Monday, September 7, 2015
NOTE TO ALTER COCKER: I AM NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU, MY POST ARE FOR YOUR READERS WHO ARE ON THE FENCE. AS CHAZAL SAY, DON'T TRY TO CONVINCE A JEWISH APIKORIS:
We don't have to show that there are no false national events. The burden is on you. We are presenting a form of evidence -- a nationally experienced event which would change the face of the nation perpetually -- and we say that until we find a false event, we have no right to assume that our evidence is fallible. Why do you assume that it it fallible?
The fact that there are no miraculous national events doesn't imply that our evidence is fallible. If you were standing at Sinai, and you'd experience the miracles, would you doubt your experience of eating the manna for 40 years because other examples of people experiencing miracles aren't recorded? The point is that if we are presenting evidence that may be infallible, it is only your wishful thinking that allows you to ignore it.
I mean, think about it. The Beis Hamikdash, specifically the Second one. Its existence changed our nation forever. Its existence is seared in our collective memory. It left at least two yearly commemorations -- Tisha B'av and Chanukah -- in its wake. Arguing against Sinai is like arguing against the existence of the Temple: utter nonsense.
I pinned a chapter to my twitter account which you may be interested in. NOTE: IT IS ONLY A VERY SMALL SLICE OF THE ARGUMENT.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What do you think of Alter Cocker Jewish Atheist http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/10/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-14.html or http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/06/kuzari-argument-part-13.html He also provides examples of national traditions not being reliable. And the only national traditions that we know are reliable involved natural events. Extrapolating beyond the cohort to miracles is questionable. A major problem with the Kuzari argumment is the Torah story if understood to involve 600000 plus is almost certainly false.
ReplyDeleteIv'e read through his arguments. I will deal with your summary of them one-by-one:
ReplyDelete1) While there are false national traditions, I don't know of any that involved an extended(14,600 days)event experienced by millions, the entirety of the Jewish ancestry, and which required immediate and everlasting commemorations. So I don't know of anything even nearly similar.
2) If I present otherwise-solid evidence, and you reject it because it proves a "supernatural" event, then what is to stop you from ever excepting evidence for supernatural events?
3) The Kuzari argument could stand even if we are sure that there were much less than 600,000 people there. But, let's assume for the sake of the argument that you are rights. I am saying that we have excellent evidence that a national event took place. You are saying that it is extremely unlikely that millions of people were in the desert (I highly disagree, but OK). Nevertheless, if I have excellent evidence that an extremely unlikely event took place, I must follow the evidence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePoint 1 - I mostly agree with you. But it does show national traditions, even of national events are not always reliable. That weakens the Kuzari principle. And if Sinai is unique on what basis can you argue it was true ?
DeletePoint 2 - ACJA is arguing as follows: The national traditions we know are true did not involve miracles. That is the sample. Extrapolating out of the sample is problematic. I do not apriori rule out supernatural.
Point 3 - There is no evidence anything took place in Sinai. You have a story in a book. You have a group of people who at some point in time claim to believe the story. That is not evidence the story is true. Also, the more likely there are falsehoods in a story the more we are prone to question the reliability of the whole story. Will get back to you after Shabbos.
1. OK. So national traditions aren't always reliable (regarding brief events). And I'm not arguing that the Sinai evens are true. I am merely arguing that we have no right to ASSUME that the evidence for the Sinai events is fallible.
ReplyDelete2. I am not extrapolating. I am not taking an (almost-agnostic) position. I am merely saying that the evidence we are presenting may be infallible. If you agree (which you of course don't), that the evidence we are presenting may be infallible, won't even you agree that it is sufficient to prove even the occurrence of supernatural events?
3) Right, people coming to believe a story about their ancestors is some evidence. I mean, Jews believe that their ancestors saw the Second Temple. Wouldn't that show that people's belief about their ancestors has evidentiary value?
“ Right, people coming to believe a story about their ancestors is some evidence. I mean, Jews believe that their ancestors saw the Second Temple. Wouldn't that show that people's belief about their ancestors has evidentiary value? “
ReplyDeleteThe people’ belief in a story about their ancestors does not at all mean the story is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In short, the stories are not reliable.
Also, the more wacky the story the less reliable it is . The more the story does not jive with the historical record, archaeology, and science the less reliable it is. The more falsehoods that are likely in the story the less reliable it is. ACJA has written other problems. But even if none of that is in the story, we do not accept the story because it has been passed down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_myth also various tribal origin myths, foundation myths, legends etc:
Ever hear of the Texas Sharp shooter fallacy ? Meaning you keep piling on conditions: it must involve a long period, it must be national, it must be about ancestors... It is as if you take the features of the Sinai story as the criteria. The problem you run into is then your are left with no other stories to compare , and thus you can not draw any conclusions.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you are extrapolating out of the sample. If you use a sample as evidence of 'something' that something should share the qualities of the sample.
I am not drawing conclusions. You are. I am merely asserting that I don't know whether a national event, experienced by their entire ancestry, commemorated immediately by numerous daily commemorations is a fallible form of evidence. True, it might be fallible, but I am not sure why you ASSSUME that it is fallible.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your point about wackiness, if we have no reason to assume that the evidence we are presenting is fallible, then I believe that the evidence is sufficient to prove the existence of even the wackiest phenomena. Indeed, scientists tell us wacky stuff (e.g., some postulate that at the atomic level, causes can occur AFTER their effects, which otherwise seems logically impossible), yet we accept the evidence. So, if you were to agree that the evidence we are presenting is infallible, then it's obviously entirely irrelevant how (supposedly!) wacky the story is.
Gut Vuch Are Roster. You wrote "So, if you were to agree that the evidence we are presenting is infallible..." AND you wrote "I am merely asserting that I don't know whether a national event, experienced by their entire ancestry, commemorated immediately by numerous daily commemorations is a fallible form of evidence. True, it might be fallible, but I am not sure why you ASSSUME that it is fallible."
DeleteI am not assuming anything, but am presenting evidence, logic and reasons to support for things I write.
This will be a long response, sorry. National traditions, collective memory are known not always to be fully reliable. Sometimes there is a kernel of truth in them, sometimes no truth and perhaps sometimes fully true. Thus when anybody cites me any national tradition or any collective memory I need not accept it as true or even likely true. AND as I have already informed you, the more likely there are falsehoods in the ‘tradition’ the more skeptical we should become. Also, supernatural is far from our everyday experience, far from all known science, so any tradition including supernatural should make us more skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Regardless of what particular part of science you find wacky you have to understand it is of a different kind of wackiness that the Sinai story. All science, even a speculative scientific hypothesis is rooted in prior established science, in models consistent with every known empirical fact. So ‘wacky’ science is far ahead from ‘wacky’ stories that have supernatural in them.
FYI - I do not consider science infallible, but it is the best we can do. CONTINUED
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCONTINUED Are Roster I do not agree the evidence you are presenting for the Sinai story is infallible. In fact you present no evidence at all. All you have is a story in a book and the claim that at some point in time a large group of people believed in the Sinai story. BUT do the claims of a pre-scientific, superstitious people with a self interest to tell such a story give you confidence that the story is infallible ? The Kuzari argument has so many weaknesses, many mentioned by ACJA and in some of his links that you have hardly evidence at all.
DeleteOnce again I repeat what I have said previously we do not rule out supernatural apriori. But we require extraordinary evidence for such claims.
Assuming the Sinai story was truly widely believed by many Jews how did they come to believe in it ?
We may never know for sure (and that is OK), but I think most scholars believe it was part of nation founding mythology.
For example James Kugel I understand is an Orthodox Jew. Copying ACJA who cites Page 232 How to Read the Bible by James Kugel 2007:
"It is not hard to imagine, scholars say, that a similarly pious theme - God's miraculous intervention to save the Israelites from Egyptian slavery - came to be transferred from experience of a few to the foundation myth of an entire nation"
[The pious theme Kugel is referring to are certain foundation type myths of the USA.]
Contrary to Kuzari proponents, there are experts on this matter who have no difficulty accepting some sort of myth evolution for the Sinai stories.
I am not sure anything ACJA or I wrote will change your mind about anything. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree. Shalom.
My point is that you, like Kugel, are assuming things without evidence. Kugel asserts that "it is not hard to IMAGINE . . . that "the experience of a few [transferred into] the foundation myth of the entire nation."
ReplyDeleteImagination is insufficient. When asserting that the central event of the entre nation could be false, what you need is a counterexample, empirically showing that nationally-experienced events which were immediately commemorated can be falsified. Indeed, when one argues that our belief in the existence of the Second Temple is the product of a myth, merely asserting that one can IMAGINE how the commemorations of Tisha B'av and numerous other commemorations developed over time is insufficient to assert that our evidence for the Temple is fallible. Kugel has no counterexamples, and that is why he relies on his imagination (his vague and irrelevant reference to the Mayflower notwithstanding).
You are asserting a fact. And you have no evidence for it.
Regarding your claim that the Jews were superstitious, that may be true. But that isn't sufficient their claim regarding their national events - and being commanded to never forget this event, and to commemorate it every Seventh day with Sabbath, and a myriad of other commemorations -- is a fallible form of evidence.
Nevertheless, as I argue here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1hLl6wqz6VTSS0xYzdXSUdOc2s/view), if anything, the Jews were perhaps the least likely nation to be duped into accepting a false national belief. In order to spare you reading the entire chapter, I pasted the last two paragraphs of the chapter, which the evidence shows is an accurate depiction of the Jewish people:
The Psalmist praises God for the miracles that ―our fathers have related to us‖ (78:3). Ibn Ezra, the great medieval biblical commentator, explains the relevance of the fact that we
have heard those miracles from our fathers: ―We heard about these national miracles from many [of our ancestors], people who we know were exceedingly righteous . . . they loved us, they are
our fathers, and they would never wish to trick us.
As mentioned in this chapter, the ancient Jews were exceedingly righteous, literate, moral, intelligent, skeptical, unbiased, genealogically-astute, historically-proficient, and they
wouldn‘t have any reason to be tricked into believing in a false history, or to trick their descendants into believing a false history. They are the most reliable source of history. They
were not barbarians. It is we who are the barbarians, if we irrationally evade evidence whenever it happens to point to the existence of God.
I am not sure it would fruitful to continue our discussion. But I think it is worth clarifying my citation of Kugel. When Kugel writes scholars 'imagine' he does not mean ‘invent’, 'make up', ‘fabricate’. Rather, to provide very plausible explanations for the Israelite/Jewish nation foundation mythology. These explanations are rooted in the Tenach itself, archaeological evidence, historical evidence and records, the nature of nation founding and etiological myths, sociology, political science and well human nature. That may not be good enough for you.
DeleteOne more thing: You wrote "When asserting that the central event of the entire nation could be false..."
DeleteThere is no onus on anybody to prove anybody's story of anything as false. Rather the onus is on the person claiming a story is true to provide sufficient evidence the story is true. I think the Kuzari argument fails to meet the standard of evidence required (forgive me writing this once again) for 'a wacky story', because that is what the Sinai story really is.
Sorry, one more point: I think what ACJA is getting at is this. A tribe that was prescience and superstitious with a motivation for telling a particular story does not make for very reliable testimony. Especially for a wacky story. You may disagree.
DeleteThe link you provided in which you wrote "One thing we do know about ancient nations, even nations steeped in the most-egregious forms of child-sacrifice, cannibalism and superstition, is that they refused to accept false national histories."
DeleteI strongly suggest you study nation founding mythology because your statement is factually wrong. For example see https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/feb11/japans-national-foundation-day/ Presumably this belief in Japan's founding was believed by many Japanese. Do you think the Japanese story is true because it is part of their nation founding mythology ? You can not tell me it does not qualify because it is different than Sinai story. Because that is not how you stated your sentence and it called moving goal posts. Enough said. Thanks for the dialogue and Shalom.
Briefly, addressing what I consider your main points: True, you have no burden to prove that the story is false. But I never demanded that of you. I merely asserted the obvious: that you have a burden to prove that our evidence is fallible. You have provided no evidence that our evidence is fallible. You have called the ancient Jews superstitious, but that does not prove that they were superstitious enough to be duped into believing that millions of their ancestors were commanded by God to forever commemorate and perpetuate the memory of this event. You have utterly failed to provide a single relevant counterexample. For the Exodus, we have tens of commemorations, many of them daily, which are believed to have been commanded from the day of the event and forever. You haven't provided a single counterexamples where there was even five (or even one) commemoration. Until you provide such a counterexample, we have no reason to assume that our evidence is fallible. And if we have no evidence that our evidence is fallible, we have no reason to assume that our evidence isn't sufficient to prove even wacky events, even events that you claim probably should have left archaeological remains. I don't mean to be offensive, but it seems to me that all you have is speculation and guesswork. And I, for one, remain fully skeptical regarding your unproven assumption that our evidence is fallible. Now, I don't claim that our evidence is infallible, but you haven't shown that it is fallible. You have shown nothing (I will not address your points that are peripheral, and which appear to be based on taking my words out of context).
ReplyDelete“I merely asserted the obvious: that you have a burden to prove that our evidence is fallible.” I think I have done so, but you may disagree. I do not think I have taken anything you wrote out of context, but if I did that was not my intention. Please accept my apologies. Nice chatting and Happy New Year
DeleteWhen I said that nations don't believe in false national histories, from the context I was referring to events believed to have been experienced by the entire nation. Not merely a few ancestors (e.g., the story of Avraham, while the Jewish nation believes it, so in some way you could call it national history, it is not national history in the sense that I was using the word). I don't claim that you purposefully took my words out of context. I was merely asserting that I felt no need to respond to it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification.
DeleteI would like to focus on another point, and I would like your opinion on this one (and this is not a trick question, I am not trying to corner you in any way, and you can always change your mind regarding this point): Assume for the sake of the argument that we have no reason to assume that our evidence is fallible, would you then agree that the archaeological (for Exodus) and geological data (for Genesis) that you rely upon is insufficient to allow us to question whether the Sinai events took place?
ReplyDeleteYour are asking a vary hypothetical question. One reason, (amongst a plethora of others) why the Sinai Story is a failed hypothesis is because the archaeological and historical record is inconsistent with it ! Moreover, there are very plausible natural alternative explanations for the Sinai story consistent with sociology, politics, history, etc: Sorry if my answer seems evasive.
DeleteCorrect, it is a hypothetical question. You believe, staunchly it appears, that we have evidence that our nation could accept a false national event. But many people are somewhere in the middle (I am actually somewhere in the middle as well, as Iv'e told you before). They would be willing to accept the Kuzari argument if not for the fact that the archaeological record contradicts (in their minds) the Torah's narrative. I think that this is illogical. I believe (and I can be wrong), that once you accept the Kuzari argument, the fact that archaeology (and even geology, regarding Bereishis) may contradict it is actually irrelevant.
DeleteI wanted to know your thoughts on the matter. (I know it's theoretical, since you have already claimed that you don't accept the Kuzari argument, but I think it's still worth discussing. Furthermore, I feel that many people conflate archaeology with the Kuzari argument, as if the latter disproves the former. And, logically, I don't understand the connection between the two. Though I might be wrong.)
My thoughts are: if you believe that we have no reason to assume that national history can be fallible, then the mere fact that national history tells you an exceedingly improbable event is no reason to reject that form of evidence.
Because of the hypothetical and in part to avoid hair splitting definitions, terminology etc: you may think I am being evasive.
DeleteIt is plausible based on everything we know, the Sinai story could be a false story. It is not unreasonable for one to reject the Sinai story because of the conflicts with the archaeological and historical record. Nor is it unreasonable to reject the Sinai story because of plausible natural explanations for it's (alleged) belief by many. Besides that, Rabbi Gottlieb’s Kuzari Principle (KP); or Kuzari style arguments; are not reliable for determining the truth and at times not even the likelihood of the truth of a nation’s or a tribes beliefs. (Side note - any example that is presented to demonstrate the weakness of the KP is said to not qualify. This amounts to moving goal posts, special pleading and the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. As if the individual is really trying to preserve a belief rather than consider the option his belief could be wrong.)
When evaluating a hypothesis one needs to consider all data and information and that is how ‘national tradition’ ( Kuzari argument - call it what you want) can sometimes come into conflict with sociology, archaeology, historical record etc:
When a national history tells you an exceedingly improbable event that is all the more reason to suspect it. The onus falls very heavily on the person advocating such a history convince us of it's reliability, Something more than appeals to the KP or Kuzari Argument.
I wrote "When a national history tells you an exceedingly improbable event that is all the more reason to suspect it."
DeleteWhen I say the story seems improbable I mean to modern ears. The gestalt when the Sinai story was developing was different. Countries had their Tribal/State gods. Beliefs in supernatural was widespread and events were claimed to be under supernatural control. To those people passing around what today we may consider to be wacky stories was not so wacky back then.
Before responding, I wanted to be clear that I do not concede that the Sinai events happening is an inherently improbable event (i.e., I don't believe that archeology provides any basis to question the Sinai events, and I do not believe that it is a wacky event, and many argue that we should actually expect a divine revelation.)
ReplyDeleteBut right now, just for the sake of the argument, I will grant that archeology and your general distrust against miraculous stories, render the Sinai events to be inherently unlikely events.
Now that we got that out of the way: I am not sure I understand what you have repeatedly implied that Kuzari proponents are moving goal-posts. I disagree. YOU are making an argument: that the tradition believed by the Jews regarding the Sinai events is probably fallible. When you say that, we are entitled to ask: Do you have any evidence that it's fallible? Do you have any evidence even REMOTELY similar to Sinai which has shown itself to be fallible? If not, how are we moving goal-posts?
I agree that belief in the supernatural was common in ancient times. So people wouldn't have necessarily pushed back when hearing a supernatural story about their ancestors. But here's why the Sinai events are categorically different: the commemorations. God not only appeared to millions of our ancestors, but also commanded that we be exceedingly careful never to forget this event, and to pass the memory of this event to our grandchildren, and even to celebrate every "seventh" day in memory of this event (over thirty commemorations for the Exodus, in my count). Were people that gullible that they didn't even ask, "Where are the supposed commemorations, why did we never hear about this event from our grandparents?" You might say, "People are gullible enough to believe even such types of national events, despite the commemorations." And you may be right. But do you have any evidence that you are right?
Furthermore,, I don't see how one can reject the Kuzari argument merely because the event is extremely improbable. I mean, we do accept evidence for improbable events. And we don't reject evidence if we have no reason to assume that the evidence is fallible. Merely because the evidence tells us something we wouldn't expect doesn't render the evidence unreliable.
Just checking in to let you know I read your comment and I will let you have the last word. Thanks for the time and effort you put into this correspondence.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for giving me the last word. An OTD friend of mine suggested that these sites may offer some support to your position. To me, they don't seem to offer anything relevant, but I will defer to his advice:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkreason.org/articles/kuzariflaws.cfm
http://bpelta.blogspot.com/2010/12/kuzari-principle-proof-from-mass.html
@ARE ROSTER please check out http://2nd-son.blogspot.com/2018/03/breaking-kuzari.html
DeleteMaybe you can make some suggestions and critiques of that outline. Thanks
ACJA continues to bash the Kuzari argument. Since we last communicated he wrote about eight new critiques.
DeleteHe also wrote about Pascals Wager
@ARE ROSTER please check out http://2nd-son.blogspot.com/2018/03/breaking-kuzari.html
ReplyDeleteMaybe you can make some suggestions and critiques of that outline. Thanks
Thanks. I posted a response, which merely outlines which premises I agree and which I disagree with. I DISAGREE WITH ALL THE PREMISES. And yet I am a foaming-at-the-mouth proponent of the Kuzari argument. So I don't think that Second Son is familiar with the Kuzari argument as I know it.
DeleteI appreciate the time you took to do this. Are you sure your comment is still there since I just checked and I did not see it - but I could have missed it.
Delete"2nd-son" I think wrote he was more about Rav Gottlleb (RG) version. I think you version is not quite the same as RG, or for that matter Rav Kelemen (RK). Have you discussed your version with RG or RK ? What do they think of it ?
@Are Roster - can you contact RG - maybe have him look at '2nd-son' premises etc: to see if he concurs. Maybe , he could post some comments there !
DeleteACJA continues to bash the Kuzari argument. Since we last communicated he wrote about eight new critiques.
ReplyDeleteHe also wrote about Pascals Wager http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/12/pascals-wager.html
This is just FYI, not to reopen our discussion. I think ACJA is making some different and even new arguments against the Kuzari argument.
FYI Rabbi Gottlieb has written a rebuttal to one of ACJA's Kuzari posts. ACJA has responded to RG and RG has remained silent for a long time. I informed RG and asked for help but he declined. https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/03/kuzari-argument-part-22-or-miracle-of.html
ReplyDelete