Q&A: Weighing Probabilities
Weighing Probabilities
Question
Hello and blessings, Rabbi.
From looking into your approach, it seems clear that you tend to ground faith in the Torah and the tradition on what you call “soft thinking” — that is, probability, and not necessarily on decisive empirical proof of the sort accepted in the other exact sciences.
If so, why do you think the reliability of the revelation at Mount Sinai and the giving of the Torah — which is based on an unbroken tradition from father to son, and claims supernatural wonders that happened only in the distant past and have left no trace since — and which in any other context you would dismiss with contempt — is more plausible than the alternative thesis, which goes like this:
There was a nation of slaves in ancient Egypt that managed to escape, and various customs developed among them. Over time, this tradition was passed on orally from mouth to ear, while being refined and developed. After all, there were not many people who even knew how to read and write and could preserve some fixed text across the generations. After many years, a number of people arose who, say for political reasons, came to the people and told them about a book that had supposedly been given many years earlier in a most miraculous way, with miracles, voices, and thunder — and which in fact merely anchored customs that already existed among the people (and among many other peoples in that region, such as the laws of Hammurabi), so that nobody really cared in what setting the laws were given or what authority they had. That, in brief, is the alternative thesis.
And now I wanted to ask: why is the first thesis more probable? After all, there are many stories and legends of other peoples that were disproved in exactly the same way (again, the laws of Hammurabi, the Moabite religion, the stories of Christianity… say).
And more than that: if this is a matter of probability, doesn’t it depend on the individual evaluator? In other words, thesis A sounds plausible to you, but to me thesis B Specifically sounds plausible. Does the fact that thesis B sounds more plausible to me mean that I deserve Gehenna?
Answer
See the fifth notebook, which was devoted to this.
Discussion on Answer
Also see here:
https://www.knowingfaith.co.il/Foundations of Faith/The Revelation at Mount Sinai as a Historical Event
Hello Rabbi.
I read the fifth notebook, where you did indeed explain in detail the whole set of reasons that lead to the plausibility of the Jewish tradition.
But still, if I may argue, throughout your arguments you agree that no argument on its own is strong enough to establish any belief, but rather that all the arguments together provide a reasonable basis over against the alternative. However, all the arguments against the alternative were always presented as a whole cluster of probabilities against one argument. For example, regarding the claim that the Torah was forgotten in the days of Ezra, you wrote that it is enough for us that there was some tradition in the hands of the elders(!) that there existed a book that had been passed down from generation to generation and testified to a revelation, since there are other proofs that indicate as much, etc.
Now then, if one examines the atheistic view, one finds that it too has an abundance of arguments to make against believers. If so, according to your approach — which gives weight also to the quantity of arguments and not only to their quality (which is completely logical) — how can one deal with the many arguments of atheism? Do their many claims also have probabilistic weight? To give just a few examples:
1. The Creator’s complete lack of intervention in creation today.
2. The above testimony about the Torah being transmitted from generation to generation by only a small group of elders in the days of Ezra.
3. A very petty and jealous approach (seemingly, and for the sake of discussion) attributed to God in the Bible.
And there are more. The question is: isn’t it reasonable to argue that this position too is at least as plausible as the theistic position? And in addition, why does the Torah prescribe such severe punishments for someone who, say, makes a mistake in weighing the probabilities? Surely you would agree with me that the atheists’ arguments are not stupid and completely devoid of content.
Hello.
I am not familiar with atheistic arguments against His existence, only refutations of the arguments for His existence. (There is no proof that God does not exist.) Therefore, here there is no significance to combining arguments. Each refutation attacks a particular argument for belief, and it should be discussed on its own merits. Especially those you raised — each one is very weak, and there is no cumulative force to combining them.
As for your final question, there is no punishment at all for someone who makes a mistake in weighing probabilities. He is coerced by his understanding. Punishment exists only for someone who sins deliberately, out of his evil inclination.
You can also read here:
https://www.knowingfaith.co.il/Foundations of Faith/The Revelation at Mount Sinai as a Historical Event