Faith IN Judaism

Wow, Rabbi Adlerstein posts good! Contrary to Rabbi Avi Shafran and Rebbetzin Toby Katz’s line that ‘We have overwhelming evidence that Judaism is true’, he takes a more humble approach. Is my agnosticism affecting the jblogosphere? The good Rabbi writes:

There are kiruv personnel who preach that all important principles of Judaism are self-evident; that not only can all questions be answered with complete satisfaction, but all the important ideas in the life of a Jew can be demonstrated to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt.

It is not clear to me whether people who take this position really believe it, or use the line to bait people, counting on the probability that the neophyte will be sufficiently attracted by what he/she sees to want to stick around.

If they believe it, they must have access to arguments that have evaded me. I cannot even imagine HKBH reducing emunah (belief) to a tautology, embraced by anyone who can think properly, and rejected only by those whose self-need gets in the way.

I believe that HKBH in every generation leaves room for people to reject – even for intelligent people to reject – and for all of us to have to struggle and exercise our core will to choose His word.

At times of great manifestation of the Divine in our past, HKBH insured that the attractiveness of avodah zarah (idolatry) would be immense. When He lessened its hold upon us, He replaced it with alternative ways to reject. [XGH: What, you mean like rational, non-biased analysis?]

The struggle remains in every generation.

[XGH: Note to Bob Miller. This does NOT mean that science or rational thought is a yetzer horoh covered by 'lo tosuru']

Is it really OK for a Torah teacher or spokesperson to admit to continuously grappling with issues, to not having all the answers to his/her own satisfaction? Shouldn’t the Torah representative speak with such force that all who listen simply melt in his presence?

Personally, I don’t think so.

But then again, I really don’t know.

I’ll tell you what I think. Of course leaders need to project confidence. If every leader, whether in religion, government or the corporate world, appeared to lack confidence in their religion, country or corporation, all would be lost. You need to inspire the troops, and to inspire you must have confidence in your message. However there’s a difference between inspiring confidence, speaking ‘forcefully’ and having your listeners ‘melt’ in your presence, and saying stuff which simply isn’t true.

Also, there seems to be a certain ‘meanness of spirit’ portrayed by some people against questioners. Bob Miller even compared skeptics to Amalek on the recent Hirhurim thread. In my experience skeptics act only because of the incredible frustration that they have seeing that some (all) of the ‘answers’ don’t really work, or that in many cases the questions are far better than the answers. If these skeptics truly didn’t care about Judaism or Orthodoxy, I can assure you the last thing they would be doing would be writing blogs about it. Instead, they would be off eating cheeseburgers and doing other fun things which I can’t mention.

The real truth is that when it comes to religion, you are dealing with a serious degree of subjectivity and bias, making rational arguments for religion very difficult. The skeptics get frustrated that the believers can’t seem to see the ‘obvious’ truth, whereas the believers get frustrated that, well, the skeptics can’t seem to see the obvious truth! Amazing how two entirely contradictory positions can both seem so obviously true.

I think this why ultimately you have to have some degree of ‘faith’ in religion. And I myself have often said ‘You can always have faith’ or 'You gotta have faith'. But isn’t faith just ‘believing in things you know ain’t true?’, as Mark Twain famously said? Isn’t it irrational to have faith? On what basis can one have faith?

I think the answer is as follows. The kind of faith you can have is ‘faith in’, rather than ‘faith that’. In other words, faith means trusting a system that has produced good results, rather than believing in certain truth propositions. When we look back at the vast sweep of history, and how the Jewish community has fared in comparison to the rest of the world, it becomes very easy indeed to have ‘faith in’ Judaism, even if the ‘faith that’ part is missing.

Ultimately, any skeptic who struggles with ‘faith that’, but upholds the ‘faith in’, is okay in my book. He is a genuine questioner. However once he begins to regard the entire religion as just a waste of time, or even worse, something meaningless, stupid and even evil, then I can agree that such a person has gone beyond the status of ‘frum truth seeker’ and has become an ideological enemy of Orthodoxy or Judaism.

I still wouldn’t compare such a person to Amalek though.

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

The Disputation

My 4 hour Conversation with Rabbi Maroof

Full Transcript

XGH: Hello, is that Rabbi Maroof?
RJM: Yes, hello.
XGH: How are you?
RJM: Fine, fine. And you?
XGH: Fine.

Oh forget that, I’ll be here for the next 3 weeks. I’ll just have to summarize:

XGH: You’re a fundie fruitcake!
RJM: And you’re just a non serious cynic!
XGH: Good night!
RJM: Good night!

But seriously, it was quite a good conversation. Four hours! The last time I had a four hour phone conversation it ended off with “You hang up first” “No you hang up first!” “No you!”

So what happened?

I started out by explaining to RJM why I feel religion has credibility problems. Turns out, he mostly agrees with me. I will summarize:

With Science, you pretty much have global consensus on all the ikkarim. Sure, there are arguments on fringe areas, and in areas which are still very theoretical (e.g. string theory), but the basics are well established, with global agreement.

Religion in contrast, is characterized by global disagreement. Of the 5 billion religious people in the world worshipping 11 or 12 mainstream religions, and probably hundreds if not thousands smaller religions and sects very few of them agree on anything. Not only do the major religions not agree with each other, but even denominations within the religions have disagreements, often even more violent ones. Not only different denominations, but even different sects within a denomination have serious disagreements! Just look at MO and UO, two sub groups of one denomination of one religion, and they can’t agree whether a 15 billion year old universe is kefirah or not!

[Important Note: I am talking about religious beliefs here, for example which book was written by God, or who God spoke to. I am not talking about abstract ideas, ethics, values and morals, where of course there is more agreement, but that’s not the topic of this debate.]

So why is this?

Why is there global agreement on Science, but global disagreement with Religion? Id it because Scientists are good at compromising? Good at working in teams? Gaining consensus? While Religious leaders are appalling individualists, lone rangers and can’t ever compromise?

I don’t think so. I’m sure the character traits of Scientists and Religious Leaders follow roughly the same pattern (though maybe the Scientists are a more analytical and less spiritual crowd).

So if we can’t explain this massive and significant difference by character profile, what is the cause?

I maintain that the cause is simple: Science relies on objective facts. Facts and theories are proven by experimentation. Results are tested, validated and subject to peer review. Articles published in magazines generally go through a review phase. There is very little bias (in the basic principles, there certainly is bias in theoretical areas e.g. Dark Matter). There is also little dogma – there is no rule that Science can’t be changed or improved if new facts come to light. All in all, the system works very well. Most historians would say that Science is the most successful human endeavor in the entire span of history.

Religion however is very different. There is a serious lack of available facts: We have no experiments that can prove God’s existence, we have no data that proves Har Sinai, or the Resurrection of Christ. Instead, we have what RJM calls ‘Sevarah’, and what I would call ‘Subjective Opinion’. Each religion has its traditions and beliefs, which are not backed up by hard data or experimentation, subject to peer review, but rather rely on reasoning which somehow is never convincing to members of another religion.

Even worse, there is no methodology, organization or process in place to even work on gaining consensus. Sure, we have some inter-faith dialogue, but that’s really not about gaining consensus as to whether Torah is the final word of God or whether the Koran is. The only time in history there was anything like a concerted inter-faith effort to get to the truth was the period of the Disputations, though they were usually rigged anyway to force the Jews to lose (though we still won quite a few!).

RJM and I agree on all this.(Surprise!) RJM further maintains that this would be theoretically possible – we could get together a committee of intelligent honest people, and have them figure out a methodology to get to the truth. Of course he thinks they will all conclude that Judaism is the truth, whereas I think they would all eventually either kill each other, or turn into skeptics. However the important point is that we both agree there is a serious problem here with religion.

Furthermore, religious arguments are incredibly subjective, since they are based on ‘Sevarah’ and not on objective facts and experiments. Of course it’s not 100% black and white, some Science is somewhat subjective, and some religion can be somewhat objective, but by and large religion is massively more subjective than science.

This can be seen clearly by the fact that there is global agreement on Science, regardless of race, religion or culture (apart from the fundamentalists of course), whereas with religion, you always find that each religion believes in itself, but doesn’t believe in any others (with the possible exception of some types of Hindus who believe in all religions).

RJM had an interesting argument here: He claimed that some of the consensus of Science is due to the fact that modern Science was preceded by Aristotelian science, and there was global agreement on that for 1500 years, and so a precedent had been set. I’m not so sure this is a good argument, but I didn’t pursue it.

So far so good. Where RJM and I now begin to diverge is that my conclusion from all the above is as follows:

We know there is global disagreement in religion.
We know that religious arguments are incredibly subjective
We know that each religion has its arguments that pretty much are only convincing to members of that religion (and a relatively small number of converts and born agains). Sure, if every convert all converted to the same religion, that might tell you something, but they don’t.
The only logical conclusion here is that no religious belief has any credibility at all.

I’m not sure RJM agrees with me here. He was pushing the argument that you can’t a priori dismiss any religious argument because of the lack of credibility. You have to assess each argument on its own merits. He claims to have done so, and has read the New Testament and Koran in depth. (I’m not sure about the hundreds of other religious texts and religions, seems they didn’t get a fair hearing!) Anyway, this point is somewhat irrelevant, because I am happy to asses his arguments on their merit.

At this point, we turned to discussing RJM’s proof for TMS. He holds that though myth formation is a well known historical fact, the myth of TMS is so different and so unique, that its highly implausible it was invented without it being true. RJM points out that the Neviim are constantly lecturing a wayward Hamon Am and telling them to give up their idols (which they clearly lusted after), because of Har Sinai and the Mitzvot. RJM says that if Har Sinai, was just a myth invented by the Neviim, then the Hamon Am could care less, and why on earth would the Neviim think they could persuade the Hamon Am to give up their idols based on something they didn’t believe in anyway. And, if you want to claim that the Hamon Am did believe the Myth, and were involved in its formation, then this is even stranger. Myths usually encode the desires and ideas of the people. So why would a people desiring to worship multiple idols ever participate in the creation of a myth which proclaims one God and forbids idols! It’s highly implausible, and therefore a reasonable conclusion is that the myth of Har Sinai is actually true.

I have two arguments against this.

1. This analysis is not the only possible analysis. Maybe the Neviim were part of the priestly / religious class that developed the myth over hundreds of years. The hamon am, being less religious were somewhat involved, though not integral. Think of it as the UOs and the MOs. As time went by, the Hamon Am became more and more enamored of the local idols, and started to forget the myth of Sinai, or at least not follow the commandments. The Neviim tried to exhort them to follow the Torah by repeating the Myth of Sinai. Everyone knew about the myth of Sinai, however it was a myth. Some of the Hamon Am listened, some didn’t. Some maybe really were skeptical, Tenach doesn’t really say. True, the myth is unique, in that it’s a myth of national revelation rather than individual revelation, but just because it’s unique doesn’t make it implausible.

RJM seemed to recant at this point a little. On the blog, he had seemed to dismiss my scenario as ‘silly’, whereas on the phone he seemed to agree that my scenario might be plausible. Not sure what he would say now.

2. My second major objection is that even if RJM is correct, and that Myth Formation for TMS is a highly implausible scenario, it still doesn’t get you anywhere, because the alternative – that God wrote the Torah, is even more implausible, so all you are doing is replacing an implausible scenario with an even more implausible scenario.

This is where we started to disagree. RJM maintains that God writing the Torah is not inherently implausible. We then got into a whole discussion about plausibility, probability, a priori probability etc etc. We didn’t get anywhere. Ultimately I maintain that God writing a book is not an everyday occurrence, it is highly unusual and improbable, and you would need rock solid evidence to make such a claim. RJM disagrees, but I can’t understand why. (No doubt he will enlighten us in the comments).

Next I explained that if there were no other questions on the Torah, then I might agree that TMS could be plausible. But since his arguments were weak anyway, and since there are a whole host of other issues with TMS, including technical issues, historical issues, science issues etc etc, the whole thing just doesn’t get off the ground.

RJM of course maintains that all of these issues have answers. I argued that true, they do, but the answers are never as good as the questions, and the only reason people accept the answers is because they are biased towards believing TMS. Nobody outside the faith would find these answers convincing. So in summary, I believe RJM has a weak argument to begin with, which then totally fails once you start looking at the bigger picture and start thinking about all the other questions.

In addition, since we already know that all religious arguments suffer from a very serious bias/subjective issue, and we have no way of really reaching any consensus, the fact that RJM is an Orthodox Jew arguing that his argument prove the validity of Orthodox Judaism is an inherently non credible position to be in. He counters that this is a little circular, because by definition anyone arguing for OJ will be an OJ. But that’s exactly the problem (and he agreed). This problem is insurmountable, at least for now

In summary:

We both generally agree that religion has a serious credibility problem. We start to disagree when it comes to the arguments for and against TMS. RJM maintains that his initial TMS argument is strong (or at least not weak), and that once we get into all the other questions we will see that they all have reasonable answers. The one question that he admits he doesn’t have a good answer for is the numbers by Yetziat Mitzrayim, as it’s very hard to allegorize that. (This is somewhat ironic, because it was that very same question which caused me to have to abandon my famous Myth/Moshol peshat, leaving me exposed to the attacks of the skeptics).

I maintain that as a subjective biased religious person arguing for his religion he has little credibility to start with. And, even if he wants to claim objectivity, I argue his TMS argument is incredibly weak anyway since myth formation is highly plausible in this case. And furthermore, even if I agree that myth formation is implausible here, TMS is even more implausible, both inherently as a concept, and even more so once you start investigating all the other issues.

So, where do we go from here?

Well, we agreed to start investigating all the other questions. I guess that means that I have to start all over again, from day one.

Next Up: Myth/Moshol Theory!

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

Fundies get their asses wupped again

....and its a darn shame, because I had high hopes this time.

A Rabbi who quotes Spinoza, an educated man, someone who thinks the Gedolim are simpletons who don't understand peshat in Breishis! Sounds like my kind of guy!

Ultimately though, he failed to deliver the goods. He made a reasonable stab at the Kuzari argument, not bad at all (all things considered). I then countered with a reasonable counter argument, see the post below entitled "Lame Fundamentalist Arguments". I expected some kind of counter to my counter. But what did I get? Absolutely nothing!

There are 250 comments on that post, and not one of them addresses my counter argument! Instead RJM attacks my methodology, my bias, my lack of seriousness, my lack of learning, anything and everything, but nowhere does he address the actual content of the post, except to say it's silly, and he leaves it at that. Not very convincing I'm afraid. And the only thing all this has achieved is to make me realize yet again how absolutely incapable fundamentalists are in admitting to reality.

Millions of people believe passionately in their different (and usually contradictory) religions. True, many of these people never think about their religion very seriously, even the highly intelligent people. But certainly some do. And, given the millions upon millions of religious people in the world, that still leaves you with a very significant number of intelligent people who have questioned their faith very seriously indeed.

Now, we know many of these people have become secular Christians, Moslems and Jews. And no doubt there is quite a large percentage who decided to stick with their faith, for all the usual reasons. However there is a tiny percentage who switched faiths. How many Christian converts to Judaism do you know? A handful? And vice versa? And to Islam? And vice versa? It hardly ever happens. Why is this? Of course there are social issues involved, but for a true truth seeker, they wouldn't matter as much.

Do you honestly think that if you had been brought up religious Christian that you would now be a Rabbi? Or vice versa? Fact is, the statistics plainly show that the vast majority of people brought up in a strong faith remain that way. And of those that don't, the vast majority give up all faith. Clearly, the vast majority of people convinced by religious arguments are the people who believed in it in the first place.

Go to any bookstore. You will find volumes and volumes of Christian apologetics, written by educated and intelligent people, all apparently containing 'convincing' proof that Jesus just must be the Messiah. But RJM dismisses all of these as nonsense! (And he's right of course). But does RJM really think that all these people are fools, and only he has the convincing arguments? Which is more likely, he has a solid argument for religion, or he is yet another fundamentalist convinced by arguments that no rational objective person would ever be convinced by?

We know for a FACT that millions upon millions of otherwise highly intelligent and educated people believe in the biggest nonsense - when it comes to religion. We KNOW this! Every fundamentalist agrees to this! RJM himself holds that 99% of all religions, and consequently 99% of all religious believers, believe in nonsense. We have clear evidence that when it comes to religion, people believe what they want to believe. Its irrefutable! Even the fundamentalists agree! Yet RJM has the hubris to think that he is objective and non biased about his own religion? Unbelievable!

The effects of religious indoctrination are obvious. They're everywhere. From the Muslim suicide bombers, to the devout evangelicals, to Orthodox Jews. All of them, even the highly intelligent ones, are absolutely convinced of the veracity of their own arguments, and absolutely convinced of how nonsensical their opponent's arguments are.

'God couldn't possibly manifest Himself as a man!' exclaims Y Aharon. Does he not realize how ironically non self aware this comment is? Thousands of years of Christian apologetics, written by the most educated, intelligent and spiritual people, yet Y Aharon dismisses it all in an instant. The stupidity of Christianity is readily apparent to him, and to all Orthodox fundamentalists (and to all skeptics of course), but the stupidity of his own beliefs, in mythical floods and genetically altered men? No! Not stupid at all. The hubris is mind boggling.

Of course Y Aharon and RJM will respond as they usually do. Their arguments are convincing, and the only people not convinced are led by their yetzer horah, or are not serious, or are not honest, or some other insult. Their lack of self awareness is quite incredible. Boruch Hashem my own Rabbeim are more intellectually honest (but that doesn't help much either).

I don't attack the fundamentalists for holding the beliefs they hold. I can understand why someone would want to hold onto their beliefs, it's natural. But for intelligent people to think they have convincing arguments for their fundamentalist faith is laughable. Absolutely laughable.

And I have nothing against any of these people personally. Y AHaron I know for a fact is a fine fellow with a choshuv family. I don't know RJM that well, but clearly he is a respected Rabbi and also a fine fellow. Even ed is a good guy! But all these people are so incredibly biased and brainwashed, they can't think straight. Could God possibly want things to be this way? I find it hard to believe He does. Assuming He exists. Which is yet another thing that nobody seems to know for sure. Amazing really. We don't know for sure whether God exists, but we do know for sure that He wrote the Torah. And how does that work exactly? Of course it doesn't. Just like every other argument I have heard.

But what do I know? I'm just dishonest, not open to the truth, guided by my yetzer horah, unscrupulous, not serious, biased towards the skeptics, not spiritual enough, not philosophical enough, not rational enough, not learned enough, too stubborn, too fallacious, too intellectually dishonest and an all round failure at finding the truth. Oh well, I tried.

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

Are talking donkeys silly?

Happy says that any religion which requires you to believe in talking donkeys is just plain silly. Now, I think we all agree that God, if He exists, could certainly make a donkey talk, and vis-a-vis God, creating talking people is no more silly than creating talking donkeys. However God is not the issue here, man is. To a (normal) man, a talking donkey is quite ridiculous.

The Rambam famously re-interprets this whole episode as a dream, but frankly, thats very clowny. Reminds me of Dallas season seven, and that was pretty clowny too. But how about a talking horse? I think that's slightly less silly. Maybe we can re-interpret Bilaams ass as a horse instead. That might help things. The other advantage is that it will spare us all those silly jokes about God talking out of Bilaam's ass.

I recently was sent an email list full of famous names: Akiva Atwood, DBH (the conspiracy nut), Koffer, Ostroff, FKM (Freakin Kiruv Maniac), discussing at length whether Science might be true or not. Such a waste. I find it hard to believe that this is what God wants from us (assuming He exists). And, since God saw fit for whatever reasons to completely hide all evidence of Himself, I find it hard to believe that He cares one way or another as to whether we believe in Him at all. It's all a test? It's all baloney more likely.

The fundamentalists claim they are being reasonable, but any normal, rational and objective person can see they are not. How can they possibly advance the lamest of arguments, and think they are good? It's mamash unbelievable.

Here's what I think is going on:

What comes out of their mouths:

TMS is entirely rational blah blah kuzari proof blah blah critical thought blah blah

What goes on in their brains:

Torah just must be true, I mean it must be! My whole life is predicated on that fact, And my whole family, my whole community, everyone I know. I’ve believed this since childhood, how could it not be true? And my father, and his father and so on for three thousand years! And how many yidden were moser nefesh for this??. If it isn’t true, then I have been living a lie for all these years. How could that be? It just can’t! And not only that, it would mean all the Gedolim have been living a lie, and all the Acharonim, and Rishonim, and oh my gosh, Chazal! And not only living a lie, but Chazal were a part of it! That couldn’t be! All that Torah and Torah learning, all those Mitzvot, the entire enterprise? All false? All a waste of time? No! It just couldn’t be! And anyway, Hashem would never have allowed that to happen. Not to the Yidden! Not to me! No way. Just can’t be. No! Never! Can’t be. Oy, and to even have such thoughts is such a pgam in my emunah. Oy, almost kefirah, such a bad aveirah. I can’t even think like this! Oy.

Update inspired by Little Foxling: And I don't want to go to Gehinom! I don't want to lose my cheleck in Olam Habah! Please Hashem, take these kefiradick thoughts away from me. They distress me so much. Please Hashem, I was only doing this lshem shamayim, only to fight the skeptics. I didn't ever intend to get skeptical thoughts myself. I promise to try and be mechazek myself. I promise! I'll also daven with more kavanah, and learn more. But please remove these doubts and questions from me, please!

And how could I possibly be skeptical? To tell my wife? My kids? My parents? My in-laws? Oy, my chavrusoh? My Rav? My shul? My community? Oy, the shame, the humiliation, how could I possibly do that! No way. It just must be true. What am I thinking?! Of course it's true, of course it's true. Oy, of course of course of course its true. Just take a deep breath. Relax your mind, and think of Torah. Please Hashem help me in this hour of my need. I don't ask for much. Please remove any kefirah doubts and let me be mechazek in my emunah. Your Holy Torah! OF course its all True. The Avos, the Neviim, Chazal, the Rishonim, the Acharonim, the Gedolim (for RJM you can skip the Gedolim, he thinks they're a bunch of simpletons who have it all wrong anyway), my Rabbeim! Oh my gosh, my amazing Rabbeim! Of course they are all right. How could they possiblt be wrong? No, it just can't be. It can't.

What’s funny is that nobody gives a second thought to the fact that 2 billion Christians have it all wrong, and are praying to a god who isn’t there. Or that all the Moslems have it all wrong. All the thousands of Christian and Islamic martyrs who gave up their lives for nothing. All the millions of man hours spent in specifically Christian or Moslem (or Hindu) pursuits all essentially a waste of time. That’s all entirely believable. But the Yidden being wrong? No! That cannot be!

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

Lame Fundamentalist Arguments

Even though I said I was done arguing religion, I guess I’m not. Why is that? Well, I still harbor a secret hope that someday someone somewhere (over the rainbow?) will have a decent argument for Orthodoxy. You never know, it could happen! Seriously.

Unlike many of the other skeptics, I am actually looking to the web for chizuk. My own Rabbeim are hardly fundamentalists. One told me that Judaism is merely plausible; he certainly offered no arguments for its validity, not even Jewish History. (Maybe he felt that wouldn’t help). The most he offered was that Jewish Morality has had a good track record.

My other Rabbi didn’t even go that far, he just wanted to know why I still came to shul if I didn’t believe, and maybe I would be happier going somewhere else! No, he wasn’t trying to get rid of me; he was genuinely concerned for my happiness. But I’m quite happy going to shul (and doing everything else).

My third Rabbi (and chavrusoh) is a genuine Biblical Scholar, who, while he does find the Documentary Hypothesis unconvincing (ha!), is not exactly a fundamentalist either. He keeps on pointing out anomalies in Tenach, like the five Tehillim which give accounts of Yetziat Mitrayim through Kibush Haaretz yet don’t mention Sinai! Not to mention all the differences between Devarim and Shemos that I had never noticed previously. Still, what can you expect from a YCT’nick? (joke).

Also, one of our friends here is a big time skeptic blogger, and quite a few of my neighbors are not exactly classical Orthodox. (Oops, I hope they don’t get too upset with that). And quite a few people in my shul have rather interesting theories too. So, unlike many other skeptical bloggers, I certainly don’t lack skeptical companionship in real life.

But I look to the web, not for skeptic support, but rather for some good arguments for OJ. Unfortunately, I haven’t found any (yet). In fact, the process has been thoroughly demoralizing. Even the most intelligent and well read believers have the lamest arguments. I don’t know what to do anymore. David Guttman says I must study the sources, and only then will I find an answer.

But which sources? The Koran, or the New Testament? Or perhaps Socrates and the Enuma Elish? Hard to tell which sources are the correct ones, since that is the VERY QUESTION WE ARE DEBATING OF COURSE. Can anyone say ‘Circular argument’ ? I wish someone would explain this concept to David, it would save a lot of time.

Here’s just one example of what I would call a lame argument. Not surprisingly, the person advancing the argument is quite convinced by it.

Believer:
No other religion has EVER offered its adherents a false account of their OWN HISTORY, under the pretense that they ALREADY KNOW IT, and foisted a new religion upon them that is AGAINST THEIR WISHES, all the while saying that they have KNOWN ABOUT IT ALL ALONG.

To which I say:

Firstly, this is certainly not the only possible analysis of history.

The senario you paint above is the scenario you BELIEVE to be true based on your particular reading of Tenach. But many other options are possible. I'll just invent one option from the top of my head, just as plausible, and it destroys your argument:

Many of the stories in Breishis and Shemos are somewhat true. There was a very charismatic leader called Moshe who rescued some (maybe a few thousand) slaves from Egypt, about 1500 BC. They had some kind of experience at Sinai (a volcano? a mass hallucination? who knows?) .They moved to Israel, and settled amongst the indigenous population. They maintained their own beliefs, and had a lot of unique customs and writings, including of course a belief in one God. Though even this belief could certainly have evolved from a belief in a tribal god. Over time their mythology expanded, as did their customs. The population grew, eventually conquering the whole of Israel. By then the myth had grown, but the Hamon Am didn't really buy into it, hence all the idol worship. It was only after the churban that people really solidified around it. Why then? Probably because all the skeptics had left by that point, leaving only the hard core fundies.

[Same kind of thing is happening today. Reform and Conservative will die out, leaving only the Orthodox. In a thousand years the 31st century fundies will no doubt be arguing that OJ must be true, because all of Judaism since the enlightenment believed in it!]

Is this scenario plausible? As much as any other. In fact a lot more so, because it doesn’t require God to write a very strange book.

Secondly, even if I accept the argument that it’s amazing that the people would have listened to the Torah even though it was false, so what? Lots of things are amazing, as the fundies themselves argue. So an amazing thing happened, and a people believed in a fake history, and suffered because of it. Nu, strange things happen. I mean, if a God can write a book, surely something as equally strange could happen, no? Why is your amazing belief any more likely than my amazing belief?

Either way you look at it, this argument is totally lame, and would only convince someone who doesn’t actually need any convincing at all, because they already believe in it. You can find many such arguments given by Christian apologists and no doubt Islamic apologists too. But my question is not whether Christianity or Islam are true, I have no doubt they are at least as (or more) bogus than Judaism. The question isn't which religion is the least unbelievable, but rather which religion is most probably actually true.

The most amazing thing of all though, is why these otherwise intelligent people believe their arguments are strong. I’m not questioning their beliefs, we all have beliefs. What I’m questioning is why they think their arguments for their beliefs are good!

My new theory is that in reality they are assuming the consequences before they even start arguing. They already accept TMS is true and all other options false, so they become convinced by lame arguments. If they truly accepted what an extra-ordinary claim TMS was, they wouldn’t really think their arguments were any good at all.

Oh well. I'm still waiting for that fundie on a white horse who has a good argument. Maybe I should daven for him to come soon.

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

Rabbi Maroof: New Kuzari Proof

Although I gave him a hard time, I do like his new spin on the traditional Kuzari Proof:

We know how Islam started, we know how Christianity started, etc., etc. They began with a visionary prophet who gathered a small following, became popular because of his charisma or message, and eventually gained political power and influence that helped him or his followers spread the word.

Of course, those who became followers of the prophet accepted his lofty demands. They accepted those demands because of their faithfulness to the prophet and belief in his message.

Now to my point about Judaism. Judaism uses the national experience of events as the basis for its demands. No prophet requests their faith. No charismatic leader wins their allegiance. They are reminded, time and time again, to observe the Torah because of what they underwent in Egypt and committed to at Sinai. My argument is that these demands could only have been put forth on this basis if the people were aware of these events and their purported significance.

It's not exactly a proof of anything, but it's better written than Gosselieb. And also, I must apologize publicly for not showing Rabbi Maroof sufficient respect in my previous post. I didn't realize he is a Rabbi of a large shul (not that that's much of an excuse).

HALOSCAN COMMENTS

Definitive Proof That Even 'Rational' OJs Are Just Nuts ... err I mean emotionally driven

Just look at this comment from RJ! I rest my case.

My argument is not that we should "reach a supernatural conclusion". My argument is that we should accept the historical testimony of the Israelites based on three factors:

1 - The magnitude of the events and their involvement of the entire Jewish population

Sorry, but the 'magnitude of the events' actually works against TMS, not for it. Just think about it: The Torah claims that 2 million slaves left Egypt after 10 incredible miracles. The entire Egyptian army drwoned chasing them, while they were miraculously saved by a split sea. Then, 2 million people travelled through the desert for 40 years (with quite a few miracles on the way), 2 million people witnessed God Himself, and then conquered Israel without ONE SINGLE PIECE OF CORROBORATING EVIDENCE ANYWHERE?????? Which is the more likely scenario? All this happened, but for some strange reason NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD NOTICED? Or, the myth grew over time? At best, this whole line of argument proves absolutely nothing. At worst, it proves that TMS cannot possibly be true.

2 - The significance of the events and their role as the basis of the theological, cultural and political establishment in Israel, which was unlike any other system before or since, and made significant demands on the populace to give up the temptations enjoyed by their neighbors

A religion making significant demansd? Oh well, then it must be true!!! Hello??!! Have you ever heard of Islam??? Have you ever heard of cults??? Have you ever heard of religious indoctrination???? Have you ever heard of people willingly sacrificing things to appease the gods??? You claim to have studied religion. Doesn't sound like it to me! Also, Tenach itself disproves your arguments. The Bnai Yisroel worshipped idols for almost a thousand years after Matan Torah is claimed to have happened. Any changes in their behavior happened gradually. And, giving up Baal Peor Worship or Molech Worship is hardly a demand. Which is better - sacrificing animals to the one true God, or playing with faeces and burning your children to death?

3 - The unlikelihood that a group of people who would have wanted to oppose the implications of these stories simultaneously having a hand in developing and embellishing them;

What on earth are you talking about?? All religions develop over time. How do you think Christianity or Islam developed? The evolution of religions is well documented in general.

alternatively, the unlikelihood of the neviim trying to use stories that the masses did not recognize as their history (YT"M, receiving laws and standards from Moshe, etc.) in order to convince them.

Again, the myth grew over time. You have no idea what actually happened with the Neviim. Also, the Neviim by and large preached social justice. They were hardly advocating chumras in halachah.

This argument leads to a conclusion which is implausible in the sense of being unconventional, i.e., involving Divine intervention.

Rubbish. Your arguments lead nowhere at all, except to someone already convinced.

Any alternative scenario will be implausible from the standpoint of logistics - it will have to posit the occurrence of events and gradual changes in the history of the Jewish people as well as the existence of individuals facilitating these developments - although its conclusion will be more palatable to the skeptic because it doesn't invoke the supernatural.

Events and gradual changes????? Individuals facilitating these changes???? Like, that couldn't possibly happen in a religion!!!! No way!!!!

Are you nuts? No, just fundamentally incapable of seeing how distorted your 'arguments' are. Every one of your arguments works just as well for Islam as for Judaism. What's the matter with you???

This is the reason I believe these discussions go nowhere, as BHB and I recently concluded on his blog. I am open to the possibility of the supernatural having occurred if there is compelling evidence and it is the most plausible explanation for it. He (and other skeptics) is happier with a less plausible scenario that produces a less objectionable result, i.e., avoiding the supernatural. We left it at that.

Utter nonsense. Your scenario is ridiculous. Your arguments are incredibly lame. And we haven't even touched the content of the book, and all the issues with that.

This is also why I have never considered Kuzari a "proof", just a good argument that makes other explanations implausible. Suggesting it is a proof is intellectually dishonest in my opinion.

LOL.

I don't think I have anything further to add. Generally these debates are not fruitful because of the above mentioned factors.

No, they are not fruitful because your arguments are miserably pathetic, but being a fundamentalist, you couldn't admit to that even if a gun was held to your head. You really just proved my point better than any article I could ever have written.

You are obviously an intelligent, well read and articulate person. You are not even a hard core chareidi! But still, you cannot face reality.

Oy.

HALOSCAN COMMENTS