Q&A: Questions About the Fifth Notebook and More
Questions About the Fifth Notebook and More
Question
Hello Rabbi, in the fifth notebook, in the section about Russell’s teapot regarding the move from deism (when there is convincing evidence for it) to theism, you brought an example from the Kuzari. In the example, the Kuzari says that if there were evidence of the king’s intervention, he would be convinced that there is a king. I think this is the opposite move from what you do in the notebook, because in the notebook the move is from a God who does not necessarily intervene to an intervening God, and indeed there is no necessity that if God exists He also intervenes. But in the Kuzari he moves from an intervening king to the existence of a king, and that indeed is a compelling move. Thank you.
Answer
How did you get that? In section 22 there he explicitly writes the opposite:
22. The Kuzari said: That is so, and my first doubt would then depart from me—whether the people of India have a king or not—and I would then believe that his kingdom and his word concern me.
Discussion on Answer
It says the opposite there. But why does that matter? The principle is clear and correct with or without the Kuzari.
After the king intervenes (messengers arrive with a well-known document and information about medicines, etc.), he would believe that there is some king