Q&A: The Witness Argument
The Witness Argument
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I read the last two parts of your theological trilogy, "No Man Has Power Over the Wind" and "Walking Among Those Who Stand." I understood that the Rabbi's central argument regarding the God of religion is the witness argument. It's clear to me that the Rabbi deals with this at much greater length in The First Existent. So if the answer to my question is complex, I'll hold off until I get a chance to read it.
The witness argument has always felt very weak to me. After all, isn't it possible that a story told to little children gradually develops and turns into a myth, which in the same way becomes a legend with an unclear origin, until it is inflated beyond recognition into a core article of faith? (Let's say the story began 3,500 years ago—roughly the classic dating of the Sinai revelation. The story had at least 1,500 years to develop before historians/archaeologists would notice that it had evolved.)
The dramatic scale and the built-in evidence in the story are indeed unusual, but unusual is not proof. Everything has a first time, and on smaller scales similar things have happened and do happen.
I'd be happy to know what you think about this. If it's complicated, references will be enough for me.
Thank you very much!
Answer
What I think appears at length in The First Existent.
Discussion on Answer
Hello David,
I read the book The First Existent, and I really recommend that you read it too.
You can read it here (though I'm not sure this is its current edition) https://mikyab.net/%d7%9b%d7%aa%d7%91%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%97%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%91%d7%a2%d7%a0%d7%99%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%99-%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%94/%d7%9e%d7%97%d7%91%d7%a8%d7%aa-5-%d7%9e%d7%93%d7%90%d7%99%d7%96%d7%9d-%d7%9c%d7%aa%d7%90%d7%99%d7%96%d7%9d).
It includes, of course among other things, discussion of Hume's remarks as well.
At the above link there is only the fifth booklet, which deals with the transition from deism to theism.
I still recommend buying the book itself.
Is there discussion in the book of the possibility that the supposedly "evidentiary" part of the story as well—like the number of spectators and the issue of tradition being passed from father to son—are themselves part of the story's development? That is, maybe at first it was told about a group of people, and gradually the numbers were inflated, and the idea of the chain of tradition was added in turn as the story moved in a faith-oriented direction—mainly because of interests, even unconscious ones. So is there discussion of these assumptions, or are they dismissed out of hand in the book, and if so, why?
Just out of curiosity, have you read Hume's remarks on the subject? (Of course his words are no more inherently relevant than mine or those of some random homeless person—only the content matters in itself. But still, I'm curious to know.)
Thanks