tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81106080617248943482024-01-10T09:08:16.371-08:00Alter Cocker Jewish AtheistThere was an accident, but the posts your looking for are still here. Check the Topical Index which also includes alphabetical index or search or post's address has the date of the post. Post's 'labels' are unreliable for linking or searching.
For a good overview and understanding of this blog see SOME REASONS TO REJECT ORTHODOX JUDAISM my April 2014 post or click link.Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.comBlogger138125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-10830606725800924992022-02-09T15:16:00.001-08:002022-02-09T15:26:23.633-08:00Kuzari Argument Part 26 National Experiential Tradition <p><span style="font-size: large;">I hope this post can be understood as more or less stand alone. But perhaps you will need to read my prior Kuari argument posts to flesh out some details. Start here </span><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html"><span style="font-size: large;">Alter Cocker Jewish Atheist: Kuzari Principle or Argument Part I</span></a> <span style="font-size: large;">while my immediately prior post is <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2021/12/kuzari-argument-part-25-armenian.html">Alter Cocker Jewish Atheist: Kuzari Argument Part 25 - National Experiential Tradition - Armenian Genocide</a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Back in September 2015 <a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/09/kuzari-argument-part-6_4.html ">Kuzari Argument Part 6</a> I wrote a critique of the National Tradition argument for Judaism. Rabbi Gottlieb's (RG) discussion starting at about 32 minutes in this video <a href=" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjGMmoZGQpg "> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjGMmoZGQpg </a> responds to an objection to his Kuzari argument for Judaism (which bye the way happens to be somewhat related to my 2015 objection). However, I think RG response falls short. Moreover, his talk does not overcome that 2015 objection to his Kuzari argument. Maybe he was not trying to address my 2015 critique. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am going to paraphrase my understanding of this portion of RG's video and respond to it. I am going to play by the rules of his game that NETs (National Experiential Traditions) are a valid 'category'. As defined by RG - NET National Experiential Tradition:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The National Tradition is accepted by the Nation itself.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The National Tradition describes the history of the Nation itself.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The National Tradition describes an event experienced directly by everyone in the Nation. Describes an event that sometime in the past all the people of the Nation observed the event directly.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The National Tradition is of a kind of event that you expect people to remember. It moves a people, a meaningful event.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Basically RG argues that since all known NETs are true (or likely true) and since the Sinai Story is according to RG a NET we should accept it as likely true or true.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I will define the NET RULE: "NETs are true (or likely true)".</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">My 2015 objection was that all the National Traditions (which would also include NETs) that we know are true or likely true (RG lists wars, plague migrations etc:) are in an entirely different category than the Sinai story. In other words, the Sinai Story because it involves miracles and a supernatural being is an extrapolation beyond the data of known true or likely true NETs. The Sinai story has a quality altogether different than the NET examples he has provided and shares more in common with tall tales, foundation myths and legends. RG admits that a gap exists between the Sinai story with it's supernatural elements and the examples of the NETs he has provided which only involve natural elements. RG claims he can bridge the gap. I don't think he succeeds. Also, RG seems to acknowledge that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I agree with him. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">First I want to drive home my main point why RG's fails to bridge the gap. RG needs to provide an example of a NET involving supernatural being(s) where we have good reason to believe the NET is true. That is the sort of NET the Sinai story is, that is the sort of category the Sinai belongs to. However, RG only provides an example where the ancient Chinese claimed a star exploded and disappeared and they (hypothetically) tell this to the ancient Greeks who held stars never disappear. RG maybe arguing that per the ancient Greeks a disappearing star would qualify as a "supernatural" event. RG may also be arguing the Greeks by rejecting the Chinese testimony would fail to learn and would be in error about star behavior. Thus the Greeks and by analogy I should (with some qualification) accept testimony about supernatural events. I don't see what the Chinese-Greek example has to do with supernatural beings. Perhaps to the ancient Greeks the star behavior would be out of the ordinary, or unexpected, or unnatural, but my critique is about NETs involving supernatural beings. RG's does not address the core of my critique. Maybe he will do so in another video. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I also want to discuss other issues from this same portion of his Video.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">RG rhetorically asks how reasonable is it to be opposed to miracles ? We should be very opposed to accepting miracles. First on the principle extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Kuzari argument is a sort of philosophical argument for the Sinai story, not actual evidence for the Sinai story, let alone extraordinary evidence for it. Also see </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-part-1-or.html">https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-part-1-or.html</a> for more reasons to reject miracles. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">RG thinks that objecting to miracles is analogous to people's unwillingness to change their understanding about how nature behaves. Also, it may lead to rejecting new valid information. For example, we may reject Copernicus's new understanding of nature. Or we may reject the Chinese testimony about stars disappearing. Or we may reject advances in science. I think RG is advocating a poor analogy. Rejecting miracles or supernatural beings is not the same as rejecting a new natural paradigm of natural laws, as for example if the Greeks reject the Chinese paradigm. Likewise accepting a new natural paradigm of how nature works (like when for example General Relativity replaced Newtonian Gravity) is not at all analogous to going from say a naturalistic paradigm to accepting miracles or supernatural being(s). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">RG asks how do you learn that your picture of the world needs to be changed ? I do not apriori rule out stories of miracles or supernatural beings. I advocate that until the evidence is overwhelming, we should reject stories involving supernatural beings or miracles. Moreover, our so-called laws of nature are not in stone, but can change as new data comes in. Never in modern science have we revised our so-called laws of nature to include supernatural beings or miracles. We just update our models to reflect new data. Those models have always been 'natural'. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">RG thinks we need good testimony to change your picture of the world. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I would much rather have good data and scientific analysis. Also we do not have any testimony, let alone good testimony for the Sinai story. All we have is a story in a book that is alleged 'to be believed by many descendants of the people described in that book'. People often misrepresent Hume as apriori never allowing the acceptance of miracles. If you read my <a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-part-1-or.html ">https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-part-1-or.html </a>I discuss that misrepresentation of Hume. Regardless of Hume's position, I am open to the possibility of accepting testimony of miracles or supernatural being(s) if the testimony is of excellent quality and we if we could rule out natural explanations to a very high degree.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">RG claims all human experience supports the reliability of our testimony, thus something happened at Sinai-Exodus to challenge your picture of how the world works.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">At best human experience supports that NETs are true or likely true when they involve wars, plagues, migrations and natural events. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">However, "our testimony' is a story about miracles and a supernatural being revelation and so are outside the scope of NETs known to be true or likely to be true. For this reason alone, RG's argument is very weak. Moreover, I can accept the Sinai stories without invoking miracles or that a supernatural being revelation actually occurred. Rather, they were all natural events (I provided many examples in my prior Kuzari posts) and so I am not compelled to change my world view as far as supernatural beings or miracles. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lets assume the Sinai story is a NET. I will present two options. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Option One: The Sinai NET did not really really involve miracles and a supernatural being revelation. I will assume this to here mean the Sinai NET is an exception to the NET RULE.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Option Two: The Sinai NET which includes "miracles" and a "supernatural being revelation" is really really true. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lets apply a Humean style approach. The probability that there could exist a NET that violates the NET rule (option one) is higher than the probability of the Sinai story really being the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth (option two). Why ? One reason is that miracles are a violation of everything we know about nature. There is not a single substantially verified miracle or supernatural being revelation. So to accept Option Two would mean completely revising everything we know about the Universe. However, Option One would only be an exception to the NET RULE. Surely the NET RULE is not as solid as all our experience that real miracles do not occur, and real supernatural revelations do not occur. Thus, we should accept Option One as more likely than Option Two.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Secondly, Human Experience (which includes archaeology and history) supports the notion the Sinai story of biblical proportions is a false NET. Thirdly, there are numerous natural explanations for the Sinai NET that do not involve actual real miracles and real supernatural being revelation. See my numerous Kuzari posts. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>I am not convinced </span><span>that real miracles and a real supernatural revelation is the most likely explanation for the Sinai-Exodus stories, even if those stories have some historical validity. Nor am I convinced the most likely explanation for the (alleged) acceptance of the Sinai story by (allegedly) numerous Jews is because the Sinai story accurately represents factual history. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But even if you think I am overstating the strength of my objections to Kuzari style arguments, you may agree with me that </span><span style="font-size: large;">Kuzari style arguments</span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;">do not provide extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims of the Sinai story. Until such evidence is provided my world view is not challenged by the Sinai story.</span></p>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-43547126904183332152021-12-27T15:23:00.006-08:002022-02-09T15:32:16.465-08:00Kuzari Argument Part 25 - National Experiential Tradition - Armenian Genocide <p><span style="font-size: large;"> T</span><span style="font-size: large;"><span>his is a continuation from </span><a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2021/12/kuzari-argument-part-24-uyghurs.html">Kuzari Argument Part 24 </a><span> and can more or less be read as a standalone</span><span>. See <a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html"> Part 1 </a></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lets examine one version of the Kuzari 'proof' that the Exodus with all the miracles and the Sinai revelation really occurred.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Rabbi Gottlieb (RG) Principle: Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This can be briefly restated as: If people believe an event (of type E) occurred, then evidence must exist for the event's occurrence.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">[RG means to say a mass of people. RG does not mean if a only a few people.]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">One gist of RG Principle/Argument is that descendants of a people will not accept a false history (of type E event(s)) of their ancestors.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am not sure if Rabbi Gottlieb still uses or requires his Kuzari Principle as part of his argument for 'truth' of the Mount Sinai story. Nevertheless, later on I will provide yet another example indicating it is a flawed principle. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Starting at around 20 minutes in this Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjGMmoZGQpg Rabbi Gottlieb provides the criteria for what he calls National Experiential Tradition and those sorts of National Traditions may be accepted as true. This maybe his latest version of his Kuzari style argument for the Sinai Story. These are the criteria he mentions in the video.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The National Tradition is accepted by the Nation itself.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The National Tradition describes the history of the Nation itself.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The National Tradition describes an event experienced directly by everyone in the Nation. Describes an event that sometime in the past all the people of the Nation observed the event directly.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The National Tradition is of a kind of event that you expect people to remember. It moves a people, a meaningful event.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">(AFAIK National Experiential tradition is a creation of RG and I strongly suspect the overwhelming historians will not accept it as valid. Perhaps RG should have historians examine his NET idea. Also NET is fraught with operational and definitional problems some of which I have already discussed in prior Kuzari posts and perhaps I will elaborate on in future posts. For example, how do we determine if an event is expected to be remembered ? What does it mean to be accepted by the Nation and how do you determine that it is accepted? Etc: Etc: </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In addition, I would be interested in seeing the list of NETs that RG has examined and how he applied his criteria to those NETs. Then how he determined those NETs were true. Surely, he must have examined a huge number of NETs to draw a conclusion that it is reasonable to conclude NETs are true.)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have argued in other Kuzari posts on the unreliability of the RG Principle or National Traditions. As one example consider the fairly recent history regarding events leading up to and during the formation of the State of Israel and the ensuing events soon after. I offered the fact that the Palestinian version of it's National History is opposed to Israel's version of it's National History. We often have conflicting National Traditions. This shows the unreliability of using National traditions to provide the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Lets consider the </span><span style="font-size: x-large;">Armenian Genocide as another example. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_denial (Retrievd 12/27/2021) Wiki writes Turkish schools teach Armenian genocide denial. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> "Most Turkish citizens and political parties in Turkey support the state's denial policy." "Besides the Turkish state, Turkish intellectuals and civil society have also denied the genocide." </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If you read the entire Wiki page you will learn more about the Turkish version of their National History and their denial of the genocide. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On the other hand there is the Armenian version of their National History of the event(s) which is opposed to the Turkish National History of event(s) !</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Kuzari argument is continued in Part 26 <a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2022/02/kuzari-argument-part-26-national.html">Alter Cocker Jewish Atheist: Kuzari Argument Part 26 National Experiential Tradition</a></span></p>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-91814562961737333392021-12-12T01:21:00.002-08:002021-12-27T15:36:20.518-08:00Kuzari Argument Part 24 Uyghurs<p> <span style="font-size: large;">This post is more or less a stand alone, however it is a continuation of my long discussion of the Kuzari argument for Judaism. Continued from <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/04/kuzari-argument-part-23-or-proof-of-god.html">Kuzari Part 23 or Proof of God from Miracles Part 3</a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">My first Kuzari Argument for G-d/Judaism is <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html">here</a> <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br />The mass media has brought to my attention the Uyghurs, in particular their harsh treatment by the Communist Chinese including allegations of genocide. I am ignorant of the Uyghurs and their history so I read the Wikipedia article on the Uyghurs and will be relying on Wikepedia. You may be thinking what do the Uyghurs have to do with the Kuzari argument for Judaism, but this will be come clear as you continue to read. <br /><br />Lets examine one version of the Kuzari 'proof' that the Exodus with all the miracles and the Sinai revelation really occurred.<br /><br />Rabbi Gottlieb (RG) Principle: Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.<br /><br />This can be briefly restated as: If people believe an event (of type E) occurred, then evidence must exist for the event's occurrence. <br /><br />[RG means to say a mass of people. RG does not mean if a only a few people.]<br /><br />One gist of RG Principle/Argumemt is that descendants of a people will not accept a false history (of type E event(s)) of their ancestors. <br /><br />Some Jews have applied this principle to the first Temple. How can we be sure there was a first Temple ? Because the decendents of the Israelites (Jews) accept the existence of the first Temple ( in which their ancestors worshipped) and they would not do so unless there really was a first Temple. A similar type argument is made about the Exodus-Sinai stories. <br /><br />Yet we read in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghurs#Islamization retrieved 12/11/2021) "After being converted to Islam, the descendants of the previously Buddhist Uyghurs in Turfan failed to retain memory of their ancestral legacy and falsely believed that the "infidel Kalmuks" (Dzungars) were the ones who built Buddhist structures in their area."<br /><br />If the RG Principle was valid, the descendants of the previously Buddhist Uyghurs in Turfan should not have accepted a false history (of type E events) yet they did !</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Continued <a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2021/12/kuzari-argument-part-25-armenian.html">Kuzari Argument Part 25 - National Experiential Tradition - Armenian Genocide</a></span></p>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-86506881684758001602020-12-15T21:09:00.007-08:002020-12-20T19:52:17.402-08:00Proof of God From Mathematics (including William Lane Craig)<p><span style="font-size: large;">Updated 12-17-2020</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Theologians have put forth various arguments for supernatural based on mathematics. <br /> <br />I have a good background in Mathematics and Physics. This post will be my own point of view.<br /><br />{Terminology : When I write ‘willy nilly’ that means no patterns exist. No ‘laws of nature’ exist. Complete and utter randomness at every level. Complete chaos. The total inability to make any predictions of the world and the total inability to describe the operation of the world. Willy Nilly does not include those interpretations of Quantum Mechanics that suppose there is randomness in the world. Because, even those interpretations have precise equations describing the alleged randomness which in turn allow the predictions of ensembles, large masses and how averages behave.<br /><br />When I write of mathematical models I mean the equations that physicists use and that would include chemistry. It would include so called laws of nature.} <br /><br />Some math may be likened to a game. Some games (for example chess) have made up pieces and made up rules on how the game is played. In many math subjects there are made up objects, definitions and axioms and the rules of the math game. The rules may also include certain types of logic axioms. People then try to deduce what follows from all that. Those sort of math subjects are no more mystical than say chess. (Sometimes the definitions and axioms and rules are based on observations of nature and so may in fact model nature. If the math provides for certain predictions then it may turn out we find those predictions occurring in nature.).<br /><br />Some math is really just tautologies. A simple example is the solution to the equation x = x/2 + 3 which gives x = 6. Those sort of math subjects are not mystical but tautologies. You may object that there is something deeper in some equations and they are not tautologies. My response is that if you were intelligent enough you would comprehend and see the tautology. Instead we have to work out the solutions and then think we have discovered something. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I think most if not all math falls into the two categories: Games and Tautologies and do not provide any evidence for supernatural anything. <br /><br />Some Theologians attempt to argue for the existence of the Lord using math and physics. For example per Dr. William Lane Craig (WLC): <br /><br />1. If God does not exist, the applicability of mathematics to the physical world is just a happy coincidence.<br /><br />2. The applicability of mathematics to the physical world is not just a happy coincidence.<br /><br />3. Therefore, God exists. <br /><br />I am of the opinion that our world does not operate willy nilly. The world behaves in a way that can be modeled by math, even if we do not know what the correct math models are at the deepest level. The worlds behaves a certain way and we model it using math. This is not to advocate the world is made out of math. Also, I am not sure the objects of the math models have their correspondence in the world. For example, I am not sure something called Hilbert Space really really exists in the world even though we can model the behavior of tiny particles by assuming they have “states” in Hilbert Space and follow the mathematics of Hilbert Space.</span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;">It is my opinion the world is not being
controlled by math. Rather, the math is modeling how the world behaves.
The world happens to follow certain patterns and those patterns can be
described by math. </span><br /><br /> There are many branches and subjects in math and some have been found useful to model the world. No doubt new branches of math will be invented in the future some of which may be found to have utility to model the world. Physicists observe the world and how it behaves and have developed math tools or borrowed them from mathematicians to model the behavior of the world they have been observing. Sometimes the mathematics makes predictions which are later found out to be true. That gives additional support that the model is doing a good job modeling nature. One example is Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity which in part was motivated to resolve the problem that Maxwell’s Equations were inconsistent with certain parts of Newtonian physics. Einstein later noticed that his model predicted the equivalence of mass and energy, the famous E=M*C*C. M being mass and C being the speed of light and E being Energy. His prediction was not confirmed until years later.</span><br /><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span>Does any of this mean G-d must have designed the world based on math or decreed that math would govern it ? I do not see a problem with the claim </span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: large;">‘it is a brute fact the world follows certain patterns which can be modeled by math'. Why does the world have any patterns ? That too can be a brute fact.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br />Was the Lord constrained to make the world in a particular way ? Could the Lord have made a willy nilly world or that operates in a way that can be modeled by one mathematical model or perhaps another etc: ? If we assume we live in a world that can be modeled by a particular mathematical model it does not follow the Lord was involved, since the Lord could have made a willy nilly world or a world modeled on a different mathematical model , right ? <br /><br />Some might object that ANY world that can be modeled by math needs to have the Lord as it’s designer. I do not see how positing the Lord as a designer has any more explanatory power than just claiming ‘it is a brute fact the world follows certain patterns which can be modeled by math'. I am not sure claiming the Lord Did IT has any explanatory power at all. It is really an invocation, even a pure invention of the imagination of a big mystery thing called the Lord, that is alleged to explain what is alleged to be an issue that cries out for an explanation. <br /><br />Finally, if our world was willy nilly it strongly suggests we would not have evolved or exist long enough to ask questions. The reason why we can ask questions is because we live in a region were things are not willy nilly and thus have patterns and thus sometimes can be math modeled. In other words why do we observe our region has patterns and can be modeled by math ? Because if our region was willy nilly then it would not have patterns (and therefore could not be modeled by math) and thus we would not be here. But since we are here that means our region has to have patterns and thus be susceptible to being modeled by math. </span><br /></p>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-38629038938299223022020-10-16T16:24:00.010-07:002020-10-17T05:00:00.918-07:00Every Life Is On Fire How Thermodynamics Explains The Origins Of Life by Jeremy England 2020 - book review<p><span style="font-size: large;">Every Life Is On Fire How Thermodynamics Explains The Origins Of Life by Jeremy England 2020<br /><br />Jeremy England who claims to now be Orthodox Jewish wrote a book that explains a hypothesis of how life emerged from non life by purely natural means (i.e without invoking supernatural beings or god(s)). If you encounter a religious person arguing that life could not emerge from non life because of probability problems or irreducible complexity etc: refer them to JE’s book and my blog post <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/09/proof-of-god-from-origin-of-life_2.html">Proof of God from Origin of Life.</a> In many scientific passages Jeremy had a knack for providing good analogies and explanations so that laymen could access the gist of the science. I would highly recommend his book to learn about how Thermodynamics explains the origins of life. <br /><br />Jeremy peppered his book with his interpretations of the Bible and some of philosophical digressions. This post will not be discussing science but some of Jeremy’s Bible and philosophical material. <br /> <br />I am not really sure why he injected all the Bible talk into the book. Maybe the publisher thought it would increase sales , maybe Jeremy really sees correlations or analogies of his science with the Bible, maybe to share his Bible interpretations or perhaps he had other motivations. I found his Bible talk a distraction and not helpful. Also it reminded me of a person who wears red sun glasses and then sees red where it ain’t. What I mean is Jeremy is really into his science as well as his Bible studies so he begins to see the Bible as providing analogies, relations or insights into science and Thermodynamics that are not there. It requires squinting real hard, ignoring a bunch of other stuff, twisting yourself into a pretzel and then imposing interpretations on the Bible text that I believe just about nobody else would find convincing. (This post will include a few examples of what I mean.) My comments in blue.<br /><br />Beginning Page 7 Jeremy mentions the Exodus (chapter 3) story of Moses at the burning bush. The Lord provided three signs for Moses to show the enslaved Israelites. A staff turns to a serpent and then back; Moses hand gets snowy and unsnowy; river water and dirt turn into blood. Jeremy thinks the three signs can be a comment on the border between life and non life; hammers home the question of where life comes from ; and how to distinguish life from the inanimate material background from which it might have emerged. He goes on to claim the signs are a “cogent and detailed guide for explaining emergent lifelikeness in the language of physics.” <br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;">This has to be the most novel interpretation I have ever seen for the signs, is inconsistent with the Exodus text and is pure invention. Moreover I did not read in the Exodus a “cogent and detailed guide for explaining emergent life likeness in the language of physics”. Maybe Jeremy was doing the backward translation he advocates - see below for more about his backward translation advocacy.</span><br /><br />Page 59 - Jeremy is explaining Statistical Mechanics with a thought experiment of putting a frog in a blender.<br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;">I found it funny that he chose a frog which in many translations of Bible have as one of the plagues. </span><br /><br />Beginning Page 148 Jeremy discusses hilltops where small changes in the direction you roll down can greatly impact where you end up. [The book had described the physics of rolling up and down Energy hills etc:] He then proceeds to discuss the burning bush story in Exodus 3 which took place at Mount Horeb, which Jeremy translates as Mount Sword and swords can stab etc: Jeremy explains the sword making process - hammer glowing red hot (now soft) metal. Unlike hammering cold metal, the hot metal will allow permanent shape change. That is an example of not all states of a material are as good at absorbing energy and bringing about shape change. A hot state is at a higher energy level and closer to tipping points. Jeremy then mentions Genesis 4:22 Tubal-Cain invents black smithing, Yaval discovers animal herding Gen 4:20 and Yuval invents musical instruments. Jeremy writes this is a stunning combination of collective behavior (herds), irreversible reshaping by external drive ( black smithing) and shape dependant energy abortion thru resonance (music). Jeremy write those three concepts attach to the emblem of the sword, which is also the name of the Mountain where Moses comes to understand where life begins and ends. <br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Mount Horeb - Ibn Ezra explains Horeb relates to dryness and the mountain was so named because of dryness and little rainfall. Also, the Strong Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Horeb - to parch (thru drought) and then relates the word can be extended: desolate, destroy, kill, dry up. Horeb can also give rise to a cutting instruments (from it’s destructive effect) including swords. <br /><br />Many scholars give credence to Kenite/Midianite Hypothesis for the Origins of Yahwism. Those scholars have established a relationship between Yahweh, the Kenites-Midianites and Moshe. The Kenites-Midianites were smiths and this suggests they would or potentially had reason to associate a deity with smoke and fire. There are gods associated with smithing for example the Greek Hephaestus or the Celtic Gofannon and others as well. <br /><br />{ Page 37 in the book Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan by William Albright 1968 - metal working was a specialty of the Midianite group among whom Moses settled.}<br /><br />{The Anchor Bible Exodus 2006 by William Propp Page 36 “Fire is the medium in which Yahweh appears on the terrestrial plane: in the burning bush (3:2), in the cloud pillar (13:21-22, 14:24), atop Mount Sinai (19:18, 24:17) and upon the tabernacle (40:38).” “It is possible epitomize the entire story Exodus as the movement of the fiery manifestation of the divine presence (greenberg 1969:16-17)” } Propp’s verse numbering may vary from other sources.<br /><br />The Midianite were blacksmiths and sword making is something they may do. Mount Sword would be an apt name for a war god as well as a blacksmith deity. We do know that Yahweh is a war god and in addition is associated with fire. I am not claiming that Horeb should be translated as Mount Sword. But if Mount Horeb was really Mount Sword that would provide additional support for the Kenite/Midianite Hypothesis, as well as Yahweh being a smith deity.<br /><br />I am not sure what Jeremy means by Moses comes to understand where life begins and ends at Mount Horeb and where this is in the Bible text. <br /></span><br />Page 181 Jeremy discusses the burning bush and asks how can the bush survive the fire while many other things ordered structures would be consumed ? According to Jeremy it is because from the perspective of a living thing the particular driving forces swirling around it do not look like a flame because they have a pattern to them that the life was born to recognize.<br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;">I do not think the Torah story is related to the physics Jeremy is describing, but I am not sure that was part of Jeremy message. Anyway it is a poor analogy. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">If there is a kernel of truth to a burning bush here are several natural explanations: <br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">A) Certain crystals can form on desert plants and in an evening light their glow appear as a mysterious fire that appears to burn but not consume. (Page 403 The Torah A Modern Commentary Plaut, Bamberger, Hallo1981) B) Discharge of atmosphere electricity like St Elmo’s fire (Page 39 The Interpreters One Volume Commentary On The Bible 1982) C) Volcanic steam seen from a distance rising over a shrub on a mountain (page 230 Myth Legend and Custom In the Old Testament by Theodor Gaster 1969) D) Some scholars have proposed that Moses, some of his followers and some Prophets were in altered mental state(s) brought about by consumption of or absorbing certain chemicals, or brought about by other means. E) Related to certain gas emanating from the Earth. The gas would burn but leave the bush unharmed. I had read this a while ago where the author explained it in more detail but can not recall the text. Per my recollection something like this can occur in volcanic regions. <br /></span><br />Page 245 Jeremy critiques Intelligent Design attacks on Darwinian ideas. Our inability to think of a model does not mean we will not find one in the future. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">I agree with Jeremy and will add that ID relates closely to <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2016/03/proof-of-god-from-gaps-sherlock-holmes_10.html">my post God of the Gaps and the Argument from Ignorance.</a></span><br /> <br />Page 248 Jeremy points out some intelligent people behold the awesomeness of the Universe etc: and feel confirmed that G-d-Did-It. But then explains that is not an inescapable conclusion and in addition too many smart people feel they have no need of G-d for it.<br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;">I agree with Jeremy. </span><br /><br />Page 248. Jeremy is critical of those who attempt to disprove the Bible’s account of the World or who claim there is no evidence to support the Bible.<br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Why be critical ? Would he be critical of people who attempt to disprove the Koran’s (or any mythology or holy text) account of the World or who claim there is no evidence to support them ? It would be good to know when the Bible is accurate and when it is not. Why should I accept any story as true unless there is evidence to support it ? This applies especially to the Bible. </span><br /><br />Page 248 Jeremy claims “The Bible does not propose itself as a set of falsifiable claims;” Some things “superficially” sound like claims. The Bible tries to teach a method to interpret human history and individual experience that leads one to speak in a new language about humanity and one’s life. <br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;">If the Bible makes certain claims we can sometimes figure out their likely truth. I agree some parts of Bible may be metaphor, allegory, figures of speech and the like, but that is not license to claim other portions are that as well. The Tenach does try to interpret Israelite history which in a nutshell is G-d-Did-It because.... and it makes up reasons. Not sure what Jeremy means by a new language because the Tenach shares much of the perspective of some other ancient near east cultures. (Jeremy explains what he means by a “new language” shortly see page 249).</span><br /><br />Page 249 Jeremy explains the “new language”. “This new language essentially is learned thru backward translation, by assuming the biblical text is faithful in it’s account of things even given what else one knows to be true about the world, and engaging in the painstaking work of constructing arguments for what the scripture might have meant when it said something.” Calls for proof and evidence miss the point entirely.<br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Sometimes we need to figure out what the bible meant. The best way to do this is by studying ancient near east cultures, religions, languages and myths. Sometimes the Bible seems pretty clear what it meant. I wonder how Jeremy will decide which “backward translation” is the appropriate one. <br /><br />Why assume the biblical text is faithful in it’s account of things ?</span></span></p><p><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Would he grant that assumption to the Koran or other alleged holy texts ?</span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"> </span></span><br />Jeremy claims calls for proof and evidence miss the point entirely. It depends what the point is. If the point is to determine if events in the Tenach are true then calls for proof and evidence seem relevant. Also religions often make demands on the society. For example IF the Torah prohibits say homosexuality because the Lord said so, and IF the Torah provides death penalty for homosexuality because the Lord said so and IF people want to follow the Lord’s word shouldn’t those people find out IF the Torah is even from the Lord or IF the Lord exists ?<br /></span><br />Page 211 Regarding the Exodus’s signs, Jeremy writes: “The staff and serpent point out that the same thing can look different depending on how one talks about it.” The snowy skin sign provokes us to think about boundaries between categories, and reminds us that complicated structures can gets assembled from simpler parts that condense together. <br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Really ? </span><br /><br />Page 223 Thru the Exodus signs the Lord was teaching Moses how to argue against the dehumanizing slant of some versions of physical materialism according to Jeremy.<br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;">Really ? </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"> </span><br />Page 225 According to Jeremy some people believe humans are nothing but clumps of dust and thus committing murder is easier for them.<br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;">This is related to a common religious argument. See this post <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/05/proof-of-god-from-morality-part-one.html">Proof Of God From Morality</a> </span><br /><br /><span style="color: #2b00fe;">To conclude this already too long post I will repeat that I only cited and written about some of Jeremy’s Bible and philosophical rumblings and ramblings and I hope to eventually comment on more of them. When reading Jeremy’s book do not skip his Bible stuff because he sometimes discusses science in those passages. </span></span></p>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-44341970728196700062020-05-06T23:56:00.003-07:002020-05-07T13:38:03.916-07:00Proof of God From Number of Stars in Talmud <span style="font-size: large;">This proof is based on alleged secret knowledge regarding the number of stars possessed by the authors of the Talmud. Knowledge that had to come from the Lord. Before reading this post please at least skim <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/05/proof-of-god-from-secrets-in-holy-texts_16.html">Proof of God From Secrets In Holy Texts</a>.</span><span style="font-size: large;"> I have seen similar type proofs from other religions and like those proofs this one also fails.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The proof uses a section of </span><span style="font-size: large;">Talmud Berachoth 32b.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Talmud Berachoth 32b</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Resh Lakish said: The community of Israel said before the Holy One, blessed </span><span style="font-size: large;">be He: Sovereign of the Universe, when a man takes a second wife after his first, he still remembers </span><span style="font-size: large;">the deeds of the first. Thou hast both forsaken me and forgotten me! The Holy One, blessed be He, </span><span style="font-size: large;">answered her: My daughter, twelve constellations have I created in the firmament, and for each </span><span style="font-size: large;">constellation I have created thirty hosts, and for each host I have created thirty legions, and for each </span><span style="font-size: large;">legion I have created thirty cohorts, and for each cohort I have created thirty maniples, and for each </span><span style="font-size: large;">maniple I have created thirty camps, and to each camp I have attached three hundred and sixty-five </span><span style="font-size: large;">thousands of myriads of stars, corresponding to the days of the solar year, and all of them I have </span><span style="font-size: large;">created only for thy sake, and thou sayest, Thou hast forgotten me and forsaken me!</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Before discussing the proof I would like to discuss the Talmud citation itself.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The Talmud is responding to concerns that the Lord has forsaken and forgotten the Jews and probably not intending an estimate of the number of stars. The Talmud attempts to pacify by writing the Lord created thousands and thousands of stars for the Jews sake. As if that is consolation. Hundreds of thousands of Jews killed, stop complaining and look at the stars created for your sake ! Talk about religion being pie in the sky. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Also the Talmud response is not a response at all. The response does not address forsaking, nor does the Talmud respond to the issue of remembrance . The Lord creating stars at the creation is not evidence of his remembrance of the Jews thereafter. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In short the Talmud’s response is a non response and an evasion. The Talmud is trying to uplift the spirits of the Jews by purporting to show how important the Jews really are to the Lord. There are similar self centered statements in the Talmud about how important the Jews and the Torah are to the world. Most likely these things were invented by the politicians, priests and theologians to provide hope to the distraught, perpetuate the religion, tribe and nation. Is it any wonder that to this day many Orthodox Jews think the world revolves around the Jews and because of the Jews ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Proof</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Lets discuss the proof. If I did the math correctly the number of stars based on the Talmud above is </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">12*30*30*30*30*30*30*365000 = 1.06 * 10^14 stars. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Somebody has informed me to multiply that figure by a myriad which is claimed to be 10000 which then gives 1.06 * 10^18 stars. It is claimed how could the Talmud know the number of stars so accurately unless the Lord had provided the information.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Refute </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Why I do not find the proof convincing.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>1) The number of stars at the start of our Universe (right after the Big Bang), was zero. As the Universe expanded at some point stars began to form because of gravity acting on the random densities of matter. The Talmud does not specify the time since ‘creation’ where the number stars are being counted. It seems to take the number of stars as fixed and counted perhaps when G-d placed them in the firmament. If the Talmud meant the initial number of stars then the Talmud gets it wrong. If it means the number of stars around the times of the Talmud it is still likely wrong since the number of stars are estimated at (7 x 10^22) or perhaps (2 x 10^23) in the observable universe. Source https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/how-many-stars-are-there/ )</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Using the skyandtelescope lower figure, the Talmud figure of 1.06 * 10^18 is short by about 10^22 stars which is large discrepancy. This large difference suggests there was no secret insight regarding the number of stars.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">2) The Talmud is using the twelve Zodiacal constellations. However, the Zodiacal constellations are meaningless under astrophysics. The Zodiacal constellations consists of ancient man imposed patterns on certain parts of the sky. They have no relevance to the number of stars. In addition the shapes of the Zodiacal constellations had changed and will continue to change over time. The Talmud using a useless concept like the Zodiacal constellations to calculate the number of stars does not impress us with secret scientific insights. In addition, the Zodiacal constellations were invented by the pagans and there are many more than 12 constellations and so using the Zodiacal constellations is useless. The Talmud and Tenach should have rejected the use of constellations since they have no astrophysics relevance. The Talmud’s use of Zodiacal constellations suggest there was no secret insights regarding science.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">3) The ‘firmament’ as understood by Tenach and Talmud does not exist. The Talmud using a useless concept like the firmament does not impress us with secret scientific insights.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">4) Talmud's terms hosts, legions, cohorts, divisions, camps, and maniples. These sort of terms relate to the Roman military and have nothing to do with astrophysics. There use does not impress us with secret scientific insights.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">5) Since the Universe is billions of years old what are the number of stars ? Many stars have died a long time ago yet for some we still see their light - should those count ? What about newly forming stars ? Or dying stars ? Stars that have disappeared ? Or exploding stars ? What about star's invisible to the naked eye ? In short, the number of stars will depend on the parameters and criteria chosen to do the counting and when we do the counting. Since the Talmud did not provide the parameters nor the criteria the Talmud’s number of stars is meaningless as a proof of anything. The number of stars is meaningless unless many parameters and criteria are specified. </span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-17010048940900033252020-03-14T21:50:00.001-07:002020-03-20T16:59:03.635-07:00Corona Virus and The God Virus<span style="font-size: large;">MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS POST:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">KEEP UPDATED ON VALID MEDICAL ADVICE AND FOLLOW IT, IGNORE ADVICE AND OPINIONS OF ANY THEOLOGIAN (or anyone else) INCONSISTENT WITH VALID MEDICAL ADVICE.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Updated thru 3/19/2020 </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The God Virus by Darrel W. Ray - The book nor I intend the words ‘God Virus’ or ‘religion’ or ‘religious’ to apply to every of the various god(s), religions or interpretations of their god(s) and religions of mankind. This post uses the words interchangeably.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The book supports in great detail the analogy of religion (and also some political systems) as a virus and this post is inspired by the chapter The God Virus and Science. It is not a review or summary of the book or chapter, so please to not disparage the book based on my post. Read the book which I intend to do more carefully over time. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In the Ancient Near East, disease, plagues, famine etc: were attributed to supernatural agency and this tradition is continued till this day by religion. ( for example see <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2016/08/human-sacrifice-in-bible-part-3_23.html">Human Sacrifice ? in the Bible Part 3</a></span><span style="font-size: large;"> , </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-danger-of-census-taking-and-tenach.html">The Danger of Census Taking and the Tenach</a> ). </span><span style="font-size: large;">Thus no surprise when religious claim Corona was sent by their particular deity or supernatural agent. Or that their deity can intervene with the abatement if we pray to it or what not. Many Jews, Christians and Muslims are now using the Corona Virus scare to propagate their religions. There are </span><span style="font-size: large;">Theologians claiming the Corona was sent by a deity for sinful ways or for some other reason. That the Messiah is coming ! I wonder how they know the mind of their deity ? When I have asked some questions about their deity the response is often that their deity is a mystery, but now they know the reason for Corona. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">However, science has explanations for diseases and plagues. Those explanations do not involve supernatural agents. Informed modern people rely on medicine not divine agents to get healthy, just like they rely on science for building power plants etc: etc: Science is a threat to the God Virus. The more science demystifies then the more supernatural agency explanations retreat. The more science can do to cure disease the less the God Virus is needed. Also, the God Virus never was an explanation for plague or disease or anything. Why lightning ? Zeus, as if that enlightens. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The more science demonstrates that a holy book’s histories are unreliable the more the God Virus needs to defend itself. For example the holy book needs to be interpreted and reinterpreted. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">At some point one asks why bother with supernatural agency ? Why bother claiming special divine status for the holy book ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The God Virus may defend itself using various strategies- here are some examples. Attack science and scientists. Or Circumscribe Science's boundary. Or God Virus claims parity with science. Or God Virus claims science is religion too. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"> The God Virus can co-opt the trappings of science (but not real science) which is great way to propagate itself in a culture that respects science. Intelligent Design, which is really Pseudo-Science. Or Science proves God Virus. Or God Virus finds science in the holy books. Or holy book is consistent with science.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The book warns of the God Virus co-opting medicine, physics, archaeology, psychology etc: to its own ends. For example the mission statement of the Bible Archaeology Search And Exploration Institute exists to dispel the notion the Bible is collection of fables and legends. (They claim to use scientific methods. But science does not start with the conclusion and then seek to support it.) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">God Virus claims it can diagnose or cure disease or help abate disease or protect from disease - examples include: Torah study; prayer; using molten lead; finding and casting out demons; laying hands - faith healing; defective Tefillin (phylacteries) and fixing them; amulets and </span><span style="font-size: large;">segula (protective or benevolent charm or ritual); </span><span style="font-size: large;"> pilgrimages to holy man grave sites or holy sites; stuff paper wads in Wailing Wall with pleas to their deity; holy water and or other 'miracle' locations ( examples: Lourdes, </span><span style="font-size: large;"> Fátima in Portugal</span><span style="font-size: large;">) ; “Rebbe" miracles; “Rebbe” prayers; give charity... and on and on. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Children can die because the parents God Virus is against modern medical treatment. Adults have died because their God Virus is against modern medical treatment. Testimony to how far the God Virus can infect the brain. The God Virus can disable critical thinking. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Many of those God Virus diagnoses and cures involve cash payments and help propagate the God Virus.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I am not being critical of giving to charity. I myself have contributed large sums to it and eventually large amounts of my assets will end up in charities. I do not give charity with any hope of getting benefits now (say cures or health) or rewards in ‘heaven’. But ask yourself, what percent of the money you give to ‘charity’ is really going to ‘charity’, and what percent is really going to propagate the God Virus ? By all means give to worthy charities, but not with the expectation of some divine reward or divine intervention of Corona Virus. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I had publicly offered the following challenge on the use of molten lead by any Rabbi: I will pay an agreed upon sum to an agreed upon charity if under a valid controlled study the use of molten lead can diagnose ailments. On the other hand, if the test fails, then the Rabbi must cease and desist. So far not a single Rabbi has taken up the challenge. (To clarify - not all Rabbis or Orthodox Jews give credibility to molten lead diagnosis. I suspect most do not.) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">A person may feel a personal connection to his supernatural agent. A terribly sick individual with little hope of survival gets better and claims a miracle happened .Or a man gets advice from a ‘Rebbe’ and great things happen. A miracle is claimed, the “Rebbe’ a prophet - the man now owes allegiance to that “Rebbe’. The book writes “The god of personal experience trumps science and prevents examination, explanation and learning.” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Science has an approach that religions do not have. Science involves: gathering data, developing models, explanatory power for a wide range of phenomena, making predictions based on models, testing those predictions against observations and ability to falsify model. Science has peer review, replication of results. Some of the cutting edge science models may be difficult or perhaps even impossible to experimentally falsify, but they are rooted in underlying models that can be falsified. The cutting edge models may be attempts to unify underlying models. They may be extrapolations of underlying models or from underlying models. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The book writes “Science has continuous error correction where religion has no method to correct errors.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">To the degree sciences undermine the fear objects of religion (supernatural, punishment for sin, disease, plagues, catastrophes ) and their holy books, it will be seen as a threat. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I can offer no consolations of hope from a supernatural agent nor a hereafter. You and I are lucky to have experienced our brief time as human beings. To Marvel at the Universe, the Beauty of Nature and to Experience the Joy of Living.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">{P.S. Some Orthodox Rabbis were pontificating that Torah study could protect against Corona Virus. No need to take precautions such as reduced shul attendance or reduced yeshiva class sizes. To the extent their minions abide by such beliefs it did and will spread the Corona Virus. Some of those same Rabbis (all ?) have since revised their advice.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">We also have the events in South Korea where religion spread the Corona Virus: </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">“During the first four weeks, South Korea controlled the potential spread of COVID-19 by using high-tech resources like tracking the use of credit cards and checking CCTV footage of confirmed patients. However, since 18 February, the number of cases increased to more than 1,700 after discovery of the fact that patient No. 31 is a member of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus. It was difficult for KCDC to screen the patient because Shincheonji teaches that illness is sin. Many members were uncooperative with KCDC and could not be contacted. About half of confirmed cases were linked to the Shincheonji Church as of 27 February; this was verified by health officials.” Retrieved 3/19/2019 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_South_Korea</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Shincheonji is considered a fringe cult yet has hundreds of thousands of members. Shincheonji is an evolution from and mutation from main stream Christianity. Main stream religions provide a reservoir from which mutations of the religion can occur and sometimes with dangerous consequences.}</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">FYI - I am sponsored by no organization or individual(s). I receive no compensation (monetary or otherwise) related to my blog. All posts are written solely by me and with no assistance.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS POST:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">KEEP UPDATED ON VALID MEDICAL ADVICE AND FOLLOW IT, IGNORE ADVICE AND OPINIONS OF ANY THEOLOGIAN (or anyone else) INCONSISTENT WITH VALID MEDICAL ADVICE. </span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-73112718726486832082020-01-25T00:50:00.001-08:002020-01-25T12:07:39.812-08:00Genetic Fallacy and Religion and God Origins<span style="font-size: large;">Revised 1/25/2020</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">“A critic uses the Genetic Fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant." Retrieved 1/25/2020 https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Genetic</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Example A) A Neo-Nazi organization publishes research showing the superiority of the ‘white’ race. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">If I were to argue the research is probably false because the source was a Neo-Nazi organization, some would argue I have committed the Genetic Fallacy. I would argue it is very reasonable to discredit the research because of the lack of credibility of the organization putting out the research. They are a biased source and historically Nazis have written and pontificated falsehoods. Here an appeal to origins is very relevant and provides good reasons to argue the study is probably flawed or at least not to be trusted.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Example B) An ancient culture claims their god assisted them in battle. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">If I were to argue the claim is probably false because the source was an ancient culture, some would argue I have committed the Genetic Fallacy. I would argue no. First, that ancient culture could be a biased source. Second, ancient people were prone to attribute events to supernatural beings and were superstitious. Third ancient cultures were prone to make up stories or evolve myths. Thus an appeal to origins and likely origins is very relevant. I have good reasons to argue the claim is probably just another tall tale.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Example C) A ancient country believed there is a State god watching over them, defending them or punishing them.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Lets suppose that psychiatrists have demonstrated humans have a psychological need for a father figure. Then I can argue the country’s belief is rooted in their psychology and that their deity probably does not exist. Some would argue I have committed the Genetic Fallacy. I would argue that here an appeal to origins or likely origins is very relevant and I have good reasons to claim the country’s belief is probably false. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Example D) A ancient country has a book they believe is divine. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I examine the book, (for example the Bible) and it has significant and numerous parallels to ancient near east myths, rituals and laws and that the book’s origins are likely in ancient near culture, myth rituals and laws and therefore their belief is probably false. Some would argue I have committed the Genetic Fallacy. I would argue that here an appeal to origins or likely origins is very relevant and I have good reasons to assume their claim is probably false. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Example E) An ancient culture XYZ, claims a dying and rising person/god event occurred.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Lets suppose there were several ancient cultures with similar sorts of claims of people dying and arising or dying and rising god(s). It seems the origin or likely origin of XYZ’s story is in such ancient myths, and therefore their belief is probably false. Some would argue I have committed the Genetic Fallacy. I would argue that here an appeal to origins or likely origins is very relevant and have good reasons to claim the event is probably just another ancient myth. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Example F) A religious fundamentalist writes a book disparaging fairly well accepted science, for example Evolution, or that the Universe is billions of years old. The book includes 'new' discoveries, novel interpretations of scientific data, The individual claims that their 'research' is being blackballed by the established scientific community and a conspiracy exists against their religion. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">If I were to argue the book is probably false because the source was a religious crank, some would argue I have committed the Genetic Fallacy. I would argue it is very reasonable to discredit the book because the book's motivation was in a felt conflict between the science and the religion. Here an appeal to origins is very relevant and provides good reasons to argue the book is probably flawed. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">In summary, for each of the examples above I have not 'proven' any of proponent's position FALSE. However, the proponents historical record, the qualities of the proponent, the origin or likely origin of the </span><span style="font-size: large;">proponents </span><span style="font-size: large;">beliefs are very often relevant to determining the probable falseness or truthfulness of those beliefs. Psychiatrists, Biologists, Neurologists, Economists, Anthropologists, Sociologist etc: have put forth cogent reasons, data and theories, for the potential origins of people’s religions and beliefs in god(s). Examples include Father Figure, Opiate of the Masses, Agency seeking, Tribal Survival, Politics etc: etc:. An appeal to those reasons, data and theories are very relevant to the determination of the veracity of the religions and their god(s). If those theories, data and reasons are good, then it is more likely the religions and their god(s) are rooted in human culture and psychology etc: rather than the religion being true and their god(s) really existing. </span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-83599241598040059372019-12-23T00:51:00.001-08:002019-12-24T00:34:19.164-08:00The Danger of Census Taking and the Tenach<span style="font-size: large;">II Samuel XXIV describes a very strange story and I suggest you read it carefully yourself.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The Lord is angry at Israel. He incites King David to take a census and this seems to be considered a sin. The long and short of it results in the Lord bringing a plague on Israel killing 70,000 people. When the plague threatens to destroy Jerusalem, the Lord halts the plague. Things do not seem totally safe until 25. And David built there an altar to the Lord and sacrificed burnt offerings and offerings of well-being. The </span><span style="font-size: large;">Lord responded to the plea for the land, and the plague against Israel was checked.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">1) If the Lord is angry at Israel why does he need the pretense of the sin of the census to bring the plague ?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">2) Why is taking a census a sin ? Is such a sin deserving of killing 70000 people ? Also remember it is David who orders the census, yet 70000 Israelites end up dead.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">3) Why are things not totally safe until David brings burnt offerings ? The Lord is angry enough to kill 70000 people and permanently halts the destruction because of some burnt offerings ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">(THE JEWISH STUDY BIBLE Adele Berlin and Marc Brettler editors 2004, page 665 explains:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">According to ancient belief counting people exposes them to misfortune. Exod. 30.11- </span><span style="font-size: large;">16 requires each counted person to pay expiation money, so "that no </span><span style="font-size: large;">plague may come upon them"(Rashi: "for the evil eye rules over </span><span style="font-size: large;">counting").)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">[Many cultures had superstitions that a census could result in harm. This is well documented in </span><span style="font-size: large;">Folk-lore in the Old Testament; studies in comparative religion, legend </span><span style="font-size: large;">and law, Frazer, James George, Sir, 1919 beginning on page 555.]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">[One possible explanation of the story (assuming it ever happened) is that a census was taken and a plague ensued soon after. The people then thought the plague was the result of the census. Ancient people would ascribe plagues to the god(s). So we have a post-hoc fallacy reinforced by prior superstitions. ]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">{ETA 12/23/2019 I would like to add the following:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">In Ancient times some cultures would ascribe their laws as from the god(s). So consider the possibility the ancient Israelites objected to a census for political/sociological or for some other reason. They could then ascribe their own objection as the will of their god. That their god objected to a census. Then if a census was taken and a plague followed they could claim the god was displeased with the sin of taking a census. }</span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-20179039525945244492019-04-30T16:49:00.002-07:002019-05-26T02:34:37.764-07:00Yahweh, Mountain and or Warrior and or BloodThirsty godsThe religious write about the Lord as the morally perfect being, the transcendent and other lofty philosophical descriptions. I wonder if they ever read the Tenach with intellectual honesty. Also, they seem to be unaware of the many points of contact of the Lord with some other gods.<br />
<br />
For example the Lord is associated with war, blood, and mountain(s). That will be the focus of this post, but there some additional and related material in some of my older posts. I will provide a tiny sampling from Ancient Near East Literature and a tiny sampling from the Tenach. A book could be written about it.<br />
<br />
Page references from the book Near East Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Edited by Walter Beyerlin) 1978 and Bible translations from The Jewish Study Bible Berlin and Brettler 2004<br />
<br />
1) In Exodus 7 The Lord brings the blood plague upon Egypt.<br />
<br />
Page 97 - The Sumerian Myth Inanna and the Gardener -<br />
The goddess Inanna brings a plague of blood - filled all the springs with blood and woman slaves who drew water got blood.<br />
<br />
2) Isaiah 34 ....For the Lord is angry at all the nations, Furious at all their host;<br />
He has doomed them, consigned them to slaughter. Their slain shall be left lying,<br />
And the stench of their corpses shall mount; And the hills shall be drenched with their blood....The Lord has a sword; it is sated with blood....<br />
<br />
Jeremiah 46:10 But that day shall be for the Lord God of Hosts a day<br />
when He exacts retribution from His foes. The sword shall devour; it shall be sated and drunk with their blood.<br />
<br />
Page 193 Anat’s War The warrior goddess Anat mows down cities, heads roll beneath her, bathes in the blood of dead soldiers, slaughters until satiated etc:<br />
<br />
3) Exodus 3 Now Moses, tending the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, drove the flock into the wilderness, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.<br />
<br />
Also, Moses ascended a Mountain to visit with the Lord - Exodus 24.<br />
<br />
Page 200 Anat’s Audience With El - The goddess Anat ascends the mountain of El to have a chat with El.Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-24208590806265448712019-04-28T15:22:00.001-07:002021-12-12T01:31:04.960-08:00Kuzari Argument Part 23 or Proof of God from Miracles Part 3<p><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">It will be helpful to at least skim my <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html">Kuzari argument</a> posts and <a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-part-1-or.html">Miracle</a> posts </span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">Continued from </span><span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/03/kuzari-argument-part-22-or-miracle-of.html">Kuzari Argument Part 22</a></span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">Rabbi Gottlieb (RG) Principle: Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">This can be briefly restated as: If people believe an event of type E occurred, then evidence must exist for the event's occurrence. </span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: #c0a154;"></span></span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">[RG means to say a mass of people. RG does not mean if a only a few people.]</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">I am fully aware the following story is not like the Mount Sinai story but that is besides the point. RG’s principle is flawed for reasons I have discussed in prior posts. One flaw is that it can not determine whether the witnesses opinion of the event are reliable.</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">There are interesting events that took place in Ireland in 1985.</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">From the book Looking For A Miracle by Joe Nickell 1993</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">Page 64 A Virgin Mary statue in a grotto in County Cork, Ireland swayed gently. Dozens of people including several news reporters claim to witness the movement. Some claimed the hands and feet moved. Scientists sent to investigate also saw the movement !</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">[I know what you are thinking. It was skullduggery, perhaps involving wires, smoke and mirrors and the like. Or you may be thinking the viewers drank a wee bit too much Irish Whiskey. However scientists determined something else was involved.] </span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">[Youtube has a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZjM83wZmWw</span><span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"> on the incidents at County Cork. The video claims thousands come and seven out of ten see something and even skeptics come away converted !]</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">The book explains the scientists know that NO STATUE MOVEMENT actually took place because they had filmed the statue and the film showed no movement. The scientists determined the viewers were unconsciously moving not the statue. At dusk the statue has a halo of lights and that halo was providing a reference point for the eye. The viewer can not detect that one's head and body are unconsciously moving. </span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">[I strongly suspect prior religious beliefs and group think also played a role for some on lookers.]</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"><br /></span>
<span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;">When I read or hear about stories involving miracles, ghosts, demons, haunted houses, mental telepathy, telekinesis, and other alleged supernatural things I give them very little credibility. For any of that sort of stuff to be true it would mean that the established physics that we know operates 100% of the time in our part of the cosmos would be violated. What is more likely - that well tested physics is violated or that the stories are bunk or poor evidence for one reason or another. Save yourself time, money, mental energy and physical energy - be skeptical. </span></p><p><span face=""arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif" style="color: #333333; font-size: medium;"> Continued <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2021/12/kuzari-argument-part-24-uyghurs.html">Kuzari Argument Part 24 UYGHURS</a> <br /></span></p>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-14670482488899883642019-04-22T23:08:00.001-07:002020-10-06T20:58:49.269-07:00Proof of God from Prophecy Part 4 <span style="font-size: large;">It will probably be helpful to read all my Prophecy posts where I have argued that alleged fulfilled Tenach prophecies do not justify evidence for supernatural. Start with <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-1.html">Proof of God from Prophecy Part 1</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Many religious claim there are no false prophecies in the Tenach. A few prophecies they claim are at present unfulfilled, but they will be fulfilled someday. The focus of this post are the prophecies the religious claim have been fulfilled. Some religious argue that the virtual 100% success rate of Tenach prophecy is evidence of supernatural.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">For the sake of argument I will accept the (questionable) religious claim above. That there are prophecies in the Tenach and they made predictions that were fulfilled.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">There were numerous prophets in ancient Israel including many unknowns. {ETA 5/21/2020 </span><span style="font-size: large;">Many more prophets were active in ancient Israel and Judah than those whose work is </span><span style="font-size: large;">represented in the prophetic books of the Bible. SOURCE Page 457-458 of </span><span style="font-size: large;">THE JEWISH STUDY BIBLE Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler editors 2004.}</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;">No doubt they made numerous predictions/prophesies and no doubt many of them would be argued by the religious to have been fulfilled prophecies. Yet, it is also possible many of the numerous predictions/prophesies they made did not come true. What if the scribes and priests who were recording the prophecies only selected to record what they thought were prophecies that came true ? What if the canonization process only selected the prophecies the scribes and priests thought had come true. We would be left with a biased record of fulfilled prophecies, plus some prophecies that the religious claim are at present not fulfilled ! </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Thus the high prophecy success rate could be due to the biased recording and canonization process whereby the (thought to be) successes get written down and canonized. What were thought to be failures were not recorded. This created a biased data set of prophecies in the Tenach. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The religious may respond that the Tenach does record some false prophecies. If so, then this means Tenach prophecies contain failures not something the religious desire to argue. Also, it is possible the canonizers were unaware that the prophecy was really a failure. Thus the failed prophecies got recorded and canonized anyway. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The religious may claim there is a special category of prophecies that have come true after the canonization process and so my argument fails. My response is very few if any prophecies are known to fall into the special category. Besides those prophecies that allegedly fall into the special category are not amazing or fail the requirements for a valid prophecy. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">There is no evidence the alleged extremely high prophecy success rate requires the invocation of supernatural. The high prophecy rate could be the result of a biased recording and canonization processes. </span><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-50720497271779718072019-03-31T20:09:00.000-07:002019-05-29T03:26:09.711-07:00Proof of God From Fine Tuning Part IV<span style="font-size: large;">This post is a continuation from <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-fine-tuning.html">Proof of God From Fine Tuning Part I. </a> <strike>There is a Part II and III.</strike> {ETA I removed Part II and Part III.} </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">It would help to at least skim Part I, however this can be read as a stand alone.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Some Theologians argue some of natures parameters lie in an extremely narrow range that permit life and this means a fine tuner (God) was involved in selecting the parameters.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This post will provide some alternate possible explanations </span><span style="font-size: large;">From Part 3 of </span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;">Cosmology: The History and Nature of Our Universe By Professor of Astronomy Mark Whittle 2008 </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Beginning Page 38</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">1) Inflation can explain some apparent fine tuning. In time we may come to understand the origin of the other parameters. For example their may be some deep symmetries that can explain the laws of physics.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">2) If there actually was some flexibility in the parameters perhaps God did it. The book explains this is a 'God of the gaps' argument. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">3) Assume </span><span style="font-size: large;">there actually was some flexibility in parameters. </span><span style="font-size: large;">We exist, thus the parameters had to be in the life giving range. It is an after the fact necessity.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">4) "A strict statistical view says we have an after-the-fact probability of unity, so we shouldn't be surprised [that the parameters are life giving]. Furthermore, we can infer nothing about the 'before-the-fact' probability. There was Big Bang, and life giving parameters were chosen. End of story."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">5) </span><span style="font-size: large;">Assume </span><span style="font-size: large;">there actually was some flexibility in parameters. Some </span><span style="font-size: large;"> are bothered by the low before the fact probability of getting the parameters. They respond that Inflation theories can generate a multiverse. "Both Inflation and String Theory can generate Universes with different laws of physics." </span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-90393704050568649102019-03-20T04:02:00.000-07:002019-04-28T15:24:59.697-07:00Kuzari Argument Part 22 or Miracle Of Sun Part 13c- Rabbi Gottlieb Review<span style="font-size: large;">Updated 3/21/2019 to include some (but not all) of the relevant links supporting my comments.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Continued from </span><a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/04/kuzari-argument-part-21-rabbi-kelemen_23.html" style="background-color: #c0a154; color: #ff3300; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: x-large; line-height: 27px;">Kuzari Argument Part 21</a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">I want to thank Rabbi Gottlieb for reviewing my blog post on the <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/06/kuzari-argument-part-13_28.html">Miracle of the Sun</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://blog.dovidgottlieb.com/2018/02/apparent-counterexamples-to-kuzari.html">See Rabbi Gottlieb's apparent counterexamples to kuzari</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Retrieved 3/20/2019</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">If the Rabbi reads all my <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html">Kuzari</a> posts he will see my reasons for rejecting Kuzari style arguments including his own. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I am going to focus on only a few points the Rabbi makes.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">G1) Here is what I wrote in my original post Miracle of the Sun: </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Rabbi Gottlieb (RG) Principle: Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This can be briefly restated as: If people believe an event occurred, then evidence must exist for the event's occurrence. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Rabbi critique</b> : Let’s call the last paragraph AK. This is a gross mistake: RG and AK are very different in content. AK implies that if people believe that Muhammad ascended to the sky on a fiery horse, there must be evidence that he did. RG does not imply this. His mistake is to leave out the qualification: “event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence.” Muhammad’s ascent does not meet this condition.A great deal of his argument below is undone by this mistake.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u>My response to this critique</u></b>: There is no AK intended. I have edited all my posts to reflect my original intention that the brief restatement was meant to be the RG principle. RG Can be briefly restated as: If people believe an event of type E occurred, then evidence must exist for the event's occurrence. Do the alleged unnatural events at Mt Sinai qualify as an event of type E ? If they do why not those alleged unnatural events at Fatima ?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">G2) <b>The Rabbi writes</b>: Here is a crucial mistake in logic. At no point do I say, imply, suggest, hint or otherwise indicate the judgment of the witnesses as to whether the event was a miracle. In my view that is irrelevant. All I take from the witnesses is their account of what they experienced. It is our judgment that the described phenomena are miraculous. They say the mountain was aflame, the ground was shaking under their feet, there was cloud and smoke, the sound of a shofar, and they all heard a voice. It is our judgment that if they really experienced all of that it was a miracle.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Similarly, we should accept the testimony that they saw something happen in the sky that astonished them and created the impression of a miracle. Since they do not report (so far as I have seen) how long the vision lasted, and how long they were in an ecstatic state afterwards, there is no difficulty in accepting their statement that the wet ground and clothes became dry. It is then up to us to decide whether having that experience is evidence that a miracle occurred.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u>My Response to this critique</u></b>: In older Kuzari posts I argued very similar to reject the Mount Sinai story ! They say the mountain [Sinai] was aflame, the ground was shaking under their feet, there was cloud and smoke, the sound of a shofar, and they all heard a voice. It is our judgment that if they really experienced all of that it was a miracle or divine revelation <u>or not</u>. I think it is plausible the Mt Sinai event (even is there is some truth to the story) did not involve an actual miracle or an actual divine revelation. I think it is plausible the Miracle of Sun event(s) did not involve actual Miracle(s) or an actual divine revelation or unnatural things. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">G3)<b> Rabbi Writes</b> “And note that a vision of a religious figure is claimed only for the three children. The tens of thousands see astonishing behavior of the sun and perhaps other items in the sky. There is no reason to doubt that some natural phenomena can cause such an experience.” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u>My Response to this critique</u></b>: They say the mountain [Sinai] was aflame, the ground was shaking under their feet, there was cloud and smoke, the sound of a shofar, and they all heard a voice. There is no reason to doubt that some natural phenomena can cause such an experience. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">G4) <b>Rabbi writes:</b> “RG only applies to an event that we would expect to leave behind enormous easily available evidence of its occurrence.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u>My Response</u></b>: I have written several posts discussing the problems with this “an event that we would expect to leave behind enormous easily available evidence of its occurrence”. Those problems are a serious objection to the usefulness and merits of the RG. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/06/kuzari-argument-part-12_4.html">https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/06/kuzari-argument-part-12_4.html</a> Enemy aircraft over British South Africa ?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/kuzari-argument-part-10.html">http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/kuzari-argument-part-10.html</a> Rumour in Orleans</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">G5) <b>Rabbi Wrote</b>:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The first thing to note (as I mentioned above several times) that there are two different events in question here.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">A. The experience of the people of a phenomenon in the sky that awed and inspired them and appeared to them miraculous.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">B. G-d caused the phenomenon in the sky miraculously.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Let’s now try his argument for each event separately.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">A: Would the event of tens of thousands of people having a vision that inspired them and seemed to them to be a miracle be expected to leave behind enormous easily available evidence? Sure! The people will tell it to others and a great many will believe that it happened. And that is indeed what happened. And therefore millions of people believe that event A happened. And they are right – event A really did happen.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u>My Response</u></b>: The Rabbi writes the event he labled A: “The experience of the people of a phenomenon in the sky that awed and inspired them and appeared to them miraculous.” Happened. Well of course it did but that is not the point. They had their evidence something miraculous, something unnatural actually occurred and it is their story and interpretation that gets passed down thru the generations,. Thus later generation claim a miracle occurred , something unnatural was witnessed by their ancestors. Consider Mt Sinai. The ancient Israelites interpret the MT Sinai quaking etc: as a revelation from G-d, and that interpretation gets passed down and becomes G-d was at Mt Sinai. {ETA 3/21/2019 Some Ancient People related Mountains/Volcanoes with supernatural beings - this is documented in several of my Kuzari Posts. For example </span><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/06/kuzari-part-3_23.html" style="background-color: #c0a154; color: #993322; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 27px; text-decoration: none;">Kuzari Part 3</a>,}<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">G6) The <b>Rabbi</b> provides his rational for the RG. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u>My Response</u></b>: The RG principle is not a reliable guide for determining the veracity of peoples beliefs. Justification for this comment is found in my Kuzari posts, it's links and including my posts on Rabbi Kelemens Kuzari style argument.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">A important one regarding 'events of our type'</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="background-color: #c0a154; color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: #c0a154; color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.524px; line-height: 20.286px;"></span><span style="background-color: #c0a154; color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/04/kuzari-argument-part-21-rabbi-kelemen_23.html" style="color: #993322; text-decoration: none;">Kuzari Argument Part 21</a> Rabbi Kelemen Bomb April 23, 2018</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">G7) <b><u>MY CONCLUSION </u></b>The Miracle of the Sun shows the RG principle is flawed for determining the veracity of peoples beliefs concerning current events or historical events. Per RG - If people believe an event of type E occurred, then evidence must exist for the event's occurrence. In the Miracle of the Sun let the event be the Sun danced and the other claimed unnatural things that occurred. Is this an event of Type E ? If Mt Sinai story is Type E, why not Miracle of the Sun events ? People will see and experience the event(s) that happen. The story gets passed around and down. We need not accept something unnatural happened at Fatima, despite the claims of a large mass of witnesses to unnatural events, despite claims of a large mass of their descendants and despite a large mass of their fellow countrymen. Much the same applies to the Sinai story. I applaud the Rabbi for applying some good critical thinking skills seemingly to reject the veracity of the Miracle of the Sun. It seems to me some of his critiques of the Miracle of the Sun story apply to the Mount Sinai story.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Continued </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/04/kuzari-argument-part-23-or-proof-of-god.html">Kuzari Argument Part 23 or Proof of God from Miracles Part 3</a></span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-4064646764871492752019-03-17T20:48:00.000-07:002019-03-19T13:25:24.599-07:00 Historicity of Book of Esther and Purim, Origins of Purim <span style="font-size: large;">The purpose of this blog post is to document something I wrote years ago while discussing the <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/03/proof-of-god-from-purim-fest-1946-or_17.html">Proof of God from Purim Fest 1946 or Prophecy of Nazis in Megillah</a></span><br />
<br />
"Many academic scholars, if not the vast consensus consider the Purim story non historical, and for good reasons...."<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">That proof was repudiated for reasons having nothing to do with the question of the historical accuracy of the book of Esther. However, if the story in the Megillah is fictional or likely fictional then the proof is further weakened. The post will assume the reader has some familiarity with the story in the Book of Esther.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I will cite many sources supporting my quote above and supply some possible origins of Purim. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">When judging if a story is fictional or likely to be fictional various criteria are used. Kenton Sparks below discusses some of these criteria. Please keep Kenton’s criteria in mind when doing your evaluation. You do not start with an assumption the story is true then cherry pick supporting data and disparage and discard dis-confirming data. Rather, all the evidence needs to be weighed. Sometimes it is difficult to weigh all the information “for and agin” and so there can be disagreement even among well informed people. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">From Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible - Kenton L. Sparks 2005</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Beginning Page 266 - Judging if a Story is Fictional</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">1) Fanciful and marvelous events in the narrative. [I want to add some other criteria which I discussed in this post <a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/proof-of-god-from-miracles-part-1-or.html">Proof of God from Miracles (Part 1) or Kuzari Argument Part 9</a> and the follow up in part two.]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">2) Internal historical improbability. The story itself seems improbable. Improbable plot.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">3) External historical improbability. Events in the story do not match up to historical verification. [I want to add do not match up with other things we have confidence in.]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">4) Sometimes fictional stories are put into the form of historical genre, but it is found to deviate from historical genre in important respects. This will count against the veracity of the story.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">5) Generic Analogy - When a story’s motifs and themes appear in other texts that we have already appraised as fictional. Kenton points out this criteria needs to be used with care.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Kenton writes that Scholars have often identified the Book of Esther as fictional. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">K1) No evidence of a Hebrew Queen Esther.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">K2) The story of Joseph in the Old Testament influenced the Book of Esther.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">K3) The Character in the Book of Esther read as artificial. Here are just two examples Kenton writes about. (a) Persian Kings are not so easily entrapped by their own decrees as in Esther 8:9 (b) Unlikely a Persian to decree Jews could fight and kill thousands of Persian Soldiers as in Esther 8-9</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">K4) The character names correspond nicely with their narrative roles. Mordechai of Kish and Haman and Agaggite both correspond to earlier literary prototypes from I Sam 15 where Saul is a son of Kish and there is a king Agag. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">On page 380 Kenton explains Persia announcing to massacre it’s Jewish population eleven months before the pogrom to take place seems improbable (Est 3:5-15). Even more implausible is the jews slaughtered over 75,000 Persian (Est 9:1-17). Kenton does note some ancient Kings could announce ethnic massacred but the lead time announcement is no where near the eleven months.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Bible Commentary The Book of Esther - Adele Berlin, Jewish Publication society 2001 </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Adele supports and explains about the Book Of Esther:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">A) It is a comedy.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">B) It draws heavily on the literary motifs associated with Persia that were current when the book was written.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">C) The story is implausible as history. Many Scholars now agree it is better viewed as imaginative story telling.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">D) No known Jewish Queen of Persia. Moreover, none are to be expected since Queens came from noble Persian families, not ethnic minorities.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">E) Kings do not choose Queens based on beauty contests.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">F) No known King acted or would act like King Ahasuarus</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">G) To govern a country in which law would never be changed makes governing impossible.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">H) Ancient Persia was relatively benevolent to the various ethnic groups in it. They permitted Jews to return to Judah and rebuild the Temple, yet none of that is mentioned in the book of Esther. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I) Plot hinges on improbable hooks: Everybody knew Esther was related to the Jewish Mordecai; yet she was able to hide her Identity.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">J) The historical authentic elements is background and setting while the main characters and plot are farther removed from reality.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">K) We can recognize the story as a form of imaginative story telling common in the Persian and Hellenistic Period,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">L) Chap 9 of the book of Esther dealing with the slaughter of Jewish enemies is no more real than anything else in the plot.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">M) The largest interpretive problems of the book of Esther melt away if the story is treated as a farce or comedy associated with a carnival like festival.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">N) Exaggerated figures such as 127 provinces; 180 day party; 12 months of beauty preparation; Haman’s offer of 10000 talents of silver; A 50 cubic high stake; 75,000 enemies dead.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">O) Stylistic features reinforce the sense that the story is a farce.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">P) One major purpose was to provide an etiology for Purim; to offer an explanation why the festival was already being celebrated. Most scholars date the book was written 400-200 B.C.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Q) Ahasuerus - Although scholars have identified Xerxes I (480-465 B.C.E) or as Artaxerxes (465-424 BCE) , Ahasuerus is not a real historical personage.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Adele also briefly mentions some suggested origins of Purim:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">O1) Persian Festival of the Dead whose name sounds like Purim.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">O2) The Babylonian “Pur” which Lot in the festival name. Also the Babylonians deities Ishtar and Marduk are like the names Esther and Mordechai. {Why were Jews naming their children after those deities ?]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">O3) Greece - Esther has points of contact with Greek Literature: Motifs and comic form. The Greek Festival of Great Dionysia in March-April is marked with revelry, masquerading and comic performance.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">O4) There are many [pagan] late winter or early spring holidays in the ancient world - some carnivalesque. The Jews may have adapted from them. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Adele mentions none of the various origins options are provable. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Anchor Bible Esther Carey A. Moore 1971</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Beginning on Page XlV: </span><span style="font-size: large;"> Carey mentions numerous evidences against the Historicity of the Story in the Book of Esther</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><u>Improbabilities</u></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">180 day feast.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Queen Vashti refused to obey the King.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Kings ridiculous letter ordering men to be master’s in their own home.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Appointment of non Persians to the important post Prime Minister.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Letter sent out in all th languages of the empire instead of the official language of the Persian empire.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Kings permission granted a year ahead of time (III: 12-13) to wipe out an entire people of his empire and possessions plundered.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">King’s sanction of fighting everywhere even within the palace complex.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><u>Seeming Contradictions to Extra Biblical Sources</u></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">127 Providences contradicts Herodotus 20 satrapies</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Esther arrives 480 BC into Susa where as Herodotus gas Xerexes still fighting in Greece.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Mordechai - was part of Nebuchadnezzars deportation in 597 BC( II -6) makes him and Esther too old to accomplish everything attributed to them.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">II-16 and III-7 Esther as Queen 7th-12th year of Xerexes reign, but per Herodotus, Amestris was Queen. Per Herodotus the Persian Queen must be from seven noble Persian families ruling out an insignificant Jewess. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><u>Carey writes all the above objections lends support to two more serious objections:</u></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">1) The Legitimate suspicion that Purim origins are in a pagan festival adopted by the Jews.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">2) A number of story elements of the Book Of Esther are striking similar to certain legendary stories of the ancient near east.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Carey also has a section supporting non fictional elements in the story. But later on page LI and LII per Carey:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">“To the present writer, the contradictions, exaggerations, and inconsistencies of Esther argue against the story being taken at face value.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">“Thus when all the evidence is taken together, we conclude that Esther is neither pure fact nor pure fiction it is a historical novel”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The New Interpreter’s Bible Volume II 1999</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Page 856 Regarding Book of Esther: “As either a novella or Festlegende {etiology of Purim}, the book is meant to be read as if it were history, even though it is clearly fictional. As Fox put it, it is a fictive text meant to be read by nonfictional conventions.” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Page 859 The book is not an historical record. It is clear the book is a work of fiction that happens to contain some historical elements.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Oxford Bible Commentary 2000</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Page 325 Regarding the Book Of Esther: “The blatant historical difficulties, the internal inconsistencies, the pronounced symmetry of the themes and events, the plentitude of quoted dialogue, and the gross exaggeration in the reporting of numbers (involving time, money, and people) all point to Esther as a work of fiction, it’s vivid characters (except for Xerxes) being a product of the Author’s creative imagination.” The Commentary goes on to write Esther has long been called a Diaspora Novella and is a fictional piece of prose.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">From the Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary On The Bible 1982</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Beginning on Page 232</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Esther is a historical novella written to explain the origins of Purim.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">The author of Esther makes no mention of known historical events of Xerexes career. During the Persian invasion of Greece (in which Xerexes was most of the time in Asia Minor and in Greece), the Book of Esther has the king in Susa testing for Queens.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Various historical and chronological inaccuracies and improbabilities lead one to conclude the book is not dependable history. Herodotus has Xerexes queen being Amestris the daughter of a Persian General.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Most scholars agree celebration of Purim came first and the book was written to justify it. ”In all likelihood Purim was originally a non Jewish celebration.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Esther (1:13-22) mentions the irrevocability of the Persians and the Medes. But this is contrary to historical evidence. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"> (Page 234 2:19-23 “Hanged on the Gallows refers not to strangulation by a rope as in modern times, but probably impalement on a sharp stake and slow death by starvation - Persian mode of execution from which the Romans got the idea of crucifixion.”)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Since the book of Esther is fiction we not concern ourselves with 75,000 killed and no report of any Jewish casualties (9:11-19).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">[Much more can be written to support the hypothesis that the book of Esther is likely fiction. A good start would be Adele's commentary. In any event, I feel my comment from years ago </span>"Many academic scholars, if not the vast consensus consider the Purim story non historical, and for good reasons...." <span style="font-size: large;">is fully supportable.]</span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-73442371556504330762018-10-15T00:31:00.000-07:002020-05-28T17:42:32.917-07:00Proof Of God From Prophecy Part 3<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Updated 5/28/2020</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This is a continuation from Proof Of God From Prophecy Part 1 and 2 begun <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-1.html">here</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">My prior prophecy posts discussed some likely failed Tenach prophecies. Here are some more.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">JPS refers to THE JEWISH STUDY BIBLE Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler editors 2004.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">1) Micah</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Micah 3:12 Assuredly, because of you </span><span style="font-size: large;">Zion shall be plowed as a field, </span><span style="font-size: large;">And Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">And the Temple Mount </span><span style="font-size: large;">A shrine in the woods.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">How do we know this was a failed prophecy ? From Jeremiah 26:17</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">26:17 Then rose up certain of the elders of the land, and spoke to all the assembly of the people, saying: 18 'Micah the Morashtite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah; and he spoke to all the people of Judah, saying: Thus saith the LORD of hosts: Zion shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest. 19 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the LORD, and entreat the favour of the LORD, and the LORD repented Him of the evil which He had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our own souls.' </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">{Revised 2/27/2020. I Originally proposed an interpretation that Micah deserved the death penalty because of the false prophecy - that the city was not destroyed as per his prophecy and therefore Micah deserved the death penalty. That would be consistent with Torah law. But an alternate interpretation is Micah should have been put to death for a treacherous prophecy. Yet, on what Torah law should a prophet be executed for a treacherous prediction ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Anyway, my main point is the city was not destroyed and so the Micah prophecy failed.}</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">{ETA 5/20/2020 Regarding Micah - Destruction of Jerusalem did not occur in his lifetime which is almost certainly what Micah had in mind. Micah's prophecy did not mean the destruction that would occur in 586 B.C. way after he was dead; because note Jeremiah 26:17-19 which explains why the destruction did not occur during Micah's times. The prophecy was abolished by the Lord. Also Micah 3:1 is addressing the leaders of Jacob and Israel of his times telling them </span><span style="font-size: large;">because of their evil ways </span><span style="font-size: large;">Zion shall be plowed, just like Assyria was already doing to the region and other parts of Israel. This strongly suggests he was referring to the leaders of his times and destruction during his time, not decades or a century later.</span><span style="font-size: large;">}</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">2) Regarding Isaiah 43, where it is prophesied Cyrus will conquer Egypt. Page 869 JPS explains “God will reward Cyrus</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">with the conquest of far-off lands </span><span style="font-size: large;">including Egypt, because his work </span><span style="font-size: large;">allows the exiles to return home. </span><span style="font-size: large;">In fact, Cyrus never conquered </span><span style="font-size: large;">Egypt, but his son, Cambyses, did.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">{ETA 5/20/2020 JPS refers to 43:3-4. Per JPS this is referring to Cyrus. I will add Isaiah 45 refers directly to Cyrus himself who will get the rewards like Egypt etc: It is a twisting of Isaiah to claim the prophecy is referring to someone other than Cyrus himself.}</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">{ETA 5/27/2020 The Ibn Ezra commentary on Isaiah Chapter 45: 14 explains that the verse intends Cyrus will conquer Egypt and carry it's inhabitants into captivity.}</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">3) Ezekiel 26 - Prophecy that King Nubuchadrezzar will conquer Tyre. Including that Tyre will never be rebuilt 26:14 I will make you a naked rock, </span><span style="font-size: large;">You shall be a place for drying nets;</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">You shall never be rebuilt. </span><span style="font-size: large;">For I have spoken -declares the Lord God.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">This prophecy failed. How do we know ? Because Ezekiel 29:1 7 In the twenty-seventh year, on the first day of the first</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">month, the word of the Lord came to me: 18 0 mortal,</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon has made his army expend</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">vast labor on Tyre; every head is rubbed bald and</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">every shoulder scraped. But he and his army have had no</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">return for the labor he expended on Tyre.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">JPS explains on page 1099 Ezekiel is referring to Nubuchadrezzar failure to conquer Tyre. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">[One more thing - I am not an expert on Tyre, but it seems to be built and inhabited now contrary to 26:14. So there are very likely two failed prophecies here.]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">4) Ezekiel 29:19 Assuredly, thus said the Lord God: I will give the land of Egypt to </span><span style="font-size: large;">Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Page 1099 JPS explains Nebuchadrezzar attacked Egypt in 668 but failed to conquer the land. {BTW - I think the year is a typo. 568, not 668 ). </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Continued </span><a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/04/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-4.html" style="font-size: x-large;">Proof of God From Prophecy Part 4 </a><span style="font-size: large;"> </span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-18049415803686949792018-08-06T13:08:00.001-07:002020-03-16T18:11:14.115-07:00Science and Leap of Faith<span style="font-size: x-large;">Religious argue that many people have 'faith' in science, but science can not be 'proven' true. So even if Orthodox Judaism can not be 'proven' true take a leap of faith for it. It is as if the religious are creating parity between science and religion.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">I would argue faith in science is based on positive evidence, experience, and sensory data. Science works - it flies us to the moon. But religion lacks such positive evidence, it lacks experience and sensory support. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Moreover, we must have faith in our senses to live. We do not have to have faith in god(s) to live. Occams razor thus shaves the god(s) away.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Finally what religion or god(s) should we take a leap of faith for ? There are thousands. Why not take a leap of faith for atheism or agnosticism ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The leap of faith for no religion and no gods is a much smaller jump than the leap of faith for any religion or any of the gods. It also carries less baggage and is less expensive. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">A few more things.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Some may argue perhaps we are being fooled by a superbeing that is deluding us in all we think and perceive, Thus our reasoning, sense data, science etc: is unreliable. If you really believe that then you too should be a skeptic for anything including gods. It is possible such a superbeing exists, but why should I think this being exists ? Also, I would use Ocaames razor to shave him away and extricate my self from such extreme skepticism. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">This argument for leap of faith is similar to </span><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/12/pascal-wager.html" style="font-size: xx-large;">Pascals wager</a> <span style="font-size: x-large;">and <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/05/proof-of-god-burden_27.html">Proof of God Burden</a> ; very related content also in <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2020/03/corona-virus-and-god-virus.html">Corona Virus and The God Virus</a> </span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-26185023086220912032018-07-29T15:16:00.002-07:002018-07-29T17:46:25.112-07:00Ancient Texts and gods<span style="font-size: large;">I am presented with an ancient book claimed to be written by a god. The book appears similar to many other ancient texts: beliefs, rituals, magic potions, incorrect science, worship and sacrifice to a god to obtain favors, fables etc:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I ask the individual is there anything in the text itself that points to a supernatural origin ? For example a math formula that could not have been known back then ? He can provide nothing.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I ask is there anything in the book that can be falsified ? For example the book writes a donkey spoke. Now in my world they do not. The man responds, nothing is falsifiable. Either your science is bogus or the donkey did talk (our god can make donkeys talk) or the text does not mean the donkey ‘really’ talked. In short nothing in the book is falsifiable. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I ask given your god exists, can I make any predictions as to what this god would write ? No. He is inscrutable and a total mystery. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">I tell the individual we have nothing to discuss. I can not prove your god did not write this book. But is seems the better explanation your book appears the way it does is because it was written by ancient ignorant superstitious humans. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Suppose the individual claims his god is truthful, non deceiving and all knowing, If there are things in that book that seem inconsistent with that claim it suggests the book was not from his god. Rather, the deceptions are in there because the book was written by ancient ignorant humans.</span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-16434357919786609702018-06-27T22:55:00.002-07:002018-10-15T00:34:46.643-07:00Proof of God From Prophecy Part 2<span style="font-size: large;">This post is a continuation from <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-1.html">Proof of God From Prophecy Part 1. </a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Ancient Near East cultures, languages, mythologies, law codes, literature, prophecies etc: often provides the keys to </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">understand the Tenach. This post will focus on ANE prophecies which have </span><span style="font-size: large;">points of contact with Tenach prophecies.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">From Ancient Texts For The Study of The Hebrew Bible - Kenton Sparks 2005)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Mesopotamian Omen Literature (Beginning on page 217) </span><span style="font-size: large;">Who wrote them ? </span><span style="font-size: large;">1) The god Ea per one important tradition </span><span style="font-size: large;">2) The gods Samas and Adad revealed them to the primeval king Enmedoranki per another popular view. </span><span style="font-size: large;">3) The ancient scholars who wrote the divination texts believed they are divinely inspired works. </span><span style="font-size: large;">[1) thru 3) are not unlike notions found among Jews.]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 221 The Mesopotamian Summa Alu - fungal growths are portents sent by the gods; so too in Israel Leviticus 14:33-34. Both cultures required a ritual response.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 222 Divination by Psephomancy - Used by Mesopotamians and by Israel’s priests via Urim and Thummim - Exodus 28:30, Lev 8:8, Numbers 27:21.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The Babylonian Talmud provides ritual prescription for Lecanomancy (oil omens) in which the gods Ea, Sin, Samas, Marduk are demythologized as the sea and three luminaries. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Dream Omens and revelations (from the gods). Such notions also found in the Bible and other culture in the ANE. [Even today some Orthodox Jews will claim their own dreams, say concerning a deceased family member or some other issue are a communication from the spiritual whelm.]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 224 Old Babylonian Mari Prophecies include prophecies from at least ten deities. Like in ancient Israel, there were also ‘ecstatic’ prophets; and prophecies received in dreams. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 227 Neo Assyrian Prophecies - Some oracles remind the King of Istar’s continued faithfulness during hard times. Also, there is an oracle where god Assur promises to protect and preserve the King’s dynasty [Both notions are found in the Tenach, only the king and god are different.]<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">In the ‘NeoAssyrian letters’ (purported to be sent by gods to NeoAssyrian Kings), god Assur informs Assurbanipal victories are the result of divine favor because of his opponents “evil deeds” and sins. [This notion also found in the Tenach, only the king and god are different.]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 233 Ugarit - Deceased king delivers oracles to those still living. See I Sam 28:3- 25. I wrote a post on this see <a href="https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2016/07/saul-witch-and-ghost_21.html">Saul, The Witch, and the Ghost</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 235 A) Poetry was a feature of some Near East prophecies and the same is true of many Bible prophetic oracles. Book suggests it would enhance receptivity of the listening audience. [ Their listening audience were the people thousands of years ago, not us. Their listening audience thousands of years ago would probably understand the coded words,veiled references and symbolism found in the Tenach prophecies.]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">B) Mesopotamian prophecies were delivered orally and then preserved in writing. The oracle reports are influenced by the Ideological perspectives and concerns of those who wrote them. The state apparatus preserved some oracles giving nascent canonical status. Additional editorial shaping could occur when disparate oracles are organized by theme and content. Thus biblical records are probably not verbatim oracles. Israel’s prophetic literature was complex, transmitted over along period, and passed thru different Ideological hands. We expect each prophetic book an end product of a lively editorial and theological process.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">C) With a few exceptions, ancient States tended to preserve oracles supporting state apparatus. But Hebrew prophets disparaged the government sometimes predicting it’s downfall. Book suggests Hebrew prophetic corpus transmitted thru a combination of State and non State contexts. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> [I suggest one reason possible reason for our prophets attitudes are related to the desert semetic origins of some of the Israelites. The Tenach relates early on, in some circles there was some Israelite reluctance to have an Israelite King. Kings are not consistent with desert semetic tribal culture. Arguably, the desert semetic tribe had allegiance to their tribal god and or tribal ‘fathers’ not a King. Another possible reason includes that the Israelite religion grew out of disenfranchisement with the Canaanite culture who may have had Kings, perhaps even oppressive kings.]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">D) Near East prophecies are not a product of a long canonical process. However, Near East omen compendia are canonical texts reflecting a long process of composition and editing. Book explains some Hebrew prophetic books (Isaiah, Jeremiah...) can be attributed to such a process.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">E) Omen divination by arrow occurs with Elisha in 2 Kings 13:14-20</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 241(246 ?) Standard Scholastic viewpoint is that the visionary material in Daniel are pseudoprophetic and were composed in response to Hellenistic oppression of the Jews during the second century BCE. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 242 The Sulgi Prophetic Speech</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">King Sulgi (2094-2047 BCE) predicts the history of Babylon down thru the 12th century. The book explains the prophecies can be correlated with history down thru the 12th century BCE. The prophecies are also followed by a prediction of Babylon’s restoration. [This should sound familiar to our prophets ‘predicting’ the restoration of Israel’s monarchy or glory days etc:]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 243 The Uruk Prophecy </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Predicts a 10th king would renovate Uruk’s Temples and return the statutes of Uruk’s protective goddess from Babylon. A prediction that fits Nebuchadnezzer II (604 -562 BCE). There is also a prediction of an 11th King of Uruk whose dynasty would forever rule the world. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">[This should sound familiar to our prophets ‘predicting’ the Israel’s’ dominance over other nations.]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 244 The Dynastic Prophecy </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Predicts the rise and fall of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Macedonia with good accuracy. The alternating pattern of ruling dynasties are good and evil. The book suggests the next Dynasty would have been the evil Seleucids; thus a prediction of Seleucids downfall. The book relates this to Daniel’s message - the Seleucids would be replaced by the favorable Babylonians. Also, book 3 of Sibylline Oracles seem to confirm anti Seleucid sentiments common in Babylon at the time.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 245 Prophecy of Neferti </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Given by Neferti to Pharaoh Sonfru of the Old Kingdom 2575-2551 BCE. Predicts Egypt will fall into disarray until a king from the South named Ameny will rise and restore Egypt’s fortunes. [ This should sound familiar to our prophets ‘predicting’ the restoration of Israel with a future King.] The prophecy comes true with a King Amenemhet I 1991-1962 BCE the savior !</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 247 Egyptian Texts - Oracle of the Potter and Nectanebo’s dream predicts national deliverance from the Greeks. [ Just like the Tenach prophecies of deliverance.]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 247 From the Babylonian exile on, Jewish tradition received inspiration from Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia and Greece. Persian influence on the Eschatology of Second Temple Judaism include: Religious Dualism, Angels, Demons, Millennialism Judgment, Afterlife and the periodization of history. There is substantial evidence the basic shape of Persian Apocalyptic existed by 600 BCE several centuries before Daniel was written. “This makes it more likely that the conceptual and generic features of Jewish apocalyptic were influenced by Persian Ideas.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 248 Greek Authors in 7th century BCE were using conventions that would later become important in Jewish historical apocalypses. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Page 250 Daniel, Babylonian Dynastic Prophecy, Egyptian Demotic chronicle similarities: Presents history as a cycle of rising and falling kingdoms; use esoteric/symbolic language; practice vaticinia ex eventu ; their pseudoprophecies are followed by genuine prophecies; all three respond to Hellenistic oppression and predict deliverance thru a native ruler. The book then explains that if all three are in response to oppression, the prophecies importance rest not in prediction value but encouragement for the suffering.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The Jewish Study Bible Berlin and Brettler editors 2004 edition. Page 1641regarding Daniel “Scholars consider the predictions in this book [Daniel] as in other apocalypses, to be prophecies after the fact, purportedly written down centuries earlier and kept secret in order to give credence to other predictions about the end of history. The predictions are detailed and accurate `until the end of the Maccabean revolt in 164. At that point, however, they veer dramatically from what we know of the actions of the Seleucid king (see annotations to ch 11), and scholars assume that the author lived and wrote at the precise time when the predictions become inaccurate.”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The Religion Of Israel An Historical Study by Henry P. Smith 1914 Writes regarding Daniel : “All that we need note is that the Author of Daniel was firmly convinced that the great event of the worlds history, the termination of the world’s history, in fact, and the opening of a new period, was three years and a half away from the date of writing.” In this he was of course mistaken. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">My prior </span><span style="font-size: large;">from </span><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-1.html" style="font-size: x-large;">Proof of God From Prophecy Part 1. </a><span style="font-size: large;"> mentioned a valid argument may be made there are ‘prophecies’ in the Tenach that have not been fulfilled, false prophecies. Per Smith and the Jewish Study Bible we have found one in Daniel. Another is found in </span><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2016/03/human-sacrifice-in-bible-part-2_2.html" style="color: #ff3300; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; line-height: 15.456px; text-indent: -15px;"><span style="font-size: large;">Human Sacrifice in the Bible Part 2</span></a><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Time permitting, I intend to provide other examples of failed prophecies in the Tenach. (ETA 10/15/2018 I wrote a post with some more failed Tenach prophecies see <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/10/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-3.html">Proof Of God From Prophecy Part Three</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">My </span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-1.html" style="font-size: x-large;">Proof of God From Prophecy Part 1. </a> <span style="font-size: large;">established the required criteria that a prophecy should fulfill before we entertain the prophecy as evidence for something supernatural. Using those criteria I think we can dispose of any Bible or any ANE prophecies you may come across as proof of supernatural. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Continued </span><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/10/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-3.html" style="font-size: x-large;">Proof Of God From Prophecy Part Three</a>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-1107788393252527632018-04-29T01:23:00.003-07:002018-08-03T11:52:57.363-07:00Rabbi Kelemen Permission To Receive - Unusually Ethical Jews<span style="font-size: large;">From RK’s Permission to Receive book 1996. On page 21 RK explains that the book basically assumes a good G-d exists. The intent of the book is to argue the Torah is from G-d.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The Ethical Argument is the book’s fourth and final argument for the Torah being from G-d, assuming a good G-d already exists.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">I think RK is intending to argue something like this.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The Jewish people are unusually ethical and the reason is because the Torah is divine. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK measures of ethics includes:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Rates of marriage, divorce, alcoholism, drug addiction and crime. The importance of education, involvement in charities, social activism, prejudice, family and community involvement, altruism and a few others. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK provides citations from numerous studies purporting to support the claim that Jews are unusually ethical. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Response</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Measuring ethical behavior of a group of people is very difficult. What ethical system should be chosen ? What ethics measures should be chosen ?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Consider environmental ethics and concern for other living things. The Native American Indians probably rank very high on such a measure. I do not think RK has an environmental ethics measure. This brings up another problem.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">How do you rank the importance of the ethics measures ? Maybe environmental ethics is so important as to dwarf any one or several of RK’s measures. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Maybe a culture built on shared resources and not private property ownership is more ethical. I think some Native American tribes had shared tools, land etc: Does that mean they were more ethical ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Other ethics measures could include: gender equality and disparate treatment, religious and other forms of tolerance, child education and rearing practices, child abuse, patriotism, government program abuse, tax evasion and avoidance, white collar crime, business ethics, live and let live attitudes, environmental ethics, and numerous others. How well would the Ultra Orthodox Jews do on those other measures ? What about the Orthodox Jews ? What about the various denominations of Orthodoxy such as Orthodox Sephardic, the many Chassidic denominations, Charedi denominations etc ? I do not know, but it shows the great difficultly with measuring and comparing group ethics. {Side note: RK argues the Orthodox Jews did not beseech government handouts. Today that is no longer true. The Orthodox Yeshivas and community are feeding at the government trough both in the USA and Israel. I guess the Orthodox eat pork too despite the Torah’s command not to.}</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">I suspect the following ‘groups’ would do well on many of RK’s measures of ethics, although I have not researched it.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">1) Church of Latter Day Saints; Reformed Church of Latter Day Saints </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">2) Amish</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">3) Certain Muslim groups or denominations</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">4) The Chinese</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">5) The Chinese (and perhaps other) immigrants to the USA or to other countries.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">6) Certain other Christian denominations</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Lets assume the Jews are unusually ethical. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Are there natural reasons for the unusual ethical behavior of Jews ?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">R1) In some ancient near east cultures it was understood bad behavior could bring punishment from a supernatural being . Such consequences could motivate good behavior for many people. The Jews could have evolved a culture and a religious system to encourage good ethics for individuals and the tribe as a whole. Thus, the Torah and oral law may not be divine, yet still produce very good results. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">R2) The Torah has the Jews as the chosen people. As a matter of pride the Jews may want to excel on some ethics measures. For example, the thought process may be we are the chosen people and it is beneath our dignity to be rolling in the mud drunk like those other people. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">R3) From the various invasions, exiles and migrations the Jews from the school of hard knocks and by use of reason learned not to offend their hosts. Consider the Jews migrating into a new country and getting drunk, causing a ruckus, and engaging in other sorts of abuses. They would wear out their welcome in a heart beat. Yet if they are well behaved and contribute to society they stood a better chance of surviving and even thriving in their new setting. In short, if the Jewish tribe wanted to survive they had to evolve a system that would succeed in a hostile environment. Moreover, charity, especially within group charity could help the Jewish tribe survive in the diaspora. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">R4) Some of RK’s ethical measures reflect the fact that being Jewish requires a community of Jews. For example, if you want to eat kosher meat you need to be near kosher butchers etc:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">R5) Some of RK’s ethical measures probably reflect contributions from social-economic factors; generational changes from earlier Jewish immigrants to later generations. especially as those later generations achieve more wealth and influence.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">R6) Some of RK’s ethical measures may reflect limited employment opportunities and antisemitism. For example, the Jews may not be permitted to own land so they could not become farmers. Or antisemitism may have prevented them from being employed in factories etc: Thus the Jews in order to survive needed to pursue occupations that could be open to them such as physicians or other occupations requiring advanced or specialized education or skills. In addition, the more wealth they could accumulate perhaps they would be safer in their host country or if they had to escape they could afford to.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">R7) Some of RK's ethical measurements may reflect the Jewish experience in the USA. Many Jews came to the USA poor and uneducated. This could motivate a good work ethic and the need to get ahead. Jews would also be empathetic with minorities and oppressed peoples. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">R8) Some of RK’s ethical measurements probably reflect motivations for tribal survival whether in Israel or not. For example, close family units and strong community ties would help with tribal survival. Another example could be high marriage rates and low divorce rates which both help tribal survival.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Several more comments.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">A) Did not the Prophets often chastize the Israelites for not being ethical ? Would that contradict RK’s premise the Jews are unusually ethical ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">B) The Torah has some laws and commands that could be considered unethical. See for example<a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/04/kuzari-argument-part-19-plus-some_7.html"> Kuzari argument Part 19 plus some Critique Rabbi Kelemen's Book of Permission To Receive</a>. To the extent they are followed the Jews would be acting unethically. However, using Divine Command theory the Jews could claim they are following G-d’s laws and commands and if you have a problem take it up with him. Divine Command theory can be used by other people who claim they too are following their deity’s wishes.</span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">C) RK seems somewhat inconsistent. When non orthodox Jews are ‘ethical’ RK suggests it is because their ethics arise from the religious observance of prior generations - cut flower effect. Yet, when the non-orthodox Jews do not pass muster RK argues it is because they are no longer orthodox. This sort of makes part of his argument non falsifiable.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-large;">Conclusion </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">1) It is plausible religion can motivate ethical behavior See <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/06/proof-of-god-from-morality-part-two_18.html">Proof of God from Morality Part Two. </a> If the Jews are unusually ethical, the Torah and oral tradition could account for some of it. However, that is not a demonstration the Torah system is divine. I have also provided some natural reasons that could account for the good ethics of Jews. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">2) RK cherry picks studies and ethic’s measures to make Orthodoxy look rosy, but basically ignores information that would compromise his argument. Let the buyer beware. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">3) </span><span style="font-size: large;">RK’s argument involves connecting Jewish behavior with the plausibility of the divine origins of the Torah. If the Jews were unethical would RK argue the Torah is not divine ? Why can’t the Torah be of divine origin even if the Jews are unethical ? Similarly, even if the Jews are unusually ethical it does not follow the Torah is of divine origin.</span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-10759355043630356612018-04-23T17:01:00.002-07:002019-03-20T04:17:14.901-07:00Kuzari Argument Part 21 Rabbi Kelemen Bomb<span style="font-size: large;">Updated 4/24/2018</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">It would be very helpful to at least skim my prior Kuzari argument posts beginning with </span><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html"><span style="font-size: large;">Kuzari Argument Part 1</span></a><span style="font-size: large;">. Also, additional documentation and details related directly to this post are found in them. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">RK's bomb begins at</span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;">40:40 minutes:seconds in this </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEg_Oys4NkA">video</a>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Recall the Sinai story has G-d communicating with a group of people.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">{Terminology for this post - ‘Sinai type story’ means a story involving a deity communicating with a group of people .}</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK’s bomb relates to the uniqueness of the Sinai story which I have previously addressed. This post will provide additional protection from RK’s bomb, but there may be some overlap with prior posts. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">{FYI - RK’s bomb is also found in RK’s book Permission to Receive on page 70. “Ultimately one must conclude that something miraculous happened - if not at Sinai, then in the evolution of Jewish mythology.”}</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK’s bomb is that no other religion or myth involves a group of people claiming a deity spoke to them. Yet, ‘history’ is supposed to repeat itself. The non repetition of a Sinai type story is indicative that the story itself is unnatural. Unnatural means supernatural. RK is also using his bomb to discredit any ‘natural’ explanation for the Sinai story.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">According to RK, there are two options:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">(A) Miracle number one. A deity communicated with a group of people at Sinai. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">(B) Miracle number two: A violation of ‘history repeat law’ occurred because only one religion or mythology out of thousands and thousands has a deity communicating with a group of people. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Given a choice between the two miracles, RK would like us to reject option (B), leaving option (A) as the only other alternative.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">One immediate problem is RK implicitly equates the miraculousness of option (A) and option (B). However, Option (B) is less miraculous than Option (A). Option (A) involves an actual supernatural being, while (B) only involves breaking of a ‘history repeat law’. It seems more rational to choose the less miraculous scenario, which is option (B). </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Lets explore RK's argument in more detail. P1 thru P4 seem to be RK’s premises.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">P1) Anything that is natural will happen more than once. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">ACJA response</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">P1 is a reasonable premise for scientific experiments that are repeated. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">P2) History repeats itself; an extension from natural law to history.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">ACJA response</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">I am uncomfortable with P2.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">History is not like science experiments with all its controls. History also involves different people, different cultures, different climates, different catastrophes, different needs etc: which all influence outcomes. However, RK argues the generic themes of history repeat, but maybe not the details. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details. The devil is also in the different initial conditions. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">‘History repeats itself ‘ is more a rule of thumb than a law or natural law. Even the rule of thumb is difficult and problematic in application. When are two different events considered a repetition and not a repetition ? The two events may be similar in some ways and different in others. The initial conditions prior to the two events may be similar in some way and different in others. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">P3) Religious themes - meaning revelation narratives will repeat. RK extended P2 to get to P3.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">ACJA response</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">I am even more uncomfortable with P3 than P2. P3 has all the problems of P2 and more. Religion and myth formation depend on the experiences of the cultures, their environments, the various catastrophes they have experienced, wars, food supply, the peoples needs and desires, accidents etc: </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Moreover, the drivers of history may or may not be similar to the drivers of religion and myth formation. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">However, myths have been categorized into various categories, so in that sense it can be argued religions and myths can be organized by type, which is a sort of repetition. Many scholars consider the Sinai story as belonging to the category of Nation Foundation Myths. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">P4) Only once in 4000 years has a Sinai type story been claimed to have occurred. RK allows for another story from in India. In that Indian story the people all died after the supernatural event and so could not relay the story. RK counts it as a half.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">ACJA response </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The 4000 years is not all that impressive. We have few records from ancient times. Also, the bulk of mythologies are mostly found in the distant past. For example, in modern times it would be harder to evolve many types of mythologies because information is more widespread and available. People have become more skeptical with the advent of the enlightenment. In short, there was a much shorter period in which the bulk of mythologies could form. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">My other Kuzari posts have documented parallels and points of contact between the Sinai revelation narrative and miracle narratives of other peoples. The Sinai story is not as unique as RK makes it out to be.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps some nations would like to have a Sinai type story but not as many as implied by RK. For example, maybe only one in 100 nations would desire a Sinai type story, so one out of a hundred is not all that miraculous. Some religions have no deities. Those practitioners would have no need for a divine revelation mythology. Some polytheistic religions would have a difficult choice selecting which deity to perform the revelation and because of the competition none are selected. As the Yahweh alone movement gains traction, there is a need for a claimed revelation from one god.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">There was a limited period when nation foundation myths develop. Generally early in the nations history. So we do not expect to have as many national founding myths as one may think. Also limiting the number of nation founding myths is the limited number of nations. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">We have limited ancient historical records. If Sinai type stories are rare we would expect to find very few if any in the records.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">(The Sinai story is considered by many scholars a Nation Founding myth. How many nations had the need for a nation founding myth just like Sinai ?)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">{ETA 4/24/2018 Kuzari proponents often argue why Christianity or Islam do not claim a Sinai Type Story. There are any number of reasons, only some explained in my other Kuzari posts. For example, the Israelite Sinai story could have been used to unite ancient Israel especially after the split between the Northern and Southern kingdom. Or the Sinai Story also involves a nation foundation mythology not just a religion. The conditions under which many other religions and myths form are substantially different. Rather than compare the Sinai story to all myths and religions which appears to provide a small frequency a better comparison is to nation foundation myths. The Sinai story would still have a low frequency, but it would not be as low as RK figures. Thus, the Sinai story would not be as unnatural as RK would have you believe. } </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>RK’s Conclusion #1</b> - </span><span style="font-size: large;">The Jewish claim is unique and has a very low frequency (P4). The Jewish type claim if natural should have been repeated yet has not, thus violating P3. This indicates the Jewish claim is unnatural, which means it is supernatural. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">ACJA response</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK’s premise P3 is open to severe doubt. P4 is also problematic. We may rationally reject Conclusion #1. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><strike>---------------------------------------------------------------------------</strike></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">RK concludes his lecture with the following:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Can you explain how the Jewish claim came about ? Let suppose I suggest explanation XYZ. RK now asks is XYZ natural ? Suppose I respond yes.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK asks do natural events happen more than once ? Suppose I say yes.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK asks has XYZ ever happen again ? Suppose I say no.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Conclusion #2</b>: RK claims then XYZ was not a natural event since natural events should happen more than once.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">ACJA response</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">1) This sort of argument is very similar to my previous discussion, and most of my prior comments still apply. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">2) The point is not that we should expect that XYZ leads to Sinai type stories. Rather, it is an explanation for one specific and particular peoples story, the Sinai story which involved ancient near east escaped slaves wandering in a desert about 3000 years ago. There is no reason to expect XYZ should lead to other peoples developing a Sinai type story.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Alternatively, XYZ may be an broad explanation - propaganda, group think, duress, evolution of myths etc: etc: to explain many mythologies and religions. The Sinai story is thus just another myth subject to those same sort of explanations. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><strike>---------------------------------------------------------------------------</strike></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Back to RK</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>RK offers a possible loophole to his Conclusion #2. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The loophole being it was natural event, but very unlikely and only happens extremely infrequently. So far it happened only once in 4000 years yet it could happen again. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK rejects the rationality of the loophole: suppose the odds of the Sinai type story 1 out of trillions. Then we should rule out it being natural. If it is very unlikely that a natural event led to the Jewish belief that god spoke to the people , then it must be very likely it was not a natural event that led to the belief. RK supplies the figure that there is a .00001% the Sinai type narrative was natural, so almost 100% the Sinai is unique and unnatural. Because the Sinai type story is so unusual the very fact that it happened only once is indicative of a break in nature. Rather than accept that conclusion RK believes we should accept the alternative that the Sinai story is true.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">ACJA Response</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">1) This sort of argument is very similar to my previous discussion, and most of my prior comments still apply</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">2) I have no Idea where RK’s one in trillions or his .00001% comes from, but I accept that of all known myths very few involve a group of people witnessing something they claim is supernatural and so a very small percentage seems reasonable, as an empirical fact. The low frequency is not cause to conclude something unnatural has occurred. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Also, I am not convinced the Sinai story belongs unto a category all itself, since it has much in common with nation founding myths, etiological myths and other mythologies. Viewed that way we may consider the Sinai story just another foundation and or etiological myth.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">3) We can apply RK’s type of argument to prove the truth of Islam, Miracle of the Sun and the White Buffalo Calf Women Story (WBCW) and I am sure there are others such stories to be proven. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Consider Islam - </span><span style="font-size: large;">A unknown uneducated man receives a revelation from the angel Gabriel. The revelation is recorded in a book. The religion gains extremely fast traction and it’s followers become a world power in a matter of a few years. An amazingly fast rise to power.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">When has this ever happened ? It so unique so it must be unnatural.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">It can be argued Islam is not all that unique for one reason or another. Unique is very difficult to define operationally making almost a useless criteria. Some Muslims may say the rise of Islam is unique because of X and Y and Z, while some other individual will say it is not unique because of C and D and F. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK’s argument can be used to prove the WBCW as follows:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">In the WBCW story a supernatural being imparts religious principles and a pipe to a tribe of the Dakota native American Indians.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">When has this ever happened ? It so unique so it must be unnatural.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK’s argument can be used to prove the Miracle of the Sun as follows:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">When has such a miracle ever occured ? It is unique, therefore unnatural and therefore miraculous. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">There are some other problems with RK’s argument that need to be mentioned.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">A) RK compares the probabilities of various dice outcomes to the outcomes of national foundation myths, religious formation, and mythologies. I think he misusing probability theory and it will require future posts.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">B) Consider science experiments where we actually expect 100% repetition of ‘history’. Suppose an experiment failed to repeat. Should we conclude something unnatural has occurred ? Perhaps despite best efforts some parameter or variable had varied from our prior experiments. Or, maybe there was an unnoticed temporary magnetic field power surge that alters the experimental outcome. Thus a single violation of P1 should not lead to the conclusions of miracles. A single violation of P2 should be considered even less miraculous. A single violation of P3 least miraculous of all.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;">continued </span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="white-space: pre;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/03/kuzari-argument-part-22-or-miracle-of.html">http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2019/03/kuzari-argument-part-22-or-miracle-of.html</a></span></span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-23329705492008202412018-04-15T23:43:00.002-07:002018-08-03T11:45:15.419-07:00Kuzari Argument Part 20 Rabbi Kelemen Incunabular Argument Permission To Receive<span style="font-size: large;">It will probably help to at least skim my prior <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html">Kuzari posts</a>, since they provide related information, arguments and details to support this post. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">In this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEg_Oys4NkA">video</a> RK proposes the following false trichotomy for the origin of the Torah.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">1) Present Theory - For example: A lying individual [“Moe” ] tells the ancient Israelites you heard G-d speak and here is his Torah. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">2) Past Theory - For example: A lying individual [“Curly”] tells the ancient Israelites your ancestors heard G-d speak and here is the Torah. (RK uses the name “Fred” not “Curly”.)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">3) Future Theory - for example: The lying individual [“Larry”] tells the ancient Israelites your descendants will hear G-d speak, but I have an advance copy to present to you. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Some of my previous Kuzari posts have provided plausible scenarios for Present Theory therefore it should not be dismissed. I have also critiqued the ‘lie launched’ scenarios. Torah origins need not have involved lies being launched. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK rules out Past Theory for the Torah’s origin because RK claims: A) there is no record of the individual who launched a lie to the ancient Israelites. B) There is no record of the ancient Israelites forgetting the national revelation of Sinai. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">However some of my prior posts dispute B). The hypothesis there was a mass unbroken chain of tradition of the Sinai revelation is subject to severe doubt. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Lets focus on RK's A) there is no record of the individual who launched a lie to the ancient Israelites. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Has RK considered the possibility that maybe the scribes/authorities had reasons not to specify the individual(s) who launched the lie and would not desire record him ? </span><span style="font-size: large;">Has RK considered the possibility that maybe the scribes/authorities did not consider the scribes tales as lies. The idea of 'history' as we now understand the term was not born yet. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">This post will explore who is ‘Curly’ ? If I can provide plausible ‘Curly(s)’ then it will establish Past Theory as a viable option for the origins of the Sinai mythology.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Judaism most likely evolved out of ancient Canaanite religion(s) and probably with the influence or merging with a semitic desert/mountain/fire/smith/volcano god Yahweh and probably with influences from other ancient near east cultures. So there may not be a single individual responsible for the origins of Judaism or the Torah stories and commandments etc:. Then again there are numerous contributors and founders of Judaism: Abraham, the Forefathers, Moses, Priests, Prophets, Kings, Scribes,....</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">This post will directly answer possible ‘Curly(s)’ that could have instituted the Sinai mythology: G-d gave commands at Mount Sinai that should be followed by the Israelites. The motivation for such a mythology could have resulted from the threats that eventually led to the fall of the northern Israelite kingdom in 723 B.C. (Prior posts have cast significant doubt on two of RK’s assumptions 1) There a an unbroken chain of Torah/Revelation back to Sinai 2) That national traditions of national events can not be introduced into a population that knows not of them. )</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-large;">First Some Israel History</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">It is interesting that usually, fairly soon after calamities, Yahwism revives. (The dates are B.C. and are ball park approximate and for this post only the relative ordering counts.) Israelite history supports the notion that Yahwism sparks and galvanizes after invasions or threats of invasion. See for yourself:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">931 B.C. Northern Tribes secede.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">926 B.C. Egypt’s Shishak despoils Jerusalem and several cities of Judah and Israel</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">865 Prophet Elijah emphasizes Yahwehism.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">850 Prophet Elisha emphasizes Yahwehism </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">850 Moab erects stele commemorate winning independence from Israel</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">841 King Jeho of Israel pays tribute to Assyria </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">830 Yahwist revival in Israel</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">723 Assyria - fall of Samaria brings end to Northern Israel. Exile of many Israelites<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">710 King Hezekiah - Yahwist revival</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">701 Assyrian siege of Jerusalem</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">687 King Menassah represses Yahwism. (To placate Assyria, and maybe because he thought the Hezekiah Yahwist revival was ineffective. Maybe Yahwism was not so good after all.)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">623 “Found Law Scroll” made basis for drastic Yahweh reforms. King Josiah.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">586 Babylonian Exile</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">400 Nehemiah and Ezra - finishing touches on the Yahwist alone movement, reforms and the Torah. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">It is almost as if the Israelite prophets/scribes/priests commit post hoc fallacies. We had an invasion, that must be because we did not worship Yahweh alone. Remedy: Spark and Galvanize ‘Yahweh alone’ worship so that we may have the great warrior god Yahweh on our side. To this day there are many Orthodox Jews who engage in this post hoc rationalization. The holocaust happened and it must be because we did not worship Yahweh enough or properly. Yet, even when Yahweh worship is widespread and calamities occur, excuses are invented. It was because a prior generation did not worship Yahweh enough or properly. Or the Yahweh worshipers did not reach out enough to the Yahweh non worshipers enough. So Yahweh damned them all. I implore and beseech my brethren to throw off the yoke of our superstitions. There is no Yahweh protecting us. Such thinking is a remnant of ancient near east cultures and religions that held their nation/tribal god(s) fought on behalf of the tribe/nation. There is no good evidence for any of it and direct evidence against such an assertion. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-large;">A Curly Candidate </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">I propose King Josiah and his administration was likely a key ‘Curly’. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Josiah is introducing a mythology to a population that is under outside threat. The Northern Kingdom falls creating more panic. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The Israelites are worshiping many gods, but they will need an especially great warrior god on their side. Perhaps, if the Israelites would eschew all other gods and worship Yahweh alone, Yahweh will come to the Israelite aid and repel the foreign invaders and threats. It would also unify the nation. The cult can be centralized in Judah This desperation could galvanize the Yahweh alone movement. Moreover, a preexisting sub population of ‘Yahweh alone’ worshipers could have been extant. The ‘Yahweh alone’ worshipers consisting of Yahweh worshiping Semitic people that have settled in Israel in previous generations.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">King Josiah could argue King Menassah and other ‘evil’ priests and rulers were instrumental in erasing the Sinai story from the holy books, other ancient traditions and laws. But fortunately Priests “Found The Law Scroll”. (That scroll could have been a total fabrication, or if not fully an invention could have been modifications of extant older stories and myths to make it more acceptable.) The found law scroll which now has the narration of a Sinai revelation and laws introduced etc: is used to centralize the cult, unite a country in the hope Yahweh would respond by helping in the overthrow of Assyria rule. King Josiah destroys other modes of worship and can put ‘deniers’ and rebels to death. Using time, carrots and sticks, people can eventually accept the ‘found scroll’ even if the'found' scroll is not exactly the same as the stories and scrolls they had been familiar with from their parents. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">{From The Jewish Study Bible Berlin and Brettler Editors, 2004 </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Page 357 "Deuteronomy is likely not Mosaic in origin. More probably, the core of the </span><span style="font-size: large;">book was written sometime during the 7th century BCE by educated scribes associated </span><span style="font-size: large;">with Jerusalem's royal court." There are very striking similarities </span><span style="font-size: large;">between the distinctive religious and legal requirements of Deuteronomy and the </span><span style="font-size: large;">account of the major religious reform (inspired by the 'found scroll') carried out by King Josiah in 622 BCE. The r</span><span style="font-size: large;">eforms included: restrict all sacrificial worship to Jerusalem; removed </span><span style="font-size: large;">foreign elements from the system of worship; </span><span style="font-size: large;">celebration of the first nationally centralized Passover at the Temple in Jerusalem. </span><span style="font-size: large;">The reforms closely match </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">of Deuteronomy. "</span><span style="font-size: large;">Josiah's reform, with some form of Deuteronomy as its catalyst, was much more a revolution </span><span style="font-size: large;">than a simple return to older forms of worship." Previously one could s</span><span style="font-size: large;">acrifice any place in the land like Abraham, Jacob, Samuel, and Elijah did.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">"The historical background of Josiah's reforms was the increasing threat of imperial </span><span style="font-size: large;">domination. The Northern Kingdom of Israel had fallen under the Neo-Assyrian invasion </span><span style="font-size: large;">a scant century before (722 BCE; 2 Kings ch 17).”}</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Despite the efforts of various prophets and some Kings to promote Yahweh alone, there was often Israel backsliding showing the reforms were not always accepted and were not always believed.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-large;">A Second Curly Candidate </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">A follow up to King Josiah is Ezra the Yahweh alone advocate, another ‘Curly’.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The Babylonian Exile calamity, is followed by Persian rule and eventually the return of exiles to Israel. Around the time of Ezra , redaction puts the final touches on the Yahweh alone movement, reforms and the Torah. Persia wants nations to establish their own temples. Persia grants Ezra full authority to ENFORCE the law of your God. Persia desired countries within it’s empire to have a centralized cult with an ‘authoritative’ source of laws - something like the Torah. Ezra with the backing of Persia could get ALL the Torah to be accepted, if not immediately then eventually. You want to test the King of Persia or his emissaries ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">{Per The Jewish Study Bible (ibid) Page 1669 "According to the Bible, Ezra was the one who brought the Torah to the returning exiles, read and interpreted it publicly, and oversaw the people's solemn recommitment to its teachings (Neh. chs 8-10). Thus Ezra is like a second Moses. The Rabbis imply this by stating: 'Ezra was sufficiently worthy that the Torah could have been given through him if Moses had not preceded him" (t. Sanh. 4.4).' "</span><span style="font-size: large;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Conclusion </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">King Josiah is a good candidate for RK’s “Fred”. The Tenach praises him but has no reason to write the priests and his administration invented any of the Torah, because they probably took preexistent older scrolls, added to them, edited them and could then have attributed it to Moses an ancient hero.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The same more or less applies to Ezra, another important “Fred” candidate.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Thus, we can not rule out RK’s Past Theory for the Origins of the Sinai mythology.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Continued </span><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/04/kuzari-argument-part-21-rabbi-kelemen_23.html"><span style="font-size: large;">Kuzari Argument Part 21 Rabbi Kelemen Bomb</span></a>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-83177969013100747822018-04-07T23:54:00.001-07:002018-08-03T11:43:34.143-07:00Kuzari argument Part 19 plus some Critique Rabbi Kelemen's Book of Permission To Receive <span style="font-size: large;">Updated thru 7/28/2018</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Continued from <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html">Kuzari Argument Part One</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Permission to Receive (PTR) 1996 by Rabbi Kelemen (RK) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK seems to explain on page 21 that his book assumes the existence of G-d and builds on that premise. If you need intellectual comforting for that premise, RK mentions his other book Permission to Believe: Four Rational Approaches To God’s Existence. </span><span style="font-size: large;">In other words, he seems to be of the opinion that his version of Kuzari argument does not ‘prove’ the existence G-d. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">If so what is RK arguing for ? The Divine Origin for the Torah, assuming G-d already exists. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">1) RK critiques many other religions because RK claims their credibility rests on one or two founders. For example, per RK “Islam is another religion rooted entirely in the experiences of one man, Muhammad.” Page 54. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">I am going to apply RK’s reasoning to the origins of the Torah. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">If there was a revelation at Sinai, the Israelites did not hear much of the Torah. Some say they heard the first two of the 10 commandments, others say the first 10, others say they heard no Torah at all just noise. Except for that, Moshe was the translator/interpreter/messenger between G-d and the people. It was Moshe that gave the Torah, not G-d. {ETA April 8, 2018 - If you read my other Kuzari posts I have sourced this paragraph. For example See Chapter Thirty Three in The Guide For the Perplexed by Rambam: "</span><span style="font-size: large;">Furthermore, the words, </span><span style="font-size: large;">' In order that the people hear when I speak with thee' (Exod. xix. 9), </span><span style="font-size: large;">show that God spoke to Moses, and the people only heard the mighty sound, </span><span style="font-size: large;">not distinct words." ..."</span><span style="font-size: large;">It was only Moses that </span><span style="font-size: large;">heard the words, and he reported them to the people. This is apparent from </span><span style="font-size: large;">Scripture, and from the utterances of our Sages in general. There is, however, </span><span style="font-size: large;">an opinion of our Sages frequently expressed in the Midrashim, and </span><span style="font-size: large;">found also in the Talmud, to this effect : The Israelites heard the first and</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">the second commandments from God, i.e., they learnt the truth of the </span><span style="font-size: large;">principles contained in these two commandments in the same, manner as </span><span style="font-size: large;">Moses, and not through Moses." For more details read the Guide. Also see for example Intro/Forward of Ramban's commentary on the Torah - that Moshe wrote recorded the words of G-d when writing the Torah. Also see for example </span><span style="font-size: large;">Deut 5: 19 "The Lord spoke those words [referring to 10 commandments] -those and no more to </span><span style="font-size: large;">your whole congregation at the mountain, with a mighty voice out of the fire and the dense clouds.” }</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">So how is Judaism any different from other religions ? In other words, Judaism’s Torah credibility rests on a single person, Moshe who translated/copied/transcribed/was messenger of G-d’s words. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Thus, using RK own criteria, RK fails to prove the Torah’s divine origin. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">2) On page 82- RK writes an author that makes up details or mistakenly reports events cannot be relied on. If we detect one or more inaccuracies in a document we have reason to suspect the entire text. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Lets apply RK’s criteria the Torah.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Here is a short list some very likely Torah inaccuracies.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/09/genesis-and-evolution_27.html">Genesis and Evolution</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/09/genesis-and-big-bang_10.html">Genesis and Big Bang </a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-challenge-of-noah-part-one_3.html">World Wide Biblical Proportion Flood</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">No 600000 plus males/a couple million people in the Exodus See for example <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/01/kuzari-argument-part-2.html">Kuzari Argument Part Two</a> and many of my other Kuzari posts for additional documentation. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Again, applying RK’s criteria we should suspect the Torah is not of divine origin.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">3) It may help to read my post <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/05/proof-of-god-from-morality-part-one.html">Proof of God from Morality</a> now. On page 125 RK writes the Torah seems to be a virtuous document. And beginning on page 36 RK argues the Torah is ethical system. The ten commandments.. . The Torah is an exceptionally ethical document. [RK writes all this is to support the notion that a good G-d would give a moral document of instruction, and the Torah is such a document.] </span><span style="font-size: large;">[For more on the 10 commandments and the Torah Laws in general see my addendum.]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">It seems RK is NOT using Divine Command Theory. Thus it seems RK is assuming there is some external standard independent of G-d that determines what is ethical or moral. Per RK, the Torah prohibits taking revenge, lying and manslaughter etc: Per RK the Torah instructs to pay wages on time, and love your neighbor as yourself etc: RK seems to understand those prohibitions and instructions to be inherently moral and ethical guidelines.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">I suppose RK would argue a document that advocates immoral or unethical behavior would be grounds to deny that a good G-d gave that document. I will apply such a criteria to the Torah. You decide how ethical and moral the Torah is after reading just some of the Torah:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/02/off-in-bible.html">Cut Off In the Bible</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/03/forever-in-bible.html">Statute Forever In the Bible </a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-bible-brother-and-widow_4.html">The Bible, the Brother, and the Widow</a> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/01/suspected-adultery-and-bible-remedy_18.html">Suspected Adultery and the Bible Remedy</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-bible-priests-female-and-disabled_17.html">The Bible, The Priests, The Female and the Disabled</a> </span><br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2016/09/oral-tradition-part-2-treatment-of-women.html"><br /></a></span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2016/09/jewish-oral-tradition-part-2-treatment.html">Oral Law Part Two - Treatment of Women</a> - Sexist laws </span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: large;">The series of posts begun here </span><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/03/explanations-of-pagan-customs-in_18.html" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: x-large;">Explanations of Pagan Customs in Judaism with some notes on Maimonides</a><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Wasteful animal sacrifices. (Lets ignore that Yahweh likes the scent of burnt flesh).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Stones Homosexuals</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Stones Adulterer</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Condones Slavery </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Capital Punishment blasphemy (Lev. 24:16), Witchcraft </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Also see Numbers 31:17 Now, therefore, slay every male among the children, </span><span style="font-size: large;">and slay also every woman who has known a man</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">carnally; 18 But spare every young woman who has not</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">had carnal relations with a man.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Also see Deut 21:10 When you take the field against your enemies, and the </span><span style="font-size: large;">LorD your God delivers them into your power and you</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">take some of them captive, 11 and you see among the captives</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">a beautiful woman and you desire her and would</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">take her to wife...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Some of the Torah’s instructions seem unethical or immoral to me and would not fall within common ethical systems. Recall RK can not now resort to Divine Command Theory and argue for example that stoning of Sabbath breakers or Homosexuals is ethical because G-d says you should. If RK argues that then his argument falls apart. Meaning the Torah is not really ethical, but we say it is ethical because G-d commands it.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Since the Torah does not seem all that ethical, we may apply RK style criteria and argue the Torah is not from G-d. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-large;">Conclusion </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Using RK's criteria to determine if a book is divine, we need not accept the divinity of the Torah. Moreover a good case can be made it is not divine.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">One response to my critique is to argue G-d would ensure a accurate transmission of the Torah thru Moshe. But how does the Theologian know this ? Is not G-d the great mystery ? That is what I am told when I raise 'questions'. Theologians can not have it both ways. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Addendum On The Ten Commandments</span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">From the book Ancient Texts For The Study of The Hebrew Bible - Kenton Sparks 2005 Page 430 "The form and content of Hebrew laws are similar and sometimes include provisions that are nearly identical to their Near East counterparts."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">From the Bible and the Ancient Near East by Gordon and Rendsburg 4th edition page 88 "The Ugaritic tablets confront us with so many striking parallels to the Hebrew Bible that is is universally recognized that the two literatures are variants of one Canaanite tradition."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Scholars have found the likely influence of other ancient near east cultures on the 10 commandments and the Torah. Maybe those other cultures should get some of the credit and not the Torah.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The Ten Commandments</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">4) Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">5) Honor thy father and thy mother<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">6) Thou shalt not kill<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">7) Thou shalt not commit adultery<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">8) Thou shalt not steal<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">10)Thou shalt not covet neighbor's house, neighbor's wife, neighbor's servants, animals, or anything else.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">#1-#4 Can hardly be considered ethical or moral imperative. Other cultures have their own gods and ways to worship them. Why must they worship Yahweh and why with #2,#3,#4 ? One may argue #4 is not ethical as it restricts your use of time and what work you may do on the Sabbath. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">#5 Seems reasonable, as long as the parents deserve it. Should you honor abusive parent(s) ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">#6,#8, #9 seem almost necessary for a society to function. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">#7 - Depends on the culture. In some cultures sharing ones wife with somebody can be seen as an act of friendship. On the other hand if adultery is committed that violates a spouses trust or contract that can be considered unethical. It is important to note adultery applies to the wife, not the husband as long as the male engages with a non married women. Thus #7 is really a double standard and does not seem ethical. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">#10 Hardly seems like an ethical imperative. Coveting in thought is more or less harmless and almost impossible to control. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Side Note - Exactly what some the 10 commandments were meant to convey is tricky. #5 may have related to ancestor worship. #3 may have related to using a god’s name while soothsaying and such.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Continued <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/04/kuzari-argument-part-20-rabbi-kelemen_15.html">Kuzari Argument Part 20 Rabbi Kelemen Incunabular Argument Permission To Receive</a></span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-36292786250650327522018-04-05T22:24:00.001-07:002018-08-03T11:34:56.955-07:00Kuzari Part 18 Unbroken Chain ?, Hints For Rabbi Kelemen<span style="font-size: large;">This is a continuation of my posts on the Kuzari Argument begun <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html">Kuzari Part One</a>. I think this post can probably stand alone. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The Kuzari argument claims a national tradition of a national event can not be introduced into a population that knows not of it. In several posts I have argued the claim is not valid. For specific examples from Israelite history see my <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/10/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-14_20.html">post</a>. For that reason the Kuzari argument fails. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Now I am going to make a different argument. Kuzari proponents claim there is a continuous chain of a national tradition of the Sinai Revelation. For example in Rabbi Kelemen’s book Permission to Receive 1996 on page 74 “Every generation of extant Jewish literature records the same history - God spoke to the Jews at Sinai- and nowhere do we find even the slightest hint that this fact was once lost and then later recovered.” </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Are their hints of a broken chain ? There are hints and more ! </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">This post is somewhat similar to <a href="http://kefirahoftheweek.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-modern-kuzari-argument.html">Kefirahoftheweek Kuzari post</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">When faced with making a decision between two choices many people write a list of pros and cons. Likewise when faced with competing hypothesis we can make up a list of facts that support the hypothesis and a list that is against the hypotheses.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">What type of facts would support the notion of a continuous national tradition of Mt Sinai going back to a Sinai revelation ? I am not saying those facts prove a Sinai event, only that those facts buttress the hypothesis of a continuous chain of transmission of the Sinai revelation. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">1) Continuous mention throughout history of the Sinai Revelation.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">2) Continuous worship of Yahweh throughout history. This is the first of the 10 commandments and a key takeaway from the Sinai revelation. Also, the more the worship is to Yahweh alone, the better the support for a chain back to Sinai.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">3) Continuous large population. For example if the population is extremely small it would hardly count as a nation. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">4) Limited foreign invasions or control. During invasions traditions can get lost, jumbled, modified and invented.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">5) Others ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">What type of facts would count against the notion of a continuous national tradition of Mt Sinai going back to a Sinai revelation. ? That is easy. The opposite of the above. I am not saying such facts disprove a Sinai event, only that such facts would buttress the hypothesis of gaps in the transmission of the Sinai revelation. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">1) Huge gaps in mentioning the Sinai event</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">2) Non continuous worship of Yahweh. </span><span style="font-size: large;">Also, the less the worship is to Yahweh alone, the better the support for a broken chain.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">3) Large fluctuation in population</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">4) Significant foreign invasions or control.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">5) Others ?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Lets examine each type of fact in turn and </span><span style="font-size: large;">see which hypothesis fares better.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">1) Are there huge gaps in mentioning the Sinai event ? The Pentateuch does mention the Sinai revelation, however as Kefirah points out it is not mentioned by the prophets - see above kefirahofweek post. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Also Psalms mentions the promise to Abraham and the Exodus but not the giving of the 10 commandments or the Torah at Sinai.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The data supports a non continuous mention of Sinai revelation tradition.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">2) There are many periods of widespread Idolatry in Israelite history and Yahweh ‘reform’ periods. Here are some examples:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">See http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/10/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-14.html Judges 2:8.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Ramban Numbers 15:22 9 - In the days of the wicked Kings such as Jeroboam MOST PEOPLE forgot the TORAH and COMMANDMENTS COMPLETELY.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Talmud Sukkah 20a - For in ancient times when the Torah was forgotten from Israel, [397 B.C.] Ezra came up from Babylon and established it.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Judges 3:7 The Israelites </span><span style="font-size: large;">did what was offensive to the Lord; they ignored </span><span style="font-size: large;">the Lord their God and worshiped the Baalim and the</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Asheroth.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Judges10:6 The Israelites again did what was offensive to the</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Lord. They served the Baalim and the Ashtaroth, and the</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the Philistines;</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">they forsook the Lord and did not serve Him.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">710 B.C. King Hezekiah encourages Yahwism</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Idolatry occurs often see II Kings, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. For example Jeremiah 36 The Lord said to me in the days of King Josiah: Have you seen what Rebel Israel did, going to every high mountain and under every leafy tree, and whoring there? 7 I thought: After she has done all these things, she will come back to Me. But she did not come back;</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">For example II Kings 24 Idolatry after Josiah’s death. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">697 B.C. During reign of King Manasseh: II Kings 21:8 And I</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">will not again cause the feet of Israel to wander from the</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">land that I gave to their fathers, if they will but faithfully</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">observe all that I have commanded them-all the Teachings</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">with which My servant Moses charged them." 9 But</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">they did not obey, and Manasseh led them astray to do</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">greater evil than the nations that the Lord had destroyed</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;">before the Israelites.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">623 B.C. King Josiah - law scroll ‘found’ becomes basis for drastic Yahwest reforms.(II Kings 22-23 )</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The data supports 'noncontinuous' Yahweh worship. The data supports significant periods of non Yahweh alone worship.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">3) Large fluctuation in population ? Probably, considering various civil wars, invasions and exiles.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">4) Significant ancient Israel foreign invasion or control.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Yes.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Philistines, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: x-large;">Conclusion</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">I argue a valid case can be made for likely significant gaps in the so called chain of the Sinai revelation and t</span><span style="font-size: large;">hus the Kuzari argument fails. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Continued <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/04/kuzari-argument-part-19-plus-some_7.html">Kuzari argument Part 19 plus some Critique Rabbi Kelemen's Book of Permission To Receive</a></span>Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8110608061724894348.post-90282168057437894032018-03-28T22:31:00.001-07:002018-08-03T11:31:21.408-07:00Kuzari Argument Part 17 - Apple White Theorem, Rabbi Kelemen<span style="font-size: large;">Updated thru <strike>3/30/2018</strike> 4/20/2018</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Most of Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen’s (RK) Kuzari argument has been repudiated in my Kuzari posts and it would help to read, or at least skim them for more details, support and documentation. Begin with <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html">Kuzari Argument Part One</a>. There is some important new material in this post that repudiates the Kuzari argument, so please read carefully.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">If there was a revelation at Sinai, the Israelites did not hear much of the Torah. Some say they heard the first two of the 10 commandments, others say the first 10, others say they heard no Torah at all just noise. Except for that, Moshe was the translator/interpreter/messenger between G-d and the people. It was Moshe that gave the Torah, not G-d. How do we know Moshe was providing G-d’s words ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Since RK’s book Permission to Receive 1996, RK has added something called the AppleWhite Theorem (AT) to his argument. For example in this video at about 22 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEg_Oys4NkA</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Applewhite Theorem (AT) : (a) People are gullible and will believe anything, even claims (or lies) that demand painful, destructive or suicidal observances; (b) as long as the claims (or lies) cannot be checked.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">I will just use the term claim(s), to represent ‘claims or lies’. Lie is sometimes a misleading term when discussing the evolution of religions, mythologies, cults, rumors etc:. Sometimes it is an accurate term.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">FYI: Heavens Gate cult evolves out of extant new age concepts and beliefs, extraterrestrial literature, religions, spirituality, occult etc: that permeated and still permeate USA culture and entertainment media. Apple White and his crew found fertile ground (horse sh-t) upon which their cult could mushroom. Could a similar Idea, in the sense that extant very ancient beliefs and superstitions predating the Exodus-Sinai stories provide a fertile ground to evolve the Exodus-Sinai stories ? You bet. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">I can not source the AT, and my guess is RK concocted the AT. [If so, a more accurate description would be the RK hypothesis. Theorem invokes an aura of certitude, even mathematical truth; intimidation; as if AT has been ‘proven’ and well received by the experts. If my guess is correct, I remind RK of Leviticus 19 ...do not place a stumbling before the blind... .</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">“The blind may come to see, for I too was once blind and have come to see the light. May my blog posts enlighten those blinded by superstitions, religions and cults.” ACJA 3/28/2018]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Lets examine the AT, including questions about it's parameters and underling definitions.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">1) The what, who and how of determining when a claim can or can not be checked ?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">2) Do mythologies, religions qualify as a ‘claim’ per AT ? What qualifies as a claim ? For example, an ancient near east people had a belief in a mythology. Nobody is making a claim. The mythology is something the people believed in and took as self evident. That is how it was in ancient times. Tribes, nations etc: had their god(s) and it was taken for granted. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">3) What does it mean to be ‘checked’ ? For example would inquiring the authority figures, theologians, body politic, military, and the priests qualify as ‘checking’ ? Perhaps those people may have been considered the ‘go to source’ for information. For large segments of a population, those sources informed the ‘truth’ regardless what your parents or neighbors thought or remembered or did not remember.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">4) What are the qualifications of the people doing the ‘checking’ ? Suppose the people are unqualified to do the checking ? Why should I rely on the fact checking abilities of a particular group of people ? </span><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;">Maybe the people did not check enough or were mistaken for one reason or another. </span><span style="font-size: large;">Peoples standards of evidence will depend on the time period and the culture. The checking performed by ancient superstitions unscientific tribe(s) or nations may not correspond to what the modern hard nosed scientific community considers checking. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">5) Under what circumstance is checking being performed ? For example, a nation threatened or thinks it has just been attacked may do very poor checking before responding and accepting the party line. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">6) Imagine a fertility cult making sacrifices and rain came. Something like that could convince ancient people when checking the veracity of the cult. Once the cult is accepted as ‘truth’ it can be embellished over time. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">7) Does AT hold from the inception of the homosapien species or had it become valid only after some point in human history ? Which people qualify for the AT ? For example how could ancient people check even if they wanted to ? Were they going to survey numerous of their neighbors ? How could they evaluate the truth of the response ? Did they have time to check ? Why would they want to check ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">8) A mythology can gain traction regardless if it can be checked or not. For example: Intimidation; fear of questioning; disapproval; etc: may allow a myth to gain traction. <b><u>The myth could have been checked but it was not for any number of reasons.</u></b> Till this day, in some countries atheists are killed because they dare to question, ‘check’ and deny. Do you think ancient Israelites that questioned and checked would fare well ? </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Consider the <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html">White Buffalo Calf Women (WBCW) Story</a>. It is alleged by many Dakota that an ancestral tribe of theirs, had contact with a supernatural being and is foundational to their religion. An individual may ‘check’ this story by asking holy men, perhaps other community leaders, or members. Many offer the oral story plus the revered pipe delivered by WBCW. This fulfills the AT criteria and RK should believe their story. After all, they checked the story. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Ancient people (including the Israelites) believed in supernatural being(s) and sometimes associated them with mountains. That provides a base for future evolution of mythology/religion. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The idea of a ancestral revelation at a mountain may have arose amongst the people ala etiological mythology or for one reason or another. Alternately King(s)/Priests/leaders/scribes could have evolved a story of an ancestral revelation at a mountain for one reason or another. Why would the Israelites want to check such a claim if they were the ones evolving it ? I am not sure people are necessarily inclined to ‘check’ a mythology/rumors/religions developing in their country.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The Palestinian leadership and people tell their history and stories about how events unfolded prior to the creation of the State of Israel and subsequently. No doubt, many of them believe it. Do you think the Palestinians are inclined to ‘check’ their versions of stories and history ? How well would they check it ? Would they protest if it does not 'check’ ? Moreover, many other people of other countries also accept the Palestinian stories and version of history. Do you think those others have ‘checked’ or are inclined to ‘check’ before accepting ? Does RK accept the Palestinian version of history ? If not why not ? The Palestinians would not accept a false history because they could and would check it. Therefore using the AT we have proven the Palestinian version of history. (I think Rabbi Gottliebs principle can also be used to 'prove' the Palestinian version of history.) </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">I have written posts about <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/">Rumors</a> and especially the <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/12/kuzari-argument-part-10.html">Rumor of Orleans</a>. How could Rumors spread and be accepted ? Many rumors can be checked yet are not checked and then accepted. Or they are inadequately checked and come to be believed. People accept stories, rumors, superstitions, myths, religions etc: whether they can be checked or not checked. Sometimes group think and peer pressure assist the spread of mythology, rumors etc: I find it incredulous that the academic community would accept the AT. I do not think they have, even if RK claims they do. I wonder how many Orthodox Jews or RK's potential recruits will 'check' RK's statements. I suspect not many, so much for the AT.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">The Sinai revelation may have been a man made event, some sort initiation rite - see </span><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/07/kuzari-argument-part-4_13.html">Psychiatrist Reik</a>. There may have been nothing to check as it was understood as invoking the deity. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">RK implies most experts have discarded “present theory” to explain the Exodus/Sinai stories because AT invalidates that possibility. (Present theory means for example a leader or group convince people that you just heard G-d speak.) However, the most likely reason those ‘experts’ discard present theory is because the Exodus story is considered ahistorical. Those experts would probably reject Reik's or my <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/06/kuzari-part-3_23.html">maximalist narration</a> which postulates an event did occur at Sinai. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">{ETA 3/30/2018 RK argues the Israelites would not accept the onerous or risky commands of the Torah unless they came from G-d at Sinai. I beg to differ. Overtime, King(s)/Priests/Holy Leaders can get people to accept such commands if appropriate methods are used; proper carrots and sticks are used. The laws may have evolved some time after Sinai. Thus, even at a much later period than Sinai, new commands could have come into existence. More details see the sequence of posts beginning at <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/11/proof-disproof-of-god-based-on-fallow_84.html">Proof / Disproof of God based on Fallow</a> }</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">{ETA 4/20/2018 Prior Kuzari posts and perhaps some other posts discussed some Torah rituals/commandments that predate Sinai. Examples include Circumcision, Sinew prohibition, animal sacrifice. If Moshe informs the Israelites to circumcise there would be no reason for objecting to an already extant practice. Moreover, the Torah is providing a basis for already extant practices - etiological mythology.} </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">Rabbi Gottliebs Kuzari Principle and Rabbi Kelemen’s Apple White Theorem are invalid guides to evaluate the truth of people’s beliefs, mythologies, religions, rumors, cults etc: I am extremely skeptical of 1) the validity of the AT 2) RK's claim that the AT is a theorem 3) AT is accepted by experts</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">P.S. I hope to review more of RK’s video and Book Permission to Receive in the future.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: large;">P.S. Rabbi Gottieb's Kuzari Principle and what Rabbi Kelemen's calls AT are similar and faulty for many of the same reasons.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">{ETA 3/30/2018 From my post <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2016/02/proof-of-god-via-jewish-survival-jewish_21.html">Proof of God via Jewish Survival, Jewish Suffering, and the Bible Predictor (Part Two) ?</a> "</span><span style="background-color: #c0a154; color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 27px;">When some Rabbis advocate the </span><a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i.html" style="background-color: #c0a154; color: #993322; font-family: arial, tahoma, helvetica, freesans, sans-serif; font-size: large; line-height: 27px; text-decoration: none;">Kuzari argument</a><span style="background-color: #c0a154; color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 27px;"> and claim religions require a giver or founder they are either lying or ignorant. Some religions may have a founder others do not. And ‘Judaism’ has a fare number of potential ‘founders’ as mentioned in my discussion of the Kuzari argument. " }</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #c0a154; color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 27px;"><br /></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 27px;">Continued <a href="http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/04/kuzari-part-18-unbroken-chain-hints-for_5.html">Kuzari Part 18 unbroken chain ? -hints for Rabbi Kelemen</a></span></span><br />
<div>
<span style="background-color: #c0a154; color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif; font-size: medium; line-height: 27px;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
</div>
Alter Cocker Jewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07263517660985042288noreply@blogger.com0