Greetings,
A. Implantation can be very plausible. A fairly primitive people are given a Torah and a few things are explained to them, and from that point on it becomes a tradition. I didn’t understand how one can determine that this is not plausible. Especially since the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) tells stories that are even less plausible. And I’m not now speaking from a rationalist approach against miracles; rather, it seems more reasonable to believe that a Torah was given to the people in some way or other—we’d need to think of a more precise theory—than to think that miracles occurred on such scales, in such forms, and with such frequency, to an entire people, etc.
B. If we define a believing person as someone who adopts the view that God exists because he was educated that way, or because he found plausible evidence for it, then any person who holds such a position is a believer. If he can change that position because of new discoveries, then he is not an atheist; rather, he was a believer and became an atheist due to logical considerations. A person who loved someone and afterward began to hate him because of negative actions that person started doing—that is natural, and it does not mean that he hated him in potential from the outset.

A. Very plausible? Are you being disingenuous and casting aspersions on our medieval authorities (Rishonim)?!
Let me illustrate: you need to remember that what is told in the Torah is not miracles done in front of individuals, but in front of a people. And miracles that happened in a certain place and time—not miracles in the heavens.
If you were to give that same “stupid” people [your definition, of course—though obviously that’s nonsense, and you’d have to substantiate it in order to explain this] the Torah and claim that the miracle happened in that place a year ago, would they accept the claim that they had left Egypt when no one had left Egypt and no one had heard anything about the splitting of the sea or the Revelation at Mount Sinai!?????? Certainly not. That is nonsense.

From here, the only possibility would be to give the Torah after a long time, claiming that the miracles happened in the past.
Oops, there’s a little problem: the Torah says that the people being spoken about is the same people the Torah is written to. And there’s another little problem: this people has no knowledge whatsoever that this is what happened to them. In other words, implanting a history—the Torah—into a people that is already established is not logical!!
That means the only possibility is to come to a people and claim, “Indeed, your ancestors came out of Egypt and there were miracles, etc., but it was all forgotten”—it is almost impossible for such a tradition to be forgotten! That’s an absurd claim—“and I’m the only one who remembers, so please accept it.” Obviously that option is also very problematic. Besides, it contradicts what is written in the Torah, that the Torah will not be forgotten from the mouths of their descendants, and there are many more arguments that contradict this possibility.

So let’s take an example: you’re a primitive and stupid person, and someone claims that once you had ancestors who left Egypt and had miracles that all the nations heard about, and it was all forgotten, but someone remembers it, so now start observing the commandments…
That is nonsense and emptiness.

That’s briefly put. You’re just playing innocent.

David, why the anger and the attack? A person raises substantive claims and deserves substantive answers. I also don’t agree with the decisiveness and certainty in your words, although in the bottom line I do agree.

A. I don’t see a way to examine the implantation claim systematically when it is presented so generally. What I had to say, I wrote in that booklet.
B. As I explained, a belief based on an error is, in my view, not belief. Just as an agreement signed on the basis of mistaken information is automatically void (“Had I known this, I would not have consented”). It is not comparable to love, because love is an emotional state, not a worldview or a claim. If I love so-and-so, then I love him, even if that love developed because I was unaware of some things about him.

I’ll respond only to the Rabbi, with everyone’s permission…
A. A group of people organize and decide to establish Judaism. They give a Torah to a people who aren’t all that smart. Those people accept the Torah, and after some time it is also written for them that it is forbidden to add or change, and that they saw the revelation, etc., etc. They explain to them what these things mean, that it isn’t to be taken literally, and so on. It is easy enough to invent how a religion developed through a book being handed over to a group of people who received it under certain circumstances. The main point is that the evidence for the Revelation at Mount Sinai and the historical argument are not strong at all, since there could be an alternative that saves me from having to accept great miracles and incomprehensible things told in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).
B. In what sense exactly is a belief based on error not belief? We define, at least for the sake of discussion, belief as adopting a certain position, whether by evidence or because reality brought me to that place. From that point on, I believe in a certain thing—say, God. Now I believe in Him wholeheartedly; can the reality of my belief in Him be denied? No. What will happen afterward will simply change the situation—I will become an atheist who stopped believing. My belief was real regarding what I thought was true and turned out not to be. The fact that in practice I now believe there is no God does not mean that objectively there is not, but only that this is the position I take now. But of course I did believe before…

Thank you!

Sorry, Rabbi, I just can’t stand all these foolish postmodernists.

“The foundation of heresy is darkness, and upon it all the palaces of heresy were built. That is, the heretics who deny the Torah of Moses and say that Moses never did these deeds, that none of them ever happened and they are all inventions; or those who go further and deny even Moses, saying that Moses never existed at all, or that David and Solomon never existed in the world, and the like of such denials—all of them are built on the foundation of darkness. Namely, they treat the whole world as darkness, as though there had never been any examiner or investigator of antiquity with the ability to inspect and investigate the past, and as though there had never been chronicles in the world containing ancient deeds. Therefore it enters their minds that it could be possible for a person to invent from his own heart such stories and names of people like David, Solomon, Moses, and Joshua, and to do his deed in darkness; and even to invent a chain of tradition and names of generations and their leaders, princes, and kings in proper order, and the whole people would accept it from him and believe in it. And even though they are full of sages and scribes, they would still believe in him, because they lack the ability to investigate the matter and recognize its falsehood, for they do not know what came before them. This is the foundation of heresy—that darkness covers the earth.” (Mivtzarei HaDat, Essay 1)

Yedidya,
A. A group of people get together and decide to establish a field called mathematics. From then on they sell all of us a line, as if they are proving theorems and engaging in smart and important things. But no one understands what they are doing. So maybe it’s all nonsense? Another group gets together and decides to sell all of us the line that a Black president was elected in the United States. They spread pictures and news reports and information, and thus we all become convinced. Is there an explanation why this is not true? Conspiracy theories are not objections. You can raise such theories by the ton about anything in the world. In the bottom line, this is a general impression each of us has, and therefore it is hard to argue about it.
B. You are mistaken. Belief is not a mental state but a factual claim. If an atheist is hypnotized into believing in God, I would not count him in a prayer quorum, even though psychologically and experientially he now believes. Likewise, when I say there is a chair in front of me, this is not merely a report about a mental state (a feeling that there is a chair here), but a claim that there is a chair in front of me (based, of course, on the cognition within me). Awareness of a chair without the claim that this awareness indicates that there really is a chair here is not cognition at all, but merely an illusory mental state. The claim 2+2=4 is not testimony or a report about a mental state, but an objective claim about a truth outside of me.
I very strongly recommend that you read the short book by C. S. Lewis (yes, that one from Narnia), The Abolition of Man, published by Shalem, which already at the beginning explains this point beautifully.

Greetings,
A. I have no reason to think about the things you are claiming. By contrast, the Jewish religion raises many questions and difficulties, strange descriptions and things that need to be resolved. It may be true, but a lot of work is needed in order to answer and explain… The things Judaism claims raise questions and difficulties that make it hard to accept. Grandiose miracles are a classic example. Why should I accept that? It is hard for me to believe such a thing exists, and I haven’t seen such a thing… And now you claim that it happened—prove it. And when you want to prove it, I will argue that it is not proven enough, because perhaps there was implantation, and that is fairly clear and understandable if I need to choose between that and believing stories that require me to explain and understand so much, etc.
B. First, I would argue that the moment a person clearly understands and it is evident to him that there is a Creator—he believes. A person who claims that there is a God is like a person who claims that a mathematical equation yields a certain result. Does he believe that? In both cases—yes. Once he is shown otherwise, in both situations he will change position; however, that does not mean he did not believe it.
In addition, according to your view, no one believes, because anyone may be mistaken and change his mind if he is convinced otherwise than what he knows. And it is obvious that there are atheist people who are smarter than certain believers, and the latter would have no answer to give when someone tries to prove to them that God’s existence is unnecessary or superfluous…

1. “Know that all miracles and wonders that depart from nature and are remote from human reason have no power to strengthen faith except by one of two means: (a) either the entire people saw the miracles and wonders with their own eyes; (b) or the miracles and wonders are firmly established among the people through a true tradition from their fathers and rabbis, that the miraculous deeds and wonders being recounted are true without any doubt. Then, the more numerous the miracles and wonders in quantity and quality, and the further they are from human understanding, the greater their power to strengthen faith, for it is evident to all that they are the deeds of God and not of human hands, and all believe that the hand of God performed them and that they are not acts of man.

But before the stories and miracles are established as true and clear, while they are still sufficient only to leave people baffled and remain a sealed riddle to them, then not only do the miracles not strengthen faith in God—they actually weaken faith. A wondrous story, astonishing to the mind, is of no help at all in strengthening faith; on the contrary, it causes the teller to be regarded as a liar and a forger, since the miracles have not yet been established among them as true and clear.

Anyone with a brain in his head to weigh matters properly, any intelligent person, will understand that all the stories of the Torah, which astonish those who hear them, and the miracles and wonders and mighty acts that depart from nature and transcend human understanding, could not be accepted as true by an entire nation except a nation that saw all the miracles with their own eyes, and whose children and subsequent generations received by true tradition from their fathers, who themselves saw with their own eyes that all these stories are true. And if Moses our Rabbi had written his book and left it in his archives, or if some other person had invented it and brought it to Israel—as the evil inclination speaking through your throat says—without question Israel would not have accepted from him such a Torah, whose stories are great and awe-inspiring and of a kind they had never heard before. Even if they had no clear proofs with which to refute him, they still would not have accepted from him such a Torah, whose stories astonish the hearts of those who know them and make the ears of all who hear them ring. And since we have held fast to the Torah for many thousands of years, and for it we have sacrificed thousands and myriads of our brethren, this is an eternal sign that the Torah was given in the days of Moses, and that all the people saw with their own eyes all the miracles written in it, and they transmitted them to their children after them.” (Mivtzarei HaDat, Essay 1, 34)

I would suggest you read the book. Of course, only after understanding the Rabbi’s treatment in the fifth booklet, which is the beginning of Essay 1 in the Kuzari. And even better if you also read the complete Sefer HaBrit, Essay on Faith.

And know that a person is obligated to believe in me
And if he does not believe, and his bitter heart together with his stubborn impulse
Returns and gambles in crookedness
Woe to him from the day of rebuke, woe to him from his Maker
For he did not pity his wretched soul
How can he doubt the words of life within him
And nothing stands in the way of the will
For lawlessness is what pleases him

Thus speaks the prophet Nostradamus

Dedicated to David

Hi Rabbi Michi, I’m still waiting for an answer… Thank you.

Hello Yedidya.

A. I wrote what I had to write here and in the booklet. If it doesn’t seem convincing to you—so be it.

B. I didn’t understand what exactly this is about or what you are claiming.

As for the covert atheist, only now I answered about it at length here on the site, and I can’t find it.
My claim is that there is no reason to forbid inquiry, since inquiry merely exposes the person’s position. And even if he does not investigate—if, had he been exposed to all the arguments, he would have arrived at heresy, then in any case he is already a heretic, just a covert one.
If a person investigated and reached a conclusion, then of course there is no guarantee that this is his final conclusion, but he did what he could. Therefore, in my view there is no practical difference, except that there is no point in forbidding inquiry.

Here:
https://mikyab.net/Responsa/Faith / belief-2/

Thank you very much