miracles.
Delete@ARE ROSTER - National traditions are not fully reliable. That is an empirical fact. It is a form of special pleading and the texas sharpshooter fallacy to argue, that we should treat Sinai differently. Every national tradition has to be evaluated like any other, and unfortunately the Sinai story turns out to also be unreliable. ALSO, please read all my Kuzari posts, since based on our conversations it appears you have not. BTW - I receive no compensation at all from my blog or discussions with you or anybody else. In contrast, Kiruv people and usually their websites and blogs do receive compensation. I think your critique of Hume has no merit. He does not apriori reject good testimony of unusual events. I have repeatedly mentioned the Hume HEDGE, but you blithely ignore it.
Delete@ARE ROSTER - You seem to make a great deal out of commemoration. Yet the miracle of the sun is also commemorated. Do you think that provides evidence that the Fatima miracles really occurred ? Same for WBCW and the pipe ? IMHO commemoration is not a fully reliable a guide as to the truth of the stories underlying the commemoration.
Delete@ARE ROSTER BTW If you accept Russell, you should have some skepticism for the reliability NET’s, which if I understand your position you do have such skepticism, which you set at 50%. I am also skeptical of NET’s so I am consistent with Russell’s dictum, so I am not sure why you say I violate Russell
Delete@ARE ROSTER - You are going off on a tangent a little. you write "Furthermore, had he [Spinoza] been exposed to the reality of the fine tuning of the laws of nature (which demands that there is an infinite number of universes which have alternate laws of nature)..."
DeleteFYI Fine tuning makes no such demands. It could just be the 'laws of nature' are a brute fact. ON the other hand there are multiple domain theories or multiverse theories which advocate things such as 'laws of universe' are not fixed, or can vary over time or place..., BUT this is all irrelevant to Spinoza's discussion of the Torah, which is the focus of my blog post on miricles.
@ARE ROSTER - Atom bomb - Hume nor I are arguing that all the science is in. But if we are going to discuss 'laws of nature' then it is to the scientists we must go. The A-Bomb was consistent with natural law - for example Einstein (and many other scientists) wrote an A-Bomb was possible. Also, please do not ignore Humes's hedge.
Delete@ARE ROSTER "Did the ancient Israelites consider manna miracle food ? Did the ancient Israelites truly believe all the miracles and wonders ? }Read verse Psalms 78:32 For all this they sinned still, and believed not in His wondrous works. that the Israelites may nothave accepted the miracles SEE ACJA post https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-part-2-or.html ACJA
DeleteYou are doing the work Kuzari proponents should have done. Spell out their premises, sub premises etc: Great job G*3
ReplyDeleteTYPO "Premise 4: We don't see any other religions use a a {double a}
ReplyDeleteUnrelated, but on pesach I finally got the name of this blog! Talk about slow!
ReplyDelete:)
DeleteYou should read the first post from way back when.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ARE ROSTER who writes referring to historians "They merely argue (unconvincingly) that it is an exceedingly unlikely, implausible and improbable event."
ReplyDeleteThe fact is historians and others have shown you alleged evidence is fallible because the biblical exodus as you understand it is exceedingly unlikely, implausible and improbable event as you put it. Also, I think historians really mean the The Exodus story does not map well against the historical and archaeological record. In fact, it hardly maps at all. So writes Propp. ACJA