quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Belligerence? Interesting. The persistence is on both sides. Judaism is a faith based religion; there are leaps of faith. Particular to Armoth, with whom this discussion has already been had and essentially wrapped up, there's a leap of faith where it must somehow be impossible that the mass revelation is not what it is claimed to be by Judaism. To want to point out that a leap of faith is a leap of faith in response to an already existent assertion otherwise is hardly inherently belligerent.
Since Judaism is not a faith-based religion, and there aren't any leaps of faith, your continuing to claim otherwise is most certainly belligerent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is there a reason this is a thread? I mean, the Last Post Thread already exists, and it offers more variety than "is so" and "is not."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The reason this is a thread is that Armoth and Parkour and Samprimary are engaged in an attempt to destroy the Ask the Rebbetzin thread. I'm trying to get them to take it elsewhere. Last time I tried, Armoth insisted on keeping the contentious derailment in place and the thread got locked. I'm hoping that he's learned a lesson from that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. Makes sense. Best of luck.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The last thread was not locked because of Armoth, but it's interesting that you have the mental mechanisms in place to tell yourself that he bears the responsibility for it over your own actions.
Also, I'm not trying to 'destroy' the thread. And "Is not" is a great argumentative technique for 12 year olds, but I'm pretty sure you can do better. TIA!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Samp, I believe that a lot of what you said in that thread is correct. Despite that, it is obvious to me that your participation was inappropriate, though not in terms of the TOS or anything official. It is okay and I would argue important for the forum for there to be threads where people can discuss topics like religion, even if you strongly disagree with them.
You and the rest of the Hatrack religion hating crowd seems to think that it is important to attack and often belittle (and in many cases I've seen I think that this does violate the TOS) people on any thread where religion is discussed, no matter the content. I don't believe that this is good for the forum. It's disrespectful. It often violates the TOS. It is, as far as I can see, pretty much pointless. And it's getting very boring.
I believe that the forum would be more respectful, vibrant, and interesting place if the religion haters could take it down a couple of notches. I'm not saying you can't ever talk about how every religious person is stupid and wrong, but maybe consider the situational appropriateness of this. Not every thread that touches on religion needs to boils down to this. If people are having a nice, interesting time discussing aspects of a topic that you think is fundamentally wrong, maybe sometimes just let them have their nice time, instead of setting out to ruin it.
This is just my opinion, mind you.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Since Judaism is not a faith-based religion, and there aren't any leaps of faith, your continuing to claim otherwise is most certainly belligerent.
Lisa, I haven't been following the other thread at all so I'm coming at this with no background. But I'm interested in what you mean by that. How is any religion not based on faith? Would you practice Judaism if you didn't believe in God - and is that not faith?
I'm not trying to be belligerent or attack in any way, I'm honestly just curious as to what you mean.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You and the rest of the Hatrack religion hating crowd
P.S.: I'm not part of a "hatrack religion hating crowd" and pointing out that Judaism is a faith-based religion over the protests of those who insist that it is a factually proven religion that 'does not require leaps of faith' does not make you a 'religion hater.'
quote: I'm not saying you can't ever talk about how every religious person is stupid and wrong, but maybe consider the situational appropriateness of this.
I don't have to consider the situational appropriateness of this, because it's not something I ever do.
Maybe you are seriously inclined to confuse me with someone else.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How is any religion not based on faith?
Lisa and Armoth both believe that because their tradition teaches that thousands of people actually heard God and saw a miracle, this proves the event happened. The logic goes like this: wouldn't someone who was supposed to have been there say, "Hey, that didn't happen?!" if it didn't actually happen?
I find this to be a premise that is flawed in many, many ways. Certainly to compare it to the moon landing (as has been done here recently) is more than a little ridiculous.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Thanks, Tom.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:How is any religion not based on faith?
Lisa and Armoth both believe that because their tradition teaches that thousands of people actually heard God and saw a miracle, this proves the event happened. The logic goes like this: wouldn't someone who was supposed to have been there say, "Hey, that didn't happen?!" if it didn't actually happen?
I find this to be a premise that is flawed in many, many ways. Certainly to compare it to the moon landing (as has been done here recently) is more than a little ridiculous.
quote:You and the rest of the Hatrack religion hating crowd
P.S.: I'm not part of a "hatrack religion hating crowd" and pointing out that Judaism is a faith-based religion over the protests of those who insist that it is a factually proven religion that 'does not require leaps of faith' does not make you a 'religion hater.'
quote: I'm not saying you can't ever talk about how every religious person is stupid and wrong, but maybe consider the situational appropriateness of this.
I don't have to consider the situational appropriateness of this, because it's not something I ever do.
Maybe you are seriously inclined to confuse me with someone else.
Samp. C'mon. It IS something you do.
Personally, I enjoy talking to you (when we both remain level-headed), but at the same time, it's a pretty good point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Armoth: if I can demonstrate to you why the event you describe does not constitute legitimate proof, will you renounce your faith?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Armoth: if I can demonstrate to you why the event you describe does not constitute legitimate proof, will you renounce your faith?
I'm not sure it will be as simple as back and forth posting, but for rhetorical purposes, if you can undermine the strength of the mass revelation and the unbroken line of tradition toward that, I would have serious doubts.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Since Judaism is not a faith-based religion, and there aren't any leaps of faith, your continuing to claim otherwise is most certainly belligerent.
Lisa, I haven't been following the other thread at all so I'm coming at this with no background. But I'm interested in what you mean by that. How is any religion not based on faith? Would you practice Judaism if you didn't believe in God - and is that not faith?
I'm not trying to be belligerent or attack in any way, I'm honestly just curious as to what you mean.
Sure. I guess it's a matter of definition. My father told me about some things that happened the day I was born. Some of it was on the wonky side. They gave my mother too much ether to knock her out and had to resucitate me after they pulled me out with foreceps. That's certainly not the usual way people get born, but I'm pretty much convinced that it's true, because he was there.
He also told me that his father had told him that our family name used to be Orens. He had no proof of that other than what his father told him, and I didn't even have proof that my grandfather told him that, since I never heard it myself. Because I relied on that, I was able to find more of our family (turns out we're a lost branch of a lost branch), and now I'm in contact with relatives I never knew I had, some of whom are pretty cool. Others of whom are famous, and not cool at all.
Human beings aren't animals. We pass information down from one person to another. From one generation to another. Yes, information can get garbled. We all know about the game "telephone", where you whisper something to the person next to you, and they whisper it to the next person, and so on, until it comes back to you and it's nothing even remotely close to what you started out with. But in the case of the Torah, we weren't whispering. And it wasn't just a single line of relating the information; it was tens of thousands of lines in every generation, crisscrossing back and forth for redundancy. And all starting with a very large number of people who heard God talk to them.
Now... do I know that God really did talk to them? Nope. Could have been an advanced alien race, or something. But it was clearly way out of the normal human experience, and whatever it was told them it was God.
My reason and my experience tell me that my people were absolutely convinced that God was speaking to them. Every attempt I've heard to claim that this conviction was invented later and read back into the past has been almost pathetically inadequate to explain simple things. So while that's a possibility, I consider it so improbably as to be not worth spending a lot of time on.
The more I learn, the more I find consistent in the Torah. And by Torah, I don't just mean the Bible, but all the law and lore we received at Sinai.
I don't think it's provable fact that it's all true. And I recognize that it's possible some non-God entity fooled my ancestors and/or that all the information I have at hand only coincidentally fits together into a coherent whole. But again, the likelihood of that is remote, and I'd have to see some pretty hefty proof to convince me otherwise.
An early church father named Tertullian was known to have said, "Credo, quia absurdum". That he believed because it's absurd. That sort of idea has always been very foreign to Judaism.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:How is any religion not based on faith?
Lisa and Armoth both believe that because their tradition teaches that thousands of people actually heard God and saw a miracle, this proves the event happened. The logic goes like this: wouldn't someone who was supposed to have been there say, "Hey, that didn't happen?!" if it didn't actually happen?
I find this to be a premise that is flawed in many, many ways. Certainly to compare it to the moon landing (as has been done here recently) is more than a little ridiculous.
Strawman. Maybe you should allow people to state their own opinions instead of reformulating them yourself and getting things wrong.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Armoth: if I can demonstrate to you why the event you describe does not constitute legitimate proof, will you renounce your faith?
I'm not sure it will be as simple as back and forth posting, but for rhetorical purposes, if you can undermine the strength of the mass revelation and the unbroken line of tradition toward that, I would have serious doubts.
Ditto.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote: And it wasn't just a single line of relating the information; it was tens of thousands of lines in every generation, crisscrossing back and forth for redundancy. And all starting with a very large number of people who heard God talk to them.
How do you know that? Do you have empirical evidence of all those lines, or just anecdotal evidence that they exist?
Meant as a serious question.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:if you can undermine the strength of the mass revelation and the unbroken line of tradition toward that...
Sure. Here's a whole jumble of possibilities:
About ninety people saw something happen one day that they didn't understand, similar to seeing the Virgin Mary in the sun. One guy came along and put it into some context. As they passed the story down, the number of people present grew in the same way that, today, everyone alive in the '60s was at Woodstock. From time to time, skeptics questioned the story. Since the culture had a long tradition of killing dissidents and re-discovering lost law (consider Josiah, in Kings, "re-introducing" the book of Deuteronomy to people), it was fairly simple to ensure that the story kept the desired shape as the cult grew; after all, the story itself includes a description of how nearly a third of the people present for the revelation got themselves killed for not being sufficiently loyal to God. Surely the survivors would be highly motivated to accede to the public story.
No miracle is needed; social pressure and the threat of expulsion does it all, especially at a distance of even a small handful of generations. How many grandchildren of people kicked out of the tribe for not believing their ancestor's story about the time they heard God would have bothered to keep their objections alive in story and song?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Samp. C'mon. It IS something you do.
No. I don't. You can look through my entire posting history, and you won't find a single instance of it occurring. In the absence of any instance of it occurring, it's a flat-out incorrect assumption on your part. Now, what does it take for you to be able to acknowledge that? Tell me. I want to know what your threshold for correction is.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Tom-there was an interesting article on slate a few months ago that talked a lot about doctoring memories- like they convinced a bunch of people that they met Bugs Bunny at Disneyworld (not possible since Bugs is not Disney). This was done with just suggestions. And then slate put up a bunch of pics of newsworthy events, some doctored, some real and people got it wrong, but swore they remembered the events in question happening (I think they had Obama meet with Iranian president in person which hasn't actually happened). People gave really high levels of confidence for some and even backed it up with other memories- like I remember that cause that was the day X happened. I thought it was a really interesting series of articles that showed just how flawed human memory is.
I don't think I am in the religious hating side of hatrack, but I do roll my eyes when people say their religion is rational, non-faith based. Maybe cause I'm LDS and that is a big talking point for LDS (we have all this proof, we must be right), I find it more annoying than others (when my faith is being stupid, it is worse than when someone else's and hearing other religions make similar arguments doesn't really work for me either). I find it takes too much mental gymnastics for me to view the arguments as rational. Too many holes and potential holes. It is much easier for me to simply accept my religious beliefs on faith.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote: And it wasn't just a single line of relating the information; it was tens of thousands of lines in every generation, crisscrossing back and forth for redundancy. And all starting with a very large number of people who heard God talk to them.
How do you know that? Do you have empirical evidence of all those lines, or just anecdotal evidence that they exist?
Meant as a serious question.
Nice to see you around Javert!
I still sometimes wonder if I should finish your Godless Bible Study reading of John, but I think interest tapered off with my last post in that thread.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote: And it wasn't just a single line of relating the information; it was tens of thousands of lines in every generation, crisscrossing back and forth for redundancy. And all starting with a very large number of people who heard God talk to them.
How do you know that? Do you have empirical evidence of all those lines, or just anecdotal evidence that they exist?
Meant as a serious question.
Good question. Have you ever seen this? I have a Torah family tree that goes back much further, and is much, much wider. And that isn't just anecdotal. Granted, the fact that it existed before the common era to that degree is more anecdotal, but again, there's no plausible explanation for that many people spread out that widely around the known world, adopting a common myth in this way. I accept that they may have invented it, but they would have to have done so with intent to deceive, and they would have had to have been absolute geniuses at their work.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why would they need to have been geniuses? It seems to me that a handful of persuasive people with friends who're willing to kill dissenters would do just fine.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I accept that they may have invented it, but they would have to have done so with intent to deceive, and they would have had to have been absolute geniuses at their work.
I think you may give them far too much credit, but to each their own.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Armoth: if I can demonstrate to you why the event you describe does not constitute legitimate proof, will you renounce your faith?
I'm not sure it will be as simple as back and forth posting, but for rhetorical purposes, if you can undermine the strength of the mass revelation and the unbroken line of tradition toward that, I would have serious doubts.
See. If Tom felt like providing an alternative for, say, the mass revelation of Pentecost passed down through oral tradition until it was written down within the lifetime of some that had been present, I wouldn't be all that fussed. Hence, faith-based.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: I accept that they may have invented it, but they would have to have done so with intent to deceive, and they would have had to have been absolute geniuses at their work.
This is one of the primary arguments in support of the Book of Mormon not being a fabrication by Joseph Smith.
Human genius is much more prevalent than the claimed miracles of any given faith of the scope for which genius is presented as the so-unlikely-it-should-be-dismissed alternative.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I am a dictator of a small and primitive clan. I decide one day that to cement my power, I will devise a myth claiming that my rules were not created by me, but passed down by a deity.
I tell my trusted guards and lieutenants that my grandfather was visited by a deity and the rules were given to him and passed down to me.
One of my lieutenants goes a step further and says that his grandfather was there as well. I give him great favor for his ingenuity and support.
Others catch on and make similar claims that their ancestors were there. Before long, claiming to have an ancestor that was at the revelation becomes a requirement for favor by me.
Some doubt my claims. I threaten them with death or kill them outright. Most go along willingly enough. After all, my story gives them a divine right to the land we all occupy! Why question it?
My supporters pass these claims onto their children, as surely they must never waver in their dedication to me. The tale grows in the telling. It isn't many generations long before all sorts of embellishments are added.
Eventually, the current tale is encoded in scripture and becomes the basis for a religion.
Obviously this is just one possible way for this tale to develop (pulled from my rear), there are many other ways it could have happened, none relying on the supernatural.
I consider myself a pretty "unbiased and calm observer", but this national revelation story just doesn't seem to hold as much water as Judaism seems to think it does.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Why would they need to have been geniuses? It seems to me that a handful of persuasive people with friends who're willing to kill dissenters would do just fine.
And no mention of such bloodbaths? When exactly do you think this dissenter-killing would have taken place? Before Alexander the Great? After? Before the common era? After? There's no real time that works for this theory.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Armoth: if I can demonstrate to you why the event you describe does not constitute legitimate proof, will you renounce your faith?
I'm not sure it will be as simple as back and forth posting, but for rhetorical purposes, if you can undermine the strength of the mass revelation and the unbroken line of tradition toward that, I would have serious doubts.
See. If Tom felt like providing an alternative for, say, the mass revelation of Pentecost passed down through oral tradition until it was written down within the lifetime of some that had been present, I wouldn't be all that fussed. Hence, faith-based.
Well, yeah, Christianity is obviously faith-based. See the Tertullian quote above.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kate: as I understand it, many Orthodox Jews see a distinction between this particular mass revelation and other claims of mass revelation because this one presumably involves people they identify as direct ancestors. I think it's a rather false distinction for a variety of reasons, but I've specifically avoided comparing it to other mass revelations out of respect for that perceived difference.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Human genius is much more prevalent than the claimed miracles of any given faith of the scope for which genius is presented as the so-unlikely-it-should-be-dismissed alternative.
Human genius also, it seems, is far too often judged based on emotion as opposed to any objective judgment. And I do not exclude myself from that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote: I accept that they may have invented it, but they would have to have done so with intent to deceive, and they would have had to have been absolute geniuses at their work.
This is one of the primary arguments in support of the Book of Mormon not being a fabrication by Joseph Smith.
I don't follow. No one ever heard of the Book of Mormon before Joseph Smith came along, and there was certainly no mass revelation. What "genius" are you talking about? Is it the same as the "genius" that Muslims see in the Qur'an?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. I don't see why that makes it more reliable. But okay.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Kate: as I understand it, many Orthodox Jews see a distinction between this particular mass revelation and other claims of mass revelation because this one presumably involves people they identify as direct ancestors. I think it's a rather false distinction for a variety of reasons, but I've specifically avoided comparing it to other mass revelations out of respect for that perceived difference.
Again, if you'll let us speak for ourselves, you'll avoid making claims about us that are simply not true.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Tom-there was an interesting article on slate a few months ago that talked a lot about doctoring memories- like they convinced a bunch of people that they met Bugs Bunny at Disneyworld (not possible since Bugs is not Disney). This was done with just suggestions. And then slate put up a bunch of pics of newsworthy events, some doctored, some real and people got it wrong, but swore they remembered the events in question happening (I think they had Obama meet with Iranian president in person which hasn't actually happened). People gave really high levels of confidence for some and even backed it up with other memories- like I remember that cause that was the day X happened. I thought it was a really interesting series of articles that showed just how flawed human memory is.
That's neat sounding. I'd be interested in reading the full article.
There was an article on magicthegathering.com recently about how Memory relates to game design. The article was a reprint from eight years ago - the columnist was sick that week and said he didn't have time to write a new article. It talked a lot about how people's memories of cards/games/rules become distorted over time.
During the week, the columnist tweeted "out of curiosity, who remembers reading this article when it first ran 8 years ago?" And a sizeable number of people said "I do." (He also tweeted a number of random Inception references).
Next week he revealed there had never been an original article. Then went on to write an article about the crafting of the "fake memory" article. The whole thing was pretty brilliant IMO.
Random other note: if you haven't seen it yet, the Basketball Test is pretty good.
The last real discussion I had with a fundamentalist Christian friend of mine about his faith had ended with him finally, after years of claiming there were coherent logical reasons for his beliefs, admitting that he didn't have particularly clear, logical reasons that he could spell out. But that he couldn't believe he was that delusional. That was a few years ago, and I let it drop. Since then I've become less inclined to argue with people about their religion - if it's making them happy, well, okay. I'm still open to the possibility of some kind of god existing. But I have heard numerous people from numerous religions make the exact same claims of "I have a logical reason," often using very similar proofs, and have yet to see a reason that was actually strong and valid. (And I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss my beliefs on this matter in a thread pretty much dedicated to said discussion)
What I've been realizing recently is the extent to which "I can't be that delusional" isn't even something people should feel embarrassed about. Ignoring religion completely, there is a pretty damn high chance that you are flat out wrong about a LOT of things you think you have perfectly good reasons to believe. The human brain really is that fallible - as fallible now as it was thousands of years ago when we knew less than 1% what we know about the universe now. We are realizing now the extent to which eyewitness testimony isn't that valuable a form of evidence even for events happening today.
We use written eyewitness documents to learn about history because it's the best tool we have available, not because it's a remotely definitive one. And most of the time, whether something in particular happened in history ultimately just doesn't matter all that much. If we found DNA evidence tomorrow that somehow survived 200 years and says that George Washington was hispanic... well, that's really weird and interesting and would have some ramifications, but ultimately doesn't change anything about the modern world.
Maybe somewhere out there is a valid reason to believe in any particular diety, but eyewitness testimony just isn't good enough.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Many Mormons argue that the Book of Mormon is such a work of majesty (and so close in style to what it claims to be) that it would be nigh-impossible for someone to fake it.
In general, religions greatly overestimate the rarity of the artifacts they use as evidence.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I am a dictator of a small and primitive clan. I decide one day that to cement my power, I will devise a myth claiming that my rules were not created by me, but passed down by a deity.
I tell my trusted guards and lieutenants that my grandfather was visited by a deity and the rules were given to him and passed down to me.
One of my lieutenants goes a step further and says that his grandfather was there as well. I give him great favor for his ingenuity and support.
Others catch on and make similar claims that their ancestors were there. Before long, claiming to have an ancestor that was at the revelation becomes a requirement for favor by me.
Some doubt my claims. I threaten them with death or kill them outright. Most go along willingly enough. After all, my story gives them a divine right to the land we all occupy! Why question it?
My supporters pass these claims onto their children, as surely they must never waver in their dedication to me. The tale grows in the telling. It isn't many generations long before all sorts of embellishments are added.
Eventually, the current tale is encoded in scripture and becomes the basis for a religion.
Obviously this is just one possible way for this tale to develop (pulled from my rear), there are many other ways it could have happened, none relying on the supernatural.
I consider myself a pretty "unbiased and calm observer", but this national revelation story just doesn't seem to hold as much water as Judaism seems to think it does.
Give me a timeline when this could have happened with Judaism. It has to include the ability for such a bloodbath to occur without any record of it, and without any record of dissent. And it has to show a record of development. If there were no fossils, would you consider evolution a tenable hypothesis? Just because you can come up with a story for it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Raymond: absolutely. I think being willing to own up to the fact that we are capable of being delusional -- and, moreover, are almost certainly wrong about enormous chunks of our own experience, much less the real world -- is an increasingly important skill.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't follow. No one ever heard of the Book of Mormon before Joseph Smith came along, and there was certainly no mass revelation. What "genius" are you talking about? Is it the same as the "genius" that Muslims see in the Qur'an?
The comparison was to the hypothetical fabrication of the story, not to the hypothetical observation of the event. You asserted an element of genius required for such a fabrication. I noted similar assertions in support of an event that you don't believe to have occurred.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It has to include the ability for such a bloodbath to occur without any record of it...
Not necessarily. Like I said, lots of Jewish stories include lots of recorded bloodbaths. All you need to do is overlook the reason.
What if there were no Golden Calf, but the ones who said they hadn't heard God say anything were all killed?
(Bear in mind, too, that a far greater bloodbath occurred during the plagues of Egypt, and certainly no records of those plagues exist.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Another bad comparison to science. Fossils are not inherently required to make evolution a tenable hypothesis, given that we have observed speciation in labs. It just helps a lot.
Also, bloodbaths large and small can occur and escape the 'record of dissent.' Especially when not held to artificial standards of plausibility. They tend to happen in south america fairly regularly even in the modern era. In the era of history we're talking about? Easily.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In addition, from one of the last times we went through this.
quote:It's really not that hard to get an entire ethnic or religious group to buy into fiction. It's happening right now. Scientology, for instance, perpetuates an obviously and clearly fraudulent history of, among other things, its chief prophet. He's come along recently enough that there exists numerous reliable documentation sources disproving all of the things that the religion claims as fact about him, but this is completely irrelevant to the movement's faithful for the same reasons why it is plausibly possible to perpetuate a myth about mass revelation. You just claim it on behalf of people who are now dead.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: It has to include the ability for such a bloodbath to occur without any record of it, and without any record of dissent. And it has to show a record of development.
I'm the dictator. I control those keeping the records. Why would I let them record the dissent?
Posted by Mucous (Member # 12331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... If there were no fossils, would you consider evolution a tenable hypothesis?
Actually yes, because genetics is actually as strong (or even a stronger) evidence for evolution than even fossils.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Fooey. You say that after the fact.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Many Mormons argue that the Book of Mormon is such a work of majesty (and so close in style to what it claims to be) that it would be nigh-impossible for someone to fake it.
In general, religions greatly overestimate the rarity of the artifacts they use as evidence.
If those arguments ever convinced a skeptic, I'd say that person was a poor skeptic.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote: It has to include the ability for such a bloodbath to occur without any record of it, and without any record of dissent. And it has to show a record of development.
I'm the dictator. I control those keeping the records. Why would I let them record the dissent?
The god-kings of Egypt tried to wipe out any record of Pharaoh Akhnetan. How'd that work for them? You aren't being realistic.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In addition, from one of the last times we went through this.
quote:It's really not that hard to get an entire ethnic or religious group to buy into fiction. It's happening right now. Scientology, for instance, perpetuates an obviously and clearly fraudulent history of, among other things, its chief prophet. He's come along recently enough that there exists numerous reliable documentation sources disproving all of the things that the religion claims as fact about him, but this is completely irrelevant to the movement's faithful for the same reasons why it is plausibly possible to perpetuate a myth about mass revelation. You just claim it on behalf of people who are now dead.
None of them claim that the information in their religion was known continuously throughout the generations, and none of them claim that they were witness to the information coming to the world. They all acknowledge that Hubbard started it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also, bloodbaths large and small can occur and escape the 'record of dissent.' Especially when not held to artificial standards of plausibility. They tend to happen in south america fairly regularly even in the modern era. In the era of history we're talking about? Easily.
Do you see the problem with what you just said? Nah, probably not. The fact is, you know about those bloodbaths. So in what way is there no record?
Posted by Mucous (Member # 12331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Fooey. You say that after the fact.
After what fact?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:The god-kings of Egypt tried to wipe out any record of Pharaoh Akhnetan. How'd that work for them? You aren't being realistic.
We have no idea how large the primitive tribe is in my story. We don't know what the extent of the dissent was.
Suggesting the possibility of small scale dissent being squashed (and with no record kept) in a primitive tribe does not seem unrealistic to me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucous:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Fooey. You say that after the fact.
After what fact?
She's saying that you already believe that evolution occurred because of fossils, and it's upon *that* belief that you're saying that genetic phylogeny would support evolution without fossils.
I disagree with this, as there really isn't any other good explanation for the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities that has been discovered. When you couple that with what we've been able to directly measure regarding rates of mutation, effects of mutation, selective breeding, etc. I think it unlikely that evolution wouldn't be the conclusion.
[ September 21, 2010, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
For a very good look at how history is written by the winners--especially in the ancient world--check out Baruch Halpern's David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. He argues fairly persuasively that, among other things, David was probably a usurper and possibly a Philistine one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You can know that there are bloodbaths that we don't know about today and that we will probably never know about. Every so often, people will stumble upon the evidence of a previously unknown slaughter. It is implausible that we have discovered every one. Therefore, you have a way of demonstrating a situation in which a lot of people were systematically murdered somewhere and there remained no record of the event.
Going back from the modern era, an entire ethnic group in the central americas in 1275 called the Gallina were genocidally massacred, leading to the swift extinction of their culture, and evidence of this event, or any record of the murdering of the Gallina, had not really surfaced until relatively recently. No record was preserved of the event, it had to be pieced together from archaeological data. Other things happening earlier and in less ways that leave historical clues, such as if individual dissidents of a cultural movement in a region were killed off, can have happened and not enter the record, even if there was 'bloodbaths.' Like I said, they can occur and escape the record of dissent. Especially when not held to artifical standards of plausibility.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I am a dictator of a small and primitive clan. I decide one day that to cement my power, I will devise a myth claiming that my rules were not created by me, but passed down by a deity.
I tend to think that religions, power seminars, etc. are started by people who at least *mostly* believe what they are preaching. People who believe are just so much more convincing. This was reinforced to me a few years ago when I worked as a secretary in a home office. The lady I worked for had a husband who truly believed that he had visions and messages from God. He would review her business Christmas card list and determine who God really wanted to receive the cards. I got to fill out paperwork for them to get concealed handgun licenses because he had a vision that they needed to start carrying them. He was an incredibly kind, caring, and sincere man. Under the right conditions, I could see myself being persuaded by his intensity and sincerity. In an isolated tribal setting, I imagine that such personalities could easily become celebrities with many followers.
And as Raymond said, it's just so easy to convince ourselves. I enjoyed the article that scholarette referenced and here was a recent one in a similar vein http://www.slate.com/id/2267299/. Just by asking people to write a story about a guy named Tyrone versus a guy named Brad (priming them for racial stereotypes), people were more likely to believe that Obama was the Anti-Christ. We are all connected, and the prominent ideas that surround us have a profound effect on how we will interpret new information.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:None of them claim that the information in their religion was known continuously throughout the generations...
So what if they did? Why would it matter?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The evidence that 3 million people saw G_d at Sinai is found in the Torah and the Jewish oral tradition. Using evidence from the Torah and the oral tradition to prove that the Torah and oral tradition are true constitutes a tautology. It's circular reasoning. It begs the question, "Is there any independent evidence that would corroborate this account?"
Frankly, many parts of this claim (aside from the miracle itself) are mind bogglingly unlikely given modern objective evidence. Lets start for example with the number of people who reportedly witnessed the events -- 3 million (based on the Torah number of 600,000 adult men). That's a mind boggling huge group of people to be camped in the desert. For perspective, if the camp of Israel had the same population density as modern day Cairo (the most densely populated city in the world), It would have covered an area of 94 km2. If it was roughly circular it would have been about 6 miles in diameter. Such a massive camp of people around Sinai would certainly have left evidence of their presence, graves, trash heaps, dropped ear rings, abandoned children's toys. But archeologists have never found evidence that such a large group camped at Sinai.
To put this number in greater perspective, the entire population of Egypt at this time is estimated be from 2 - 5 million based on the archeological evidence. Even looking at the large end of that, 3 million Hebrew slaves would have been more than half the population of Egypt. Even if you grant the unlikely proposition that the Egyptians never wrote anything about their slaves, or that they destroyed all the records of the Hebrew slaves after their departure, the sudden exodus of better than half the population would have caused a major social and economic upheaval in Egypt that would be evident in the archeological records.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence to corroborate the Jewish claim that 3 million Jews fled Egypt and camped at Sinai between 1300 - 1200 BCE (or any other time period for that matter). While it is impossible to disprove the claim, the archeological evidence which does exist weighs very strongly against the Jewish claim.
Now for many people, it's no big deal to shrug this off. One can easily rationalize that it was only 3000 people and the number has "improved" with the telling over the years. It wouldn't be surprising not to find archeological evidence for such a small group. It wouldn't be shocking that the Egyptian records make no mention of a minority group that made up only a fraction of a percent of the total population. And you know, 3000 people seeing God would be pretty amazing.
But that rationalization doesn't work if you believe that the Torah was dictated by God to Moses letter by letter and has been flawlessly reproduced for thousands of years. The 3 million number is based on the report in the Torah that there were 600,000 adult men (which perhaps creates a little wiggle room but not nearly enough to resolve the lack of corroborating evidence). If the number in the Torah is wrong that leaves only a few possibilities, either the book hasn't been perfectly preserved, it wasn't dictated by God but was written by perhaps inspired but flawed humans, or God embellished the story. That last option (which is the only one compatible with Orthodox Jewish belief as I understand it) is the one I find most disturbing. If God lied about the number of people when he dictated the Torah, what else did he exaggerate? Why should we trust (let alone worship) a God that lies?
To believe that 3 million people saw God at Sinai, you must believe that the Torah and the Jewish oral tradition are more reliable sources of evidence than archeology. You must believe that the Torah and Jewish oral tradition are immune to the scientifically demonstrated weaknesses of human memory and reporting. The Jewish religion rest on unquestioning faith in the reliability of the Torah over all other types of evidence.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante: For a very good look at how history is written by the winners--especially in the ancient world--check out Baruch Halpern's David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. He argues fairly persuasively that, among other things, David was probably a usurper and possibly a Philistine one.
<snort> Whatever.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:<snort> Whatever.
I suggest that reading the book and critiquing its arguments would be a more valuable persuasive tool than snorting and one-word responses. Unless you're trying to persuade people that you're an ass or a bit simple. If so, you have actually mastered the rhetorical situation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:None of them claim that the information in their religion was known continuously throughout the generations, and none of them claim that they were witness to the information coming to the world. They all acknowledge that Hubbard started it.
This is a strawman which reflects a very poor understand of the religions you are criticizing. Using Hubbard as an example, shows you have no intent of discussing these issues in good faith.
The Christian Bible records thousands of witnesses to miracles and hundreds to the resurrection of Jesus. Islam also teaches of miracles that were witnessed by the thousands. Mormon's teach that every person can receive direct revelation from God and there are millions of Mormon's alive to day who believe that God has revealed himself personally to them. They aren't identical to the Jewish claim, but they aren't categorically different either.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rabbit, how do you get 3 million? Most estimates I've seen for total numbers are more in the neighborhood of 1.5 million.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dante: For a very good look at how history is written by the winners--especially in the ancient world--check out Baruch Halpern's David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. He argues fairly persuasively that, among other things, David was probably a usurper and possibly a Philistine one.
<snort> Whatever.
Stage Three Lisa: derisory dismissals.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Question for... well, for anyone in the thread really (obviously I'm referring primarily to religion here, but this applies just as much to other beliefs and I'm pretty confident that Tom and Sam and others are guilty of this in some area). When you hear someone say "here's some evidence against <insert belief that you hold very strongly>," is your mental response "okay, their evidence is going to be flawed, what are possible reasons it might be flawed?" or is it "okay, if their evidence turns out to be good, how am I going to need to change my beliefs?"
I am certainly guilty of this myself (thinking the former rather than the latter). But I am at least aware that when I do it, I am being... if not genuinely delusional, then at least irrational. (I'm a little unclear about the technical differences between the words delusional, irrational and insane).
@Dante and Lisa - one hand, reflexively dismissing the book is not the mark of someone genuinely interested in the truth. On the other hand, bringing up the book in the first place is kinda pointless, since the title (at least in context of this thread) is deliberately inflammatory, reinforcing the very mental roadblocks that a conversation like this should be trying to bring down.
Posted by Mucous (Member # 12331) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I think it unlikely that evolution wouldn't be the conclusion.
I agree of course, I just wasn't sure with the interpretation of what she said. If your interpretation is correct, I would only add for her that this is not even a particularly controversial/non-religious position. For example, Francis Collins has gone on record at least twice that genetics is a stronger source of evidence for evolution than the fossil record.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I think one of the key problems, which I'm sure others have touched on, is that somehow oral tradition is supposed to be considered good evidence. But it really isn't, at least not when that's all one haves.
100 people could come up to me, today, and explain in detail how they witnessed an extraterrestrial spacecraft fly over their city. Being a skeptic, if all they had was their word, I wouldn't believe them. I wouldn't assume they were lying, but if all they have is an anecdote then it's just not convincing enough.
That said, should I believe that story more or less if it happened today or a thousand years ago?
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:On the other hand, bringing up the book in the first place is kinda pointless, since the title (at least in context of this thread) is deliberately inflammatory, reinforcing the very mental roadblocks that a conversation like this should be trying to bring down.
I disagree. I think in a conversation on the historicity of claims from the Bronze Age/Iron Age Near East, Halpern's book is extremely relevant. And I don't understand how it is "inflammatory" to use the title of scholarly work by a respected academic, much less "deliberately" so.
Edited to add that bringing up the book was also relevant as an example of how a single powerful figure could shape history to the extent that his royal progaganda became accepted tradition.
And then edited for a typo.
[ September 21, 2010, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Dante ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Rabbit, how do you get 3 million? Most estimates I've seen for total numbers are more in the neighborhood of 1.5 million.
Presumably by assuming 3 children and 1 woman for every adult male; but in any case, are you suggesting that this factor 2 is actually important to the argument? 3 million or 1.5 million, there's going to be archeological traces. It's a bit like that style of Holocaust denial which proposes that the number is not 6 million, but 600k. I mean, suppose that's true; big effing deal, right?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I tend to think that religions, power seminars, etc. are started by people who at least *mostly* believe what they are preaching.
I agree. I didn't submit that as the most likely story of how the national revelation myth got started, but merely one possible explanation (that doesn't require a supernatural being).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: but in any case, are you suggesting that this factor 2 is actually important to the argument?
Nope. I was just curious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante: Edited to add that bringing up the book was also relevant as an example of how a single powerful figure could shape history to the extent that his royal progaganda because accepted tradition.
The Kim dynasty was getting away with it earlier on despite the fact that it's infinitely harder to do in the jam-packed and media saturated modern world.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I am a dictator of a small and primitive clan. I decide one day that to cement my power, I will devise a myth claiming that my rules were not created by me, but passed down by a deity.
I tell my trusted guards and lieutenants that my grandfather was visited by a deity and the rules were given to him and passed down to me.
One of my lieutenants goes a step further and says that his grandfather was there as well. I give him great favor for his ingenuity and support.
Others catch on and make similar claims that their ancestors were there. Before long, claiming to have an ancestor that was at the revelation becomes a requirement for favor by me.
Some doubt my claims. I threaten them with death or kill them outright. Most go along willingly enough. After all, my story gives them a divine right to the land we all occupy! Why question it?
My supporters pass these claims onto their children, as surely they must never waver in their dedication to me. The tale grows in the telling. It isn't many generations long before all sorts of embellishments are added.
Eventually, the current tale is encoded in scripture and becomes the basis for a religion.
Obviously this is just one possible way for this tale to develop (pulled from my rear), there are many other ways it could have happened, none relying on the supernatural.
I consider myself a pretty "unbiased and calm observer", but this national revelation story just doesn't seem to hold as much water as Judaism seems to think it does.
Give me a timeline when this could have happened with Judaism. It has to include the ability for such a bloodbath to occur without any record of it, and without any record of dissent. And it has to show a record of development. If there were no fossils, would you consider evolution a tenable hypothesis? Just because you can come up with a story for it?
I don't see why there needs to be a bloodbath or dissent. A skilled charismatic leader can probably cement his rule with just a few deaths, which are conveniently dismissed as things like failure to follow the sabbath. He is giving every reason in the world to support him, assume the economy is good under him, borders are secure- why not go with it. Heck, a stable society is enough for most people to assume their leadership is from God, so what if your leader goes one step further to claim everybody witnessed the choosing a generation back?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I disagree. I think in a conversation on the historicity of claims from the Bronze Age/Iron Age Near East, Halpern's book is extremely relevant. And I don't understand how it is "inflammatory" to use the title of scholarly work by a respected academic, much less "deliberately" so.
I want to clarify that I wasn't accusing you of being deliberately inflammatory. Merely that choosing that book as your evidence was unintentionally inflammatory. Yes, it was certainly relevant. If humans brains tended to work differently than they do it would have been a perfectly good thing to bring up.
I'm a little wary of the extent to which I am currently relying on lesswrong.com for advice on how to think and argue, but this particular article does strike me as extremely relevant: Politics is the Mind Killer. While it refers specifically to modern politics, I think it generally applies to any ideological argument.
When you're discussing the validity of Judaism with people who care about it, bringing up a book entitled "David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King" is usually going to produce pretty much the reaction you got from Lisa. Armoth's reaction may be different, but if so, that frankly is a reflection of Armoth being significantly more reasonable than the average person than about how useful that book title is in a discussion like this.
I AM interested in the book, and if you were presenting the book more for other people on the sidelines who aren't so investigated in this debate, that's certainly reasonable.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: but in any case, are you suggesting that this factor 2 is actually important to the argument?
Nope. I was just curious.
Rivka, I got the 3 million number from aish.com which was the first pro-Jewish site I got when I googled the topic. Looking further, it does seem like a commonly used number but I agree it's very likely too high. If you assume a demographic distribution similar to the US and "Adult Male" to mean males over age 14, you would get 1.5 million. If you assume a demographic distribution more typical of current African countries you would get 2.5 million. I noted in my original post that there is some wiggle room based on the account in the Torah, but there is nowhere near enough wiggle room to explain the complete lack of corroborating evidence.
Also please accept that I am not trying to prove that God did not appear to millions of Jews at Sinai or that the Torah and Jewish oral tradition are invalid. Nor am I trying to demean Judaism or those who believe it. I was simply trying to demonstrate that the claim that Judaism, unlike all other religions, can be objectively proven to be true is invalid. The Kuzari Principal is not logically sound.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The evidence that 3 million people saw G_d at Sinai is found in the Torah and the Jewish oral tradition. Using evidence from the Torah and the oral tradition to prove that the Torah and oral tradition are true constitutes a tautology. It's circular reasoning. It begs the question, "Is there any independent evidence that would corroborate this account?"
Well, in the first place, tautologies aren't without value. They do rule out internal contradictions, which is a pretty big plus. I mean, take the Christian geneaologies of JC at the beginning of Matthew and Luke. That's a contradiction. So I'm not about to turn up my nose at a consistent claim that happens to be tautological.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Frankly, many parts of this claim (aside from the miracle itself) are mind bogglingly unlikely given modern objective evidence. Lets start for example with the number of people who reportedly witnessed the events -- 3 million (based on the Torah number of 600,000 adult men).
I get closer to 2 million, but why quibble?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: That's a mind boggling huge group of people to be camped in the desert.
It certainly would be if they had to feed themselves and cloth themselves
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: For perspective, if the camp of Israel had the same population density as modern day Cairo (the most densely populated city in the world), It would have covered an area of 94 km2. If it was roughly circular it would have been about 6 miles in diameter. Such a massive camp of people around Sinai would certainly have left evidence of their presence, graves, trash heaps, dropped ear rings, abandoned children's toys. But archeologists have never found evidence that such a large group camped at Sinai.
Then again, it might depend on where Sinai was. I mean, are you talking about Jebel Musa? Har Karkom? Mount Sin Bashar? Mount Helal? Hashem el-Tarif? Jebel el-Madhbah? Jebel Baggir? Hala el-Badr? Jebel el-Lawz? An as-yet-undiscovered location? Since you're making some categorical statements, you must have a particular site in mind, no?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: To put this number in greater perspective, the entire population of Egypt at this time is estimated be from 2 - 5 million based on the archeological evidence. Even looking at the large end of that, 3 million Hebrew slaves would have been more than half the population of Egypt. Even if you grant the unlikely proposition that the Egyptians never wrote anything about their slaves, or that they destroyed all the records of the Hebrew slaves after their departure, the sudden exodus of better than half the population would have caused a major social and economic upheaval in Egypt that would be evident in the archeological records.
You mean like the total collapse of Egypt at the end of the Old Kingdom? In any case, the Hebrew slaves lived in Goshen (in the eastern Nile Delta). How much excavating has been done of that region in the Old Kingdom?
Also, estimates of ancient populations are commonly low, for the simple reason that modern folks have a lot of contempt for people back then, and can't imagine them having any better skills with agriculture than modern desert nomads. Which is fallacious on the face of it.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The bottom line is that there is no evidence to corroborate the Jewish claim that 3 million Jews fled Egypt and camped at Sinai between 1300 - 1200 BCE (or any other time period for that matter). While it is impossible to disprove the claim, the archeological evidence which does exist weighs very strongly against the Jewish claim.
"Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack." Come on, Rabbit. You know better than that. So very little of the region has been uncovered that saying things like that is laughable.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Now for many people, it's no big deal to shrug this off. One can easily rationalize that it was only 3000 people and the number has "improved" with the telling over the years.
No fears. You won't catch me doing that. In fact, if you can prove that it was only 3,000 people, I'll abandon Judaism like a hot potato.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: It wouldn't be surprising not to find archeological evidence for such a small group. It wouldn't be shocking that the Egyptian records make no mention of a minority group that made up only a fraction of a percent of the total population. And you know, 3000 people seeing God would be pretty amazing.
Coming from a culture based around a religion where there were only a handful of witnesses, it's understandable that you'd think so, but I would tend to disagree.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: But that rationalization doesn't work if you believe that the Torah was dictated by God to Moses letter by letter and has been flawlessly reproduced for thousands of years. The 3 million number is based on the report in the Torah that there were 600,000 adult men (which perhaps creates a little wiggle room but not nearly enough to resolve the lack of corroborating evidence). If the number in the Torah is wrong that leaves only a few possibilities, either the book hasn't been perfectly preserved, it wasn't dictated by God but was written by perhaps inspired but flawed humans, or God embellished the story. That last option (which is the only one compatible with Orthodox Jewish belief as I understand it) is the one I find most disturbing. If God lied about the number of people when he dictated the Torah, what else did he exaggerate? Why should we trust (let alone worship) a God that lies?
Bingo. That's my problem with people who try and say, "Okay, well, Sinai wasn't really a historic event, but God still inspired people to write the Torah." A lying deity like that doesn't interest me in the least.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: To believe that 3 million people saw God at Sinai, you must believe that the Torah and the Jewish oral tradition are more reliable sources of evidence than archeology.
Why? You've presented no archaeological evidence that runs counter to the Jewish oral tradition.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You must believe that the Torah and Jewish oral tradition are immune to the scientifically demonstrated weaknesses of human memory and reporting.
I don't think so. It isn't human memory that's the big thing here. It isn't even the incredibly wide redundancy built into the system. It's the simple fact that God promised we wouldn't lose it. Yes, yes, I know. "Circular." "Tautology." But at least it's consistent.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The Jewish religion rest on unquestioning faith in the reliability of the Torah over all other types of evidence.
Not really.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dante: For a very good look at how history is written by the winners--especially in the ancient world--check out Baruch Halpern's David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. He argues fairly persuasively that, among other things, David was probably a usurper and possibly a Philistine one.
<snort> Whatever.
Stage Three Lisa: derisory dismissals.
And you think there's some reason I should waste time taking such claims seriously? "The Israelites were originally Canaanites". "David was originally a Philistine." It's all deconstruction for deconstruction's sake, and for the sake of having something new to publish.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante:
quote:<snort> Whatever.
I suggest that reading the book and critiquing its arguments would be a more valuable persuasive tool than snorting and one-word responses. Unless you're trying to persuade people that you're an ass or a bit simple. If so, you have actually mastered the rhetorical situation.
Life is short. There are a ton of books out there. Right now, I'm midway through the third book of Robin Hobb's Farseer trilogy. Which at least acknowledges itself as fiction.
Do you know how many lame theories I've seen bandied around? Abraham tribes, Jacob tribes, migration vs. emergence vs. conquest, ad nauseum. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I haven't read this sort of pap. I just don't think it necessary to wade through every puddle that's been piddled by some "scholar" with a radical new theory.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In fact, if you can prove that it was only 3,000 people, I'll abandon Judaism like a hot potato.
Why? What would the number matter?
quote:But at least it's consistent.
And thus a hobgoblin.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Well, in the first place, tautologies aren't without value.
As evidence for anything but consistency, they are completely without value.
quote: I mean, take the Christian geneaologies of JC at the beginning of Matthew and Luke. That's a contradiction.
Much in the same way that the second chapter of Genesis contradicts the first chapter of Genesis. I'm sure you have your explanation for why what appears to be a clear contradiction isn't really a contradiction but then Christians have their explanation for why the geneologies in Matthew and Luke aren't really contradictory either. Until you've bothered to do more than understand a very weak strawman of Christianity, you'd be better off laying off the mockery and red herrings.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: @Dante and Lisa - one hand, reflexively dismissing the book is not the mark of someone genuinely interested in the truth.
<shrug> Who says it was reflexive? Have you read Kamil Salibi's The Bible Came from Arabia? It's a crank theory that the land of Israel in the Bible was really a place in Arabia. By playing creative games with transliterations, he identifies all sorts of place names to make his case. Lame. How about Ahmed Osman's Stranger in the Valley of the Kings? He proposes that King Tut was Jesus. And Joshua. Gunnar Heinsohn has suggested that Akhnaton, Necho II, Darius I and Hammurabi were all the same person. Jesse Laskin equates Ptolemy I, Horemheb, Ramses III and Thutmose III.
I could go on for quite a while. I've read all of those. I've read Finkelstein and Silberman's nutty ideas about the Torah being created at the time of Josiah. The Bible Unearthed is about 2.5 feet from where I'm sitting right now. I've spent countless hours really such garbage, largely in hopes of finding a pearl in the midden heap. And maybe I'll read this looney book about David as a Philistine as well. Because even it might contain something of value. But to bring that sort of nonsense in this discussion is not indicative of a desire to debate anything honestly. "Ooo, ooo, did you read this screed? Huh? Huh? Well, if you didn't, then you don't know what you're talking about!" Feh.
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: On the other hand, bringing up the book in the first place is kinda pointless, since the title (at least in context of this thread) is deliberately inflammatory, reinforcing the very mental roadblocks that a conversation like this should be trying to bring down.
Very biasedly put. Kudos.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How do you decide which arguments contain "nuggets of value?"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote: I mean, take the Christian geneaologies of JC at the beginning of Matthew and Luke. That's a contradiction.
Much in the same way that the second chapter of Genesis contradicts the first chapter of Genesis. I'm sure you have your explanation for why what appears to be a clear contradiction isn't really a contradiction but then Christians have their explanation for why the geneologies in Matthew and Luke aren't really contradictory either. Until you've bothered to do more than understand a very weak strawman of Christianity, you'd be better off laying off the mockery and red herrings.
Nah. Because I've heard such arguments, and they all founder on the rock of the religion they claim their religion derives from.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:In fact, if you can prove that it was only 3,000 people, I'll abandon Judaism like a hot potato.
Why? What would the number matter?
What? Because it contradicts what the Torah says.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Are you telling me that you're not willing to let some of the Torah's numbers slide? Because, y'know, of all the things in the Torah to let slide, specific numbers -- ages, dates, etc. -- are among the least important, most questionable, and most obviously tweaked for symbolic purposes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rabbit, thanks. (Adult males actually means ages 20-60.) I am amused that Aish is using that number, but I agree that they are a reasonable site to get such numbers from.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm in class so I can now only poorly respond, I hope to do a better job tonight, but this thread seems to have grown and fast.
1) The argument that there were so many people so something must have been dropped.
::Shrug:: that's an argument to be made by someone who knows archaeology really well. Is that true, that a people traveling through the dessert, who never built anything permanent, would have left an archeological print in the sand?
Even graves - The Israelites made a big deal of carrying out the bones of Joseph from Egypt so that he is buried in the land of Israel - it's possible that this was the tradition of the generation of the desert. To transport the bodies for burial in the land of Israel.
2) The alternative stories. The root of the Kuzari principle, or the Mass Revelation argument lies in probabilities. Probabilities need to be analyzed in the context of all the details. All of history, even fairly recent history works this way - we weren't there, we don't know - we rely on human accounts, and the more corroboration, the better.
And here is where it is actually compelling. Forget about bloodbaths and the like - you can't create a scenario where the ideas of one or two men evolves into a mass revelation in front of 2 million. That didn't happen with Christianity or Islam - it's not very plausible.
Realize that you're only playing with around 800-1000 years to make up the mass revelation. The reason I say that is because we have matching scrolls to 2000 years ago. Realize that Islam and Christianity did not evolve that way, when it was definitely in their interest to do so.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Then again, it might depend on where Sinai was. I mean, are you talking about Jebel Musa? Har Karkom? Mount Sin Bashar? Mount Helal? Hashem el-Tarif? Jebel el-Madhbah? Jebel Baggir? Hala el-Badr? Jebel el-Lawz? An as-yet-undiscovered location? Since you're making some categorical statements, you must have a particular site in mind, no?
Pick your site. No one has found any evidence of millions of Jews camping anywhere in Sinai and plenty have looked. It's certainly possible that they've just missed it. Who knows, next week someone may uncover objective evidence that millions of Jews once camped in Sinai. My point was that no such evidence currently exists.
quote:Why? You've presented no archaeological evidence that runs counter to the Jewish oral tradition.
The Bible reports that Solomon reigned 480 years after the exodus. That puts the Exodus at 1447 BC, about 700 hundred years after the collapse of the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Archeological evidence indicated there was no major upheaval in Egypt during the time of the Exodus. This is in fact completely inconsistent with the departure of 1 - 3 million people.
quote:"Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack." Come on, Rabbit. You know better than that. So very little of the region has been uncovered that saying things like that is laughable.
Come on Lisa, At some point lack of evidence does in fact become evidence of a lack. Based on the Torah account, there are a wide variety of things one would logically predict should exist such as mention of the Jews in the writings of Egypt, evidence of the millions of people camping in Sinai, evidence of upheaval in Egypt and so forth. Lots of people have looked for this kind of evidence yet no one has ever found any. Furthermore, the evidence that has been uncovered for things like the total population of the region makes the numbers reported in Exodus highly improbable.
Once again, I am not trying to disprove the Torah report. I am trying to demonstrate that report in the Torah can not be corroborated by any objective means. Your claim that believing the Torah account does not require "faith" is simply untrue.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Forget about bloodbaths and the like - you can't create a scenario where the ideas of one or two men evolves into a mass revelation in front of 2 million.
Says who? To me this argument relies on a distinct lack of imagination.
Someone creates a story that becomes part of the culture. Stories grow in the telling, including this one. They pass it onto their kids as fact. Let bake for a few generations (I doubt you'd need even half of that 800 years) and you've got supposed mass revelation.
I'm really struggling to see how this seems so implausible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:you can't create a scenario where the ideas of one or two men evolves into a mass revelation in front of 2 million
I've already given you a couple scenarios in which one or two men produce a situation in which their great-grandchildren completely believe their ancestors had a mass revelation.
Why forget bloodbaths?
quote:Realize that you're only playing with around 800-1000 years to make up the mass revelation. The reason I say that is because we have matching scrolls to 2000 years ago.
No. The matching scrolls give us a lower bound on the age; the story could easily be older.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Actually Rabbit, where do u get your numbers from? My number puts the Revelation at about 1313 BC which is around the time of King Tut, whose father turned Egypt upside down, destroying all foreign gods and for a short time, having Egypt worship one god, the sun-god.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm sure if you try hard enough, you'll eventually find a sufficient upheaval that could be blamed on the disappearance of a third of the country's population despite no mention of it being made anywhere else.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: How do you decide which arguments contain "nuggets of value?"
Really? You want that while I stand on one foot?
My rule of thumb is that the best working model is that which:
1) Explains the greatest amount of the available data, 2) Provides the best explanations for that data which does not fit the model, 3) Requires the fewest unproven or unprovable propositions in order to be true.
The importance of these three elements is in the order stated (descending), and the word "best" in the second element is necessarily subjective.
When I get new information, I try it out in two ways.
1) I see if it fits my integrated view of reality or not. If it does, fine. If it doesn't, I look at how much of a conflict there is, and whether it tilts the balance to the point that a different view makes more sense.
2) I see if it fits with any information that I've previous rejected as being insufficiently convincing. If it does, I put it there, like a piece in a jigsaw puzzle, because who knows? If the next few pieces of information on that subject fit there better than elsewhere, maybe that'll tilt the balance.
I assume that's how most people do it, no? It's more of an inductive way of reasoning than a deductive way, but it suits me.
Back in 1994, I was working on a design for an economic system. Looking back on it now, it's just embarrassing, but I was fairly happy with it. But then I was over at a friend's house and saw a book on her shelf called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I'd never read anything by Ayn Rand before except the first four pages of Atlas Shrugged and possibly Anthem, but I figured it might be worth a read. And it trashed my world view. I've had my life turned upside down like that maybe 4 times in my life, and every time was pretty overwhelming and life altering. But when it happens, I can't just stick with the direction I've been going. I'd kill myself.
Honestly, if I flipped on the issue of Judaism being true, I might continue to be observant just because of my partner and daughter. But I sure as hell wouldn't be spending time defending it. There was a time when the opposite happened. I was so overwhelmed after I realized I was gay that I stopped being observant entirely. For about 11 months. But I continued to defend it, because despite my feeling that it was hurting me, I remained convinced that it was true, and ignoring that would have hurt more.
I'm entirely aware that neither you nor the other folks who've been dogpiling me in this thread are going to believe any of that. You have your minds made up, and don't even recognize how closed your minds are. But that's fine. Maybe someone will read it and will hear that I'm telling the truth.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Actually Rabbit, where do u get your numbers from? My number puts the Revelation at about 1313 BC which is around the time of King Tut, whose father turned Egypt upside down, destroying all foreign gods and for a short time, having Egypt worship one god, the sun-god.
Gah.
Armoth, the date of 1313 BCE (it's 1311; the system we use today is 2 years different than Seder Olam) is predicated on a chronology that includes the First Temple being destroyed in 421 BCE. If that's true, then all of the preceding history (which is interlinked) has to come down the same 166 years, and 1311 in Egypt would be the equivalent of 1145 BCE in the history books. Which is conventionally when Ramses V died.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm entirely aware that neither you nor the other folks who've been dogpiling me in this thread are going to believe any of that.
No, I believe it. I simply think that in the case of ancient history (especially ancient religion), there just aren't enough data points out there that could possibly lead you to effectively evaluate #1, #2, or #3. If, for example, you consider your "available data" to include "two million people heard the voice of God" instead of "this book says around two million people heard the voice of God," then the actual underlying issue isn't even subject to analysis. By the same token, if you aren't including in your count of "unprovable assertions" the idea that God doesn't want you to flip lightswitches on Saturday, you're not really getting a fair count on #3.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Why? You've presented no archaeological evidence that runs counter to the Jewish oral tradition.
The Bible reports that Solomon reigned 480 years after the exodus. That puts the Exodus at 1447 BC, about 700 hundred years after the collapse of the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Archeological evidence indicated there was no major upheaval in Egypt during the time of the Exodus. This is in fact completely inconsistent with the departure of 1 - 3 million people.
You know, you can disagree with me about the fact that the Old Kingdom ended around 1475 BCE, but it doesn't make any sense for you to ignore the fact that it's what I think, for reasons that have no religious connection. It just turns your argument into a flawed syllogism.
All fish are philosophers Socrates is a philosopher Therefore, Socrates is a fish
Since fish aren't philosophers, and since the Old Kingdom fell in the 15th century BCE, Socrates isn't a fish, and your argument is empty.
For the purposes of this discussion, you have to either posit that I'm right about when the Old Kingdom ended and argue your point despite that, or you have to demonstrate that I'm wrong about it. You haven't even attempted to do either.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
Raymond,
quote:When you're discussing the validity of Judaism with people who care about it, bringing up a book entitled "David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King" is usually going to produce pretty much the reaction you got from Lisa.
I see what you're saying. I guess from my perspective, I wasn't addressing the "validity" of Judaism.
I actually thought about taking Lisa's posts into my first-year composition class to talk about reasoning, argumentation, and fallacies.
quote:The god-kings of Egypt tried to wipe out any record of Pharaoh Akhnetan. How'd that work for them?
False analogy.
quote: It's all deconstruction for deconstruction's sake, and for the sake of having something new to publish.
Hasty generalization, non sequitur, ad hominem, association fallacy, etc.
quote:Don't make the mistake of thinking that I haven't read this sort of pap. I just don't think it necessary to wade through every puddle that's been piddled by some "scholar" with a radical new theory.
So you're calling an argument whose evidence you've never studied "pap" and using derisive quotation marks for a scholar who is well-respected in his field simply because you don't like what he says?
Lisa, do you post here in the attempt to actually communicate about ideas or just to present your opinions as self-evident fact and defend them principally with derision and scorn? I just want to know if I should go ahead and put you on my "don't bother responding to" list.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:if you can undermine the strength of the mass revelation and the unbroken line of tradition toward that...
Sure. Here's a whole jumble of possibilities:
About ninety people saw something happen one day that they didn't understand, similar to seeing the Virgin Mary in the sun. One guy came along and put it into some context. As they passed the story down, the number of people present grew in the same way that, today, everyone alive in the '60s was at Woodstock. From time to time, skeptics questioned the story. Since the culture had a long tradition of killing dissidents and re-discovering lost law (consider Josiah, in Kings, "re-introducing" the book of Deuteronomy to people), it was fairly simple to ensure that the story kept the desired shape as the cult grew; after all, the story itself includes a description of how nearly a third of the people present for the revelation got themselves killed for not being sufficiently loyal to God. Surely the survivors would be highly motivated to accede to the public story.
No miracle is needed; social pressure and the threat of expulsion does it all, especially at a distance of even a small handful of generations. How many grandchildren of people kicked out of the tribe for not believing their ancestor's story about the time they heard God would have bothered to keep their objections alive in story and song?
Are you talking about these Tom? Because first of all, where are you pulling your stat a third killed? I see 3 thousand killed. That's not even close to a third of 2 million.
Now, in your story, they saw something they didnt understand and a dude explains it in the form of tons of commandments and precepts? If you say those evolved, how did it happen, what did he tell them at that time? 10 commandments? They believe in Moses? And the story of the exodus? And the miracles that also constitute a sort of mass revelation - that weren't exactly minor miracles that can be explained away?
Also the story of Josiah, read in context, is pretty much hyperbole.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... Realize that Islam and Christianity did not evolve that way, when it was definitely in their interest to do so.
Curiously, one could flip this on its end and say that it was actually in the interest for Christianity and Islam to "not" have this kind of mass revelation because it was in their interest to "evolve that way."
After all, it certainly seems Christianity and Islam are a lot more fit for survival based on their past growth rates/fitness, which would be the obvious way to evaluate self-interest for evolution.
(Note: This of course has no bearing on which of the three are true)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If, for example, you consider your "available data" to include "two million people heard the voice of God" instead of "this book says around two million people heard the voice of God," then the actual underlying issue isn't even subject to analysis.
I don't. "Two million people heard the voice of God" is a conclusion; not an axiom.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... Realize that Islam and Christianity did not evolve that way, when it was definitely in their interest to do so.
Curiously, one could flip this on its end and say that it was actually in the interest for Christianity and Islam to "not" have this kind of mass revelation because it was in their interest to "evolve that way."
After all, it certainly seems Christianity and Islam are a lot more fit for survival based on their past growth rates/fitness, which would be the obvious way to evaluate self-interest for evolution.
(Note: This of course has no bearing on which of the three are true)
I think Christianity and Islam have to rely on the mass revelation, which they do. But no, size is not a good barometer of truth as Christianity and Islam cancel one another out.
I think that we can all agree that mass revelations are more compelling that single revelations. Given that premise, I would argue it is in Christianity and Islam's best interest to have evolved a mass revelation, especially considering that they were both founded on Judaism that is founded on such a mass revelation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote: I mean, take the Christian geneaologies of JC at the beginning of Matthew and Luke. That's a contradiction.
Much in the same way that the second chapter of Genesis contradicts the first chapter of Genesis. I'm sure you have your explanation for why what appears to be a clear contradiction isn't really a contradiction but then Christians have their explanation for why the geneologies in Matthew and Luke aren't really contradictory either. Until you've bothered to do more than understand a very weak strawman of Christianity, you'd be better off laying off the mockery and red herrings.
Nah. Because I've heard such arguments, and they all founder on the rock of the religion they claim their religion derives from.
Certainly I would say that Christianity owes a great deal to Judaism. I would not say that it is derived from it, nor would I say that it is dependent on the claims being examined here. Others might; I would not.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And here is where it is actually compelling. Forget about bloodbaths and the like - you can't create a scenario where the ideas of one or two men evolves into a mass revelation in front of 2 million. That didn't happen with Christianity or Islam - it's not very plausible.
You're simply wrong about that. Here is a very compelling scenario.
Start with a nomadic tribe with a charismatic leader, not millions but a few hundred to perhaps a few thousand. They have a charismatic leader who has rallied them to leave. The group witnesses some spectacular natural phenomenon, perhaps an unusually violent thunderstorm, a wildfire, or a volcanic eruption. Like hundreds of other tribes around the world, the leader has a "revelation" about what this event means and what God wants them to do. He tells the rest of the tribe about his revelation. Because he is charismatic and everybody saw "something", its pretty easy to convince the whole tribe that they've seen God. From what we know about human senses, memory, the way groups work and the evolution of shared mythology, it's extremely plausible that one person might say "DId you hear that clap of thunder, it sounded just like a voice calling "Moses" and before long, everyone clearly remembers a voice calling the name of Moses. As the story is retold from year to year and then generation to generation, it gets embellished a little bit hear and a little bit there. Because of the way human memory works, no one really notices the changes because those shared story telling experiences alter the original memory. We know this happens. By the time the full story is written down, possibly hundreds of years after the original event the story bares little resemblance to what actually happened. The fact that many different peoples in different areas are telling the story the same way isn't proof of its veracity, it's simple evidence that these people interact with each other.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I am a dictator of a small and primitive clan. I decide one day that to cement my power, I will devise a myth claiming that my rules were not created by me, but passed down by a deity.
I tell my trusted guards and lieutenants that my grandfather was visited by a deity and the rules were given to him and passed down to me.
One of my lieutenants goes a step further and says that his grandfather was there as well. I give him great favor for his ingenuity and support.
Others catch on and make similar claims that their ancestors were there. Before long, claiming to have an ancestor that was at the revelation becomes a requirement for favor by me.
Some doubt my claims. I threaten them with death or kill them outright. Most go along willingly enough. After all, my story gives them a divine right to the land we all occupy! Why question it?
My supporters pass these claims onto their children, as surely they must never waver in their dedication to me. The tale grows in the telling. It isn't many generations long before all sorts of embellishments are added.
Eventually, the current tale is encoded in scripture and becomes the basis for a religion.
Obviously this is just one possible way for this tale to develop (pulled from my rear), there are many other ways it could have happened, none relying on the supernatural.
I consider myself a pretty "unbiased and calm observer", but this national revelation story just doesn't seem to hold as much water as Judaism seems to think it does.
Again, most arguments against mass revelation come from compartmentalization of the ginormous story that the mass revelation is. How did it develop? When in history did this happen? The thing about the unbroken chain the mass revelation is that if you pick a point in time, we know the people and the stories of that particular generation. There are no dark ages where the story could have evolved the way you want it to.
Don't you see that it's reaaallly implausible to get an entire nation so zealously believing that their ancestors all heard God speak to them? And the level of effort demanded of us in the commandments as well?
Similar to Lisa - I've tried to walk away from this a few times, but I can't without lying to myself. You can't just say "belief involved" "kill people" and expect that a lie of that magnitude gets believed, and that the culture it produced is as boxed-in to that original and fantastic lie.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Armoth: Let me re-phrase, if mass revelations are so compelling as opposed to single revelations, why is Judaism roughly 14 million people while both of the other two have more than a billion followers?
It seems to me that (especially if you throw in the other large religions as well) mass revelations *aren't* selected for.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote: I mean, take the Christian geneaologies of JC at the beginning of Matthew and Luke. That's a contradiction.
Much in the same way that the second chapter of Genesis contradicts the first chapter of Genesis. I'm sure you have your explanation for why what appears to be a clear contradiction isn't really a contradiction but then Christians have their explanation for why the geneologies in Matthew and Luke aren't really contradictory either. Until you've bothered to do more than understand a very weak strawman of Christianity, you'd be better off laying off the mockery and red herrings.
Nah. Because I've heard such arguments, and they all founder on the rock of the religion they claim their religion derives from.
Certainly I would say that Christianity owes a great deal to Judaism. I would not say that it is derived from it, nor would I say that it is dependent on the claims being examined here. Others might; I would not.
No offense, but you don't derive your beliefs from anything other than your heart. And while that is romantic, and I can even afford it a level of respect (as long as it doesn't harm others), it makes it difficult for me to join you in your belief unless you can demonstrate that your motivations should also become mine.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There are no dark ages where the story could have evolved the way you want it to.
There don't need to be any dark ages. Stories like this evolve very rapidly in the first generation itself. The only record of the first few generations after Moses, are the Jewish scripture and the oral tradition. There is no independent evidence corroborating what the Torah and the oral tradition say. The oldest surviving fragments of the Torah are from ~ 200 BCE, over a millennium after Sinai. There is no evidence outside the Torah and the oral tradition of an unbroken and unchanging line of transmission during those critical first centuries. The only evidence for unbroken transmission of this story, is the story itself. That's a tautology not sound reasoning.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No offense, but that is not true. I derive my beliefs from all sorts of things. They are just not dependent on any particular one of those things. And I am not asking you to join me in anything, merely correcting what I consider to be a misstatement regarding Christianity. "Derives" is incorrect.
To put it another way, Judaism was good, fertile soil in which Christianity blossomed (and we owe it an enormous debt for that) but it was not the seed.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:And here is where it is actually compelling. Forget about bloodbaths and the like - you can't create a scenario where the ideas of one or two men evolves into a mass revelation in front of 2 million. That didn't happen with Christianity or Islam - it's not very plausible.
You're simply wrong about that. Here is a very compelling scenario.
Start with a nomadic tribe with a charismatic leader, not millions but a few hundred to perhaps a few thousand. They have a charismatic leader who has rallied them to leave. The group witnesses some spectacular natural phenomenon, perhaps an unusually violent thunderstorm, a wildfire, or a volcanic eruption. Like hundreds of other tribes around the world, the leader has a "revelation" about what this event means and what God wants them to do. He tells the rest of the tribe about his revelation. Because he is charismatic and everybody saw "something", its pretty easy to convince the whole tribe that they've seen God. From what we know about human senses, memory, the way groups work and the evolution of shared mythology, it's extremely plausible that one person might say "DId you hear that clap of thunder, it sounded just like a voice calling "Moses" and before long, everyone clearly remembers a voice calling the name of Moses. As the story is retold from year to year and then generation to generation, it gets embellished a little bit hear and a little bit there. Because of the way human memory works, no one really notices the changes because those shared story telling experiences alter the original memory. We know this happens. By the time the full story is written down, possibly hundreds of years after the original event the story bares little resemblance to what actually happened. The fact that many different peoples in different areas are telling the story the same way isn't proof of its veracity, it's simple evidence that these people interact with each other.
When, in history, was it written down? I need to see which period in history it was, and whether that makes sense. The idea is that we know who was around in ever period, and again, there was no period of dark like that where the writing could be introduced.
What about the story of the Exodus? That gets added in ex post facto? Is that truly plausible?
Also, the Bible says that they heard the voice of God, saying actual words and everything. I don't see, even if you're really charismatic, how you can convince THOUSANDS of people that they heard prophecy? You also have the Bible discussing the fact that it was written down then, and not later (again, Christianity and Islam, it is not written down at the time of the prophet), which also lends a great deal of credibility and implausibility to its later introduction.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Armoth: Let me re-phrase, if mass revelations are so compelling as opposed to single revelations, why is Judaism roughly 14 million people while both of the other two have more than a billion followers?
It seems to me that (especially if you throw in the other large religions as well) mass revelations *aren't* selected for.
It was said before, I think by Raymond or by others - Humans hide from truth. Assume for a second the bible is true - you have the story of then golden calf - how the heck does that happen after a mass revelation? When I was younger, that used to annoy the hell out of me - but now that I'm older, I know how easy it is to compartmentalize, to hide from gnawing truths, not to look deeper when logic and reality demands that you should, and how I even defy in my day to day life the principles I know to be true. How do people smoke when they have circulatory issues? How come people can't stick to a diet? So few Jews believe because of the mass revelation anyways. Sadly, I don't think you can judge even Judaism by the Jews.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No offense, but that is not true. I derive my beliefs from all sorts of things. They are just not dependent on any particular one of those things. And I am not asking you to join me in anything, merely correcting what I consider to be a misstatement regarding Christianity. "Derives" is incorrect.
To put it another way, Judaism was good, fertile soil in which Christianity blossomed (and we owe it an enormous debt for that) but it was not the seed.
I don't think many Christians believe the way you believe
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Again, most arguments against mass revelation come from compartmentalization of the ginormous story that the mass revelation is. How did it develop? When in history did this happen? The thing about the unbroken chain the mass revelation is that if you pick a point in time, we know the people and the stories of that particular generation.
The flaw with this argument is that the only evidence you have for the stories being told in, for example, 1200 BCE are the stories relayed by people a thousand years later. There is no independent evidence that the people in 1200 BCE were telling the same story told in 200 BCE. The fact that the people in 200 BCE claimed that the stories came to them in a unbroken and unaltered chain from a 1000 years earlier is not evidence for the veracity of the claim.
In fact, the Bible itself reports events where the Law was "lost" and rediscovered. Based on the Biblical record itself, there is not an unbroken chain of millions of Jews repeating this story to their children and grandchildren. There are at least a few points when all but a few Jews in a given generation abandoned the Law so the stories had to be retaught, not by a million parents but by a tiny number of prophets. Those type of bottlenecking events dramatically weaken the strength of an unbroken chain representing millions of voices.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No offense, but that is not true. I derive my beliefs from all sorts of things. They are just not dependent on any particular one of those things. And I am not asking you to join me in anything, merely correcting what I consider to be a misstatement regarding Christianity. "Derives" is incorrect.
To put it another way, Judaism was good, fertile soil in which Christianity blossomed (and we owe it an enormous debt for that) but it was not the seed.
I don't think many Christians believe the way you believe
Then your understanding of Christianity is very shallow. There are many many different ways that Christians view the Hebrew Bible and Judaism. kmboots view is a very prevalent one.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
http://www.slate.com/id/2255276/ Here is one of the Slate stories about doctoring photos and having people remember the events. This was a series they did and this link is a summary of a bunch of articles: http://www.slate.com/?id=3944&qp=57645 Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When, in history, was it written down? I need to see which period in history it was, and whether that makes sense.
Why? When the issue at hand is whether some people deliberately misled a bunch of other people and in so doing created a new oral tradition that eventually got written down, why does the exact date matter? Why wouldn't "some time before it was written down" suffice?
(Besides: why can't this, like the story of Josiah, be a bunch of hyperbole when read in context?)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that people had to have been deliberately misled for the claims we are examining to be not factually accurate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, I dunno. At some point, someone had to decide to insert a detail they didn't know for sure was actually truthful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They might have believed it. Or it might have been misunderstood or misinterpreted somewhere down the line.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, I dunno. At some point, someone had to decide to insert a detail they didn't know for sure was actually truthful.
Not necessarily. I've heard numbers in anecdotes multiply by an order of magnitude in a single transmission with no indication that the teller was unsure of their facts.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that people had to have been deliberately misled for the claims we are examining to be not factually accurate.
Yes. Wouldn't it only take some impetus (social, political, whatever) that would favor the non-truth, plus a lot of time, to produce a claim to become virtually (or even completely) false?
I can think of many.
In times of crisis and desolation, it's easy to take comfort in thinking that your people are special, or that the specific mistreatment is a test, or trial, or something similar.
In the political realm, it may make sense to favor one version of the story to another if it unites your people when they are threatened with fracturing.
When nations started to intermingle on a global scale, a sense of a greater identity must surely bring stability in some cases.
I don't have to think too hard to imagine that, with a lot of time, these things might turn and turn and turn a claim into something completely (or partly) fictitious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:When, in history, was it written down? I need to see which period in history it was, and whether that makes sense. The idea is that we know who was around in ever period, and again, there was no period of dark like that where the writing could be introduced.
We don't really know when the Torah was written down. According to the Torah and the Jewish tradition, it was written down by Moses on Mount Sinai but there is no corroborating evidence for this. Once again, using the Torah and the oral tradition as evidence that the Torah and oral tradition are true is not sound reasoning. The oldest existing fragments of the Torah are from ~200 BCE. Most scholars agree that at least some parts of the Torah were written well before then but there is no consensus as to when and how.
quote:What about the story of the Exodus? That gets added in ex post facto? Is that truly plausible?
Which part of the story of Exodus? I think its far more plausible to that many parts of the Exodus story have some roots in the truth but have been greatly exaggerated and embellished, than it is that the Egyptian records would make no mention of the fact that half the population of Egypt were Hebrew slaves who were suddenly freed and left.
quote:Also, the Bible says that they heard the voice of God, saying actual words and everything. I don't see, even if you're really charismatic, how you can convince THOUSANDS of people that they heard prophecy?
There are modern examples of exactly this kind of thing happening. For example, in the LDS church there is a story told that after the assassination of Joseph Smith there was a meeting of several thousand church members to decide the future of the Church. At this meeting, Brigham Young got up to speak and was "miraculously transformed" in to Joseph Smith before thousands of people. Thousands in the audience reported that he both looked, acted and spoke like Joseph Smith. Some of my great great grandparents were present in that meeting and told their children and grandparents about witnessing this miracle. If your argument is valid, then rationally this story has to be true as well.
The problem is that we actually have journals and records written at the time. From those journals we know that the meeting in question actually occurred and that Brigham Young actually spoke, but no one reported having seen him transform into Joseph Smith until long after the event occurred. Yet years later, thousands of people really believed it happened and they had seen it.
I'm not speculating here. We know from numerous modern examples that it is not only possible for thousands of people to remember seeing a miracle and hearing a voice that didn't actually happen, its actually really common. Whenever people gather to share such stories repeatedly, we should expect this kind of thing to happen. Common sense on this issue is wrong.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No offense, but that is not true. I derive my beliefs from all sorts of things. They are just not dependent on any particular one of those things. And I am not asking you to join me in anything, merely correcting what I consider to be a misstatement regarding Christianity. "Derives" is incorrect.
To put it another way, Judaism was good, fertile soil in which Christianity blossomed (and we owe it an enormous debt for that) but it was not the seed.
True. That was the eastern mystery religions, like Mithra.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Again, most arguments against mass revelation come from compartmentalization of the ginormous story that the mass revelation is. How did it develop? When in history did this happen? The thing about the unbroken chain the mass revelation is that if you pick a point in time, we know the people and the stories of that particular generation.
The flaw with this argument is that the only evidence you have for the stories being told in, for example, 1200 BCE are the stories relayed by people a thousand years later. There is no independent evidence that the people in 1200 BCE were telling the same story told in 200 BCE. The fact that the people in 200 BCE claimed that the stories came to them in a unbroken and unaltered chain from a 1000 years earlier is not evidence for the veracity of the claim.
In fact, the Bible itself reports events where the Law was "lost" and rediscovered. Based on the Biblical record itself, there is not an unbroken chain of millions of Jews repeating this story to their children and grandchildren. There are at least a few points when all but a few Jews in a given generation abandoned the Law so the stories had to be retaught, not by a million parents but by a tiny number of prophets. Those type of bottlenecking events dramatically weaken the strength of an unbroken chain representing millions of voices.
You're right that there was bottlenecking - the strength of millions lies in the the fact that it it is difficult to convince 2 million people that they spoke to God, and difficult to convince people that there were 2 million of their parents, grandparents or ancestors who experienced the same.
But that doesn't change the fact that one point the story of a mass revelation circulates. Here is the sticking point for me - I find it less plausible to go with an evolved explanation than to believe the truth of the Bible. It's not just the mass revelation, which is strong enough, in itself, it's the commandments that come along with it, the 10 plagues, the splitting of the sea, the drowning of the Egyptian army, the claim of the spoils they received, the riches they acquired - so many times they could have been all - um, my parents didnt tell me any of that, or really? So where is this wealth now? Or - are you people serious? We can't work the land for a full year? I still have a hard time picturing that just up and evolve.
Let me grant the fact that there is no independent verification of a period of about 800 years - that is only a couple of generations. It doesn't seem like long enough time for the story to evolve the way it would need to. And even at the end of it, I need a plausible explanation for how the group a few centuries BCE decided to believe the Torah if it hadn't happened? If they, themselves, hadn't heard those things told to them?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: In fact, the Bible itself reports events where the Law was "lost" and rediscovered.
No, it doesn't. I assume you're referring to Josiah. All that tells us is that in Menasseh and Amon's capital city and seat of power, they were able to prevent the Torah from being widely learned. And needless to say, they didn't teach it to their son/grandson Josiah.
We've been through this. Menasseh reigned for 55 years, and Amon for 2. And Josiah was 18 when he began his reforms. So we're talking 75 years of that. The Soviet Union only lasted 70, and the depths of Jewish ignorance among most Jews there, particularly in areas like Leningrad and Moscow (power centers) was beyond belief. And yet people in more outlying areas continued to learn, and even people in urban areas did so in private.
I know the Josiah is a big thing among people who poo-poo the Tanakh, but it's not what you think it is.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:When, in history, was it written down? I need to see which period in history it was, and whether that makes sense.
Why? When the issue at hand is whether some people deliberately misled a bunch of other people and in so doing created a new oral tradition that eventually got written down, why does the exact date matter? Why wouldn't "some time before it was written down" suffice?
You're dodging. Roughly, then. Are you talking about the late monarchy in Judah? Are you talking about the return to Zion during the Persian Empire? Are you talking about Hellenistic times, Hasmonean times, Roman times, Byzantine times, Muslim times? You're coming up with a cockamamie story of how things might have happened, and the milieu in which your story is supposed to have taken place absolutely does matter when it comes to judging its reasonableness.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: (Besides: why can't this, like the story of Josiah, be a bunch of hyperbole when read in context?)
What are you talking about? What story of Josiah is a bunch of hyperbole when read in context?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I find it less plausible to go with an evolved explanation than to believe the truth of the Bible.
Did you just say that the tales of the Bible are so outlandish -- the plagues, the Red Sea, etc. -- that you find it easier to believe that they happened than that they were made up?
quote:Let me grant the fact that there is no independent verification of a period of about 800 years - that is only a couple of generations.
Um....No. That's about 40 generations.
----------
quote:You're dodging. Roughly, then. Are you talking about the late monarchy in Judah? Are you talking about the return to Zion during the Persian Empire?
Nah. Let's say it happened well before the fall of Egypt. Again: why would it matter?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, I dunno. At some point, someone had to decide to insert a detail they didn't know for sure was actually truthful.
Not necessarily. I've heard numbers in anecdotes multiply by an order of magnitude in a single transmission with no indication that the teller was unsure of their facts.
Me too. On an individual basis. And I've seen everyone laughing about it. Or at the person who did it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I know the Josiah is a big thing among people who poo-poo the Tanakh...
I get the sense that this is a sore spot for some Orthodox. Is there a fairly broad class of Josiah apologetics?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:When, in history, was it written down? I need to see which period in history it was, and whether that makes sense.
Why? When the issue at hand is whether some people deliberately misled a bunch of other people and in so doing created a new oral tradition that eventually got written down, why does the exact date matter? Why wouldn't "some time before it was written down" suffice?
(Besides: why can't this, like the story of Josiah, be a bunch of hyperbole when read in context?)
The issue with time is that we know who was around at the time and you have to answer how it was plausible to get them to believe in a mass revelation, when it did not, in fact, happen.
The story of Josiah, in context, even read with teh slant that some people didn't know what a Torah was, still makes reference to the "people of God" people who lived underground with the prophetess Hulda who perpetuate the line back to Sinai. And there again, the simplest explanation to me is that the people had abandoned God's ways, and this resurfacing of something they all had heard about or known about as part of a national identity caused their repentance. I think it's crazy to say that they found a scroll that talked about a mass revelation that they had never heard about from their parents, so they all rend their garments, toss out their idols and join this new dude in his faith.
Makes much more sense to say that they repentend and the holiday was never celebrated as vigorously until that point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The issue with time is that we know who was around at the time...
No, you don't. You know who the Bible says was around at the time. You cannot name the 600,000 men who were presumably at Sinai. You can't even really say how many of them there were. You can't even be sure which Pharoah was Pharoah. And even then, those details -- if they were known -- would just be establishing the earliest bound for this particular version of the story.
And when it comes to the most recent bound, well, that doesn't matter at all. The more ancient the story, the more easily corrupted. It's far easier to pick at this claim the farther back you push it.
quote:this resurfacing of something they all had heard about or known about as part of a national identity caused their repentance
Think about that for a second. Now think harder about it. Can you not for a moment imagine how easily something like that might be exploited to invent a creation myth?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [Um....No. That's about 40 generations.
You're assuming people lived for 20 years? I'm assuming they lived 70. - that's 11 or 12 generations.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A generation doesn't start when the previous batch dies. 800 years is a very, very long time, especially for a pre-literate people. It's only taken 50 years for the Palestinians to insist that Israel has "always" been theirs. Those horrible little schools training Palestinian children to hate Jews and fire guns, those are a recent phenomenon. Do you think the kids all know their parents and grandparents are lying about their history? And how many of those kids are in fact being told the truth, but are relegated to the sidelines because the truth simply isn't as compelling a narrative?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: It was said before, I think by Raymond or by others - Humans hide from truth.
(Conversation may have moved on) Again, as I said in my first note, I'm not talking about truth. I'm talking about the things that you brought up like the evolution of religion and whether it is in their interest to develop a story about mass revelation.
I mean, I get that you like mass revelations, but it doesn't seem to be a terribly fit thing for a religion to evolve.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [Um....No. That's about 40 generations.
You're assuming people lived for 20 years? I'm assuming they lived 70. - that's 11 or 12 generations.
Ok, and even accepting that number, just how much word-of-mouth information do you have about what your family, any part of it, was doing around 1200? Do you even know what country they lived in?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I find it less plausible to go with an evolved explanation than to believe the truth of the Bible.
I suppose it's easier, but .. oh really?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You're right that there was bottlenecking - the strength of millions lies in the the fact that it it is difficult to convince 2 million people that they spoke to God, and difficult to convince people that there were 2 million of their parents, grandparents or ancestors who experienced the same.
It is very difficult to convince two million people that they spoke to god; it is not very difficult to enshrine the notion into the minds of descendants of those who once, supposedly, spoke to god and put this down into an official mythological record. We've already moved to the point where you're calling it 'difficult,' but as the point has repeatedly been made, this is not impossible.
Nor, when you think about it enough, is it improbable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How many of us, after all, vividly recall the famous line "It doesn't do anything; that's the beauty of it!"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So Armoth, you went very quiet. Just how much hard information do you have about your many-greats grandfather 800 years ago? Or, for that matter, about your once-great grandfather, 90 years ago? If I told you he had been in the BEF at Mons and had personally seen the ghostly archers show up to drive off the Germans (speaking of miracles witnessed by many people...) would you be able to refute me?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So Armoth, you went very quiet. Just how much hard information do you have about your many-greats grandfather 800 years ago? Or, for that matter, about your once-great grandfather, 90 years ago? If I told you he had been in the BEF at Mons and had personally seen the ghostly archers show up to drive off the Germans (speaking of miracles witnessed by many people...) would you be able to refute me?
I don't quite know what you're talking about. I don't even know who my great great grandfather was 800 years ago.
That's not the point. The point is that when you have a people claiming a mass revelation you need to come up with a story as to why it is plausible that someone convinced a people that there was a mass revelation, or as to how the story developed.
I think it is natural to convince people that something happened to one person. But not to an entire nation, and not to their ancestors. If you say that such stories evolve, there should be other religions who have evolved a mass revelation. If it is a flaw in human nature - similar claims should have surfaced in other places.
I place a value on evidence that is transmitted through people, when I believe it is the type of evidence that isn't corrupted in origin or transmission. Offerings of possibilities that something did not occur does not make it probable that something did not occur.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
But knowledge of the frequency with which groups of people come to believe extraordinary things that are NOT true gives us a baseline probability estimate. And that base estimate is, to say the least, significantly less than 50%.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
"Things that are not true" is too broad. That line of reasoning ultimately discredits believing anyone when they say anything. There are things and circumstances which makes believing a human being more and less believable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You said:
quote:Also, the Bible says that they heard the voice of God, saying actual words and everything. I don't see, even if you're really charismatic, how you can convince THOUSANDS of people that they heard prophecy?
quote:You're right that there was bottlenecking - the strength of millions lies in the the fact that it it is difficult to convince 2 million people that they spoke to God, and difficult to convince people that there were 2 million of their parents, grandparents or ancestors who experienced the same.
That certainly looks to me like a claim that knowledge of the ancestors' activity is important.
quote:I think it is natural to convince people that something happened to one person. But not to an entire nation, and not to their ancestors.
Why not? Again I point you to the Angels at Mons. This is within living memory; and sober, sensible newspapers not given to sensationalism did in fact report that British soldiers had seen ghostly apparitions appear in the skies and fire flaming arrows at the Germans. What should prevent me from forming a religion around that today? What is it that would cause people not to believe me, if I said this had happened to their ancestors?
Again: People have been convinced that events where they were personally present happened differently from what was actually the case. Their distant ancestors? Give me a break. And note, too, that we are speaking of pre-literate goat-herders. The habits of skepticism and source-criticism that children of the Internet age bring to bear as a matter of course didn't exist. The likes of Herodotus would blithely report the weirdest rumours about any nation they hadn't personally seen; if you got the caveat that they hadn't witnessed it themselves, you were lucky.
Let me also point this out: We are discussing this 2-million number as a difficulty; but is that what would happen if you were told the story? The rabbi, or whatever, is going "forty and six thousand from the tribe of X", and so on, and concluding with six-hundred-thousand; are you going to interrupt and say "Hang on, that's a lot of people, what did they all eat?" or are you going to pay attention to the founding myth of the tribe? I rather suspect that numerate boys who expressed skepticism might have found themselves going to bed without their supper; no need to postulate massacres, although that may have happened too.
You are taking a modern habit of thought, assuming that illiterate peasants had it too, and concluding that nobody could have got away with telling such whoppers. Did nobody ever tell you about the Big Lie? What's so special about a claim of millions, that it wouldn't be believed?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:If you say that such stories evolve, there should be other religions who have evolved a mass revelation. If it is a flaw in human nature - similar claims should have surfaced in other places.
They have. Many times. I noticed that you didn't respond to KoM's example of the Angels of Mons. Haven't you ever heard someone tell an urban legend prefaced with the phrase "This really happened to me" or "this really happened to a guy I know?"
People who don't believe often dismiss the story (thus the believers become the majority), or retell it with themselves as protagonist. People who do believe keep retelling the story. And even they embellish the story with conjecture and wishful thinking.
The only real point here (with respect to Judaism) is that the roots of truth are completely lost in the fog of history. Stories change too much to put faith in an account from 1914, much less B.C.E.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:... you need to come up with a story as to why it is plausible that someone convinced a people that there was a mass revelation, or as to how the story developed.
I thought I came up with one such a story fairly easily. Your response of "when could this of happened?" smacked to me of moving the goal posts, and seemed easily addressed by Tom.
Then the conversation died.
Now of course I don't expect we'll actually get you to change your mind, but some acknowledgment of the previous discourse would at least be encouraged.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
The Mons thing is contemporary and yet you can't find a single eye-witness.
And again, here's the difficulty. You need to come up with a plausible alternative where someone is convincing someone that their parents or grandparents experienced a mass revelation and never told you about it.
If you want to say it didn't happen that way, so that the person needn't convince people with that high a standard - then you need to explain why other cultures did not evolve a similar myth.
As to your point about pre-literate goat herders - I still don't find it compelling. Actually, it sounds more apologetic on your side than on mine. Firstly, because I still don't think you can convince and obligate a nation of illiterate goat-herders. Secondly, again, if this is a human flaw in the ancient times, why is Judaism the only religion that claims a mass revelation. Were the Israelite goat-herders the stupidest of all the goat-herders? (It's also worth-noting that Judaism has always had an extremely high literacy rate, but then we get to chicken and egg arguments)
As for your myth-number argument - You already know what I'm going to say. How did it start? How did it evolve? And if it evolved, why hasn't humanity evolved similarly?
You can't just undermine all human knowledge that hasn't been personally derived just because humans have the ability to lie. There are plausible lies and truths that it is implausible to lie about. We believe the latter, and reject the former. We all do it everyday.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:... you need to come up with a story as to why it is plausible that someone convinced a people that there was a mass revelation, or as to how the story developed.
I thought I came up with one such a story fairly easily. Your response of "when could this of happened?" smacked to me of moving the goal posts, and seemed easily addressed by Tom.
Then the conversation died.
Now of course I don't expect we'll actually get you to change your mind, but some acknowledgment of the previous discourse would at least be encouraged.
Look - all the atheist arguments smack to me of moving goal posts. So let's drop "moving goal posts" it's rhetoric.
"When could this have happened" is all about plausibility. If it happened in 1492, then along with the history we are told about what happened until 1492, we need to now explain how everything we thought happened until 1492 didn't happen. That's why we ask when it could have happened. As you can see, the alternative explanations will vacillate in their levels of compellingness depending on when you place the alt story.
Lastly - This conversation waned when the Jews had holiday. Chillax.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:And again, here's the difficulty. You need to come up with a plausible alternative where someone is convincing someone that their parents or grandparents experienced a mass revelation and never told you about it.
What's with the parents and grandparents? We are talking about 800 years between the claimed events and the written document. (And that's with modern chronology at that; nobody is going to check that carefully when they're sitting around the fire listening to founding myths. Do you fact-check everything you hear in a TV documentary?) 800 years is a lotta dang room. "Why didn't my great-great-great-great-grandfather tell me about this?" "Um, sweetheart, you may have noticed he's dead."
And again, that's with modern chronology, the careful reconstruction of scholars. As originally told, it would just be "A long time ago", before anyone now alive was born.
Further, there's no need to believe it was made up out of whole cloth. A volcanic eruption is by all accounts vastly impressive; put one of those next to a goatherder who can't read, and indeed he may well believe that a god spoke to him. The detailed interpretation would be what came later.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you want to say it didn't happen that way, so that the person needn't convince people with that high a standard - then you need to explain why other cultures did not evolve a similar myth.
Why? Could you explain the rationale? After all, you're claiming a far more singular event.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, so chronology. Try this:
1000 BCE: A tribe of goatherders, about 1000 strong, witness a huge volcanic eruption. Their shaman tells them it is a sign to move north.
1000-950 BCE: The story is told and retold; as with the Angels of Mons, it acquires details that weren't originally present. Note that at no point do people lie; I refer you to the earlier quoted cases of people convincing themselves that X happened which actually didn't. Thus, when someone says "And the voice from the Heavens said thus-and-so", nobody objects; in fact, they heard it too.
950-250 BCE: The original witnesses are all dead. The priests, whose task it is to tell this story, add to what was spoken by the voice. The ten commandments arise in this period. The story of the golden calf is made up, at first without any specific time to it. At some point someone asks "when did this happen?" and is answered "It was just after the voice from the Heavens."
250 BCE: The much-modified, ornamented, and codified structure is written down for the first time.
How is this implausible?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Armoth, you seem to be approaching this conversation as though we have one million journal entries of people all claiming that on the same day, in the same place God talked to them. I absolutely agree that this would be hard to refute and would be compelling.
But that's not what we have. We have a single old document that somewhat vaguely alludes to the idea that 800 years prior God appeared to the Jewish people. I actually went and read all of Exodus looking to find this reference and didn't. Then I googled "mass revelation" and found the verses in question, which appear to be in Deuteronomy 4 and 5. Christians, who believe Deuteronomy to be the word of God, do not seem to hold the same interpretation of these versus. Without your explanation of mass revelation, I would have read them as pertaining to God revealing himself to Moses and thus by extension the Jewish people. This is not apologetics, this is just how I would have understand it. So really, instead of a million journal entires, there is one interpretation of a few versus referencing something that happened almost a millenia prior. I have no desire to convince you that it didn't happen, but can't you see that this is not the overwhelmingly convincing case that you are suggesting?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:"Things that are not true" is too broad. That line of reasoning ultimately discredits believing anyone when they say anything. There are things and circumstances which makes believing a human being more and less believable.
It is a reason to be skeptical of anyone who claims something that has no evidence in favor of it beyond their own say so.
The average claim has loads of evidence behind. "I found a penny" is backed by the numerous pennies that I have personally found. In this case, not only is there no other evidence, but a particular lack of evidence in places there shouldn't any [lack of evidence].
As for "goal posts," I'm not sure what your original goalposts actually were. I recall you saying you would change your beliefs if we could prove that the event transpired in some manner other than actual mass revelation. People HAVE moved that goalpost because its an unreasonable one. We shouldn't have to prove anything. We should merely have to provide alternate explanations (of which there have been many offered). Each of those explanations have some approximate probability. The probability of all the available explanations (including "and anything else we haven't thought of") adds up to 100%.
If we have no prior knowledge, then one generally starts the base probabilities as equal. In which case Mass Revelation would be less than 50%, since there are more than two competing theories put forth in this thread alone. And several of those theories are based on known evidence that people's memories ARE incredibly mutable, within single lifetimes let alone hundreds of years. For Mass Revelation to have higher than average probability, there needs to be a better reason than "there's no plausible alternative explanations."
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The Mons thing is contemporary and yet you can't find a single eye-witness.
No, but you can (still) find believers who will swear to its authenticity. The author of the story couldn't even convince people that he had made it up. To those people this rang of truth, and they would not be dissuaded.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Look - all the atheist arguments smack to me of moving goal posts. So let's drop "moving goal posts" it's rhetoric.
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Armoth: if I can demonstrate to you why the event you describe does not constitute legitimate proof, will you renounce your faith?
I'm not sure it will be as simple as back and forth posting, but for rhetorical purposes, if you can undermine the strength of the mass revelation and the unbroken line of tradition toward that, I would have serious doubts.
The "goal post" was never disproving the exodus story, it was demonstrating that the "mass revelation and unbroken line of tradition" do not constitute a legitimate proof.
I don't see where that goal post has been moved.
Secondly, I'm not an atheist and see no flaw in believing something which is unproven and unprovable. But I do think there is harm in believing that something is proven and fully rational, when it is not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: And again, here's the difficulty. You need to come up with a plausible alternative where someone is convincing someone that their parents or grandparents experienced a mass revelation and never told you about it.
Just as an FYI, you have this in multiple forms now.
quote:If you want to say it didn't happen that way, so that the person needn't convince people with that high a standard - then you need to explain why other cultures did not evolve a similar myth.
Why? Think very carefully about this.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Here's a different line of questioning for Lisa, Armoth, et al.
In your Judaism, is "faith" a short cut to belief? Is it an epistemic matter in any way? Do you use the word faith at all to describe your Judaism?
Secondly, it is fairly common these days for Christian apologists to take a similar stance on faith. Christianity does not need "faith" as a short cut to belief; various apologetic arguments allegedly make Christians doctrines all but apodictically true.
However, these Christians reserve a place for faith - it is a matter of moral trust in God. Faith is about trusting God to fulfill various promises. Do you use the word faith in the same way?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Here's another hypothesis (in case we needed more):
1) The mass revelation story is first told as a metaphorical story, with the tellers knowing full well it didn't actually happen. It's a nice story, and is widely told.
2) Sometime in the next few hundred years it is considered to be a true story by those in charge of such things.
3) It is written down. (Could be before or after step 2)
No intentional deception needed. This sort of thing happens all the time, see George Washington's cherry tree or some other examples in this thread. You don't need to convince people that their grandfathers were at the revelation, you just need to get them to repeat the story. Their descendants will turn it into a "true story" eventually.
[ October 07, 2010, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:And again, here's the difficulty. You need to come up with a plausible alternative where someone is convincing someone that their parents or grandparents experienced a mass revelation and never told you about it.
What's with the parents and grandparents? We are talking about 800 years between the claimed events and the written document. (And that's with modern chronology at that; nobody is going to check that carefully when they're sitting around the fire listening to founding myths. Do you fact-check everything you hear in a TV documentary?) 800 years is a lotta dang room. "Why didn't my great-great-great-great-grandfather tell me about this?" "Um, sweetheart, you may have noticed he's dead."
And again, that's with modern chronology, the careful reconstruction of scholars. As originally told, it would just be "A long time ago", before anyone now alive was born.
Further, there's no need to believe it was made up out of whole cloth. A volcanic eruption is by all accounts vastly impressive; put one of those next to a goatherder who can't read, and indeed he may well believe that a god spoke to him. The detailed interpretation would be what came later.
What's the alt. story you are going on? You're assuming that because the oldest Torah to date leaves an 800 year gap between the mass revelation and that version that the Torah was presented in that generation? That's your alt theory?
Assuming that is true, you don't have to convince parents and grandparents, but the Torah wasnt just 5 books, it included histories up until that point. What did the people believe at that time? How did you convince them that a God had appeared, crazy miracles had been performed, obligations had been incurred and that they hadn't heard about it until then?
I've already addressed the goatherder thing. You assume it's so easy to get a goatherder to believe anything, literally ANYTHING casting aspersions on all traditions of relating back to that time. Fine. You are pointing to what you believe to be a flaw in human nature. I ask again, if that is a flaw, then similar sorts of claims should have arisen in other places in the world when they did not.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If you want to say it didn't happen that way, so that the person needn't convince people with that high a standard - then you need to explain why other cultures did not evolve a similar myth.
Why? Could you explain the rationale? After all, you're claiming a far more singular event.
Let me tackle this one and address it to Samp as well:
How do we know that the holocaust happened? It didn't happen to us. How do we know that there were gas chambers? It didn't happen to us! And everyone who was gassed is presumably dead. There is evidence. What kind of evidence? Testimony, shoes, photos (many of them are the same photos), documentation - it's possible that all of that was faked. You and I were not there. In my life, I've only ever heard of the holocaust from teachers, grandparents who claim they were there, and the way society in general takes it for granted that it happened. Despite the fact that people try to discredit the holocaust, oddly enough, it isn't compelling enough to convince us not to believe when someone says that the gas chambers could not have happened because the gas that was used should left residue.
It's possible that everyone was lying and that evidence was forged. Plausible? Not so much.
Granted, Sinai doesn't have shoes or photos, but my point is this: Humans give credibility to things based on probability. I've never been to China, I don't a few people who have, and I believe that the place exists.
I believe that if a large number of people believe they all spoke to God and witnessed some crazy miracles and that the event was so fantastic that it had the effect of obligating them to a whole bunch of laws - I find that to be a very compelling source of information since I think it's very very hard to get people to believe something that crazy. I believe that trying to couch it in the obscurity of history is dishonest. ----------------- Now, if you want to undermine that logical assumption that: "It is difficult to get people to believe that a mass revelation had occurred, that they had together experienced many miracles and that the events obligated them in a number of burdensome obligations. or that it is difficult to get people to believe that it happened to their ancestors"
You have to present a reasonable alt. Your most reasonable alt has been that the story evolved. What means is that you are pointing to a flaw in human nature - that goat herders believe crazy things, or that myths evolve and people believe crazy stories.
What that does is undermine my assumption about human nature and the extent to which I find mass claims to be credible. That's cool. I don't believe Jesus was divine. But other, larger claims, I have not yet undermined their credibility. Some claims are just too big for me to believe that people believed them. I would have thought it is difficult to get people to believe in a man as a god, but I know that it happens a lot in history, so there you go.
But there are no other claims of a mass revelation, and so I have not yet altered my assumption about the credibility of a claim like that. If you say that humans are corruptible and you give them ample time and reason to have evolved such corrupted tales, I want to see other cultures that have evolved similarly. if you cannot demonstrate that, I still find it compelling to say that the claim is too fantastic, too big, does not stem from person, to be disbelieved.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I believe that if a large number of people believe they all spoke to God and witnessed some crazy miracles and that the event was so fantastic that it had the effect of obligating them to a whole bunch of laws -
But you don't have that. You have documentation written hundreds of years after the fact that people believed this. Can you see how very different that is?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ok, so chronology. Try this:
1000 BCE: A tribe of goatherders, about 1000 strong, witness a huge volcanic eruption. Their shaman tells them it is a sign to move north.
1000-950 BCE: The story is told and retold; as with the Angels of Mons, it acquires details that weren't originally present. Note that at no point do people lie; I refer you to the earlier quoted cases of people convincing themselves that X happened which actually didn't. Thus, when someone says "And the voice from the Heavens said thus-and-so", nobody objects; in fact, they heard it too.
950-250 BCE: The original witnesses are all dead. The priests, whose task it is to tell this story, add to what was spoken by the voice. The ten commandments arise in this period. The story of the golden calf is made up, at first without any specific time to it. At some point someone asks "when did this happen?" and is answered "It was just after the voice from the Heavens."
250 BCE: The much-modified, ornamented, and codified structure is written down for the first time.
How is this implausible?
See above for my gripe with 800 years.
I'm sorry, but for me, that actually looked kinda ridiculous and not plausible. Things take a lot more time than that. It took 325 years for a consensus to be reached that Jesus was divine. To evolve the entire Torah, all of the miracles that happened to a mass of people, a claim about the destruction of Egypt and the wars and miracles with nations that continued up until that point? The events in the Torah may have happened 800 years ago, what about the book of Prophets and Writings? Too much to evolve, too fast, and without any other similar types of evolutions happening anywhere else or ever again. The angel of mons comparable to the Torah? Seriously?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I believe that if a large number of people believe they all spoke to God and witnessed some crazy miracles and that the event was so fantastic that it had the effect of obligating them to a whole bunch of laws -
But you don't have that. You have documentation written hundreds of years after the fact that people believed this. Can you see how very different that is?
Your homework assignment. Write a book full of obligations and laws, miracles, and mass revelations. Convince a people that it happened to their ancestors.
Do it to some tribe in Africa or something. Have fun.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Armoth, you seem to be approaching this conversation as though we have one million journal entries of people all claiming that on the same day, in the same place God talked to them. I absolutely agree that this would be hard to refute and would be compelling.
But that's not what we have. We have a single old document that somewhat vaguely alludes to the idea that 800 years prior God appeared to the Jewish people. I actually went and read all of Exodus looking to find this reference and didn't. Then I googled "mass revelation" and found the verses in question, which appear to be in Deuteronomy 4 and 5. Christians, who believe Deuteronomy to be the word of God, do not seem to hold the same interpretation of these versus. Without your explanation of mass revelation, I would have read them as pertaining to God revealing himself to Moses and thus by extension the Jewish people. This is not apologetics, this is just how I would have understand it. So really, instead of a million journal entires, there is one interpretation of a few versus referencing something that happened almost a millenia prior. I have no desire to convince you that it didn't happen, but can't you see that this is not the overwhelmingly convincing case that you are suggesting?
I don't understand. What are you reading differently?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Your homework assignment. Write a book full of obligations and laws, miracles, and mass revelations. Convince a people that it happened to their ancestors.
Do it to some tribe in Africa or something. Have fun.
I actually was going to suggest a thought experiment in this direction earlier in the discussion. Make me the supreme ruler with loyal followers in a low tech setting, and I don't think it'd be very hard. I doubt I'd need even half of your 800 years.
Added:
Are you saying you couldn't do it? What would be stopping you?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Here's a different line of questioning for Lisa, Armoth, et al.
In your Judaism, is "faith" a short cut to belief? Is it an epistemic matter in any way? Do you use the word faith at all to describe your Judaism?
Secondly, it is fairly common these days for Christian apologists to take a similar stance on faith. Christianity does not need "faith" as a short cut to belief; various apologetic arguments allegedly make Christians doctrines all but apodictically true.
However, these Christians reserve a place for faith - it is a matter of moral trust in God. Faith is about trusting God to fulfill various promises. Do you use the word faith in the same way?
pretty much. The same word in hebrew for "faith" is the word for loyalty - faithfulness.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Or truth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm sorry, but for me, that actually looked kinda ridiculous and not plausible.
Listen to what you are saying. You are saying that it is more plausible that God appeared and gave people nonsensical rules on which an entire religion was eventually constructed than it is that people are capable of error.
Think about that for a second. Think about what you're calling "plausible." I think you'll conclude that your bias here has made you unable to fairly determine the sheer implausibility of Jewish doctrine. Remember what I mentioned earlier, about Card saying that one argument for the truth of the LDS church is that he found it more plausible that God had appeared to Joseph Smith and helped him translate some mysterious golden plates (which later vanished) than the idea that Smith produced a credible forgery?
Would you agree that it is more likely that God appeared to Joseph Smith as believed by Mormons than it is that Smith was a good writer?
quote:I ask again, if that is a flaw, then similar sorts of claims should have arisen in other places in the world when they did not.
Again: why? I think we have numerous examples of similar claims. What we have not presented, mainly for lack of contemporary evidence, is identical claims. That said, heck, the Torah is hardly the only book of scripture to claim a mass revelation visible to ancestors; after all, presumably everyone on Earth noticed the eclipse after the death of Jesus. How did they lie about that, just 200-some years after it supposedly happened?
quote:Your homework assignment. Write a book full of obligations and laws, miracles, and mass revelations. Convince a people that it happened to their ancestors.
Do it to some tribe in Africa or something.
How much time do I have to evolve those obligations and laws? Because, yeah, I have absolutely no doubt that this could be done within a couple generations, much less a thousand years.
[ October 07, 2010, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If you want to say it didn't happen that way, so that the person needn't convince people with that high a standard - then you need to explain why other cultures did not evolve a similar myth.
Why? Could you explain the rationale? After all, you're claiming a far more singular event.
Let me tackle this one and address it to Samp as well:
How do we know that the holocaust happened? It didn't happen to us. How do we know that there were gas chambers? It didn't happen to us! And everyone who was gassed is presumably dead. There is evidence. What kind of evidence? Testimony, shoes, photos (many of them are the same photos), documentation - it's possible that all of that was faked.
Much like when I asked you about mass revelation versus the moon landing (your latest abstruse comparison between something that happened thousands of years ago to something that happened in the modern, much more media infused era), do you honestly think that there's as much evidence for the mass revelation as there is for the holocaust?
Or, perhaps, might there be some difference between things that happened BC versus something that happened, say, within living memory in an era of mass media and stuff like 'video footage?'
quote:Your homework assignment. Write a book full of obligations and laws, miracles, and mass revelations. Convince a people that it happened to their ancestors.
Do it to some tribe in Africa or something.
Something like this could be done in, say, two generations. And it's certainly harder than it could have been than the mechanisms by which oral tradition and the purging of nonbelievers by force could transcribe an event of mass revelation into written history via a tribe of peoples living over two thousand years ago.
Not that we have to do this to cast doubt on the concept of the mass revelation being reliably, certifiably evidenced.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I'm glad this subject got the attention it deserved. It was unsurprisingly like I said, and I was also interested to discover the line fed to some orthodox jews, like armoth and lisa, isn't accepted by others. I asked a couple of rabbis who thought it was absolutely a matter of faith and personal belief. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I'm glad this subject got the attention it deserved. It was unsurprisingly like I said, and I was also interested to discover the line fed to some orthodox jews, like armoth and lisa, isn't accepted by others. I asked a couple of rabbis who thought it was absolutely a matter of faith and personal belief.
I call BS.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I had inquired about this with members of the congregation har hashem. they were like 'lol no' but that would sort of be expected, I guess, given it's a Reform community.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I'm glad this subject got the attention it deserved. It was unsurprisingly like I said, and I was also interested to discover the line fed to some orthodox jews, like armoth and lisa, isn't accepted by others. I asked a couple of rabbis who thought it was absolutely a matter of faith and personal belief.
I call BS.
Well, you would, wouldn't you. That's ok, they were very open and friendly and I respect their belief perfectly when it doesn't pretend to be backed up by irrefutable proof.
Whether or not you believe this transaction took place doesn't really matter to me, I've seen your lopsided standards of proof. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I don't understand. What are you reading differently?
From Deuteronomy, Chapter 5:
quote: 1 Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. 4 The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain. 5 (At that time I stood between the LORD and you to declare to you the word of the LORD, because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.)
With your explanation, I understand how you interpret this. But without that, I would have read it as the Lord revealing himself to the people of Israel via Moses. Verse 5 especially would have lent to that interpretation. I am not religious, so I am not holding up any interpretation as the right one. It just struck me odd that I'd never heard of the Mass Revelation before even though I was raised in an environment that considered the Old Testament to be gospel. I do not think that the text itself makes it particularly clear that a Mass Revelation happened.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)