Friday, April 16, 2010

The Kuzari Principle: Ultimate Proof of God’s Existence?

Judah Halevi (c.1075–1141), Spanish Jewish physician, poet and philosopher; author of the Book of the Khazars.

This is the first of several posts I plan to make on the Kuzari Principle, a line of reasoning often used to assert the truth of Judaism and the relative weakness of other religions.

To proponents, Kuzari provides a strong reason to believe that it would be impossible to hoax a story such as the Torah's account of the Mt. Sinai event, the National Revelation. Note that the argument concerns both the story and the event itself: Kuzari says they could not be faked and therefore both must be true.

My intent now is to give a brief and simple introduction to Kuzari. Future posts will examine Kuzari closely and assess its strengths and weaknesses as a logical argument.


What Is the Kuzari Principle?

According to Wikipedia, the Kuzari Principle
is a line of philosophic reasoning derived from the medieval work Kuzari. This principle claims to logically prove the historicity of major events recorded in the Bible from the nature of the belief in them. More specifically, it is argued that one can prove from the oral testimony of the story itself that some three million Israelites personally were led out of Egypt in an Exodus, and witnessed God's revelation to them at Mount Sinai, thus establishing the proof of the events discussed in the Torah.
David Yust views Kuzari negatively in a Talk Reason article (2002):
The Kuzari principle (KP) is a formal argument (whose ambiguous nature will be discussed further on) universally adopted by Orthodox Judaism as the sole authentic proof of the truth and exclusivity of the Jewish faith. In this sense, the KP is a materialized ideal. The invention of the KP is attributed to the famous 11th-12th century Jewish-Spanish poet and philosopher Yehudah Halevi, who allegedly formulated it in his Kuzari treatise (hence the name). Genetically, the KP may be traced to a vague sentence in the Pentateuch which enjoins the Jews to tell their sons about the Exodus from Egypt. A century after Halevi it was reiterated – again in a rather vague form – by the outstanding Jewish thinker and Pentateuch commentator Nahmanides.
In today's cyberspace, Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb appears to be the foremost champion of the Kuzari Principle. Gottlieb, incidentally, is no joke. He earned a Ph.D. in mathematical logic at Brandeis University. He was Professor of Philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. Today, as far as I know, he is a senior faculty member at Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem. Here is Gottlieb's introductory illustration (1997) to the Kuzari argument (he goes into much more detail later):
Take, for example, the revelation at Sinai. There are people who believe that the revelation at Sinai occurred. I'm not going to assume that because people believed it that it must have occurred. That is called "begging the question." However, it is a fact that there are people who believe it occurred.

Now they believe it because the previous generation taught it to them. Likewise, that generation believes it because the previous generation taught it to them. So you have a chain of generations of believers going back in time. That is a fact. The question then is, how did the chain get started? Who were the first believers? How did they arrive at their belief?

Again, oversimplifying, (this is only the outline): There are two broad possibilities. One: the event at Sinai took place and people witnessed it, and that caused their belief. Or two: the event did not take place. If the event did not take place, then someone invented the story and convinced the people to believe it.

The Kuzari's argument proceeds by investigating the second alternative, that the event didn't happen, that the story was made up and was sold. The argument shows that the second alternative is not credible. It is not credible to believe that the story was made up and then sold. If you can defeat the second alternative, that leaves only the first alternative, that it happened and was witnessed. That is the structure of the argument.
A recent application of Kuzari to the Sinai event is Betzalel Avraham Feinstein's (2009). Feinstein mentions that his post had benefited from feedback by Rabbi Gottlieb:
A) At least 600,000 Israelites gathered at the bottom of Mount Sinai over 3,300 years ago.

B) All of the Israelites heard G-d speak to them at Mount Sinai, and they then asked Moses to be His prophet.

C) Moses received the entire Torah from G-d and taught the Torah to all of the Israelites standing at Mount Sinai.

D) The Israelites transmitted the Torah and also the history of the transmission process of the Torah from generation to generation in an unbroken chain of generations for over 3,300 years until today, with at least one hundred thousand Israelites in each generation of the chain.
[boldface in original]
With this background, we have a good-enough understanding of the Kuzari Principle and its application. In the next installment, I will introduce Rabbi Gottlieb's modern formulation of Kuzari.

In the meantime, feedback is invited!

19 comments:

  1. > Or two: the event did not take place. If the event did not take place, then someone invented the story and convinced the people to believe it.
    > The Kuzari's argument proceeds by investigating the second alternative, that the event didn't happen, that the story was made up and was sold.

    Right here is the problem with the Kuzari. It’s a strawman. The scenario, as usually described, is someone standing up in the marketplace and shouting to a crowd, “Hey everyone, God appeared to your grandparents at Sinia and gave them this book, called the Torah!” At which point everyone laughs at the lunatic, because, after all, if their grandparents had witnessed such a momentous event, surely they would have mentioned it.

    Of course, in reality it’s not likely that someone tried to “sell” the story, but rather that it evolved slowly, like all folklore, and eventually people wrote down the already-revered mythology, which was later redacted into the Torah.

    And then there’s the little problem that Navi itself contradicts the Kuzari’s version of events in two places when it describes the discovery of parts of the Torah previously unknown to the discoverers.

    And the fact that people are actually very gullible, especially in large groups. It’s really not that hard to start a cult.

    Nor is it really that difficult to fake history, especially in a society with no sense of time-scale and who’s only source of history was folklore.

    And let’s not forget how the sefer Kuzari ends. The king of the Khazars decides to go with Judaism, not because he’s convinced by arguments that its claims are true, but because the three clerics he is consulting, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim, all agree that Judaism had some legitimacy, while there is no such agreement about the other two religions. As if reality is subject to a vote.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Of course, in reality it’s not likely that someone tried to 'sell' the story, but rather that it evolved slowly, like all folklore, and eventually people wrote down the already-revered mythology, which was later redacted into the Torah."

    At this point, however, the Kuzari proponent challenges the skeptic to explain why no other Sinai-like stories evolved.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Kuzari reminds me of that riddle about three people checking into a hotel. See here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_dollar_riddle

    Present it one way, you come up with one impression. Look at it differently and you see the truth. BTw, there's another formulation in "One People - two worlds" By Rabbi Yosef Reinman; he uses Holocaust denial and it's not easy to detect where the logic goes awry. BTW, as to why no other Sinai-Like stories evolved, I saw numerous examples indicating it did; some of these were posted by Orthoprax the blogger.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I love that riddle.

    Thanks for the reference to Orthoprax (http://orthoprax.blogspot.com/search?q=kuzari). I will read and study.

    My goal is to make as definitive a statement as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And here's a really great easy to understand rebuttal - http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/d94826c6e2485b5c?dmode=source&pli=1

    ReplyDelete
  6. And oh, I see Orthoprax's best examples don't even have the word Kuzari in it. Do a search on Aztec

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks so much. I am actually familiar with the Aztec example and have been working with it.

    However, if I ever get later sections posted, I think you'll find I have my own cogent points to add about the Sinai event itself.

    The question is how cogent the points actually are.

    Have a nice weekend, however you do it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ichabod Chrain4:32 PM

    Seems to me that the development of Mormonism is evidence undercutting the Kuzari priniciple. How could Joseph Smith have convinced anyone if things didn't happen as he said?

    Ichabod Chrain

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey IC, long time no c!!

    Anyhow, there are subtleties to the Kuzari that address your question. Basically the KP says that purported "national revelations" to groups are in a category all by itself.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Looking forward to your own cogent points.

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://kiruvawarenessnetwork.blogspot.com/2007/12/links-to-kuzari-posts.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. BHB,

    Thanks very much for giving this link. It's a real resource.

    I think I may wait to read some of the Kuzari critiques until I've finished my own thoughts.

    After all, this exercise is not only about solving a "problem" but also about learning to solve problems.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous12:52 PM

    See also:

    http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Credibility_Of_Testimony.htm

    and

    http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Kuzari_Principle_Intro.htm

    ReplyDelete
  14. First of all, th KP is should not be viewed as a problem. Atheists should be as open to evidence for God, and if evidence points to God, then that's not a "bad" thing, or a "problem."

    I have read Gottlieb's work and I have met him in person many times. First, he is scary smart (arguably the smartest person I have ever met, and I have met many famous academics). Second, he is a very nice guy, and he has no intentions to fool people, and he takes all question and criticism seriously.

    Although he has a good presentation of the Kuzari argument, I actually think he could have done a better job in the sense that he does not sufficiently elaborate his argument.

    This is his argument: National Commemorated history has never been shown to be false; therefore, there is absolutely no reason to assume that it is false here.

    If you noticed, I used the word commemorated, and in his audio version of his argument he focuses on this point very much.

    The Torah isn't merely history, it is a history which claimed that the Jews began observing certian commemorations for that event, which they started to observe when those miracles were observed by the entire nation. Those commemorations include obseving Passover, the Sabbath, Sabbatical years (every seven years the entire land of Israel may not be tilled, sowed or reapt) Jubille (same as the Sabbatical years, except that it happens every fifty years), phylacteries (the Jews are required to bind boxes filled with parchment that contains the Exodus story) and many, many other commemorations.

    This event could not be false, argues Gottlieb, because if it had been initiated at a later time, people would have asked, "We neither heard of the Sinai miracle, nor the 'everlasting' commemorations that you claim was observed from that day forward."

    Hence, in order to refute the Kuzari principle, one must find a 1) national, 2) commemorated event and 3) show that this event was believed by the nation. The event must have all three elements.

    The Aztek example actually lacks ALL three elements. First, the event does not even claim the number of people who were there - it may have been as few as twenty, e.g.; on the other hand, the Torah counts the Jews many times and it always in the millions (which is where the Book of Numbers got its name). Second, the Aztek myth never claims that this event was commemorated, let alone that the commemorations began at the time of the miracles. Third, we have no way of knowing that the nation even BELIEVED this myth. It is merely one person writing, and he may have been exagerating, or simly lying (a classicist once told me that many of the Greeks never even believed their myths; they were viewed their myths as Amercians do Santa).

    Now, a skeptic may claim that the biblical history may have evolved. And they may be right. But they must show why they are right. They have to assume the burden of proof. Why are they convinced that national, commemorated history can evolve? From the facts on the ground, it has never happened, so it seems that it can't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Abele,

    I've said many times before how "open" I am to evidence of God. I notice that your post, although well meaning, itself lacks evidence of God. We both should notice too that even if Kuzari is taken as something that makes an event like Sinai seem more probable, it is itself not evidence or proof. At best, it's a reason for the troubled believer to maintain belief in good conscience of reason.

    I believe all that you say about Gottlieb. My experience with him has been positive overall, but I have also found him to be evasive and obfuscating, particularly at times when he has needed to be most clear.

    In my other posts on Kuzari, I have responded to this strange habit KP proponents have of trying to set the conditions of the debate.

    I'll give you the link to my index of Kuzari posts. I recommend the post on Hiroshima as well as the one that addresses Kuzari head-on. I'll also ask you for your examples of true NETs, or real national commemorated events (in your terminology).

    Here's the link to the index. I look forward to discussing this further with you.

    http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/09/kuzari-principle-index-of-posts.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. I won't get into lengthy details because the subject is never ending, but two points.

    A) The purden of proof is not on the skeptics. The believers ask the skeptics for outrageous sacrifice of behaviour. The onus is on the believer to make their case, not the other way around

    B) The KP often attempts to find distinctions that make the Exodus tale different than other mircacle. Said differences don't prove anything, except possibly induces one to give one pause and say "that is indeed unlikely". But then one must remember Hume's maxim. "Which is more likely, that a miracle occured or that something unlikely occurred?" (Paraphrased of course)

    C) If the traditional story, that I grew up and revered for forty years, would not be so full of holes, I would be more than willing to give the KP the benefit of the doubt. But History, Archaeology, cosmology, ANE, Biblical Criticism, Geology, Biology, etc all conspire to nail the coffin on the veracity of any of the miraculous events of the Torah and especially that of our founding history.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Sorry for the constant posts. This is specifically a response to "Baal Habos."
    1. Regarding the burden of proof, we argue that no evidence is absolute. Therefore, when we come forth with evidence, we agree that you may be able to respond by showing that the evidence MAY be flawed. To that, we agree; the evidence may be flawed, but we live our lives based on the unproved presumption that evidence should be taken seriously. Now, the skeptics go one step further by claiming that the evidence is surely or probably flawed. For that, they need to show us what led them to that conclusion. They have the burden.
    2. Hume's maxim is utter rubbish. Everything is inherently unlikely. Once we have powerful evidence for an event, we follow the evidence not matter how "unlikely" you presuppose that event is (Indeed, what are the odds that the Jews were in Sinai, assuming we had no evidence for it? 1/1000? 1/100,000,000?)
    3. I like the word "conspire," because that is exactly what happened. Regarding the Geology and Evolution issue, they are not relevant to Kuzari. They are relevant to a different issue of whether the non-national parts of the Bible - Genesis - are true, which is a topic onto itself: But it does not touch on the historicity of the miraculous Exodus. Regarding biblical criticism, the arguments are so vague that they can't be taken seriously (and I myself have cought them lying many times). Regarding archeology, I have contacted Finkelstien with many critiques on his assumptions and he has refused to respond to them. The most he could muster was "I can't take your faith seriously when conducting my scientific research." Almost every single one of his arguments is based on misapplying his research to the biblical story.

    ReplyDelete
  18. >To that, we agree; the evidence may be flawed, but we live our lives based on the unproved presumption that evidence should be taken seriously.

    You don't have ANY evidence. Just hearsay.

    > Now, the skeptics go one step further by claiming that the evidence is surely or probably flawed. For that, they need to show us what led them to that conclusion.

    Read Zeligman's Letter To My rabbi.



    >2. Hume's maxim is utter rubbish. Everything is inherently unlikely. Once we have powerful evidence for an event,

    Err, but you don't. You have flawed inductive reasoning which is contradicted by History and, Science, not to mention common sense.




    > I like the word "conspire," because that is exactly what happened.

    I don't know what you mean.

    >Regarding the Geology and Evolution issue, they are not relevant to Kuzari.


    They are relevant, because it's the supposed unbroken tradition to to Sinai that tells us that the world is 5771 years old and that Adam, and Avraham Avinu, Noah, etc are all to be taken at face value. Sorry, but you can't throw out the bathwater without leaving the baby naked.

    > Regarding biblical criticism, the arguments are so vague that they can't be taken seriously (and I myself have cought them lying many times).

    It's the details that are vague. The general principal is quite compelling.

    >Regarding archeology, I have contacted Finkelstien with many critiques on his assumptions and he has refused to respond to them. The most he could muster was "I can't take your faith seriously when conducting my scientific research." Almost every single one of his arguments is based on misapplying his research to the biblical story.

    Let's see. In this corner we have "anonymuous Abele". In this corner we have archaeologists (read Dever) who paint a completely different picture. I wonder who has more credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  19. >To that, we agree; the evidence may be flawed, but we live our lives based on the unproved presumption that evidence should be taken seriously.

    You don't have ANY evidence. Just hearsay.

    > Now, the skeptics go one step further by claiming that the evidence is surely or probably flawed. For that, they need to show us what led them to that conclusion.

    Read Zeligman's Letter To My rabbi.



    >2. Hume's maxim is utter rubbish. Everything is inherently unlikely. Once we have powerful evidence for an event,

    Err, but you don't. You have flawed inductive reasoning which is contradicted by History and, Science, not to mention common sense.




    > I like the word "conspire," because that is exactly what happened.

    I don't know what you mean.

    >Regarding the Geology and Evolution issue, they are not relevant to Kuzari.


    They are relevant, because it's the supposed unbroken tradition to to Sinai that tells us that the world is 5771 years old and that Adam, and Avraham Avinu, Noah, etc are all to be taken at face value. Sorry, but you can't throw out the bathwater without leaving the baby naked.

    > Regarding biblical criticism, the arguments are so vague that they can't be taken seriously (and I myself have cought them lying many times).

    It's the details that are vague. The general principal is quite compelling.

    >Regarding archeology, I have contacted Finkelstien with many critiques on his assumptions and he has refused to respond to them. The most he could muster was "I can't take your faith seriously when conducting my scientific research." Almost every single one of his arguments is based on misapplying his research to the biblical story.

    Let's see. In this corner we have "anonymuous Abele". In this corner we have archaeologists (read Dever) who paint a completely different picture. I wonder who has more credibility.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to comment if you have something substantial and substantiated to say.