Tuesday, February 13, 2018


June 21, 2018:

My title Reason to Believe has excited some reaction that perhaps looking for reason is unnecessary or even dangerous. Is it not more appropriate to rely on emuna peshuta? Surely that is the foundation of the commitment of klal Yisroel to HKBH, and looking for reason sometimes leads to questions which undermine emuna.
So I decided to record some sources from the tradition that explicitly endorse the need for adding reason to emuna peshuta. At the end I will add a comment on the status of emuna peshuta itself.
רמב"ם יסודי התורה א א:

א יְסוֹד הַיְסוֹדוֹת וְעַמּוּד הַחָכְמוֹת לֵידַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם מָצוּי רִאשׁוֹן. וְהוּא מַמְצִיא כָּל נִמְצָא. וְכָל הַנִּמְצָאִים מִשָּׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ וּמַה שֶּׁבֵּינֵיהֶם לֹא נִמְצְאוּ אֶלָּא מֵאֲמִתַּת הִמָּצְאוֹ:
[[The foundation of foundations and pillar of all wisdoms is to know there exists a first Being Who gives existence to everything that exists,,,,To know requires reason; it is not merely believing. True, the standard translation of the
         להאמין                  Says                ספר המצות   
, but both Rabsbi Heller and Kapach say that is a mistranslation.
And even if it is accurate, the quote above is later.]]    
דרך ה א א

מציאות ה׳: כל איש מישראל צריך שיאמין וידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון קדמון ונצחי והוא שהמציא וממציא כל מה שנמצא במציאות והוא האלוק ב״ה:
[[Every Jew must believe and know that there is a first Being……..Ramchal leaves no room for doubt – knowledge must be added to belief.]]
ברכות י"ז. מהרש"א

בכל לבבך כו'. הכוונה בזה כמ"ש הפלוסופים האלהיים דחייב כל אדם להשכיל בידיעת מציאותו ואחדותו ויכלתו וידיעת דרכיו כו' ית' ב"ה כפי יד שכלו של אדם אך ע"פ אמונתנו והתורה וכל מה שנראה לו בשכלו שהוא נגד תורתנו הקדושה לא יאמין בו ויתלה הדבר בקט שכלו וז"ש ר"מ גמור בכל לבבך כו' לדעת דרכי ה' אשר ממנו תמצא מופת למציאותו ואחדותו ויכלתו שהוא ודאי דבר גדול כי גם זה האיש משה רבינו בקש על זה הודיעני נא את דרכך אך אמר שתשקוד על דלתי תורתי שלא תזוז ממנה ודבר שיעלה על לבך והוא נגד תורת משה הוא דרך אפיקורסות ולא תשגיח בו כלל וזה הלשון שנינו הוי שקוד ללמוד תורה ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורוס דהיינו על דבר שהוא נגד התורה ולפי שכל עסקי האדם הם במחשבה ובמעשה ובדבור אמר נצור תורתי בלבך שהיא במחשבה ונגד עיניך תהא יראתי במעשה שמור פיך כו' הוא בדבור ומסיים וטהר וקדש כו' הוא דבר נוסף כמ"ש שיקדש אדם עצמו גם במותר לו ואז ואני וכו' וק"ל:
[[Summary: Every person is obligated to have intellectual understanding of G-d’s existence, unity, power and ways….[he must know His ways] because from that knowledge he can find proof for His existences, unity and power, and that is definitely a great thing……..]]

עשרה מאמרות

המאמר הראשון הוא מאמר ה' אחד
שורש הדברים הוא שורש השרשים (דברים ד, לט) וידעת היום והשבות אל לבבך כי ה' הוא האלהים, רצה לומר ידיעה בלב בהשגה מופתיית נוסף על הקבלה מצד אבותיו, כאשר האריך בעל חובת הלבבות בשער היחוד, וזהו מרומז במה שכתוב (דה"א כח, ט) דע את אלהי אביך, רצה לומר נוסף על מה שהוקבע אמונת האלהות בלבך מצד אביך דהיינו הקבלה איש מפי איש, דע אתה בעצמך מצד ההשגה. וזהו רמז הפסוק (שמות טו, ב) זה אלי ואנוהו אלהי אבי וארוממנהו, ורצה לומר כשזה אלי שהוא אלי מצד השגתי וידיעתי, אז ואנוהו מלשון אני והו, רצה לומר אני והו דבוקים ביחד כביכול, כי הידיעה נתפסת בלב. אמנם כשאין לי הידיעה מצד ההשגה רק מצד הקבלה שהוא אלהי אבי, אז וארוממנהו, כי הוא רם ונשגב ממנו ואני מרוחק מאתו במצפון הלב. על כן חל החיוב להיות בקי במופתים של חובת הלבבות, ויהיו מומנים בלב היטב היטב, וכל שער היחוד יהיה בלב וזכרון מיוחד לידע ולהבין כי ה' אחד ושמו אחד:

[[Summary: one must in addition to the tradition he has received from his ancestors and teachers achieve his own intellectual understanding of the fundamental of emuna. And he quotes the חובות הלבבות as the authority for this.]]

So we have Rambam, Ramchal, Meharsha, Shelah, and Chovos Halevovos [at least!] in favor of finding reason.

I think casting emuna peshuta as opposed to reason is not accurate. The reliability of the mesora is itself a reason. This is similar to the approach of the Kuzari. What these sources are saying that the reason of the mesora is not enough reason.

It should be noted in this context that our sources describe emuna peshuta in terms of rejection of abstract philosophy [Moreh Nevuchim] and reliance on the mesora [Kuzari].
. Here are the sources I found [in the Aspakalaria]:

Sefer Hachinuch, introduction: emuna via witnesses, historical record, 3 million witnesses to orignal event, including all hearing Hashem speak.
Kinas Sofrim, beginning: "yesod hayesodos" means emuna via kabala amitis.
Shela Hakadosh, asara mamaros, beginning of maamar 1, chakira or tradition from the avos.
Keser shem tov. 
Meiri, Mishle 30:6 - first fix your emuna via kabala hanevuis and then do chakira.
Akeda, Gen 12:1 - temimus = emuna received via das or navi. [Chakira can at most establish existence, not power and hashgacha and knowledge. So the Torah did not emphasize them. the miracles done by M"R are not chakira but rather sensible events that suffice to prove to all.]
                Ex 17:1 (perek 2) - [We must believe in creation, but not necessarily in creation ex nihilo, so the Torah begins with bereishis, but not with yesh me-ayin!!]
Alshich, Deut 4:44 - the source of emuna was the experience of the exodus with all its miracles. Not via chakira since that always remains open to doubt.  [[then tradition communicates the events, with the implications for emuna to later generations.]]
Or Hachaim, Ex 10:1 - a reason for the makos is that they are ikarei haemuna b'lev Yisroel.
Malbim, Ex 20, 2 - Hashem planted in man, from birth, the knowledge that there is a Creator and that  He is one - he who looks into his soul;s with the eyes of his wisdom will find these known principles.
Emunos v"deos, hakdama, perek 6 - Jews do chakira in order to verify what we know from the prophets and to answer critics. Even though all can be proved, until we achive the proof, and for those who will not succeed, we have the truth from the prophets. 
Kuzari, 1: 15-27 - foundation of emuna is the event of Sinai and the tradition through the generations. The philosophers have no tradition, so they had to speculate/investigate on their own....
                1:6-15 - we could accept hyuli [[as without beginning - so it seems from context!!!]], or worlds beforethis one, and we would beleive that this world began at a fixed time, and the first humans were Adam and Noach. [[!!]] 
Ramchal, Derech Hashem, I:1 - all the foundations were revealed to the avos and to all of klal Yisroel at Sinai and trasnmitted through the generations, and can also be demonstrated....
Hcochma u'Musar, siman 46 - responsibility to use hisbonenus hasechel to base emuna.
                129 - one who uses his sechel to analyze emuna will find proofs in experience of the truth of his emuna. 
                207 - argument from design.
                Part 2, siman 2 - two types of emuna - elokei avoseinu, who accepts the tradition from the avos, and elokeinu, who belives because of his chakira. Strength of former - more stable, able to whistand attack. Strength of latter - not merely habitual.
                96 - Three types of belivers [in general] - pesi yaamin l'kol davar - a great deficiency. He who believes only what his sechel accepts - also a deficiency, due to the weakness of human sechel. And the middle way: to use sechel to produce prrofs of emuna, and to believe the tradition that is based upon public experiences/miracles [mefursamos], like the exodus etc and Jewish survival. 
Michtav me'Eliyahu, [Arugment from design, a heart oriented to truth will find emuna naturally, negius prevents seing the truth....]
                III:176 - the only secure foundation for emuna is depth in study of Torah. Before that, when one bases his emuna on the tradition from tha avos and trusting chachomim, if he elects to make his sechel the sole judge of the truth of the emuna, that shows that he is looking for a way out, since the sechel is a judge who is easy to bribe or has already been bribed.... But we do ahve a ersponsibility to try to finde intellecutal basis for emuna, just not to reject emuna when it appears to contradict sechel. 

June 24, 2018

In chapters II and VI the criterion for belief and knowledge is high enough probability. The question is raised how this relates to the thirteen principles of Jewish belief. Can “I believe with a perfect faith…” be satisfied with high probability?
In Living Up to the Truth I answered as follows:
“If all we have is greater probability than alternatives, does this justify absolute belief? What of the principles of Jewish belief which state: “I believe with a perfect faith that...”? Here we are suffering from a mistranslation: ma’amin and emuna in Hebrew do not mean faith but rather faithfulness - living faithfully to an idea or principle.   Proof texts: Genesis 15:6; Exodus 19:9; Numbers 14:11, 20:12; Deut. 28:66; Psalms 116:10, 119:66; Job 4:18, 15:15, among others. When there is enough evidence to justify the decision to act, then we should act with perfect faithfulness. Once the evidence favors surgery, the operation should be carried out without compromise. Jewish belief demands complete faithfulness to principles for which we have adequate evidence of truth.”
I still think that what I wrote then is true. But there is at least one source for which it is not adequate:  

דעת תבונות
ג) אמרה הנשמה - הנה כל העיקרים הי"ג הנה הם מאומתים אצלי בלי שום ספק כלל; אבל יש מהם שהם מאומתים לי וגם מובנים, ויש מהם שהם מאומתים לי באמונה, אך לא מבוארים מן ההבנה והידיעה:
Translation: All thirteen principles are verified for me without any doubt at all…….

It seems clear from this passage in the דעת תבונות that my discussion of emuna meaning faithfulness to an idea and not complete conviction of its truth is not correct for the thirteen principles of emuna.

Then the question will be: if all we can achieve for the Torah in general is sufficiently high probability, how can we ever achieve this kind of complete conviction for the thirteen principles? Must we credit an absolute conviction going beyond reason?

I don’t think so.  
I wrote Reason to Believe for outsiders considering whether to accept the Torah as true. I claim there is adequate reason for them to do that. It does not follow that this adequate reason by itself enables them to fulfill all Jewish obligations.

How then shall we fulfill the obligation to believe the thirteen principles without any doubt? By adding more evidence to the reason that I presented in the book.

Here is how it might go. There are [at least] two sources of certainty:  (1) objective, a priori metaphysical necessity, like 2+2-4; nothing can be both round and square; numbers cannot be colored etc.; and (2) epistemological, a posteriori necessity of overwhelming evidence making any alternative impossible to take seriously, like I exist [not everyone agrees]; I see a table; I did not go swimming yesterday; I was not cloned but have biological parents. In sense (2) “certainty” does not refer to the events but to my belief: it is impossible for me to believe otherwise since the evidence I have is overwhelming.

If we are to treat all 13 ikarei haemuna as certain then (1) is out of the question. There is no objective necessity for prophecy or the coming of moshiach.

But (2) might work - if we consider evidence then it can be overwhelmingly likely that the principles are true. The words of the Chinuch which say that it is impossible to believe otherwise might be referring to the fact that the public experience of maamad har Sinai and the tradition of that experience passed down to us make us all witnesses to HKBH's existence and yetziaas mitzraim so it is impossible to take seriously any alternative. [Compare yesodie haTorah chap 8 on the belief in M”R’s nevua.]  And then the 13 will follow with the same certainty since the same tradition tells us that HKBH communicated them to us.



#1 Aztec "national revelation"

There is another type of story that would not leave evidence for the audience to whom the story is told. This is a story placed so far in the past that no information survives from that time. In this case the story may involve public events. Even if the story describes an event that was supposedly experienced by the whole world, the audience cannot reason that its memory would have been preserved, since nothing at all was preserved from that time. So, for example, stories about a remote time when all people understood the language of the animals and conversed with them will not contradict KP. [See p. 154 of Reason to Believe.]

The Aztec story is not dated in our calendar system, so it fits what I wrote. Also, I checked the original. The migration is in fact true. 

I have received the following sources from David Greenberg that invalidate the entire question:

I found something on the Aztecs:

It seems the Aztec legend is NOT that the god spoke to everyone in a national revelation, but rather that the war god communicated to the priests, who then relayed the message on. Not quite a national revelation. Here are 3 sources:

See pg. 31-32: "Huitzilopochtli, later identified as a god of war, communicated directly with his high priests via dreams and profound trances, bestowing on them omens, prophecies and navigational tools to arrive at their promised land."

2- "These priests voiced Huitzilopochtli’s oracular directions as to where the combined Mexica-Aztec tribe was next to travel."

3- "Huitziton, a person of great authority...heard in the branches of a tree the trilling of a small bird...struck at this, and communicating his impressions to another personage...they both induced the Aztecs to leave their country, interpreting the song as a mandate from divinity."

See pg. 140

So it looks that the Aztec belief was that their war god did not communicate to the people, but rather to the high priests, who then relayed the claimed divine message on to the masses. But according to these sources, the Aztecs did not have a legend that it was the god Huitzilopochtli who spoke directly to everybody. So we can see this is definitely not a national revelation from god, but rather a relayed message from priests. This, unlike a national revelatory claim, is exactly what we’d expect to see in legends.

Added July 3, 2017;
There are three weaknesses in the account of the Aztec “national revelation” as a counter-example to KP – i.e. as a false NET.
1.       First, the translation presented is from A Scattering of Jades published in 2003 by The University of Arizona Press, pp 82-100. It is not mentioned at all in Handbook to Life in the Aztec World Oxford University Press; 1 edition (October 3, 2007) by Prof. Manuel Aguilar –published four years later by Oxford. I have written to Prof. Aguilar concerning the authenticity of the Jades text and the validity of the translation and have not yet received a reply. So at present the entire text is in question. And as David Greenberg pointed out there is nothing resembling a direct communication of a god with the Aztec people in Aguilar’s text.
2.     Second, in order to satisfy the condition of NET that requires the tradition record an event that would be expected to be remembered – to create a national tradition – at the time when the tradition started. This requires [at least] two characteristics of the tradition.  
a.    The tradition must specify an appropriate time for the event. If the tradition assigns the event to a date too far in the past, or the tradition assigns an unknown/uninterpreted date to the event, or fails to assign any date to the event then at the time the tradition is formed no one will expect to remember what happened at that time, and then the tradition is not an NET at all. In the Jades document the dates are given as compounds: In section VI "2-rabbit 1286" "11-reed 1295" and at the end "2-house 1325". I asked Prof. Aguilar what is the source of the modern dates 1286, 1295 and 1325? Did the author of the text [in the 16th century] have a modern calendar going back 200 years? Did the translator or the editors insert the modern numbers of the dates? How did they calculate the dates? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_calendar is the Wikipedia page on the Aztec calendar. The phrases “2-rabbit” “11-reed” and “2-house” are days of the year; there is no provision whatsoever for counting years themselves – certainly not modern Christian numbers.
b.    Also, the content of the story must be such that we expect it to create a national tradition. A comparison of the Aztec text with the Torah’s description of the Jewish national revelation reveals a vast difference in this regard: the Torah’s story would surely be remembered while the Aztec story would not surely be remembered – perhaps would not be remembered at all. The Torah’s story included the following elements:  A prediction of the revelation before the exodus from Egypt; detailed instructions to prepare for the event, and positions to be taken during the event; the event of revelation is accompanied by vast pyrotechnics – fire, smoke, cloud, earth shaking, sound of the shofar; the reaction of the people is panic; the revelation includes the commandment of a weekly holiday; the plea of the people that there not be a repeat; repetition of the story in detail in Deuteronomy and at least five separate mentions of the story in the text of the Torah; and a specific command not to forget the event. By contrast the Aztec story reports the god speaking to the people in completely natural terms without any reaction on the part of the people or change in their culture. Indeed, the completely unemphasized nature of the narrative encourages David Greenberg’s suggestion that the sense of the text is not a direct communication from the god to the people but rather communication through the priests though the intermediaries are not mentioned. Calling these communications “Aztec national revelation” and encouraging comparison with Sinai is grossly out of proportion. The same holds for the miracles reported in the Aztec text – the contrast with the plagues in Egypt, the splitting of the sea, the manna, the destruction of Korach makes comparison grossly out of proportion.

Added July 17, 2017


The Aztec and related peoples of central Mexico employed the cycle of 52 years, constructed, like its Maya equivalent, of concurrent 365-day years and 260-day cycles, any position of the former coinciding with a given position of the latter only at 52-year intervals. Again leap days were not used. At completion of the 52 years, known as “binding of the years,” elaborate ceremonies were held to avert destruction of the world expected on that occasion. The last occurrence before the Spanish conquest was in ad 1507. Although the last creation of the world was designated by a day name, neither that nor any other was in general use in central Mexico as the start of an era. Aztec reckoning is normally from their arrival in the Valley of Mexico, supposedly the year 1 Flint (ad 1168).
There is much confusion in placing events in Mexican history because no system of distinguishing one 52-year cycle from another was employed except by writing every year glyph throughout the period covered, a clumsy arrangement. Each year was named for either its last day (omitting the five-day unlucky period) or for the last day of the fifth month (both choices have distinguished supporters). In either case, only four day names (House, Rabbit, Cane, and Flint), each with its accompanying numeral, could designate a year. The Spanish conqueror Hernán Cortés seized the Aztec capital in 1521, year 3 House, but some past event, also assigned to a year 3 House but unlocated in a full sequence of years, might refer to ad 1261, 1313, or 1365, etc. Month positions were rarely given in chronological statements.
Peoples of Oaxaca and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec
Pictorial books of the Mixtec of Oaxaca record events in the lives of ruling families covering seven centuries, but, again, happenings are fixed only by the day on which each occurred and the year in which the day fell. Sequence is usually clear, but at times there is doubt as to which 52-year period is meant when parenthetical material, such as life histories of secondary characters, is inserted.
No era is recognizable. A clouded entry concerning the descent to Earth of the Sun and Venus, perhaps assignable to ad 794, is a logical starting point, but other entries are earlier.
Little is known of the calendar of the Zapotec, neighbours of the Mixtec. Years began on a different set of days, and glyphs differ from those of Mixtec and Aztec. Months are not recorded on monuments, which are numerous, and no chronological system has survived. Most Zapotec texts are early.
Rare inscriptions in western Chiapas, southern Veracruz, and the Guatemalan Pacific coast resemble the abbreviated lowland Maya Initial Series used in script and on a single sculpture in that numerical bars and dots are in a vertical column with period glyphs and month signs suppressed, clearly place numeration, that is, the value of each unit was shown by its position in the column. The linguistic affiliation of their sculptors is unknown.
All texts are either fragmentary or damaged; the two complete ones, unlike Maya Initial Series, open with days signs (and different ones at that). If, as one may reasonably assume, the series of bars and dots departed from those day signs, a fixed era is questionable. Nevertheless, some scholars postulate use of the Maya era ( 4 Ahau 8 Cumku). This little understood system may have been ancestral to the Maya Initial Series, the Maya perhaps developing a fixed era, for they alone seem to have been interested in an exact chronological system.

Added July 30, 2017:
A friend writes: It's worth mentioning that I searched a bit on youtube, and the only documentary on the Aztecs that I found which was done by an organization with name recognition was National Geographic. Professor Aguilar-Moreno is actually one of the experts that speaks during the documentary. The documentary makes no mention of the document allegedly authored by Montezuma's grandson, and it makes no mention of any Aztec myths about a national revelation or miracles. It simply says that after they made a human sacrifice out of the daughter of a nearby tribe leader on her wedding day to an Aztec, they were chased by the other tribe away from the mainland and onto the uninhabited island that they settled and made into the capital of their eventual empire. No mention of any fighting or casualties even, just chased away from the mainland. So that further strengthens points 1 and 3 that you make.

#2 The Fatima Vision

Added June 3, 2018
Revised June 4, 2018

My comments in double brackets [[]].

Kuzari Argument Part 13
Updated 7/14/2017 for several typos for the date of the Sun miracle.

This is  a continuation of of my Kuzari Posts begun here.  It might be helpful to skim my prior Kuzari argument posts, but this post is more or less a stand alone, at least for people who have some familiarity with the Kuzari argument.

This post will flesh out an alleged  miracle and it’s consequences I very briefly cited in June  2014.

Lets examine one version of the Kuzari 'proof' that the Exodus with all the miracles and the Sinai revelation really occurred.

Rabbi Gottlieb (RG) Principle: Let E be a possible event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence. If the evidence does not exist, people will not believe that E occurred.

This can be briefly restated as: If  people believe an event occurred, then evidence must exist for the event's occurrence.

[[Let’s call the last paragraph AK.

This is a gross mistake: RG and AK are very different in content. AK implies that if people believe that Muhammad ascended to the sky on a fiery horse, there must be evidence that he did. RG does not imply this. His mistake is to leave out the qualification: “event which, had it really occurred, would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence.” Muhammad’s ascent does not meet this condition.A great deal of his argument below is undone by this mistake.

In addition, he has omitted the rationale for RG. Since this will be important below I will insert here material from previous publications.

From Living p to the Truth 8 years ago:


   Now let’s examine the principle itself. What kind of principle is this?  At base it is a principle of empirical psychology.  It is a principle describing  how people come to believe things. It says that under certain conditions, beliefs won’t form.  People will not come to believe in events that the Kuzari’s principle forbids. 
        Why should we accept this principle?  After all, everything relies on this principle.  Could we defeat it?  Here is one way not to go about it.  We should not say: “You are telling me that just because it is an event that if it had happened would have left behind enormous, easily available  evidence, that you can’t get people to believe it?  I don’t think that is right.  I can imagine very well that a very influential priesthood, or a very powerful leader, or a person whom you would think has magical powers, convincing people to believe in even things like that.  I don’t think there is any limit to what the populace can believe.  I think I could even write a very convincing novel describing such a case and get it published.” 
     Does your ability to imagine such a case defeat the principle?  The answer is no.  This is a principle about real people in the real world.  The principle doesn’t say anything about your imagination.  People can imagine all sorts of things.  They can even imagine impossible things. People have imagined squaring a circle;     it just happens to be mathematically impossible.  I know people who imagine machines that run without loss of any energy.  There are people who design them every year.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that it is impossible, yet they do it anyway. 
      The limits are on your imagination are is of no interest.  The question is: Do real people in the real world accept beliefs like that?  The only way to defeat the Kuzari’s principle is to find real cases.  Real cases of communities that have come to believe events which if they had happened would have left behind enormous, easily available evidence of its occurrence, and didn’t happen, and therefore the evidence wasn’t present.  I have never yet come across such an event, nothing even remotely resembling such an event. 
From Introduction to the Kuzari Principle three years ago:
    The conclusive reason that the critic’s story is unacceptable is this. Even if it were plausible, that does not mean that it really happened that way. Many ideas are intuitively plausible and turn out to be wrong. It was plausible that the earth is flat and stationary. It was plausible that the heavens always existed. It was plausible that no machine heavier than air can fly. All these ideas turned out to be false. So plausibility is not enough. We need reason to think that the gradual transformation really caused the belief in national revelation.
            What kind of reason could that be? The very best reason would be direct evidence that it happened that way. We might for example discover the diary of the deceivers that created the story. But that is very unlikely. So we will have to settle for indirect evidence.
            How much evidence can we ask for? Here it depends upon what the critic claims. If he claims only that his scenario [or any alternative scenario] is possible, then we should agree with him: we set no limits on what is possible. But we do not have to give up our position due to other possibilities – no matter what you believe there are always other possibilities. Only if the critic claims that his scenario [or an alternative] is probable does he present a real challenge to our position. How much evidence must he produce to justify his claim that his scenario [or some alternative] is probable?
The very minimum indirect evidence would be for the critic to find some cases in which we know that this type of transformation did in fact happen. If he can prove that it has happened in some cases, then he can say that it is reasonable to think it happened here too. On the other hand, suppose he cannot find any cases in which his explanation is known to have worked. Then he is saying that something that no one has ever seen happen is the explanation of the belief in Sinai. That is unacceptable.
So here is the challenge to the critic. You say that the belief in Sinai was produced by a gradual transformation of a natural event. And this transformation happened in spite of the fact that the belief in Sinai is an event that would be very hard to forget. You need to show us somewhere this has happened – somewhere a natural transformation of a natural event produced a false belief in an event equally unlikely to be forgotten.
            [And – finally! - this is the answer to our persistent critic in the brackets. You say that perhaps our claimed self-knowledge is a mistake. Perhaps we are more impressionable than we think. Perhaps we would accept false stories that would be rarely forgotten. Well, the only way to see whether we are so impressionable is to find real cases in which we have accepted such stories. If you find real cases, then we will admit that it is a natural part of our psychology to accept such stories. But if you cannot find any real cases, then we will have overwhelming evidence that our psychology works the way we say – we will not accept stories that are rarely forgotten.]
            Here the critic meets a major problem. There are no parallel beliefs at all. There are no beliefs in fictitious national events of a kind that would be rarely forgotten. So the critic will not be able to show us cases in which his gradual transformation process produced such a belief.
            This is surprising, but true. In all the myths that people believed, or still believe, not one is a national event that would be rarely forgotten. The critic cannot show us even one case where his transformation produced such a belief, because there are no such beliefs.
            [So we are not impressionable as the brackets critic claimed. There are no known cases of a nation accepting a belief in a false story about a national event of a type that would be hard to forget.]
            So, as we said at the beginning of this section, there is no reason whatsoever to think that the critic’s explanation has ever worked. Therefore it is unreasonable to think that it is the real explanation in the case of the national revelation at Sinai.
(End of insert.)
It is also a fact that there I move to the formulation of a national tradition which is central in my Book Reason to Believe. I will not stress that change here.]]

[RG means to say a mass of people. RG does not mean if a only a few people.]

Lets try to apply this principle to the ‘Event’ = On October 13,1917 in Fatima, Portugal:
The Sun miraculously  danced or performed other miracles in the Sky. Other miraculous things occurred:  wet clothes became suddenly and completely dry; wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain that had been falling became dry.”

The main source I will use is the book The Sun Danced - Myth, Miracles, and Modernity by Jeffrey S. Bennett 2012.  He is an Assistant Professor of Sociology and Religious studies.  Some Sociologists study origins of myths, their evolution, use in society etc: Such disciplines have much more relevance to religion and myth formation as opposed to Math or Philosophy or Math Philosophy.

[[For specialists in debate: this is meant to discredit my qualifications on this subject. But of course I never appeal to my qualifications: my arguments must stand on their own.]]

Beginning in the spring of 1917, three  shepherd children living near Fatima reported apparitions of an Angel, and apparitions of the Virgin Mary, who the children described as the Lady of Fátima. They also claimed a miracle would occur.

Page 113 -  The children claimed a miracle would occur in order that all should believe.  70000 to 100000 people gathered near the children. [ I have seen sources that had figures as low as 30000. There was a large mass of people at the event.]

Page 116 - And indeed an alleged supernatural events happen on  10/13/1917 “For the vast majority of those present, there was no doubt that something supernatural had occurred.” 

[[Here is a crucial mistake in logic. At no point do I say, imply, suggest, hint or otherwise indicate the judgment of the witnesses as to whether the event was a miracle. In my view that is irrelevant. All I take from the witnesses is their account of what they experienced. It is our judgment that the described phenomena are miraculous. They say the mountain was aflame, the ground was shaking under their feet, there was cloud and smoke, the sound of a shofar, and they all heard a voice. It is our judgment that if they really experienced all of that it was a miracle.

Similarly, we should accept the testimony that they saw something happen in the sky that astonished them and created the impression of a miracle. Since they do not report (so far as I have seen) how long the vision lasted, and how long they were in an ecstatic state afterwards, there is no difficulty in accepting their statement that the wet ground and clothes became dry. It is then up to us to decide whether having that experience is evidence that a miracle occurred.

And note that a vision of a religious figure is claimed only for the three children. The tens of thousands see astonishing behavior of the sun and perhaps other items in the sky. There is no reason to doubt that some natural phenomena can cause such an experience.]]

[I want to stress some very important points. We have eyewitness testimony of thousands who believe that something miraculous occurred at Fatima, just like Kuzari proponents claim there were eyewitnesses at Mt Sinai. But there is a big difference. We actually know for a fact that there were many thousands at Fatima who claimed something supernatural occurred, while we have no evidence of anybody even being at Mt Sinai.]

[[If you understand that the basis of RG is the absence of any examples of false traditions of our type, then you understand that we don’t need evidence of the number of people who witnessed the event.]]

If you read the book it describes more mythology develops around the story: For example Page 167 - 168 Hundreds of sick and dying came to the apparition site for miracle cures and alleged success stories circulate - many more come.

[[But not all at the same time……….]]

 Claims that soil from the site cure people. Page 178 A bomb placed beside the azinheira failed to explode.  (Page 94 Azinheira - an oak tree - apparitions had occurred there. See my post Tree animism in the Bible ).  Page 120 Vandals cut down the Azinheira or so they think ! They cut the wrong tree down a sign God protects it and his people from anti-clerics.

[[None of these stories describes an experience of large numbers of people. So they are irrelevant to an evaluation of RG.]]

[I have no doubt many people at the site  did not accept the miracle of the sun.  But is that really relevant ? We don’t know every alleged witness to Mt Sinai accepted it was a revelation from G-d.  Besides the RG Principle does not require every person accept the story. For the Sun Miracle the vast majority of witnesses believed that on October 13, 1917 the supernatural had occurred. Can thousands of eyewitnesses  be wrong ?

[[Of course they can – if they are offering a speculative judgment about an event. But for RG that is not the issue. He should ask: can thousands of people be wrong about the description that they looked at the sky and saw something that astounded them and created the impression of a miracle? I am inclined to agree they cannot be wrong about that. Likewise our witnesses cannot be wrong about the descriptions of what they witnessed.]]

 Moreover the fact that some at Fatima experienced the supernatural event somewhat differently does not disprove the event.  Eyewitness testimony is like that, and perhaps God chose some to see  the miracle one way and others to see it somewhat differently.]

Page 124 The apparition claims spread beyond the local sphere, becoming translocal and national-level realities. 

[[This certainly does not mean that on the occasion in question, or on a subsequent occasion, there was an internationally witnessed vision. I don’t know what it means since I do not have the book. But it seems it must be irrelevant to RG.]]

Page 1 More than twenty million participate in the apparition cult. Every year several million travel from around the world to the apparition site.  The Sun miraculously danced proving the children visions were of divine origin.

The miracle is sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

The story eventually is used to fight communism. 

[[All of this is irrelevant to RG.]]

Page 4 - It is a National Miracle

[[From the detailed description given above this is flatly false.]]

Page 117 Accounts of the miracle are passed down as family history. [Just like the Sinai story was allegedly passed down from alleged witnesses to an alleged  supernatural seminal event to their children. Would my father lie to me about the supernatural events of October 13, 1917 ?  Plus, thousands of children hear other children talk about the supernatural events of October 13, 1917 as those other children heard from their Uncles or Fathers. And so after many generation millions believe the miracles of October 13, 1917. If millions believe a supernatural event can millions be wrong ?]

[[Of course they can, and RG clearly allows this. Only AK is in trouble here, not RG.]]

[What is interesting about the story: The children had  primed people for the anticipation of a miracle. Many of the witnesses  already  believed in the supernatural already. {And as I have written in my prior Kuzari posts priming of the witnesses and prior belief in supernatural by the witnesses were also present at the alleged Mt Sinai event.}  The story is rooted in religious and political subdivisions in 1917 and earlier Portugal. {Could the the Mt Sinai story have similar kinds of roots - religious and political subdivision amongst the ancient Israelites ? Propaganda purposes for one reason or another ?} The intertwining of a popular religious movement with Portugal History and the appropriation of a religious movement for political purposes and the cults relationship to the rise of Authoritarianism Politics. {hmm}. Religions and Mythology don’t develop or operate in a vacuum like  Event--------> Belief in Miracle/Religion/Mythology. It is a much more nuanced as the book explains for this Fatima miracle.] The Miracle of the Sun is UNIQUE as far as I know.
If it is so easy to fool people with a Sun miracle why have
not other religions made use of it ? And arguably is was a Nation
changing event for  Portugal and was used to fight communism. It
must be a true miracle. Convinced ?

[[Let’s summarize his argument and its refutation.

He starts with AK and describes an event that is believed by millions of people – an event we assume did not happen. The event is the miraculous appearance in the sky witnessed by tens of thousands of people. Millions of people believe it happened. Now AK says that if a large number of people believe an event happened then they must have had evidence that it happened (and indeed it must have happened).  But he assumes we agree that they had no evidence of a miracle and that no miracle took place, so AK must be wrong.

And so it is: AK is definitely wrong. But as I pointed out above, RG is not the same as AK. In particular, RG only applies to an event that we would expect to leave behind enormous easily available evidence of its occurrence.  Let’s try to apply his argument to RG.

The first thing to note (as I mentioned above several times) that there are two different events in question here.

A.   The experience of the people of a phenomenon in the sky that awed and inspired them and appeared to them miraculous.
B.   G-d caused the phenomenon in the sky miraculously.

Let’s now try his argument for each event separately.

A: Would the event of tens of thousands of people having a vision that inspired them and seemed to them to be a miracle be expected to leave behind enormous easily available evidence? Sure! The people will tell it to others and a great many will believe that it happened. And that is indeed what happened. And therefore millions of people believe that event A happened. And they are right – event A really did happen.

B: Would the event of G-d causing the phenomenon in the sky be expected to leave behind enormous easily available evidence of its occurrence? Not at all. We believe that G-d is causing many things all the time in a hidden manner. [Even the people who had the vision believe that.] B is a free add-on to A without any expected evidence of its own. That being the case, RG says nothing about people believing it. Thus their believing it is no challenge to RG.

Are you convinced that he has refuted RG?]]