Rabbi Dr. David Gottlieb - Jewish Philosophy: Adequate Reason to Believe - Part 3

okay so far what we have on the table is the prediction from Deuteronomy 20 to 30 of conquest destruction exile worldwide scatter survival and return the next thing I want to talk about is the relation at Sinai and what I want to focus on is the question is it a real historical event or is it a myth myths are very common common throughout the world especially in ancient religions what reason do we have to think that this is a real historical event and not a myth now I've been presenting these ideas for about 10 years or more on the internet there seems to be a certificate ii in understanding exactly what I'm getting at so I've tried to present it in different ways in different orders different facets I haven't found a way that's perfectly successful I want to try something a little bit different this time maybe believe an improvement what I want to do is give you a very brief summary of the pieces of the argument what I'm going to tell you now is missing a lot and it's open to obvious objections and it's not carefully defined I'd like the building to be clear the basic structure and then I go back through I go back through in detail and then we can discuss every move I would like this to be understood i think it's very important that it be understood it is a cornerstone i'm having adequate reason to believe especially since revelation at Sinai is absolutely fundamental to the entire religion a great deal of religious life is carrying out Commandments if you haven't got a solid reason to believe in a commander then aren't any Commandments then the whole thing falls to pieces now that there are two pieces in the discussion one piece is an idea an intuition a feeling that's meant to motivate just motivate get the things off the ground make the question interesting make it something which is worth discussing and analyzing it's not supposed to do the job it's not supposed to convince it's not supposed to be the reason why you accept it it's just an idea which Orient's us mentally get us off the ground then we have to go through the guts of the argument and find what the real the real evidence is what the real reason is so the introduction is just an intuitive introduction and the introduction addresses following very limited question could we imagine someone making up this story of a revelation at Sinai if it weren't true could imagine someone making up that story inventing it just dreaming it up and then coming to a group of people and saying to them this is your history this is what happened to you and I think intuitively that I hear faces an obstacle imagine the guy let's call him the fakir he comes to group of people he says to them guess what three hundred years ago five hundred years ago thousand years ago your entire ancestry all of your ancestors together stood at a mountain and heard God speak I'm revealing to you something about your own national history something that happened to all of your ancestors take any number of years ago you like three years ago 50 thousand years ago that's what happened to your ancestors I think intuitively we would expect the people he's talking to to say well if that really happened how come we don't know about it you're telling us something about our own ancestors you're telling us something colossal that our ancestors all heard God speak what happened they forgot about it they were more interested in the evening soccer scores and just lost track of it I mean that doesn't sound like the sort of thing that people that just gonna forget lose track of you know he's gonna have trouble convincing them remember he's making this up he's a faker it's making this up you gotta trouble convincing them that this is true because it's the kind of story which is so spectacular we would normally expect it to be remembered so that's the starting intuition now that's not an argument that's not an argument is not even really good evidence I think because I can imagine a critic saying look your intuition is that people draw a line as to what they will believe plead just anything something's are too incredible to believe I don't agree with you I don't know with you I think people are soft-headed especially 2,500 years ago I think people were very in in course unconscious they were inclined to fantasies maybe the King had special powers or maybe they believe that the priests special powers maybe the feds and drugs I don't know not convinced and if a critic says that frankly up to here I don't know what I could say it to me it seems obvious that there's going to be a substantial obstacle and he says no to me is that obvious I don't think it is a substantial obstacle so I have my intuition yes his intuition it doesn't make an argument doesn't mean he's wrong doesn't defeat him doesn't present any strong reason to think that my intuition is better than his intuition that's why I'm it pains to point out that intuition is not what does the job what does the job is real evidence and I can present real evidence and i will present real evidence in detail and then the the argument is carried by the real evidence that's the way it's built I were together so far this is very important to keep the two steps apart I don't know how many dozens and dozens of emails I have answered where the writer says well you think people won't believe things like that well I think people will be things like that and just dismisses the whole thing and I go through the writings that I have in the subject and I copy and paste where I explained that that wasn't the job it's over the song but when they read it they don't see that they just don't see it to get stuck on the intuition and they just don't share the intuition so that we're going to do we're going to go through the two pieces now before we do that I have to have to introduce a preliminary which is important here and supporting everywhere it's an important pizza of philosophy I'm going to start with that as a kind of beginning footnote and then we'll get into the two pieces we're talking about adequate reason to believe how much reason is that tweet anything to believe you know who your parents are or to believe that Australia isn't is an island continent or to believe that Jupiter that Pluto is now a dwarf planet instead of it instead of a full fledged planet or anything I don't care what it is why is it me to had adequate reason to believe something now there's a prejudice on this issue maybe they were prejudiced a little too strong any rate I'm going to propose it so i'll call the oil budget there's a prejudice on this issue that they have adequate reason to believe something is to prove it I think that's mistake I think proving it is the wrong move I think it's wrong criterion the wrong substance of adequate reason it's a seriously wrong move I'll anxiety waterproof is what I'm opposing explain to you why I think it's a mistake and what I think is the correct move if we don't agree on this all the rest is going to be worthless it's going to be worthless first of all not gonna fight with anybody's English you can use words as you please more or less in my vocabulary proof means something that settles the issue absolutely you present a proof all questions are over all doubt is dispelled you know for sure absolutely with certainty infallibly that it's true the model for proof is mathematics proves have been given for proposition of mathematics some of them more than 2,000 years old and in two thousand years no one has found any reason whatsoever the question well no one almost all of we'll talk about that brass to later but almost no one has felt any reason to question as solid as proof is you have it in mathematics and you have it in very simple areas of philosophy pure logic you will experience reveals them to me as absolutely does anything could be person uses the word proof if that's what he means then he's taking that use of proof and applying it to other areas can apply the scientific apply to history could buy the psychology complying to hit to psychology and have excluded from science and other things questions whether that's appropriate how do you know give me a proof now first of all it's just no one little detail about how proof works somebody says he has a proof and somebody else can dream up any possibility of his being role that defeats the proof because if there's any possibility that he's wrong then the proof is an absolute it hasn't closed every door it's still possibility that you're making a mistake a proof has to close off every other possibility which means that if somebody offers a proof it's always kosher to respond but isn't it still possible that Q and if he acknowledges that it's still possible that Q that is wrong and he has to admit he does proof so looking for a proof sets up this kind of dialogue someone says he knows something you say how do you know and when you say that you mean prove it and he says pqr then you start working your imagination o P Q R u R is his proof that he's right hmm but even if P Q R couldn't Z make it wrong isn't she a possibility that makes it wrong you confront them I say what about Z he thinks i'm using PQ or what about see a bouncy I don't know no maybe maybe Z then you lose it then you've lost the poop the the the person who provides a probe is inviting defeat on the basis of mere opposing imagination it's that kind of dialogue that I'm against yeah what and why would something irrational then be able to still defeat the proof enough that's right we're too logical or illogical dreaming up of possibilities we see I'm not sure where you coming from you're you're you're saying that proofs can't be defeated by by mere imagination well I'm asking if the possibility they saying is just totally irrational well what would you mean by irrational you know it's false then it's not a possibility no possibility means something which I haven't ruled out oh so it's this kind of dialogue that I'm again so let's see why why we should be against it remember we're looking for adequate reason adequate reason we're investigating a person that says I'll tell you what adequate reason is Alec reasons proof period proved and nothing but proof only proof and I'm wondering whether we should take him seriously or look for an alternative let's see let's just take a few examples I take it you all know who your parents are do you have adequate reason we're thinking you know who your parents are until we start this discussion I think everyone has always assumed he has adequate reason do you have a proof is there any possibility that you're wrong that maybe you're really adapted and they didn't tell you is it possible of course it's possible I you say you look just like them that's because when they went to the adoption agency they took their baby pictures along and picked out a baby they look like they're anything that's why you look like that you say you did a DNA check well first of all I know you did not and second of all DNA checks are only good to about ninety six percent and third of all suppose you did a DNA check but how would you know that your pair or maybe I should say those people didn't pay off the lab to lie to you about the results how'd you know for sure that that didn't happen you couldn't know that so could you possibly have a proof that they're your parents doesn't look like it shall we then say that you're believing that they're your parents is just prejudice on your part just you know idle childish lack of critical thinking it's over that's on surely not you have a raft of evidence that they are your parents yes there are adoptions what percentage of children living in families are adopted point 0 or 1 percent it's possible but experience is vastly against it the mere fact that it's possible that you're adopted should not be a good enough reason to give up thinking that there are your parents and you have adequate reason to believe that your parents adequate reason doesn't require proof that's the message here adequate reason doesn't require proof here's another example workstream example the fellow who got us into this pickle is this neighbor and I take cart one of the founders of modern philosophy he said adequate reason is proof that's position any health why did he hold that because he thought he could provide one he thought he had a proof which we stored the vast majority of things that you believe about the world based on proof that's what he thought he only used proof because he thought he could meet it later generations felt that his way of meeting it was not binding it's not valid and then the question became central well if we can prove almost nothing so then what should we agree as I stated they were looking for ever since then we be looking for weaker standards for 300 years maybe 50 years and he started like this can you prove at this very moment that you're not dreaming that in two minutes you won't wake up in the 23rd century and say that's what i get for reading history books look at that i jump myself back to this weird place 150 years ago you know and weird things going on neither if you know Mars what could you do now to prove that a two minutes you won't wake up in the 23rd century since they card ask the question no one has come up with any considerations that would establish for sure and fala Blee that what you are living now isn't the dream so now how should I feel about this then maybe it is a tree maybe everything I think I know about the world is just the dream world maybe I really live someplace else should you worry about that should you become cavalier about shooting people on the grounds that you know maybe it's all a dream nobody's really gonna die did just my dream fantasies I don't think you should do that Bertrand Russell updated this thought well hundred years ago he put it this way what could you do to prove that the universe is more than five minutes old you've probably heard the Bates about how old the universe is yeah but nobody's thinking you're five minutes five minutes old so you say five minutes old come on I remember yesterday maybe five minutes ago you came into existence with those graving 'he's and your cerebellum know where wherever memory is nobody knows where Mary is okay when I'm gratings in your brain which encode what we should call now pseudo memories and it never really happened what could you do to prove that the world is more than five minutes old since Bertrand Russell asked this question no one has come up with a convincing answer should you worry about this listen you're an honest person you're a fair person you believe in justice you lent money to somebody two weeks ago are you going to collect it can you prove there was a two weeks ago maybe there wasn't maybe everything came in two thousand five minutes ago if the guy elected to says look you want hit your money back proved to me prove to yourself you're an honest person you want to do what's just prove to yourself that the uterus is more the five minutes older you really let me the money if you can't don't ask me for the money are you gonna take that seriously hope not certainly hope not even though I can't prove these things I have every adequate reason to say I'm not dreaming and I'm not I'm the universe is for the five minutes old the reason in both cases is that in both cases of dreaming and yours be five minutes old all the critic is offering is a possibility is only offering a mere possibility is inviting me to rule out a possibility that is he's inviting me to give a proof correct response to the critic is you give me some positive reason for thinking that I'm dreaming you give me some positive reason for thinking the universe is only five minutes old you give me a positive reason don't demand that I rule out your possibility possibilities are cheap they don't count give me a positive reason for thinking that what you say is true then I'll have to take you seriously you give you a positive is missing you true i'll have to look for positive reason for thinking it's not true and will weigh up the reasons i see who has better reasons but just offering a possibility cuts no ice it doesn't count now this is absolutely crucial because this goes on in discussions of absolute morality there's no sign of discussions of God The Critic always says well prove it prove morality is absolute and when you give your reasons he says maybe it's ET you know extraterrestrials or maybe it was just an accident or make and the key word in those suggestions is maybe when a person says maybe that's a point to draw a line when a person says maybe the correct responses of course maybe of course I agree with you may be so what maybes carry no weight isn't it possible that sometimes they ask questions way how do you know it's not how do you know it's not something else the correct responses do you have any positive reason for thinking it is that something else any positive reason you have a positive reason let's hear it and then we'll discuss it you'll give you a positive reasons occupy positive reasons will wake them up but you ask me how I know it's not and you have no positive reasons for thinking that it is at that point I say you're suggesting a possibility I agree to all possibilities everything is possible you know leprechauns are possible also hobbits are possible also everything's possible so what possibilities don't count this is a crucial lesson in all of your intellectual life in discussing the bathing and analyzing in arguing never to get stuck on possibilities or maybes or how do you know it's not now if we can agree on that then we can move forward to the actual actual positive evidence that's that's absolutely crucial okay I'm putting out on the table as always tomorrow we'll go back over this and and they'll be happy to discuss it anything you want is very important to get clear on this okay now I am yeah the question still trying to figure out yeah but doesn't adequate reason in itself lead you to believe that there could be other possibilities if you have adequate reason sure okay sure adequate reason just means the evidence is so strongly on my side that I have adequate reason to commit myself to my side unless and until someone will give me better evidence for one of those other possibilities you can swap maybes and other possibilities just like your parents think they'll have is now that I pointed out that could be that you're adopted so now in your mind yeah but maybe yeah maybe I am adopted but the right attitude is ok but so what I thought well my experience I have the sistex of all the other people who are in the world were involved that maybe doesn't defeat doesn't deprive me of my adequate reason to treat them as my parents to believe that through my parents that's the crucial thing to live with maybes to live I think you're putting you well to live with maybes and yet to be committed to nothing that you that you're good at that you have the most reason to accept yeah so we're conceding that we can't prove that this is not a dream and we can't prove we're considering that we can't prove that the universe is more than five minutes old yes until it since they raise those questions no one has succeeded in providing a proof but we rightly don't take those possibility seriously because they're just possibilities their possibilities without any any evidence whatsoever okay now I want to work as I said on the first step the intuition there are a number of ways to do this I write I write I wrote an essay by the way the basic arguments written up on my website and something called living up to the truth where it's written up at some great some detail then also in the miscellaneous section there's an introduction to what I call the kuzuri principle which is what I'm working on now it's long repetitive clear simple down-to-earth I'm going to summarize that view now but this is written out in detail you're we're talking about somebody making up a false story we're talking about our attitude towards memory want to bring you through a few examples of this just to just the idea again this is just the intuition intuition gets is clear enough to to rely on as an intuition somebody tells you that yesterday you took out your cell phone and you tried twice to dial the same number and both times you missed dialed the third time you got it let's suppose you don't remember that he claims he saw you do it and you don't remember most people I think would be inclined to say it happens yeah I'd out quickly and oh I know you mistake do I remember every time I missed I will even missed out twice no it's too trivial it's too trivial an event it could happen could happen he was watching me so he do it I did it my mind was on other things and that's why i misdialed him finally talked to the guy it just slipped my memory I don't see any reason why I couldn't accept that even though I don't remember it I'm not gonna use my blank memory as a reason to think he's lying to me about what happened to me but suppose he tells you that yesterday you went swimming and you don't remember I think Ben you're going to be very reluctant to accept it Finn say uncle swimming that often certainly not in Jerusalem uh-huh i would say yesterday i'd certainly would remember it that's not the sort of thing that I forget when a person tells you about your own personal experience recent experience there's a clear dividing line between and you don't remember what he tells you your memories blank there's a clear dividing line between what you're like a treat as a reasonable story about you and what you're going to treat as an unreasonable story about you now let's take events further back in your in your history your I don't know 21 years old somebody says when you were five and you were in kindergarten your teacher got sick it was out for a month and there was a substitute and you didn't like that septum now you you were very upset with a substitute and you think Callie I don't remember huh 21 16 years ago substitute in kindergarten I remember that at all are you inclined to say and therefore it must be false it couldn't be true because lots of people remember very little about being five years old that doesn't sound like a traumatic event that would be so so important that maybe you remember 16 years ago 16 years later if your parents tell you this might say okay so I forgot it contrast that with being told that 16 years ago when you were five you broke your leg you're going to cast six weeks and all the kids are running races you were very upset and your friend signed the cast you know with with various he'll face over seven years old right assign the kids did your pictures on your cast over this one and you don't remember it now I think you're going to be worried what broke my leg sounds cast the six weeks everyone's running races I couldn't run I don't remember that that doesn't sound too likely even sixteen years like it later even when I was a five-year-old breaking my leg and being in a cast for six weeks this is the kind of thing that I would remember and I think that given those two examples would be very confident about that now the type of event where you could easily accept the story even remembered i call a forgettable forgettable means the kind of thing which it would be natural to forget so that when somebody tells you a story about what happened to you the way you weigh it up is you say well is this a forgettable or not if it's a forgettable then I could trust him that he's telling me something which I forgot but if it's not it's an unforgettable like going swimming yesterday or like breaking your leg when you revive and be in a cast for six weeks then I'm not going to trust him I trust my memory better than I trust him now let's expanded let's not talk about your personal issue let's talk about your family history first somebody says I've been doing research on your great grandparents and they lived in Poland and your great-grandfather was put in jail by a false charge of of stealing no anti-semitism and he spent three weeks in jail and then he escaped you've never heard anything about this okay it's like great-grandfather just took place 130 years ago how much do I know about my great-grandfather dad ever hear a biography theme that hearing about is like a picture of him I know about it I know his name this guy's been doing research in Polish history and he came across his name could very well be not the sort of thing that naturally a family will remember it's a family forgettable but suppose that the fellow comes and tells you your great-grandfather was I don't know what they had in those days equivalent Nobel Prize or you know knighted by the by the Polish Empire and made the governor of a province in Poland that became fabulously rich and correspondent with Rothschilds and you know negotiated with the King of England is of others on I think at that point gonna stay in the car come on it's my gran-gran my great-grandfather that kind of prominence that kind of Fame that would be represent the family would remember that for generations that's that sort of that sort of thing that people are going to forget so you have the same dividing line between with respect to family history what's reasonably accepted as a forgettable and what is it now let's talk about city history someone says that in New York in 1895 there was a terrible drought and people died of thirst and the hoarding of water and the police had to go out and ration water it's up in the zone 1895 there's one over six months it's now 2015 you don't remember that you up popular histories of New York it's not there okay water droughts happen often enough and people who hoard things and could it be missing in history books maybe so now somebody says in 1895 there was an earthquake in New York and three-quarters of the buildings were leveled thousands of people died had some people died there was an emergency government for three years you know trying to deal with the resources and everything else no one remembers this this isn't in any history books at that point I think would be suspicious that's too big an event like the San Francisco fire that burnt down most of San Francisco everybody in San Francisco knows about that everybody remembers that because it was a disaster earth earthquake in 1895 in New York would have been a gigantic disaster that's a city a line between City forgettable and unforgettables I can do the same different nations it takes anything for National History imagine someone making up a story about medieval England in 1350 there was a terrible blight that killed horses now horses used for the army and horses used for agriculture horses used for transportation communication of the terrible blight for 10 years there was purged there were no virtually no horses to be had and people took up jobs running messages from place to place because it was no alternative right 1350 for 10 years this why not maybe someone claims he discovered ecologically or something and it's not in history books I think we would say okay you know for them it was a big deal but I don't use later 20 years later three why would anybody remember that it's not such a big thing in historical terms in national historical terms suppose somebody says that in 1350 England conquered most of Europe invaded and conquered most of Europe and held Europe captive for 75 years and packs Europe a projected thing this language into until Europe is over the song but everything this was in 1350 and then little by little like a beat back at the natives hated the English and they destroyed all the English language this over the song I think at that point would say excuse me conquering most of Europe and holding it under you for 75 years is to check antique national accomplishment the British wouldn't have forgotten that sure the British wouldn't the forgotten it no they celebrated as one of the great and events in British history it couldn't be that that's true and the whole the British people forgot about it it's just not credible to think that event of that magnitude will be forgotten so again in national history you have the line between the National forgettable and a national unforgettable okay it's the same story over and over again from immediate personal experience too long stairs long-term personal experience to family experience to city experience to national experience it's the same line again I'm just outlining an intuition that's all just a state of mind this is not argument just the state of mind now given the state of mind it seems to me that the revelation that sign I counts as a national unforgettable it's not like having a blight on horses and for 10 years having to use other means of transportation in occasion idea of a revelation from the creator of the universe now I'm gonna put in a footnote which somebody may have thought of and this is important to avoid certain objection later I'm talking about how they experienced it they experience it as an interaction with the creator of the universe that's the way they heard it that they experienced their their experience was for them and experience of hearing the created universe speak in a totally miraculous setting fire on the mountain top and the earth shaking under their feet and smoking and cloud over the and the sound of the shofar and the whole thing the old story that's a national unforgettable it's not the sort of thing which if you try to make it up 300 years later or 500 is later when it really didn't happen not the sort of thing which excite people to say oh yeah I could imagine that we forgot about it that's all I don't get interested in other things and lost track of it it's just too spectacular to think of as the sort of thing that you could expect to forget that's the intuition that we're dealing with now all this intuition addresses is could somebody make it up I'm going to get it so far this is just the intuition The Critic will now come back with two remarks and both of them are I think correct up to hear they're correct and that's the reason why we have to do much more one remark will be I don't share your intuition first of all you're influenced by the fact that you're living in 2015 you don't know how primitive people were 2,500 years ago they could believe anything the limit on what they could believe they weren't with critical all the way you r ly people are today so you're projecting your own resistance on them secondly the critic will say and this with justice he'll say you're painting the picture of two extreme alternatives one is that it really happened and the other is that somebody made it up I'll whole cloth and try to sell it all in one shot now maybe maybe you have an intuition against making it up and selling it all in one shot but that's not the only other alternative there are other alternatives there's something called myth formation where you start off with a story and as the story is told over again and again and again from generation to generation it changes gradually it grows people add elements they elevate it and you could have a story about a really natural event in over a hundred years 200 300 500 years telling it over and changing some of the details not remembering it very well different versions you could elevate it into the story of a miracle or revelation leaving that out the critic will say you're creating a false alternative that it's either it really happened or somebody made it up that's not true there are other ways in which it could happen I give it what I've said so far I think the critic is right number one I I'm not given any convincing reason why he has to share our intuition and number two it's it's true i set up two possibilities it happened or it was made up that's not fair you have to consider in between possibilities and i will and i will consider that in detail but we can draw this conclusion i think i would i would ask the critic to agree to this the fact that an event falls on the side of the national unforgettables it's a sort of thing wouldn't expect people to forget a nation to forget means that there's some obstacle and accepting the story so some ups now maybe we disagree as to how big the obstacle is maybe I think intuitively that the obstacles so big no one could jump over it and he thinks yes an obstacle but people who believe that the priests have supernatural powers or the King us special powers or feeding their drugs in some cases you could jump over the obstacle that would be the difference between us we both agree that is an obstacle question is how strong is the obstacle is the obstacle really so absolute that you can't jump over it or is it something which on occasion you could jump over at which case the intuition doesn't settle the issue if that's the way the critic put this case it up to here i think the critic has a good case we have much more work to do we have to show positive evidence that the obstacle is so strong it always works we need positive evidence that the obstacle is so strong it always works that no one ever jumps over that obstacle and that no one jumps over that obstacle not because of a charlatan or a fakir who makes it up not even when you take into account the gradual development of stories changing in elevating them and aggrandizing them over time the evidence has to close off both of those and that's what i claim i can do i clean I can close off both of them okay we're together that's enough for today tomorrow I will summarize all of this again and if any questions have come up in 23 hours I'll be happy to talk about them then we'll push on to look at the evidence okay you