In the Jewish year 5757 (1996-97 C.E.), I decided to become a Torah-observant Jew after I read Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb's book, Living Up to the Truth, (which at that time was entitled The Search for Truth) which presents a powerful logical argument for the belief that the Torah was given to the Jewish people by G-d.
While I was reading Rabbi Gottlieb's book, I was a mathematics graduate student at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Having been trained as a mathematician (and also as a magician), I understood that it is very easy to be fooled into believing that a logical argument is valid even if it is fallacious; slight of hand not only exists in magic but in logic as well. This is one of the reasons why, in general, mathematicians are notoriously difficult to convince of the validity of any logical argument that is not presented in the format of a rigorous mathematical proof. In a rigorous mathematical proof, every step must follow logically from the previous step; the rules of logic that mathematicians accept are so well-defined that it is possible to program a computer to recognize whether a given mathematical proof is valid or not, assuming that the proof is presented in a format acceptable to the computer program.
Because of my mathematics training and because Rabbi Gottlieb's book, Living Up to the Truth, was not written in a style of a typical mathematical proof, I was initially unconvinced by Rabbi Gottlieb's arguments. It took me a few months to digest what Rabbi Gottlieb was really saying in his book and to research the claims that he was making. After a few months, I finally believed Rabbi Gottlieb's argument when I was able to translate it into a rigorous mathematical proof. In this note, I shall present this proof. Now before I go claiming that every mathematician and scientist will believe that the Torah was given by G-d after reading this proof, it is necessary for me to say that I have no such expectation of this happening whatsoever for the following three reasons:
1. The proof uses Rabbi Gottlieb's Kuzari Principle, which is induced from empirical observations. Because induction is never 100% certain, some people may choose not to believe the Kuzari Principle and therefore not believe the proof.
2. The arguments in the proof involve the Orthodox-Jewish interpretation of the Torah; the reader may not know enough about the Orthodox-Jewish interpretation of the Torah to be able to ascertain whether the arguments in the proof are reasonable.
3. We human beings are notoriously difficult to convince of any fact that we do not want to believe. It is unnatural for us human beings to base our beliefs on logic alone; we are primarily emotional beings. It takes a great deal of effort for a human being to accept as truth facts that he or she does not want to believe. The Torah is difficult for many Jews to accept. Many of its claims are not politically correct, and it also places a great deal of responsibility on Jews.
Let us consider the following claims of the Jewish religion:
A) At least 600,000 Israelites gathered at the bottom of Mount Sinai over 3,300 years ago.
B) All of the Israelites heard G-d speak to them at Mount Sinai, and they then asked Moses to be His prophet.
C) Moses received the entire Torah from G-d and taught the Torah to all of the Israelites standing at Mount Sinai.
D) The Israelites transmitted the Torah and also the history of the transmission process of the Torah from generation to generation in an unbroken chain of generations for over 3,300 years until today, with at least one hundred thousand Israelites in each generation of the chain.
The following historical writings plus rabbinical commentaries and oral history have been traditionally used by rabbis to support the claims A, B, C, and D:
A) Biblical passages,
Exodus 12:37 - The Children of Israel journeyed from Ramses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, aside from children.
Exodus 19:17 - Moses brought the people forth from the camp toward G-d, and they stood at the bottom of the mountain.
Deuteronomy 4:11 - So you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain was burning with fire up to the heart of heaven, darkness, cloud, and thick cloud.
B) Biblical passages,
Exodus 19:9 - Hashem said to Moses, Behold! I come to you in the thickness of the cloud, so that the people will hear as I speak to you, and they will also believe in you forever.
Deuteronomy 4:10 - the day that you stood before Hashem, your G-d, at Horeb, when Hashem said to me, "Gather the people to Me and I shall let them hear My words, so that they shall learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and they shall teach their children."
Deuteronomy 4:12-13 - Hashem spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant that He commanded you to observe, the Ten Declarations, and He inscribed them on two stone Tablets.
Deuteronomy 5:4-5 - Face to face did Hashem speak with you on the mountain, from amid the fire. I was standing between Hashem and you at that time, to relate the word of Hashem to you - for you were afraid of the fire and you did not ascend the mountain.
Deuteronomy 5:20-24 - It happened that when you heard the voice from the midst of the darkness and the mountain was burning in fire, that all the heads of your tribes and your elders approached me. You said, Behold! Hashem, our G-d, has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire; this day, we saw that G-d will speak to a person and he can live. But now, why should we die when this great fire consumes us? If we continue to hear the voice of the Hashem, our G-d, any longer, we will die! For is there any human that has heard the voice of the Living G-d speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? You should approach and hear whatever the Lord, our G-d, will say, and you should speak to us whatever the Hashem, our G-d, will speak to you - then we shall hear and we shall do.
C) Biblical passages,
Deuteronomy 4:5 - See, I have taught you decrees and ordinances, as Hashem, my G-d, has commanded me, to do so in the midst of the Land to which you come, to possess it.
Deuteronomy 4:14 - Hashem commanded me at that time to teach you decrees and ordinances, that you shall perform them in the Land to which you cross, to possess it.
Deuteronomy 5:25-28 - Hashem heard the sound of your words when you spoke to me, and Hashem said to me, "I heard the sound of the words of this people that they have spoken to you; they did well in all that they spoke. Who can assure that this heart should remain theirs, to fear Me and observe all My commandments all the days, so that it should be good for them and for their children forever? Go say to them, 'Return to your tents.' But as for you, stand here with Me and I shall speak to you the entire commandment, and the decrees, and the ordinances that you shall teach them and they shall perform in the Land that I give them, to possess it."
D) All written history including the Tanach (The Five Books of Moses, Prophets, and Writings) and the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud.
However, as of the last hundred years, these historical writings plus rabbinical commentaries and oral history have failed to convince many Jews of claims A, B, C, and D. In order to present these Jews with a valid reason to accept claims A, B, C, and D, Rabbi Gottlieb wrote his book Living Up to Truth. And in order to strengthen Rabbi Gottlieb's argument in his book, I shall present a mathematical proof of claims A, B, C, and D:
This proof relies on what Rabbi Gottlieb calls the Kuzari Principle:
Rabbi Gottlieb's Kuzari Principle:
Suppose that at least one hundred thousand people claim to witness a certain event. Then almost certainly, this event must have occurred.
(This is actually a modified version of Rabbi Gottlieb's Kuzari Principle.)
As we can see, the Kuzari Principle is really just plain common sense. It is basic to every legal system in the world that lots of witnesses claiming X implies that X is true. The overwhelming majority of people have no problems accepting this principle. We shall use the Kuzari Principle to prove A, B, C, and D:
"Kuzari" Proof of Claims A, B, C, D:
First, let us modify claim D to a new claim D(N), where N is a positive integer:
D(N) - The Torah and also the history of the transmission process of the Torah have been transmitted from the first generation of Israelites to the Nth generation of Israelites in an unbroken chain of generations, with at least one hundred thousand Israelites in each generation of the chain.
Now we will use the principle of mathematical induction to prove that for any N>0, if generation N, of at least one hundred thousand Israelites, accepts claims A, B, C, and D(N) to be true, then the claims A, B, C, and D(N) must be true:
First, we shall prove true for N=1: Since D(1) is vacuous if claims A, B, and C are true, it suffices to prove that if the first generation, of at least one hundred thousand Israelites, accepts claims A, B, and C, then claims A, B, and C must be true. And this follows directly from the Kuzari Principle, so we have proven true for N=1.
Now, let us assume that if generation N, of at least one hundred thousand Israelites, accepts claims A, B, C, and D(N), then the claims A, B, C, and D(N) must be true. Then we shall prove using this assumption that if generation N+1, of at least one hundred thousand Israelites, claims that A, B, C, and D(N+1) are true, then the claims A, B, C, and D(N+1) must be true:
Suppose that generation N+1, of at least one hundred thousand Israelites, claims that A, B, C, and D(N+1) are true. Then generation N+1 is claiming that they are witnesses to generation N transmitting both the Torah and the history of the transmission process of the Torah to generation N+1, as this is implied by the claim D(N+1). By the Kuzari Principle, this implies that generation N+1, of at least one hundred thousand Israelites, did witness generation N transmit both the Torah and the history of the transmission process of the Torah to generation N+1, which implies that generation N claims that A, B, C, and D(N) are true. By our induction hypothesis, this implies that the claims A, B, C, and D(N) are indeed true. Then since generation N transmitted both the Torah and the history of the transmission process of the Torah to generation N+1, of at least one hundred thousand people, we can conclude that claim D(N+1) is also true, completing our induction step.
Hence, we can conclude that for any N>0, if generation N, of at least one hundred thousand people, accepts claims A, B, C, and D(N) to be true, then claims A, B, C, and D(N) must be true. It is well known that as of today, the Torah-observant Jewish community, of at least one hundred thousand people, accepts claims A, B, C, and D. Then since D is really D(N) where N is the number which corresponds to today's generation of Israelites, we can conclude that A, B, C, and D are true. QED
Notice that this proof uses only mathematical logic. And the only way to argue with proof which uses only mathematical logic is to argue with the assumptions that the proof is based upon, in this case:
1. The Kuzari Principle.
2. The fact that Torah-observant Jewish community today, of at least one hundred thousand people, accepts claims A, B, C, and D.
Based on my own research and personal experience, I am comfortable accepting both of these assumptions. However, some readers may still be skeptical of the truth of claims A, B, C, and D. We shall now address some of the more common concerns:
Concern 1: The major events which the Torah describes, e.g., the revelation at Mount Sinai, have never been verified scientifically by physical evidence. A central tenant of modern science is that all conclusions about nature must be supportable by physical evidence to be believable.
Response to 1: The scientific method of only accepting a claim to be true if it is supported by physical evidence is very reliable; however, the scientific method is not the only reliable way to understand our world. For instance, the claim that the Declaration of Independence was signed on exactly July 4, 1776 C.E. cannot be verified by modern science - it is possible, although extremely unlikely, that the people signing it, in their haste, wrote down the wrong date by mistake. Yet, we still believe the witnesses to this event, even though only a small number of people actually saw the event, much smaller than the Kuzari Principle requirement of at least one hundred thousand people.
Concern 2: The Torah contradicts many facts established by modern science. For instance, according to modern science, all of the miracles which are described in the Biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt, including G-d speaking with the Israelites, are impossible; however, modern science does not rule out the possibility that the Israelites suffered from a "mass hallucination" and believed that these miracles happened, even though they did not. Why should I believe the Israelites over modern science?
Response to 2: A mass hallucination has never been witnessed in the history of the world, so it is unlikely that such a mass hallucination occurred in the time of the Exodus or any time after the Exodus. But then again, the miracles which are described in the Biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt have never been known to occur in modern times, so one might think that it is also unlikely that they could have occurred in ancient times. So what happened back then? Clearly, a phenomenon which has never been observed in modern times must have occurred back then - either a mass hallucination or miracles from G-d. Because we have hundreds of thousands of witnesses to one of these possible phenomena, the miracles from G-d, but we do not have any witnesses to the other, a mass hallucination, it makes more sense to believe the phenomenon in which there were hundreds of thousands of witnesses, the miracles from G-d, over the phenomenon in which there were no witnesses, a mass hallucination.
Concern 3: So you are saying that lots of witnesses to a phenomenon which contradicts the known laws of nature are more credible than the known laws of nature? Why?
Response to 3: Let us imagine that we lived in a world in which anytime someone makes a discovery that contradicts the known laws of nature, that person would automatically be disbelieved. For instance, if someone were to discover magnets, then that person would be ridiculed, because everyone knows that objects cannot be moved without touching them. And if someone were to discover fire, then that person would be considered a lunatic, because everyone knows that only the sun is hot. If we were to live our lives dismissing any testimony of others which contradicts what we know, then we would never learn anything. And this is precisely why the testimony of many witnesses is always stronger than even the most powerful circumstantial evidence.
Concern 4: Scientists assert that the universe is billions of years old, not 5,766 years old as Jewish tradition has it. Also, scientists assert that science teaches us that man evolved from lower apes; the Torah claims that G-d created one man named Adam and one woman named Eve from scratch.
Response to 4: The claims that the universe is billions of years old and that man evolved from lower apes cannot be verified directly by experiment or observation; nevertheless, scientists still consider these two claims to be fact because they have found what they believe to be powerful circumstantial evidence supporting them. But while the scientists think they have powerful circumstantial evidence on their side, we have hundreds of thousands of witnesses to the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai by G-d on our side. Because hundreds of thousands of witnesses are more credible than even the most powerful circumstantial evidence (see the response to 3) and because these witnesses claimed that the Torah was given by G-d, the Torah account of the origin of the universe and the creation of man is much more reliable than the big bang theory and the theory of evolution.
Concern 5: Still, how does one explain the million-year-old fossils and the appearance of an old universe?
Response to 5: This is not in contradiction with Torah. According to the Torah, Adam and Eve were created as adults. And also, the trees in the Garden of Eden were created in a fully mature state. So we see from these examples that G-d created at least part of the universe to appear as if it has been around longer than it really has. Of course, the appearance of an old universe does not imply that the universe is old.
But this answer does not explain the existence of fossils that appear to be millions of years old, if we are to use modern scientific dating methods. A probable explanation for this is that these fossils are artifacts from before the flood during Noah's time and are less than 5,766 years old. According to the Torah (Genesis 8:22), after the flood, G-d proclaimed that "Continuously, all the days of the earth, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease", implying that before the flood, nature was different than it is today; therefore, one cannot use modern scientific dating methods, which are based on the assumption that nature has not changed through the years, to accurately predict what really happened before the flood.
Concern 6: How can one guarantee that the transmission process from generation to generation of the Torah was not compromised, like in the famous "Telephone Game"?
Response to 6: The "Telephone Game" is a game which is often used to demonstrate how information can easily become corrupted by indirect communication. In this game, people organize themselves in a line, and a player at the beginning of the line whispers a message as quietly as possible to his or her neighbor. The neighbor then passes on the message to the next player in line to the best of his or her ability. The passing continues in this fashion until it reaches the player at the end of the line, who calls out the message that he or she received. If the game is "successful", the message that the person at the end of the line calls out is different than the original message.
The difference between the "Telephone Game" and the Torah transmission process is the fact that in the telephone game there is only one person at each stage of the message-passing process; in the Torah transmission process, there are at least one hundred thousand people in each generation. Because whispering from one person to another person is not the most reliable method of communication, there is a significant chance that at least one of the people in the line will not relay the message properly to his or her neighbor. And this is enough to alter the message called out by the person at the end of the line.
Now let us consider a modification of the "Telephone Game" in which there are one hundred lines of people instead of only one line of people. The one hundred players at the beginning of each line each pass on the same message to the next player in each of the one hundred lines. Each neighbor in each line then passes on the message to the next player in each line to the best of his or her ability. The passing continues until the message gets to the end of each line. Now let us suppose that the messages called out by the people at the end of each line are not all exactly the same but they still all resemble each other very closely. And let us also suppose that there are parts of the message called out by each person at the end of each line which are all identical. Then would it not be reasonable to assume that these parts of the message were transmitted flawlessly through each of the lines of people? Most people would think so. Of course, there is a chance that these parts of the message were transmitted incorrectly in each of the lines and by coincidence the people in each of the lines made the exact same errors. But the chance of this occurring is so astronomically small that it is reasonable to believe that these parts of the message are identical to the same parts of the original message.
Such a modification of the "Telephone Game" is similar to the Torah transmission process. Everywhere in the world, Torah-observant Jews have received the Torah and the history of the transmission process of the Torah from previous generations. Yes, there are parts of the Torah and the history of the transmission process of the Torah which have varied slightly for different sects of Torah-observant Jews; however, the claims A, B, C, and D have been universally accepted by all sects of Torah-observant Jews. Hence, just as in the modification of the "Telephone Game", it is reasonable to assume that identical messages at the end of each of the one hundred lines implies a perfect transmission of the message, the fact that claims A, B, C, and D are universally held to be true by all sects of Torah-observant Jewry implies a perfect transmission of claims A, B, C, and D, which implies that claims A, B, C, and D are true.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Rabbi Gottlieb for his helpful comments.
References:
Rabbi Gottlieb's website - www.dovidgottlieb.com
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuzari
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm somewhat at a loss as to your argument for D(1). You seem to be assuming the existence of a "first generation" of 100,000 or more that experienced the revelation. But that is precisely what's at issue.
ReplyDeleteThe claim is not based around a specific number, but rather the claim that one's entire living ancestry was present at that moment.
ReplyDeleteThe core of the argument is that one cannot convince a nation that all of their ancestors experienced a significant, central, formative event if it were false. There's a 'grey' area in determining numbers, but the key is whether it was the entirety of the nation. 100,000 in China is nothing, for example.
So again, kuzari argues that the Jewish people could not have accepted a myth that all of their ancestors were present at Sinai and experienced a national revelation if it were false.
Gottlieb goes on to categorize this, saying Sinai is an example of a myth that a people have that says all of their ancestors (a large number, and the entirety of the people) experienced something significant and central. And if we look at other groups who have myths about their ancestors all experiencing something significant, central (not necessarily religious, but a migration, or foreign occupation, etc.), then we have no known myths under this category that we know to be basically false (the core story, not the details).
Gottlieb: The condition of Sinai is this: it is a national tradition concerning a national experience that would change the life of the nation. Let's call this NET [National Experiential Tradition] for short. Now THERE ARE NO KNOWN FALSE NET BELIEFS.
Thanks for the comment. I do understand Gottlieb's argument. It involves a number of fallacies, but I don't want to get off topic. In my original post (Feb. 28) I meant to critique the logic of Betzalel's induction argument, and my point was that if there is no "first" generation (and you can't assume there is one without begging the question) then neither is there a second, nor a third, etc. In particular, there is no "N'th". So when he says at the end of his proof "since D is really D(N) where N is the number which corresponds to today's generation of Israelites, we can conclude that A, B, C, and D are true. QED" this statement is invalid, therefore the proof fails. Yet another objection is that in reality there are no "generations". We use that term only as a figure of speech to describe the more complicated fact that people are dying and being born and teaching things to their children all the time. The transmission of the Torah from one generation to the next is not a single event, it involves millions of individual events. Betzalel's version of the KP "Suppose that at least one hundred thousand people claim to witness a certain event. Then almost certainly, this event must have occurred." does not apply as there is no single event that a large number of people are claiming to have witnessed. This also invalidates all of the comments he makes afterwards.
ReplyDeleteOne can refute Tom's objection by taking the definition of generation as an interval of time equal to 20 years.
ReplyDeleteHence, the "1st generation of Israelites" would be the set of Israelites living 3,322 years ago (when the Torah was given), the "2nd generation of Israelities" would be the set of Israelites living 3,322 - 20 = 3,302 years ago,..., the "kth generation of Israelites" would be the set of Israelites living 3,322 - 20(k-1) years ago,..., and the "167th generation of Israelites" would be the set of Israelites living 3,322 - 20(167-1) = 2 years ago.
In reply to the first comment: the first step of the induction does NOT claim that ABCD(1) are true. Only that IF 100000 Israelites in the first generation accepted ABC THEN ABC are true. After several stepts the induction then says: IF 100000 Israelites in our generation accept ABCD(our generation) THEN ABCD(our generation) are true.
ReplyDeleteMy reply is long enough to require posting in two parts; here's part 1.
ReplyDeleteI'll begin with a tangential comment: what Betzalel is calling "Rabbi Gottlieb's Kuzari Principle" belongs neither to Gottlieb nor to Halevi (author of the Kuzari). It appears in Saadia's "Book of Beliefs and Opinions" (Emunot V'deot) written around 933 C.E. Saadia's argument for the truth of Jewish tradition is that there are only two ways it can be falsified: either those who experienced it were mistaken, or they were lying. But neither of these alternatives are possible with a very large group of people. I will call this Saadia's Principle (SP). For some reason he thought that this observation was sufficient to prove the truth of tradition. But today we require more rigorous arguments and Betzalel's effort can be viewed as an attempt to fill in the huge gap Saadia leaves.
I will now point out what I consider to be three fallacies in his proof. The basic idea behind the argument is easy enough to understand, but for a rigorous proof, each step must be stated clearly, carefully, and without ambiguity, otherwise it is too easy for logical fallacies to go unrecognized. Before the middle to end of the 19'th century when mathematical logic was first put on a sound foundation, the extent to which subtle fallacies could hide in seemingly correct proofs was not fully appreciated. IMO, portions of Betzalel's statement of the argument are vague and ambiguous. The logic is convoluted enough to require that the argument be stated with exreme care, which I will do now.
Definitions:
Event 1 = Set 1 of 100,000 or more Israelites witnessing the Sinaitic revelation as described in the Torah.
Event 2 = 100,000 or more Israelites belonging to set 1 telling set 2 of 100,000 or more Israelites, none of whom are in set 1, that they witnessed event 1.
Event 3 = 100,000 or more Israelites belonging to set 2 telling set 3 of 100,000 or more Israelites, none of whom are in either set 1 or 2, that they witnessed event 2.
...
Event K = 100,000 or more Israelites belonging to set K-1 telling set K of 100,000 or more Israelites, none of whom are in any of sets 1 through K-1, that they witnessed event K-1.
The proof:
This collection of sets and events describes a process P. All we have done so far is state some definitions; no claims have been made as of yet that any of the events really occurred or that any of the sets actually existed. What Betzalel is trying to prove is that process P actually happened. The idea of the proof is that if we know for certain that for some K, set K really existed and that the members of set K unanimously claim that event K really happened, then by SP event K really did happen. That implies that set K-1 must have existed and that the members of that set unanimously claimed to have witnessed evevent K-1. Again by SP, that implies that set K-2 must have existed, etc., and we eventually conclude that event 1 did in fact take place. This is a "reverse induction" argument and IMO that is how it needs to be presented, not as "forward induction" as Betzalel does. In forward induction one starts out by knowing for certain that some proposition Q is true for an initial value of n, and then proves it for all k > n, which is the opposite of what we are trying to do here.
Now for part 2:
ReplyDeleteSo what Betzalel needs to establish, and this is the critical step in his argument, is that for some K, set K really existed and that the members of set K unanimously claim that event K really happened. Here's how he tries to do it: quoting from the end of Betzalel's proof, "Then since D is really D(N) where N is the number which corresponds to today's generation of Israelites, we can conclude that A, B, C, and D are true. QED". Restated per the definitions given above, he is claiming, with no attempt at justification, that for some N, the current generation of Torah observant Jews equals set N as I have defined it. Can the claim be justified? Only if one assumes that process P actually happened. Without that assumption, we don't know that any of sets 1 through N exist, and to claim that the current generation equals a nonexistent set is obviously nonsense. Therefore Betzalel is begging the question, i.e. he is tacitly assuming what he needs to prove. This is fallacy number 1.
Here's another way to look at it: consider the hypothesis that process P does consist of real people and real events, but it has no beginning, i.e. it extends infinitely into the past. In that case there is no event 1, meaning the Sinaitic revelation did not transpire at any point in time. The fact that nobody believes in that hypothesis is irrelevant; the point is that it is logically possible, and nothing in the proof as I have stated it rules out that possibility. Therefore the proof must contain an error because in order to be correct, it must rule out all other alternatives to what it is claiming. We can call this the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" problem (see the Wikipedia article for a fascinating read!) because the repeated application of SP starts off a chain of reasoning that we don't know how to stop. Betzalel's statement "D is really D(N)" is implicitly assuming N is finite. This is fallacy number 2.
Yet a third problem with this proof is that SP cannot be applied to what actually happens in real life. SP only applies to a single event, whereas the transmission of the Torah story from one "generation" to the next is in reality composed of millions of individual events: as children, we individually learned about the Torah story from our parents and teachers. It should now be clear that trying to define a "generation" as the set of people living in a 20 year time period, as Betzalel does in his last post to this thread, is completely beside the point. We didn't all go to Madison square garden every 20 years with 200,000 other people. Nobody, not even a Torah observant Jew, believes that process P as I have defined it actually happened. This is fallacy number 3.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteI'll comment on your two posts. First, the Kuzari Principle is alluded to in the Torah itself. See Exodus 19:9 above. We could even call it "Moses' Principle" if we like.
As for your claims that I made fallacies in my proof, I could easily use the Kuzari Principle to also prove that the American Revolution took place 200+ years ago.
Would you also say that this type of proof cannot be used to prove that the American Revolution took place?
In what way does God saying that everyone will hear him allude to the reliability of a claim made by many witnesses? I don't see the connection.
ReplyDeleteAs for your question regarding the American Revolution: OK I'll bite. Yes I would say that you can't use this type of proof, the reason being that the proof is fallacious. We have other good reasons for believing the revolution took place, but this isn't one of them. It's easy to make up incorrect proofs for true conclusions, for example let A be "1+1 = 3" and let B be "2+2 = 4". By basic logic, "A implies B" is true.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteExodus 19:9 says "...and they will also believe in you forever" meaning that everyone seeing G-d speak to Moses sets things up so that the Torah will be believed forever by the generations after the first generation standing at Mt. Sinai.
If you don't believe the logic of my proof, then I doubt I will convince you otherwise. As I said above, I didn't expect everyone to be convinced.
But let me ask a question. Do you believe in the narrative in the Torah, that Moses received the Torah from G-d at Mount Sinai, etc. 3000+ years ago and that the chain of transmission continues to this day? If not, then what makes the American Revolution different than the claims of the Torah? They both are historical claims. The only big difference I can see is that one is natural and the other is supernatural.
Betzalel,
ReplyDeleteRegarding Ex. 19:9 I don't read it that way but it looks like you have Maimonides on your side (Hilkhot Yesodei Hatorah 8:1; see http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/MadaYHT.html). I believe this is the only place in which he mentions what Rabbi Gottlieb calls the "Kuzari" argument, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. The references in the Kuzari itself are at 1:25,47-8,87-8 (see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/kuzari.html). I think you will agree that no serious attempt at logical proof is made in any of these citations. IMO the one who comes closest (but not by much) to doing that is Saadia (also the earliest of the three) in his Book of Beliefs and Opinions (in the Prologomena and also at the end of 3:5; unfortunately I haven't been able to find a downloadable English translation). Indeed, in Kuzari 1:86 Halevi literally repeats Saadia's remark about the miracle of the manna. For these reasons I think that calling it the "Kuzari Principle" is a misnomer and proper attribution goes to Saadia. BTW if you are interested in what might be interpreted as allusions to the argument in the Tanach, another one is Isa. 44:8, quoted by Saadia.
Your remark "If you don't believe the logic of my proof ... I didn't expect everyone to be convinced" is really out of left field. Need I remind you that we don't get to vote on what constitutes correct logic? Take for example Euclid's proof that there is no largest prime. If someone were to say to you "Euclid notwithstanding I still believe there is a largest prime and some day a sufficiently powerful computer will find it", would you reply with "I respect your opinion" or would you ask "what part of the proof don't you understand"? In the same way, the logical incorrectness of your proof is not just my opinion, it is a hard fact as I have demonstrated.
Concerning the American Revolution, there are tons of well documented evidence from many *independent* sources which one can find by browsing the literature and/or visiting the National Archives. For the Sinaitic Revelation all we have is the story in the Torah, with no extrabiblical evidence. Add to that the obvious fact that 1776 is a lot more recent than 1200+/- BCE, when there was no such concept as *objective* history. If you don't think those are "big" differences, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion but I doubt you'll find many people who agree.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "In the same way, the logical incorrectness of your proof is not just my opinion, it is a hard fact as I have demonstrated."
I don't think you have demonstrated that my proof is logically incorrect. I didn't argue with your critique before, because I didn't completely understand your critique and still don't. I'll try to respond to the fallacies that you pointed out now.
Fallacy number 1: I took this to mean that I cannot assign a "generation number" to the current generation of Israelites as of today without assuming that process P (as you defined it) actually took place. I claim that I can. I can call the current generation of Israelites today "Generation 167" without assuming that the Revelation at Mt. Sinai took place 167 generations ago, just as I can call this year the 234th year of the USA without assuming that the American Revolution took place 234 years ago. "Generation 167" and "234th year of America" are just names.
Fallacy 2: The Jewish claim is that the Revelation at Mt. Sinai took place 3,322 years ago. If I have proven this, then I have automatically proven that process P is not infinite.
Fallacy 3: At least 100,000 Jews receive Moses' Torah by learning it every day. The fact that we are not always at the same place at the same time doesn't take away from this.
Betzalel,
ReplyDeleteI thought I was bending over backwards to make my critique clear but if you still don't understand it I apologize and will try to do better in the near future.
Meanwhile my last post was incomplete because I got an error message and didn't think any of it went through. Below is the rest of what I intended to post last time.
-------------------------------------------
As to natural vs. supernatural events, I can do no better than to refer to David Hume's criterion: in order to accept the truth of a miracle, the falsity of the assertion must be even more miraculous than the assertion itself. I consider it to be an extremely powerful argument against accepting miracles, and IMO anyone who wants to argue for the historicity of a miracle story needs to answer it.
Now I have a question for you. Consider the following theory: God created the entire universe five minutes ago; He created us, with all of our memories and all of the existing historical documentation, including the Torah, five minutes ago. Saadia, Halevi, and Maimonides never existed. The Civil War, the American Revolution, the Exodus, and the Big Bang never happened. There never was an ancient Egypt, Babylon, or Israel, etc. Despite the lack of emotional appeal this theory has, it is nevertheless logically possible and cannot be contradicted by any facts we can ever know about. Therefore, in order to affirm that one believes in *any* past event, one *must* make the assumption (impossible to justify!) that our memories and the documentary evidence we possess actually refer to real events. My question to you is, how do you justify your assumption that the Torah refers to real events, but the fossil record does not?
BTW I never answered Robert's comment "The core of the argument is that one cannot convince a nation that all of their ancestors experienced a significant, central, formative event if it were false". The answer is, it depends on how you define "ancestor". When someone converts to Judaeism, we give them a new name "... son/daughter of Abraham and Sarah". Abraham and Sarah become the *spiritual*, not the literal ancestors. Or consider Deut. 5:2-4 where Moses tells the Israelites that they themselves were at Sinai (actually Horeb, but I won't quibble about that) even though the Torah makes it very clear that the original generation had all died out. At the Passover Seder we recite "In every generation a person is obligated to view himself as though he personally came out of Egypt". In the same way, what could easily have happened in ancient times was that converts thought of the people in the Sinai story as their spiritual ancestors. They delighted in telling stories about their "ancestors" because it made their religious experience more real. After a few generations, nobody remembered that the word "ancestor" was originally not meant to be taken literally.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteIf you could help me to understand your critique, I would appreciate it.
Rabbi Gottlieb mentioned Hume on his website about the Kuzari argument. He agreed that the Kuzari argument contradicts Hume's approach. (I'm not sure if it is still there on his website.)
You asked, "My question to you is, how do you justify your assumption that the Torah refers to real events, but the fossil record does not?"
I see the Torah as describing real events the same way I see the history books as describing real events.
As for fossil records, let's say a scientist finds a fossil of a dinosaur. Then to me, it is logical that a dinosaur must have left the fossil a long time ago. As for how old the fossil is, I have no idea and don't think anyone knows. Yes, you could use modern dating techniques to get an age of the fossil, but since no one has been around that long to verify that the modern dating techniques actually work, how can I believe that the modern dating techniques are correct?
The Kuzari argument is deeply flawed.
ReplyDeleteConsider some backward tribe in the Sahara desert, or the Amazonian jungle. Suppose that one day a bunch of shamans gather the whole tribe in the the village square and proclaim with loud voices: "Hear ye, O noble Bula-Bula: 500 years ago, ten thousand of your ancestors witnessed a most sacred miracle , and therefore you are the chosen people!"
Since these guys barely remember what happened 50 years ago, and since the shamans are so wise and have such loud voices and colorful feathers, they will be thinking "who are we to doubt their HOLY words?" Besides, some or all of them vaguely remember their grandpa telling them an astonishing story that happened to *their* grandpa. They don't recall all the details, but it had something to do with gods and miracles... So there you go! "WE ARE THE CHOSEN PEOPLE!".
You cannot apply math to something as vague and irrational as the collective memory of primitive people. Therefore the Kuzari principle is completely flawed.
Max,
ReplyDeleteThe scenario that you present is a strawman attack on the Kuzari argument. Jewish history is a continuous chain of generations from Mount Sinai to the present day. In your story, there is a gap of 500 years from the miracles to the day when the people discover the miracles. If these people in your story were to keep a record of their history as the Jews have done, these empty 500 years would show up in the record.
Furthermore, the Jews were never a primitive people. Primitive people don't read. The Jews have been reading for at least as long as they have had the Torah.
Betzalel, you are completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the Torah itself testifies about gaps in the tradition (masoret). See for example Kings II, regarding the scroll found by Shafan Ha Sofer under king Josiah. Also Ezrah taught the Torah anew to the exiles returning from the Babilonian captivity.
Additionally, we have no reason to believe that the Torah was written by Moses immediately after the Sinai events. On the contrary, all evidence points to a much later date, around 900 BC at the earliest, which gives a gap larger than 500 years. For the Kuzari argument to be tenable, you need first to prove that the Torah was indeed written down by Moses around 1400 BC. The onus of this proof is upon you.
Finally, the people of those times were most certainly illiterate, and relied almost entirely on scribes and priests for their information.
Therefore the Kuzari principle is completely flawed.
Max said, "First of all, the Torah itself testifies about gaps in the tradition (masoret). See for example Kings II, regarding the scroll found by Shafan Ha Sofer under king Josiah. Also Ezrah taught the Torah anew to the exiles returning from the Babilonian captivity."
ReplyDeleteReally? Then why would Torah-observant Jews still believe in an unbroken tradition? Are you claiming that all Torah-observant Jews are illiterate today?
"Additionally, we have no reason to believe that the Torah was written by Moses immediately after the Sinai events. On the contrary, all evidence points to a much later date, around 900 BC at the earliest, which gives a gap larger than 500 years. For the Kuzari argument to be tenable, you need first to prove that the Torah was indeed written down by Moses around 1400 BC. The onus of this proof is upon you."
I already proved it above. The onus is on you to find a flaw in the logic of my proof.
"Finally, the people of those times were most certainly illiterate, and relied almost entirely on scribes and priests for their information."
How do you know this?
"Really? Then why would Torah-observant Jews still believe in an unbroken tradition? Are you claiming that all Torah-observant Jews are illiterate today?"
ReplyDeleteBecause people make stuff up. In exactly the same way Hindus believe in a 100,000 year unbroken Vedic tradition. I suppose you don't believe they are right, do you?
"I already proved it above. The onus is on you to find a flaw in the logic of my proof."
You proved no such thing. Circular logic and petitio principii are the avi avot ha tumah in math and logic.
"Finally, the people of those times were most certainly illiterate, and relied almost entirely on scribes and priests for their information."
"How do you know this?"
Otherwise they wouldn't need Ezra and other scribes to read aloud the Torah for them, wouldn't they?
Max said, "You proved no such thing. Circular logic and petitio principii are the avi avot ha tumah in math and logic."
ReplyDeleteBold statements without proof, as you have just made, are also avi avot ha tumah in math and logic.
"Otherwise they wouldn't need Ezra and other scribes to read aloud the Torah for them, wouldn't they?"
The Torah is also read aloud in Orthodox shuls today. Does this also imply that most Orthodox Jews today are illiterate?
Oh come on!
ReplyDeleteYour (and all Kuzari's proponents') first and worst circular argument is trying to prove that human beings always think and behave rationally, based upon the selfsame unwarranted assumption. In other words, you guys try to prove that people don't believe incredible stories, basing yourselves on the assumption that people don't believe incredible stories.
More specifically, here is a statement of yours:
"First, we shall prove true for N=1: Since D(1) is vacuous if claims A, B, and C are true, it suffices to prove that if the first generation, of at least one hundred thousand Israelites, accepts claims A, B, and C, then claims A, B, and C must be true. And this follows directly from the Kuzari Principle, so we have proven true for N=1."
This is a circular argument with a radius as big as a Ferry wheel.
"The Torah is also read aloud in Orthodox shuls today. Does this also imply that most Orthodox Jews today are illiterate?"
Straw argument.
My claim is that the people asked Ezra to read aloud the Torah to them:
וַיֵּאָסְפוּ כָל-הָעָם, כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד, אֶל-הָרְחוֹב, אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי שַׁעַר-הַמָּיִם; וַיֹּאמְרוּ, לְעֶזְרָא הַסֹּפֵר--לְהָבִיא אֶת-סֵפֶר תּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה, אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל
And its plain from the following verses that they didn't know in advance what is written there:
וַיִּקְרְאוּ בַסֵּפֶר בְּתוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים, מְפֹרָשׁ; וְשׂוֹם שֶׂכֶל, וַיָּבִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא
Come on, your arguments are so weak I almost feel sorry for you.
Max, you quoted from Nechemia Chapter 8. A translation can be found here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt35b08.htm
"8:1 All the people gathered themselves together as one man into the broad place that was before the water gate; and they spoke unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the Law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel."
"8:8 And they read in the book, in the Law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading."
I don't see how it is plain from these verses that they didn't know in advance what is written there. It all depends on the context.
"It all depends on the context."
ReplyDeleteI agree. Let us examine then the context:
The people gather and ask Ezra to read the Torah for them. The Levites explain what is being read, and cause the people to understand. Then everybody starts crying. If they knew beforehand the contents of the Torah, why did they need the Levites to do the explaining? And why did they suddenly start to cry?
Can you find a single example in the Tanach showing people that read for themselves? I'm not aware of any. It's always Moses, the King, the Levi'im etc.. that do the reading.
Hebrew doesn't even have a proper word for "reading". לקרוא comes from the root קרא which conveys the meaning of "calling out".
Max,
ReplyDeleteWhat about the following interpretation? It's the first day of the seventh month, which is Rosh Hashana, Yom HaDin, so the people are afraid. When the Torah is read, the people are emotional and cry. "Understand" here means to connect emotionally.
Also, I'm not aware of any place in the Tanach that it talks about a person who is not a priest or a king going to the bathroom. This doesn't mean that only priests and kings went to the bathroom back then.
Your interpretation just corroborates my point: These guys had no idea it was rosh hashana, which is why the Levi'im had to shush them and tell them them not to cry on this holy day but rather go ahead and have a good time. They obviously didn't remember all this from the preceding year. I guess you won't claim they were suddenly struck by mass amnesia, right?
ReplyDeleteMax, you seem intelligent with an Israeli sense of humor. Why don't you look up to see the interpretations of the traditional commentators of the passage in Nechemiah. You'll see that there are many possible interpretations.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact, I read the whole book of Nehemia, today and yesterday, in my Mikraot Gdolot, inspired by our little discussion. I used the commentaries of the Radak, Rashbam and ibn Ezra. Now, the pshat leaves no doubt in my mind: the Israelites, at the time of Ezra haSofer, did not know the Torah. They seem to have had a mere fragment of the religious knowledge and tradition we Jews have today. That's the pshat of the matter, and as I'm sure you know, ein mikra yotze midei pshuto (a verse never diverges from its simple meaning). Regarding the drash, it's just that: homiletic interpretation, retrofitted to agree with later Rabbinic axioms and postulates.
(this is the same post as before, just reposted with some spelling fixes)
Small correction: I meant Metsudat David, not Rashbam, of course.
ReplyDeleteMax, I'll confess that I haven't followed my own advice and read Mikraot Gedolot on Nehemia. I'll have to do this tomorrow to keep up with this discussion. I do remember reading some commentaries on Kings II with King Josiah a while back.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Kuzari argument goes, there are in fact Torah-observant Jews on the web who don't believe it. And I doubt that Hashem really cares if you don't believe it. He is probably more happy that you are reading and thinking about Mikraot Gedolot.
Well, my friend, let's leave it at that.
ReplyDeleteShana Tovah and Gmar Hatimah Tovah.
OK Max, Have a good Yom Kippur!
ReplyDeleteHere is how the proof is supposed to work: Suppose that 100,000 people all claim to see a flaming unicorn walk through their midst. Is their testimony likely to be true? I think so. Suppose these 100,000 people form a community and all tell their children about the flaming unicorn incident. Is the witness of that entire second generation enough to establish that the first generation believed they saw a flaming unicorn? I think so too. When a third generation is produced, it attests the validity of the second generation's beliefs, which attests to the validity of the first generation's beliefs, which attests to the validity of the original event.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how many generations away from the event you go, as long as you have that unbroken chain with at least 100,000 in each generation, you have proof of the original event. In this way, the modern Jewish people are in a sense direct witnesses to the events on Sinai.
So what's the catch? Why is this argument so thoroughly rejected by liberal Jews, many Modern Orthodox Rabbis, and even some Haredim?
The fatal flaw with this entire argument is in the Kuzari Principle itself. Remember what it states: Suppose that at least one hundred thousand people claim to witness a certain event. Then almost certainly, this event must have occurred. Do you see the flaw? The Kuzari Principle argument is really nothing more than a Sorites paradox.
What is a Sorites paradox? A Sorites paradox is a paradox that arises from vague predicates. The paradox of the heap is an example of this paradox which arises when one considers a heap of sand, from which grains are individually removed. Is it still a heap when only one grain remains? If not, when did it change from a heap to a non-heap?
Just because a sand heap can remain a heap when you remove one grain of sand, it does not follow that you can remove any number of grains of sand and expect that it will remain a heap. Likewise, hearing the testimony of 100,000 people that they witnessed an event is not as reliable as witnessing the event yourself. Hearing the testimony of the second generation attesting to the first generation is not as reliable as hearing the testimony of the first generation directly. You lose credibility with each generation.
In order for the argument to actually work, the Kuzari Principle would have to be reformulated as: Suppose that at least one hundred thousand people claim to witness a certain event. Then 100% certainly, this event must have occurred. But that's obviously false. Hearing 100,000 people claim witness to an event is not as good as witnessing the event yourself.
Drew, I agree that this is the reason why the argument is rejected by liberal Jews, some modern Orthodox rabbis, and even some Haredi. The Kuzari Principle, as I stated it is "almost certainly", and not 100%. Rabbi Gottlieb would also agree that it is "almost certainly" and not 100%. When I talked to him through email, he called "almost certainly" 100% minus epsilon, where epsilon is an infinitesimally small number.
ReplyDeleteBut let's say "almost certainly" means 99.99999% for the first generation that hears it from their parents. (For the parents, it's 100%, since they witnessed it.) Then for the second generation, it's 99.99999%^2, the nth generation 99.99999%^n. Since it is an exponential decrease, it decreases very fast.
Does "almost certainly" mean 100% minus epsilon or does it mean 99.99999%? If it means 99.99999%, then my proof above breaks down. If it means 100% minus epsilon, then it's still OK. How one interprets "almost certainly" is what separates the believers in the Kuzari Argument from the nonbelievers.
your making a mistake here. the proof is 100%. im surprised you dont see that. and as far as i know, know haradei should reject it, its brought down from all the rishonim. its just pure simple thinking. the believability for each generation recieving Torah would be 100% certainty. and why not? a whole nation, which for all purposes means the whole world, means one is 100% certain. where would the doubt be? that theres a conspiracy where everyone decides to lie to the next generation? for all realistic purposes thats impossible. even if you say thats not called 100%, it wouldn't add, since later generations would only be making the same claim, that maybe that first generation made it all up. thats all. thats an incredible unlikely thing. but either the first group made it up, but certainly not the second group. you either grant the first group told the truth, or didnt, thats it.
DeleteEven if "almost certainly" means 99.99999%, it only negligibly weakens your argument. Conservatively assuming a generation to be 20 years, that would mean 165 generations in 3,300 years. So the final probability of A, B, and C being correct after 165 generations, given that we accept D(165) presently, would be 0.9999999^165 = 99.998%, still extremely credible.
DeleteI just got an email that Tom tried to post here, but I don't see it here. I'm not sure why. If anyone has any trouble posting, please contact me at cafeinst@msn.com. I haven't blocked anyone from posting here.
ReplyDeleteTom emailed me that "Whenever I try to post something I always get an incomprehensible error message." So I'll post what he sent me in parts. Here is Part 1.
ReplyDelete"Betzalel,
I will try to restate my objections to your proof, hopefully in a way that will be easier to understand.
Let's start with fallacy 3: on Sep. 7 you said "Fallacy 3: At least 100,000 Jews receive Moses' Torah by learning it every day. The fact that we are not always at the same place at the same time doesn't take away from this". Let's not forget that what you are trying to prove is the historicity of the story in Ex. 19-24. You can't assume up front that it was *Moses'* Torah; that would be begging the question. Furthermore, I very much doubt that at least 100,000 Jews study Ex. 19-24 every day. In fact I would bet that the number of yeshiva guys who study any kind of Chumash on a daily basis is close to zero.
But I'm quibbling. To get back on topic, I quote what you called the Kuzari Principle (which is more correctly attributed to Saadia): "Suppose that at least one hundred thousand people claim to witness a certain event. Then almost certainly, this event must have occurred." In this sentence, the words "a certain event" refer to a *single* event. My objection is, in real life the transmission of the Torah story from one generation to the next is not a single event. Therefore the Principle, *as you have stated it*, does not apply. This is fallacy 3 in a nutshell. If you think you can restate the Principle so that a) it does apply to reality, and b) it is still self evident, then please be my guest. Personally I don't think it's possible.
Continuing to fallacy 1: on Sep. 7 you said "I took this to mean that I cannot assign a "generation number" to the current generation of Israelites as of today without assuming that process P (as you defined it) actually took place". That is not what I meant. Let O denote the current set of observant Jews. Of course you can assign an arbitrary number to O, but is that a meaningful thing to do? What I am objecting to is your claim that O belongs to process P. The way I read your proof, you certainly do make that claim. Here is my objection: either A: P exists in reality, or B: it exists only in the imagination. What your proof seeks to establish is that A is true and B is false. But the claim "O belongs to P" is meaningless if B is true; what could it possibly mean to say that real people belonged to an imaginary process? So when you make the claim, you are implicitly assuming A and thereby begging the question.
And here is Part 2 of what Tom tried to post:
ReplyDelete"Concerning fallacy 2, I'll try to state it in a different way. There are two kinds of proof by induction -- "forward" induction and "reverse" induction. If you use forward induction then you need to deal with the fatal objection in the previous paragraph. Therefore I offered reverse induction as a way to avoid that objection and possibly save your argument. In reverse induction you would begin with set O, which we know exists, and use your Principle to infer the existence of previous sets going back in time (we are pretending we don't know about fallacy 3). The question is, how do you get this process of going back in time to stop? I called this the Sorcerer's Apprentice problem because in that story, the apprentice (Mickey Mouse?) starts something that takes on a life of its own, with disastrous consequences. I think the only way to get it to stop is to first demonstrate that the world is not infinitely old. I am infinitely curious as to how you might propose to do that. You can't do it by appealing to the authority of the Torah because that would be begging the question. You can't appeal to the Big Bang theory because you believe the world was created 6000+ years ago. Archaeology? I'm not all that knowlegeable on the subject but I doubt that it gives us a definitive answer on that particular question.
Finally, let's return to my hypothetical off the wall over the top five minute scenario, which claims that the universe was created five minutes ago, along with the fossil record, the history books, all humans and animals, and all our memories.
Theorem 1. The five minute scenario is both logically and empirically possible.
Proof. There is nothing in logic that it contradicts. Furthermore, no evidence can exist that would disprove it, because according to the hypothesis, that evidence would itself have been created five minutes ago QED.
Theorem 2. A correct proof of the historicity of the Torah cannot exist.
Proof. If such a proof existed,it would imply that the five minute scenario is not possible, contradicting Th. 1 QED."
Tom, I'll go through your critique and make some observations. First Part 1:
ReplyDeleteAs for fallacy 3, as you labeled it, I agree that my proof does not model the real life transmission of the Torah exactly. It's just a model, which I think is useful in illustrating my point.
As for the comment, "Here is my objection: either A: P exists in reality, or B: it exists only in the imagination. What your proof seeks to establish is that A is true and B is false. But the claim "O belongs to P" is meaningless if B is true; what could it possibly mean to say that real people belonged to an imaginary process? So when you make the claim, you are implicitly assuming A and thereby begging the question."
I don't see it this way. I can only conclude that there is a miscommunication. Tom is reading my argument differently than I intended it be read.
Now, I'll go through Part 2 of Tom's critique.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the difference between forward and backward induction, as Tom talked about. I'll describe what I'm doing in my proof: First I prove that if a generation claims to witness X, then X occurred, using the Kuzari Principle. Then I use induction to prove that if a generation claims to witness a generation claiming X, then X occurred, and if a generation claims to witness a generation claiming to witness a generation claiming X, then X occurred... You can go on ad infinitum with this induction.
Today, we observe a generation claiming to witness a generation claiming to witness...(167 generations)...that the Revelation at Har Sinai occurred. Therefore, the Revelation at Har Sinai occurred.
As for the 5 minute scenario, you could use this to prove that all scientific facts are illusions. This might be true, but it's not useful.
Betzalel, after reading your latest comments it's clear to me you don't understand my objections. To help clarify things I will make the distinction between a "proof" and a "heuristic argument". A proof, if correct, *requires* that anyone who accepts the premises must then accept the conclusion. For example, Euclid's classical proof that there are an infinite number of primes falls into this category. On the other hand, a heuristic argument simply helps one to understand a point but one can still reject the conclusion because no claim is being made that the argument establishes that point beyond all doubt. My question to you is, to which category do you see your argument as belonging? It's clear from reading Gottlieb that he believes that people who reject the historicity of the Torah story are not "facing up to the truth". Do you want make that claim as well or is it your intention only to help people understand that believing the story in Ex. 19-24 is not unreasonable?
ReplyDeleteTom,
ReplyDeleteI see my argument as a proof, given that one accepts the premises as true, just as Euclid's classical proof that there are an infinite number of primes is a proof.
Betzalel,
ReplyDeleteOn Oct. 11 you said "... I agree that my proof does not model the real life transmission of the Torah exactly. It's just a model, which I think is useful in illustrating my point."
This statement is perfectly consistent with your argument as heuristic, but it flatly contradicts what you said on Oct. 31. Modern logic does not allow proofs to contain inexact "models" that don't agree with reality.
On Oct. 11 you also said "As for the 5 minute scenario, you could use this to prove that all scientific facts are illusions". So for example, consider the fact that neglecting air resistance, all objects fall at the same speed. Can you please fill in the details as to how my 5 minute scenario proves this to be an illusion?
Tom, it's a proof if one accepts the premises as true. But the premises are an inexact model of the real life transmisssion of the Torah (just like all models of reality).
ReplyDeleteHow to use the 5 minute scenario to prove that neglecting air resistance, all objects fall at the same speed is an illusion: The experiment that neglecting air resistance, all objects fall at the same speed was done years ago. Using the 5 minute scenario, "years ago" doesn't exist, since the world is only 5 minutes old; therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that neglecting air resistance, all objects fall at the same speed, so this scientific fact is just an illusion.
You seem to be forgetting - and this is important - that some models are better than others. Newton's inverse square law for gravity neglects relativistic effects and is therefore not a 100% accurate model of reality, but it does a darn good job of e.g. predicting the elliptical paths of the planets. By contrast, modeling Torah transmission as a single event that is witnessed by > 1,000,000 people every 20 or so years bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteAs for the 5 minute scenario: whether or not the universe was created 5 minutes ago, anyone could replicate the experiment in the present and show that neglecting air resistance, all objects fall at the same speed, therefore it is not an illusion. Furthermore, consider all of the existing technology that is based on scientific principles, e.g. suspension bridges, cars, airplanes, cd's, telephones ... I could go on all day. If those principles were illusions, you wouldn't expect the technology to work. The fact that it does work shows that the scientific principles are good models for reality. The point of the 5 minute scenario is that we *believe* things about the past, often with good reasons, but we cannot *prove* that any of it really happened. There is a world of difference between belief and proof. If you don't understand this, you might try reading about Hume's critique of induction (not mathematical induction; in philosophy, "induction" refers to the belief that the future will resemble the past). Hume showed that even though the belief in induction has obvious survival value, it cannot be defended on purely rational grounds.
You also seem to have missed the irony in the 5 minute scenario, so I will spell it out: it's a takeoff on the standard ultra-orthodox belief that the fossil record was created 5000+ years ago. I never would have thought of it on my own.
Love it! didn't really get most of the mathematics but was great to read :)
ReplyDeleteThank you shevy, I'm surprised that people still are finding this blog. I used to have lots of people find it after they read the Wikipedia article "Kuzari Argument", which linked this blog. But then the "Kuzari Argument" article in Wikipedia was deleted because it was considered unimportant.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet the hoax that was "The Shabbos App" was twice nominated for deletion and is still there. On the grounds that the controversy deserves coverage. That argument ought to apply here too.
Deleteits insane that it could be considered 'unimportant' a claim of such high magnitude, and such a solid irrefutable claim at that! i think people are just uncomfortable with such powerful evidence. the satan at work. someone needs to create that page again, and reference this blog again.
DeleteFWIW, Rav Yehudah haLevi personally would not have agreed with the so-called "Kuzari Principle". It takes a line of argument from the Kuzari (sec. 1) about the comparative power for tradition to validate belief compared to philosophical proof, and reduces it to a philosophical proof. To quote Kuzari 1:13:
ReplyDeleteThe Rabbi: That which you describe is religion based on speculation and system, the research of thought, but open to many doubts. Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved.
This whole argument about whether or not the Kuzari Principle could be falsified or if there are stories that exist that will require you to add yet more qualifiers to make our tradition unique is exactly what Rav Yehudah haLevi was trying to avoid by NOT making religion about proofs.
NOPE, your missing the point. The Kuzari made the point that we have tradition of a historical event. That is fact. and btw, there are no other events in history or claims even that are similar to our national claim. keep researching, you shall see, there is nothing similar. I guess the kuzari was just confident about that. something has to be falsiable to be proven true, that's how science works. your just playing games, and misunderstanding what the Kuzari was attempting.
Deletebtw, even if it wasn't the point of the Kuzari, it would still be true. and the point has been made by MANY MANY rishonim, so i don't know why its credited to the author of the Kuzari, I mean Rambam makes the same point in his introductions to Mishnah, and Pirke Avos, and other commentaries.
It's not only not the point of the Kuzari, it's the point the Kuzari is attacking!
DeleteAccording to Rabbi Yehudah haLevi, there are no proofs. But we, having a living tradition, don't need to settle for trying to find one. That's the Kuzari. Turning that into a proof is beyond ironic; it's intellectually dishonest.
If there are no proofs that the Torah is Divine, then why should anyone follow it? I doubt that Rabbi Yehuda haLevi said that.
DeleteLearn the seifer rather than guess.
DeleteHis point in cheileq 1 is that philosophical proof is a poor justification for believing something compared to many others. Unlike your assumption here that proof is the only reason to believe anything.
Learn 1:63-67. http://www.sefaria.org/Sefer_Kuzari.1.69?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en
Nowadays (after Kant, Existentialism, and the neo-Kantians -- which includes people like R' EE Desler, R' Hutner or R JB Soloveitchik -- we would say that firsthand experience is the stronger justification.
Take, for example, this post from Prof Shalom Carmy on Avodah (an email list I run) at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n087.shtml#07 :
"People who throw around big words on these subjects always seem to take for granted things that I don't.
"The people who keep insisting that it's necessary to prove things about G-d, including His existence, seem to take it for granted that devising these proofs is identical with knowing G-d.
"Now if I know a human being personally the last thing I'd do, except as a purely intellectual exercise, is prove his or her existence."
I have a number of blog posts on the subject at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/faith-and-proof
I can't access the link on sefaria. Please quote it so I can respond.
DeletePlease invest a little effort on your own, like googling "english Kuzari" or the like, or cut-n-pasting the link to where I discussed this at much more length.
DeleteYou're making empty and meaningless claims about a book you never read, and I have to cut-n-paste? Nu, talmud Torah is a mitzvah, so here it goes:
62. Al Khazari: .... Now what is thy opinion of the philosophers who, as the result of their careful researches, agree that the world is without beginning, and here it does not concern tens of thousands, and not millions, but unlimited numbers of years.
63. The Rabbi: There is an excuse for the Philosophers. Being Grecians, science and religion did not come to them as inheritances. They belong to the descendants of Japheth, who inhabited the north, whilst that knowledge coming from Adam, and supported by the divine influence, is only to be found among the progeny of Shem, who represented the successors of Noah and constituted, as it were, his essence. This knowledge has always been connected with this essence, and will always remain so. The Greeks only received it when they became powerful, from Persia. The Persians had it from the Chaldaeans. It was only then that the famous [Greek] Philosophers arose, but as soon as Rome assumed political leadership they produced no philosopher worthy the name.
64. Al Khazari: Does this mean that Aristotle's philosophy is not deserving of credence?
65. The Rabbi: Certainly. He exerted his mind, because he had no tradition from any reliable source at his disposal. He meditated on the beginning and end of the world, but found as much difficulty in the theory of a beginning as in that of eternity. Finally, these abstract speculations which made for eternity, prevailed, and he found no reason to inquire into the chronology or derivation of those who lived before him. Had he lived among a people with well authenticated and generally acknowledged traditions, he would have applied his deductions and arguments to establish the theory of creation, however difficult, instead of eternity, which is even much more difficult to accept.
66. Al Khazari: Is there any decisive proof?
67. The Rabbi: Where could we find one for such a question? Heaven forbid that there should be anything in the Bible to contradict that which is manifest or proved! On the other hand it tells of miracles and the changes of ordinary, things newly arising, or changing one into the other. This proves that the Creator of the world is able to accomplish what He will, and whenever He will. The question of eternity and creation is obscure, whilst the arguments are evenly balanced. The theory of creation derives greater weight from the prophetic tradition of Adam, Noah, and Moses, which is more deserving of credence than mere speculation. If, after all, a believer in the Law finds himself compelled to admit an eternal matter and the existence of many worlds prior to this one, this would not impair his belief that this world was created at a certain epoch, and that Adam and Noah were the first human beings.
68. Al Khazari: Thus far I find these arguments quite satisfactory....
"Love your fellow as yourself is a mitzvah too." I read the Kuzari. Claiming I didn't when you don't even know me plus the sarcastic comments aren't appreciated.
DeleteNow to respond to your comment, the entire Kuzari book is a proof of the Divinity of Torah. If the author Yehuda haLevi interpreted his own words the way you interpreted them, he would never have written his book.
DeleteUm no. The book is about the contents of or beliefs. Not proving their truth. Again, your comments do not reflect having learned the seifer.
DeleteAnd I noticed you asked for a wuote and then simply ignored it. Reaffirming my negative impression of your willingness to learn hashkafah.
I don't have more time to waste on this.
Furthermore, if you don't believe me, go here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuzari
DeleteYou will find that the full title of the book is "Kuzari: the book of refutation and proof on behalf of the most despised religion", so if the author really didn't believe in proofs, then why would he have put the word "proof" in the title of his book? Is it a mistranslation?
I read what you posted: 67 says "This proves that the Creator of the world is able to accomplish..." So the Kuzari is giving a proof, just from the words that you quoted.
DeleteIt's amusing to note that the Declaration of Independence is subject to a dispute as when it was signed, ranging from July 4 to August 2. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_of_the_United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Date_of_signing.
ReplyDeleteIf I had known that, I wouldn't have given that as an example.
ReplyDelete@Betzalel - Can you please help me out ? "Let us consider the following claims of the Jewish religion:
ReplyDeleteA) At least 600,000 Israelites gathered at the bottom of Mount Sinai over 3,300 years ago." AFAIK every Historian and Archaeologist argue no way 600000 plus. Besides 600000 could have just walked out of Egypt and into Canaan. Enemy armies were so much smaller than that. Amalek would be a joke.
Only because "every Historian and Archeologist" believes we know how to extrapolate population sizes from what is left to be found today. If they are all basing themselves on the same method of estimation and that method is wrong, they'll all be equally wrong.
DeleteJewish tradition requires assuming that there were far more Canaanites and Amaleikites than current consensus in those fields.
Notice that the same population estimation technique was surprised by the finding of the entire Elamite empire, not to mention repeatedly finding evidence forcing the upward estimation size (and longevity and common literacy) of the United Kingdom (Saul, David and Solomon.
Thank you Micha Berger - except from what I have read - the land masses could not support such large populations, massive disruptions would have occurred in Egypt, some evidence of such large mass of peoples (Including Amalek and Israelites) would leave at least some traces of evidence,... Are you saying all the historians and archaeologists are wrong ?
Delete@ Micha Berger - what evidence is there to support the notion of 100000 escsped slaves, let alone 600000 plus ? I can not get over this nagging feeling something is not right.
Delete@MB I asked this to Betzal do you have any thoughts - a) how do you know the first generation numbered at least 100000 ? b) Even if there were more than 100000, how do you know what they believed ? c) And if you think you know what they believed, how do you know they were not mistaken ?
DeleteI am not the right person to ask, as I do not believe the Kuzari Principle is valid. I do believe what it sets out to prove, but not that it's a valid proof.
Delete(I wrote about this above.)
I believe 600k draftable men left Egypt because the Torah says so. I trust the Torah as an information source because I have followed its dictates and the experience suggests to me that its author (or in this case Author) knows what He is talking about.
That's not a proof, but it's no less valid a justification than people make many other life-and-death decisions on. (Eg would most men only risk their lives to save their own kids if the children can indeed be proven to be his?)
The number 600,000 is from the Torah itself, in the book of Numbers. If you look at Egypt on Google earth, you will find that it is not so simple to run away from the Nile. The desert is quite harsh there.
Delete@Betzalel - thank you for your reply. I know the Torah has the 600000 figure - but how do you know it is a valid number ? b) Even if there were more than 100000, how do you know what they believed ? c) And if you think you know what they believed, how do you know they were not mistaken ?
DeleteMicha Berger Thank you - I get it, this is not really your fight. I would have an easier time accepting the 600000 figure if it was not contrary to everything we know about the ancient near east, logistics etc:. It is very implausible. Shalom
DeleteD Apple, the argument that I presented above is what convinced me that all of the info that was transmitted in the Torah story is accurate. I don't really understand the heart of your question.
DeleteMicha Berger's assertion that the fact that he has followed the Torah and his experience teaches him that the Torah is true is fine for him and others who have followed the Torah their whole lives, but if one is trying to convince a potential baal teshuva to follow the Torah, that kind of answer is not convincing, because in every other religion, one finds similar testimonies.
DeleteBetzalel, quite on the contrary. I believe the experience of Shabbos has done far more kiruv work than philosophical arguments.
DeleteAs what the chaver actually does say in the Kuzari book 1, we lack the objectivity to really assess philosophical proof. We end up starting with the "self evident" givens that fit our way of seeing the world and build what feels to us like a solid proof of that worldview. And yet (par 13), "Now ask the philosophers, and you will find that they do not agree on one action or one principle, since some doctrines can be established by arguments, which are only partially satisfactory, and still much less capable of being proved."
The difference between someone accepting your argument or not, or between considering a question an unanswerable disproof or an interesting puzzle you don't yet know a solution to, is which side fits your experience.
This is why the classical term for these arguments is "chizuq emunah", strengthening of faith, from the position that the faith is pre-existing, not proofs to convince an outsider.
Experiencing shabbos certainly helped me to come to the conclusion that I should follow the Torah, but I wasn't absolutely convinced until I read Rabbi Gottlieb's paper.
DeleteI quote from Yesodei HaTorah: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/904992/jewish/Yesodei-haTorah-Chapter-Eight.htm
"How is it known that the [revelation] at Mount Sinai alone is proof of the truth of Moses' prophecy that leaves no shortcoming? [Exodus 19:9] states: "Behold, I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people will hear Me speaking to you, [so that] they will believe in you forever." It appears that before this happened, they did not believe in him with a faith that would last forever, but rather with a faith that allowed for suspicions and doubts."
Much has happened in the field of Philospohy since the Rambam's day. Scholasticism fell. Few moderns believe that airtight proofs can exist.
DeleteThe point the Kuzari makes in chapter 1 is actually quite progressive that way.
Which is why I wrote, back when this post was young, that I found huge irony in the fact that this chapter of the Kuzari was recast into a proof itself.
Rabbi Yehudah haLevi describes philosophical proof as both unreliable, and yet the best the Greeks have because of their lack of more reliable sources of information. And that's when he advocates for tradition over proof.
Post-Kant, with neo-Kantians, Existentialists, and the like, the search for alternative ways to justify belief tends to be more experiential. The Kuzari's path would be characterized more as "Reliabilism" -- I have a long history with the source (mom, dad and the other transmitters of mesorah) that built up my trust in it.
To clarify that last sentence: Reliabilism is about trusted sources due to successful past experience. I am suggesting the Kuzari is relying on mesorah as a trusted source.
DeleteThe proof above is not airtight at all. It is based on assumptions which are empirical in nature. I had cast it as a proof only because at the time I was studying math and it was a convenient way to express what I was learning about Judaism.
Delete@Betzalel follow up - a) how do you know the first generation numbered at least 100000 ? b) Even if there were more than 100000, how do you know what they believed ? c) And if you think you know what they believed, how do you know they were not mistaken ?
ReplyDelete@Betzalel - I will respond to you here. Your assertion about D(1), the first generation "... that if the first generation, of at least one hundred thousand Israelites, accepts claims A, B, and C, then claims A, B, and C must be true." a) how do you know the first generation numbered at least 100000 ? b) Even if there were more than 100000, how do you know what they believed ? c) And if you think you know what they believed, how do you know they were not mistaken ?
ReplyDeleteThe statement that you quote above is, "Since D(1) is vacuous if claims A, B, and C are true, it suffices to prove that if the first generation, of at least one hundred thousand Israelites, accepts claims A, B, and C, then claims A, B, and C must be true."
ReplyDeletea) I do not know that the first generation numbered at least 100000 or that they even existed. I am only assuming in that statement that they exist and that they number at least 100000.
b) In that statement I don't know.
c) They claim they heard G-d speak to them, that they all achieved prophesy. It was their testimony that they knew this with the same level of clarity as a person has that the trees are green.
1) I am confused. Dont you need to prove D(1) ? Would not that require that that there was a first generation of 100000 that believed they witnessed a revelation ? 2)How do you know what the first generation claimed ? You have a story in the Torah - that is not the same as knowing the initial generation was 100000 and what they claimed. A guten Shabbos. Thank You for your continued help.
DeleteRegarding c) And if you think you know what they believed, how do you know they were not mistaken ? Your response did not address that. People, even masses of people can misunderstand, let alone prescientific people who had a different undersatnding of nature.
DeleteNo, my proof was that, "for any N>0, if generation N, of at least one hundred thousand Israelites, accepts claims A, B, C, and D(N) to be true, then the claims A, B, C, and D(N) must be true."
ReplyDeleteRegarding c), prove to me that you are not mistaken that you are reading this comment from a computer screen.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry for delay as could not respond get in response before Shabbas. Hoping I don't try your patience.I am trying to understand your argument.
ReplyDeleteA) The first generation (N=1) is the alleged witnesses at Mt-Sinai - right ?
B) I quote you for reference, but with N set to 1. “D([1]) - The Torah and also the history of the transmission process of the Torah have been transmitted from the first generation of Israelites to the [1]th generation of Israelites in an unbroken chain of generations, with at least one hundred thousand Israelites in each generation of the chain.”
C) You wrote “First, we shall prove true for N=1: Since D(1) is vacuous if claims A, B, and C are true, it suffices to prove that if the first generation, of at least one hundred thousand Israelites, accepts claims A, B, and C, then claims A, B, and C must be true. And this follows directly from the Kuzari Principle, so we have proven true for N=1.” “
You wrote “we have proven true for N=1" What exactly have you proven true for the first generation ?
Regarding my c) And if you think you know what they believed, how do you know they were not mistaken ? Your response did not address that. People, even masses of people can misunderstand, let alone pre scientific people who had a different understanding
ReplyDeleteThen you respond as follows “ Regarding c), prove to me that you are not mistaken that you are reading this comment from a computer screen.”
Do you not see the difference between my claim I am reading the computer and the alleged claims of a pre-scientific people under duress who were predisposed to superstitions ?
A) yes.
DeleteB) yes.
C) We have proven true for n=1 that if the first generation accepts claims a,b,c then a,b,c must be true.
D. Apple, I do not distinguish people between pre scientific and scientific or superstitious and nonsuperstitious. I see all people as superstitious, even modern scientific people. There is a limit to what people will believe, even superstitious people. If it were so easy to trick masses of people into believing that G-d spoke with them, it would have been done more than once.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAn ancient ignorant primitive tribe has the same reliability as scientists ? What would have been done more than once ? Many people claimed to have contact with supernatural. Groups of people dont go around saying lets invent a particular kind of mythology or story. And who says anything about tricking people ? That is not what mythology is about, although sometimes it could be.
DeleteBetzalel I really appreciate the time you have taken to continue this dialogue with me.
DeleteLets list your ABC’s.
a) At least 600,000 Israelites gathered at the bottom of Mount Sinai over 3,300 years ago.
b) All of the Israelites heard G-d speak to them at Mount Sinai, and they then asked Moses to be His prophet.
c) Moses received the entire Torah from G-d and taught the Torah to all of the Israelites standing at Mount Sinai.
Then you wrote “We have proven true for n=1 that if the first generation accepts claims a,b,c then a,b,c must be true.”
I am not so sure that if the first generation accepts a,b,c as true that a,b,c are indeed true. Seems almost like circular reasoning and argumentum ad populum. I guess I need to think more about it. Could the first generation been mistaken for one reason or another about (b). For example some people think a god lives inside a volcano and when the volcano makes noise it is the god talking. Well to them it is god talking, but is it really god talking ? And (c) - how would they know where Moshe got the Torah ? He went up the mountain and came down with the Torah and claimed it was from G-d. Would Moshe lie to us ? Never.
Anyway, that is an awful big “IF” since we don’t know if the first generation, if there was one, accepted a,b,c. But it is worse. If you think you have proven (a) as actually true, I think you are mistaken. It is extremely unlikely there were 600000 at an Exodus - Mt Sinai. Maybe what you really have proven is that 100000 people can be wrong.
Now I have to go back and read the rest of your argument. Thanks for the clarification.
I want to clarify something which I wrote "He [Moshe]went up the mountain and came down with the Torah and claimed it was from G-d. Would Moshe lie to us ? Never." I would like add : Or could Moshe be mistaken ? No.
Delete"An ancient ignorant primitive tribe has the same reliability as scientists ?"
DeleteThey couldn't have been ignorant or primitive. If they were, they wouldn't have influenced the world to the degree that they have.
Furthermore, the whole idea of science comes from Judaism, that there is one G-d who rules the world in a predictable fashion.
D. Apple,
DeleteAre you familiar with the principle of mathematical induction? My proof uses this principle. If you are not familiar with it, you will not be able to understand it.
Furthermore, my proof makes an assumption that you may or may not agree with:
"Rabbi Gottlieb's Kuzari Principle:
Suppose that at least one hundred thousand people claim to witness a certain event. Then almost certainly, this event must have occurred."
If you do not agree with this assumption, you will not agree with the proof.
Again thanks for responding.
DeleteA1) I have an extremely strong math background - and know about math Induction.
A2) "Rabbi Gottlieb's Kuzari Principle: [RGKP]
Suppose that at least one hundred thousand people claim to witness a certain event. Then almost certainly, this event must have occurred."
For reasons I have already stated or hinted at the principle seems flawed, especially when applied to generation N=1.
We may even accept an event occurred but need not accept their interpretation of the event.
A3) I want to add something new and would truly appreciate your response. When applying RGKP to N=1 there is a story of a specific event - Mt Sinai smoking etc:. Another example might be people claiming to see a UFO over Israel at a specific time - that would be a specific event. However, when applied to the Mt Sinai story for generations N>1, there is no specific event. Rather, there are individuals telling stories to each other. So even if I accept RGKP, it does not seem to work for N>1.
You wrote “They couldn't have been ignorant or primitive. If they were, they wouldn't have influenced the world to the degree that they have.”
DeleteS1) The ancient Israelites were ignorant, superstitious and non scientific minded people, just like all or virtually all ancient people were, and indeed many people still are. (Never said they were stupid). Even assuming the ancient Israelites descendants had great world influence does not change their original pedigree.
But here is a really important point:
S2) I think even you would agree that not all witnesses should be given equal weight. For example: if 100000 modern scientists witness an event and make a claim about that event, then their testimony should carry more weight than the claims of say 100000 ancient Egyptians who witness the event and make claims about it.
So what is the thrust of S1) and S2) ? It is this. Your claim that the Torah Story is true is an extraordinary claim, and you should have extraordinary evidence for it. But instead you are providing a story in the Torah that was allegedly believed by some ancient people and trusting their opinion of what occurred. And moreover ancient Israelites were ignorant, superstitious and non scientific minded people and that weakens your case further. Need I add the ancient Israelites, if they even believed the story had self serving reasons to do so. Based on all I have written can you understand why skeptical people just can not swallow the Exodus-Mt Sinai story ?
DeleteI don't believe that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. They only need evidence. If you don't believe in Rabbi Gottlieb's Kuzari Principle, as I defined it above, then that is fine. But if you do, then you have to accept the mathematical proof above that "for any N>0, if generation N, of at least one hundred thousand Israelites, accepts claims A, B, C, and D(N) to be true, then the claims A, B, C, and D(N) must be true", unless you can find a flaw in the logic.
DeleteThe fact that the scientific method wasn't invented until a few hundred years ago so the ancient Israelites weren't scientists seems irrelevant to me in the context of our conversation. They all claimed that G-d spoke to them, so I have no reason to doubt them.
There are people that claim a volcano rumbling is god speaking. But if they understood about volcanoes they would conclude something else. Science does help. Maybe we just disagree.
DeleteMoving on, can you please respond to my A3) which to repeat is: A3) When applying RGKP to N=1 there is a story of a specific event - Mt Sinai smoking etc:. Another example might be people claiming to see a UFO over Israel at a specific time - that would be a specific event. However, when applied to the Mt Sinai story for generations N>1, there is no specific event. Rather, there are individuals telling stories to each other. So even if I accept RGKP, it does not seem to work for N>1.
DeleteThe event for N>1 is individuals telling stories to each other. For instance, for N=2, the children of generation N=1 hear the stories and apply RGKP to infer that the stories must be true. And for N=3, the grandchildren hear stories from N=2 and apply RGKP to infer that N=2 was told stories by N=1. Then they infer that the stories told by N=1 must be true by RGKP. This process repeats itself until the present generation today. Of course, this is all just a simplification, but I think you get the idea.
DeleteAs for volcanoes rumbling, how many stories have you heard of a primitive tribe claiming that the volcano talked plainly in their own language, saying it is the god that did something great for them and that they should have no other gods? That is what happened to the Israelites according to the Torah.
DeleteOne reason I mention the volcano rumbling is to support the notion that all testimony is not the same and science helps.
DeleteAnother reason is that the notion of gods associated with volcanoes is reasonable and can provide the kernal of the evolution of a mythology.
DeleteRGKP Principle: “Suppose that at least one hundred thousand people claim to witness a certain event. Then almost certainly, this event must have occurred.”
DeleteThen you explained “The event for N>1 is individuals telling stories to each other. For instance, for N=2, the children of generation N=1 hear the stories and apply RGKP to infer that the stories must be true. And for N=3, the grandchildren hear stories from N=2 and apply RGKP to infer that N=2 was told stories by N=1. Then they infer that the stories told by N=1 must be true by RGKP. This process repeats itself until the present generation today. Of course, this is all just a simplification, but I think you get the idea.”
If, I have the following concerns:
C1) For N>1: How do you know 100000 people heard the stories in every generation ? Is not that a requirement for RGKP ?
C2) Telling stories to each other is not like 100000 claiming to witnessing a certain event. How does the RGKP apply ?
C3) Lets assume it makes some sense to claim that 100000 of generation N=2 witnessed N=1 telling them stories. OK, apply RGKP - that means at best we can assume N=2 heard the stories, not that the stories are true.
I do not know how to explain it any clearer than I have.
DeleteOk, I will assume you understood my three questions C1), C2) and C3) and tried your best to explain. The thrust is it seems you may be misapplying RGKP. Also I think making unwarranted assumptions about: population sizes + what the population claimed. Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to try and clarify your argument for me. Shalom and nice chatting.
DeleteBetzalel you wrote "But while the scientists think they have powerful circumstantial evidence on their side, we have hundreds of thousands of witnesses to the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai by G-d on our side."
ReplyDeleteThere is a Torah story about alleged witnesses to something. I am sorry, I just do not see how that is having any witnesses at all. You may think you have an argument that there must have been 600000 plus, at Mt Sinai but that is not the same thing as actually knowing there are 600000 witnesses.
I think you're getting way too abstruse. (And if you don't mind my saying, a little obsessed.)
ReplyDeleteThe notion behind the so-called Kuzari Principle is that the claim of a national miracle cannot be launched unless it were true. IOW, it alleges: how do we know more than 100,000 people witnessed the revalation at Sinai? Because there is no way to convince the hundred of thousands of alleged descendents of this story if it weren't true. No one would trust someone telling them this story about their ancestors if they hadn't heard it before.
My problems with the Kuzari Principle is:
1- The Mexica also have a story of national revelation, such things are common among Native American religions. Our claim only seems unique if you keep your sights on Europe. (And even then, there are examples -- such as Celt or Thebe origin myths -- that require splitting hairs to keep our claims unique.)
2- One could tell the masses that the story they all grew up with really happened. A story can grow from bedtime story to myth to historical claim, without ever startling the masses with claims about their ancestors they never heard before. (Which explains #1.)
3- Nakh itself tells us that we lost such knowledge, and had to be taught about matan Torah from scratch. Such as during Yoshiyahu's restoration.
4- I don't like philosophical proofs. As I wrote above, this was the Kuzari's real point in the text in question. What seems airtight to one person is fallacious to another. Proofs are structures of logic atop a set of givens. And we choose our givens based on our experiences.
IOW, proofs only seem solid to someone already predisposed to believe. No religion can be proven or disproven; people aren't rational enough for objective discussion of religion.
5- Even at best, proofs are attempts to know about G-d or religion, and fall short of ways of actually knowing Him. It's the wrong epistemic plane for religion. Religion should be like knowing a friend, not knowing about humans.
@MB - you make some good points and it jogged my memory of an old christian spiritual "What a friend we have in Jesus". People have all sorts of imaginary friends, and very few of those people end up in psychiatric wards.
Delete@Bezalel
ReplyDeleteFrom Shemos is not clear to me you have supported “B) All of the Israelites heard G-d speak to them at Mount Sinai, and they then asked Moses to be His prophet.”. Specifically where is it clear the Israelites heard G-d speak.
Devarim is a third person report that informs the Israelites what happened. But by then were not many (all ?) of the alleged witnesses to the Mt Sinai event already dead ?
It is not just the passages I mentioned, but all of the rabbinic literature too which attest to a revelation at Sinai.
DeleteSo you would agree Shamos does not support the notion the Israelites heard G-d speak actual words ?
DeleteI did not say that.
DeleteThat is why I ask for clarification. From Shemos alone - specifically where is it clear the Israelites heard G-d speak actual words or in their vernacular ?
DeleteTo answer your question, you have to learn the Talmud and various rabbinic commentaries. Plus see http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0219.htm
DeleteAre being somewhat evasive ? To repeat my question From Shemos alone - specifically where is it clear the Israelites heard G-d speak actual words or in their vernacular ?
DeleteSee Exodus 20:1. "And God spoke all these words, saying"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm
It is not clear in Shemos 20:1 to who G-d speaks. It could mean to Moshe - the Torah keeps writing G-d speaks to Moshe and because 20:15 has the Israelites see the smoking mountain and tell MOshe we are afraid to hear G-d speak. They play it safe - they tell Moshe to relay G-d's words. A strong case can be made the Israelites never heard words in their vernacular from G-d. It was all conveyed thru Moshe.
ReplyDeleteAnd that is why I mentioned the rabbinic commentaries. One cannot properly understand the Torah without the Oral Law. It was given this way. Let me ask what is your educational background in Judaism?
DeleteSo what is your opinion ? It is clear from the Shemos alone the Israelites heard words from G-d ?
DeleteIt does not matter what my opinion is. The opinion of the great rabbis is what matters.
DeleteYou have seichel. You can read what Shemos writes and form an opinion. Tell me which 'great' Rabbi who writes that from Shemos alone it is clear G-d speaks to the Israelites. I have no doubt a Rabbi has claimed that G-d spoke to the Israelites. But is it claimed based on Shemos alone ?
DeleteI cannot find a place in Shemos where it says explicitly that G-d speaks directly to the Israelites. I can only find it in Devarim.
Delete