No, the argument is not that if something is believed, therefore it is true. The argument is that if something is believed, and is of the type that no rational explanation can be given for its being believed other than that it is true, then it is true. In this particular case, belief in the authenticity of the bible lasted for more than 6 years, and if it were not authentic, then an event should have occurred at most 6 years after its fabrication that would have destroyed the people’s belief in it.
What ? Do you mind rephrasing that ? I’m having trouble following it.
That’s what you’re saying.
IOW: if something is believed, therefore it is true. You can try to couch it any other way you like, but it boils down to that.
Haha. Now I get it (I think). If A believes that pigs fly, then the only ‘rational’ explanation that can justify A’s beliefs is that pigs actually fly. Awesome.
You know Juan, you spend months putting so much faith in your ability to reason correctly that you’ll accuse others of child abuse for daring to reach different conclusions, then you admit that you don’t know the difference between an antecedent and a consequence. The belief that pigs fly is not of the type that we cannot explain its existence in a different way from its being true, it’s not a belief of the same type as public revelation. The argument used the fact that the only rational explanation for a particular belief was its being true as a description of cases where the argument applies, not a consequence.
Perhaps it would boil down to that if it were meant to apply to all beliefs, but it isn’t. It is meant to apply only to beliefs of a certain type, such as the belief in revelation at Sinai. Revelation is a different type of belief from other absurd ideas - like random genetic mutations taking us from monkeys to men. But wait, that’s an absurd miracle you believe in, isn’t it?
Well, so much for that theory…
JA, let’s back up a bit. You are asserting that something happened thousands of years ago. But you have no evidence, and worse, you’re claiming that what happened was supernatural. So, how are you going to prove that you are right and that yours is the only true religion ?
Using hearsay.
How do you proceed ? You come up with a ‘theory’ explaining that this hearsay is a special kind of hearsay, a hearsay which can only be true. Why ? Because it’s collective hearsay - national hearsay about an absurd event.
You have zero proof that A,B,C happened - but you believe those impossible events happened because a group of people believe they happened. Well, enjoy collectivism and non-sequiturs. They are not my cup of tea, though.
Ah, then you’re merely special pleading.
And don’t embarrass yourself by showing how little you know of evolution.
I think you have advanced the most powerful argument against the Kuzari Principle that I have seen. This post is far stronger than the others because it clearly takes into account an understanding of how the argument works, and asks what happens when applied to the sun standing still. If I may summarize your point before responding to it:
-
The literature claims that the sun stood still, in the same way that the literature claims that revelation occurred at Sinai.
-
Clearly, if the sun stood still, then the whole world would know about it - and since it appears in the bible, this event is as established as revelation is.
-
The world history books and geologic record show no account of this happening.
-
It is reasonable that the rest of the world, therefore, didn’t know about this event.
-
By 2 and 4, the sun didn’t stand still.
-
By 5 and 2, there is no argument that revelation occurred at Sinai.
Do I have the structure correct?
In response, I’d point out that, although numerically you are correct, there is a difference between revelation and other miracles that would need to be widely observed. By revelation, the claim is that the book recording these events was produced at the time of the miracle. In the case of Joshua, there is no such claim - everyone, including the authors, acknowledge that the Prophets were written later than the events are alleged to have occurred, in some cases much later. The problem still arises, though - when the book of Joshua is written, people will ask “Why didn’t we hear about the sun standing still?”
I think the answer is that the miracle of Joshua was not being set up as a rememberance. We’re told that God can fit a camel through the eye of a needle, and further that the needle doesn’t enlarge, nor does the camel shrink. (Explanation is credited to Rabbi Weinberg.) To my view, there is no way to pass a camel through the eye of a needle except one of these two methods. Similarly, I cannot figure out how to make the sun stand still except to have the earth stop its rotation. God, though, could do it differently. This is combined with the understanding, from ancient times, that there are different rules for interpreting the Prophets than for interpreting the Torah - in the case of the Torah, for instance, we start with the assumption that the literal reading is correct, and move away from it only if logic requires this. This isn’t the case in the Prophets which were written by men. So, perhaps God had some other way of keeping the battle well-lit.
The question really is - WHY do you and I, who choose to live in an AC manner have to suffer the socialist decisions imposed upon us by that faction of humans?!? Much as I understand the positive aspects of anarchy and chaos (as in Chaos Theory where this is a BUILDER as much as a ‘destroyer’[of not working systems]), I seriously doubt that we will ever convince the greater bulk of humans to appreciate what we understand! I have come to appreciate Panarchy as the only possible solution that will work for ‘all’ humans.
Jain
JAlanKatz, miracles don’t exist. You’re confusing theocracy and manipulation with reality.
Because it’s part of their socialist ideas that they must, particularly, include those who don’t believe in socialism. Those who favor free markets tend to be the most productive, so a socialist commune formed only of socialists would tend to starve. By forcing us into it, they can actually survive.
I don’t see how there can be any solution that will take into account these two perspectives - my perspective that I should not be forced into these economic relations by other people, and their perspective that I should be forced into them. The only saving grace, as it were, is that in everyday life, even the socialists tend to acknowledge our moral superiority. They tend to think it is bad for people to murder others, for people to steal (generally), to rape others, and so on. The disconnect is that they have no issue when this is done on a macro scale by government. They would oppose a law banning divorce because they think it is wrong to force people to associate (I agree) but don’t apply this to laws banning discrimination in hiring or making it impossible to fire someone. However, it’s hard for ideas to stand forever when their basis has been taken away. The battle of ideas can be won because they have accepted our premises and insist on holding conclusions that don’t follow from their premises.
I can make blanket claims too, and they wouldn’t prove anything either.
That’s exactly what you’ve done so far.
I am thinking that you don’t understand Panarchy? (Wikipedia - original concept)
“Because it’s part of their socialist ideas that they must, particularly, include those who don’t believe in socialism.” Yes, I understand that this is THEIR belief and you bet that if no one ‘supported’ their happy horse $hit ideas with real work and capital - they would soon starve! However, since we have an equally valid belief that each person is responsible for their own lives, WHY are THEIR beliefs favored over OURS?!? Panarchy is exactly the reality check that we ALL need. Time to stop living via delusions and mass robbery.
Jain
If you expect panarchy to make everyone happy because ‘they can have their government while we can have ours’ you’re saddly mistaken. The only system of government that will make them happy is one where you are forced to live as they think is right. The idea of “freely chosen government” is of no help to them. Their whole issue is that you should not be free to choose, certainly not to choose your own government.
Such a thought (" The only system of government that will make them happy is one where you are forced to live as they think is right.") can and ought to be turned right around of these same people - would they like it if others forced them to live as the others thought was ‘right’?!? My main hope re Panarchy is that those espousing/selecting ‘their’ type of government (or NONE either for that matter), are free to join in with all others of like beliefs and live according to those ‘rules’ - themselves ONLY. Mankind has been seriously warped by misunderstanding ‘authority’ to mean ‘correct’. Especially when it comes to force over others.
Much as I find socialism distasteful, and in my mind a fraud of a ‘system’, I’m not adverse to sitting back and watch a bunch of socialist give that system a ‘go’! As long as they don’t involve me that’s all any of us could ask or expect of MATURE, self responsible humans. (all 2 or 3 of them?!? - just joking!!)
Jain
Of course not, that’s why they want to do it first. If I don’t like being hit, there are two possible thoughts that can result:
-
I shouldn’t hit others.
-
I should keep others so busy trying to defend themselves against me that they don’t have time to hit me.
The example comes from Roderick Long. The problem is, you look at panarchy through libertarian eyes, with (correct) libertarian assumptions superimposed over everyone’s thoughts, such as:
You’re dealing with people who don’t think the manner you describe, and who would say something like “All any of us could ask or expect of MATURE, self responsible humans is to share their wealth and participate in community ventures.”
The idea of the “state” as a ruler is one that has no relevance in the real world today. The “ruling class” was a feudal concept; in modern times, what the “elected few” represent is managers over monopoly businesses. They are certainly trying to “rule”, and in many areas are actually doing that, but overall they’re not telling you when to eat or when to have sex.
“No state” would be just the next natural step, much like the one we took from the “divine right” to “representative democracy”.
I’m sure there were many thinkers who thought democracy couldn’t possibly work and it would lead to chaos.