Judaism Is More Likely to be True Than False

I will begin this round with an analogy: Consider a tube with an image at one end and a hole for viewing at the other. Three individuals are asked what the image is at the other end of the tube. What the observers do not know is that this tube is in fact a kaleidoscope. The first says he sees an array of triangles, the second a large star, and the third a solid field of color. Now if these three people get together and discuss what the image is, they will find that their descriptions are mutually exclusive and do not agree with each other. They may accuse the others of lying or not looking down the same tube, but in fact they observed the same image. The truth is that they saw the same image and came to seemingly incompatible conclusions, and yet none of them is lying. In the same way we may understand the world religions as all describing different human interactions with the divine. The religions differ because these interactions took place at different times, locations, cultural climates, etc. Because the divine is beyond human comprehension, religions express their interaction in human terms that fail to capture the true essence of the Real. Yet all realigions accurately describe true interactions with the Real. In this way, all religions are “true” in that they accurately reflect the Real as understood from a particular human vantage point, but are all “false” in that this vantage point is incapable of capturing and expressing the nature of the divine. A. Observations 1) i) Miracles Claiming that miracles from non-Jewish religions are attributable to false prophets faces three problems. First, all other religions will claim the exact same; Hindus and Sikhs will all claim Jewish miracles are the result of false prophets. In that absence of strong distinguishing characteristics between miracles these claims are symmetric and yield no argumentative leverage. Second, all religions offer miracles that are indistinguishable by character. All claim healing miracles, supernatural occurrences, and spectacular revelations of the divine. Pro claims that the national revelation atMt.Sinaiis special evidence, but he offers no explanation for why this revelation is meaningfully different from the public execution of Ichadon or the public appearance of Jesus. Additionally, even if theMt.Sinairevelation is evidentially stronger than all other claims of revelation, the staggering number of revelation claims must be accounted for. Are all to be attributed to false prophets? The third problem is in A.2) ii) Prophecy It is not enough to simply claim “Christian prophecies have been debunked.” There exists a large body of Biblical scholars that disagree with you, so simply appealing to authority is a draw on this issue. Also, you never addressed the Marcus Garvey, Rasta, or Ichadon prophecies- these are dropped points in this debate so far. 2) Transformation You miss the point of this argument which is not that converts exhibit zeal, but that most religions are able to produce individuals of similar exceptional character. The same devotion, selflessness, and reorientation toward the divine is found in all religions. This does NOT support the argument that evidence for competing religions is the result of false prophets. You would expect false prophets to produce followers of character that is opposed to the divine, and yet all religions are capable of generating followers willing to sacrifice their own well being for the sake of the divine. B. Contentions 1)i) I ask my opponent to clarify if individuals who worship Brahman, Ganesh, or do not believe in God are eligible for salvation within Judaism. If not, then Jewish Exclusivism still faces the problem of arbitrary salvation. ii) This point was intended to target modern empirical evidence. We see modern miracles and saints across religious boundaries. Christian and Muslim medieval miracles, saints such as Mother Theresa, Gandhi, the Buddha all show that modern empirical evidence favors no particular religions. If one religion was true, you would expect to see this reflected in modern claims of religious experience. My opponent offers no explanation for why national revelation is meaningfully different from any other mass revelation such as Ichadon or Jesus. Additionally, there are competing claims of mass revelation, such as the Aztec story of their migration in which one of their gods instructed them collectively (http://en.wikipedia.org...). These stories all capture the strengths of theMt.Sinai story. iii) Jewish Exclusivism still fails to explain the huge amount of evidence for a diverse number of religions. Pro has not gone into specific refutations of any of my examples; the closest he has come is an appeal to authority in his A.1). *I am reordering/naming arguments for clarity* D. Case Against Pluralism 1) This argument simply says it is impossible for all religions to be absolute truth. This I readily concede. Pluralism does not maintain that all religions are doctrinally true- it does not hold that the Holy Trinity is true or that the divine is Brahman. What it claims is that all religions arise out of authentic encounters with the divine and so contain meaningful descriptions of the divine from a human perspective. Another way to understand this is that all religions are equally correct in that they all fail to describe the Real but all have equally well-grounded positions that offer genuine insight into the relationship between the divine and human. Thinking about the kaleidoscope, all men actually saw the image in the tube but all men are wrong in describing what it actually looks like. About Judaism, pluralism might say that the divine did not actually speak to all of Israel at Mt. Sinai but rather that Israel experienced an incomprehensible and inexpressible interaction with the Real as G-d speaking to them. Within their specific historical context, this interaction was experienced by a group of humans as the events described in the Torah. C. Why Pluralism is more Likely. First, let me point out that my opponent has ZERO offense in this debate. His single argument D) is inapplicable to the Pluralistic Hypothesis. This means Pro has given no arguments generating doubt about my position. No matter how convincing you may find Pro’s defense against my offense, it still generate SOME amount of doubt regarding an Exclusivist position. This simple imbalance of offensive/defensive argument means that in the context of this debate, it is prima facie impossible for Pro to have a more certain positions than Con. Second, no matter the strength of the Jewish revelation/prophecy evidence, all competing religious experiences MUST be accounted for. The claim from Pro is that across all time and history, all religious experience has been unreliable with the notable exception of the experiences of ONE small group of people limited to a very limited geographic and temporal location. This amounts to throwing away 99% of religious experience because it contradicts the remaining 1%. Pluralism is capable of accounting for 100% of religious experience. The ability of Pluralism to better account for the relevant evidence makes it a stronger religious theory. As noted before, Judaism is able to explain the religious events of the Torah but must dismiss all other religious events. Pluralism is able to explain the events of the Torah AND all other religious events. Finally, competing religious experiences simply make Jewish Exclusivism less probable. I have listed many undebunked revelations and prophecies that contradict Jewish theological claims. This evidence decreases the likelihood that Judaism is correct. I have shown that this competing evidence shares many of the same characteristics as the evidence in support of Judaism and so is just as strong. In summary, Con’s position is more probable for three reasons: lack offense on the part of Pro, greater explanatory capacity, and the flat improbability of exclusivism.