Very nice overview of Bayes Theorem and Historical Jesus

[_Jersey Girl]

Jersey Girl said:

I wasn't asking you for what you decided. I was asking you if you decided.

Keep in mind that I referred to the historical Jesus. I didn't refer to the Jesus in scripture.

There's a difference.

I guess when I see threads like this about Bayes Theorem, I'm thinking...can't you just read the material that is out there and decide based on your own evaluation?

It frustrates me, because I think it's wholly unnecessary to reasoning it out for yourself.

But that's just me.

I see your points. But I worked it out for myself when I was a believer, as does everyone else. That doesn't give us how probably true or how probably false my knowledge is though. WIthout a basis for thinking rationally, and Bayes Theorem virtually forces us to do so if we use it accurately and honestly, then we have little way of checking our own assumptions. That's why Bayes Theorem is so helpful. And the cool thing is it ain't that hard to learn either! Thank God! Just a little high school algebra is all that is needed for the historical usages of it. The scientific uses need more precision, but historians don't and can't be as accurate or precise, nor is it necessary to be so.

I don't want to be a giant bummer on your thread. I know your love of learning and you love of books. I know your love for the journey. I'd defend that to anyone and I have.

I'm sure beyond all doubt that I am in a different place than you are. Definitely because of my own journey and maybe someday I'll tell you the stories that changed me and why I think the way I do today.

But here is the question I would pose to you: What possible difference does it make?

No matter how much probability you apply to the question at hand, no matter which tool you use, you're never going to know the answer while you are alive. The only way you could ever possibly know if the historical Jesus existed or not is to die, when you'll either wake up in his presence or you'll never wake up again and know nothing at all.

In my view, life is too bloody short for this.

But that's just me and we simply disagree.

[_Philo Sofee]

Hello Philo,

I am assuming that you accept or at least respect Carrier's Bayesian reasoning that a physical Jesus did not exist.

I am assuming that you realize that the extreme majority of scholars believe the mythicist position to be false, in fact radically fringe false. These two assumptions I would think noncontroversial.

Yes, but the assumption that consensus or even orthodoxy gives us reality is seriously naïve. There was a time when the vast majority of folks thought the earth was the center of the universe, but that had nothing to do with making it really thus, yes? If all you have to say for historical evidence is that most think it's true, you ain't got much.....honestly..... Sincerely, all your questions are seriously analyzed and answered in Carrier's books "Proving History" and "On the Historicity of Jesus." Why do you dodge them? Why not find out for yourself instead of relying on second hand heresay (my views)?

[_EAllusion]

He has a PhD in history from Colombia, so he needs to be taken seriously.

I haven't followed Carrier much since he got his Ph.D. I'm skeptical he's changed all that much. I know him still as the guy who gradually rose the ranks in the atheist online community at iidb. He was good about some things, bad about others, and had a little too much of a self-promoting, off-putting personality. This comment is amusing as all get out to me.

It'd be like Tal Bachmann getting a Ph.D., then hearing someone hear assert that we now have to take him seriously because, hey, he's got a Ph.D.

[_Philo Sofee]

Jersey Girl said:

I don't want to be a giant bummer on your thread. I know your love of learning and you love of books. I know your love for the journey. I'd defend that to anyone and I have.

I'm sure beyond all doubt that I am in a different place than you are. Definitely because of my own journey and maybe someday I'll tell you the stories that changed me and why I think the way I do today.

But here is the question I would pose to you: What possible difference does it make?

No matter how much probability you apply to the question at hand, no matter which tool you use, you're never going to know the answer while you are alive. The only way you could ever possibly know if the historical Jesus existed or not is to die, when you'll either wake up in his presence or you'll never wake up again and know nothing at all.

In my view, life is too bloody short for this.

But that's just me and we simply disagree.

True enough. But the only way anyone is ever going to REALLY KNOW anything is when we die. So are you saying do nothing until then? I know you aren't, I am being rhetorical. You are always so cool to converse with...... As far as making a difference.... it can do so in odd ways.

[_Philo Sofee]

Mikwut:

Give substantive examples of how bayesian reasoning comes to a completely different conclusion than the traditional critical historical method used by the vast majority of trained experts. This should not be that hard. My theory you will resort to Wells, Doherty, some Price etc.. and guess what - you in the same place all the academics that reject the mythicist position are at, rational critical historical evaluation of the evidence.

Carrier has already done this, why continue ignoring doing the obvious and finding out for yourself instead of relying on my sayso? Read his two books on this. "Proving History," and "On the Historicity of Jesus."

[_EAllusion]

Some yoyo dope named Unwin is the most guilty of this horrible misuse of Bayes, and he has been rightly excoriated by Bayesians. Richard Carrier is not guilty of its misuse. James Lindsay is using it like Carrier, as are many others. Lindsay is easily found online and I highly recommend his blog. Here's the link: http://goddoesnt.blogspot.com/2012/12/d ... oning.html

Actually, I don't think people I'm referring to are misusing Bayes per se. Rather they are translating their poor reasoning into the notation of Bayes then executing the arithmetic. The math is fine. The arguments are not. And to understand the arguments, you have to parse what's being said with lots of math flying around on top of it. I think I can do this, but it does dazzle people.

Agreed entirely! Bayesians don't say this however.

Uh...

[_mikwut]

Hello Philo,

I have read both Philo. Thanks for the substantive answer.

mikwut

[_Jersey Girl]

True enough. But the only way anyone is ever going to REALLY KNOW anything is when we die.

I know, I already said that.

So are you saying do nothing until then? I know you aren't, I am being rhetorical.

No, I'm not saying that. I can't make you think the way I think. I'm not going to even try. Your journey belongs to you, along with every experience you've had. It makes you who and what you are this very minute.

I just went somewhere else, I guess.

You are always so cool to converse with...... As far as making a difference.... it can do so in odd ways.

I don't know how cool it is to be challenging in what seems to be a negative way on your thread. I didn't mean to come off as negative. I wanted to smack you upside your head. Got pretty close, right?

:-)

[_Philo Sofee]

Hello Philo,

I have read both Philo. Thanks for the substantive answer.

mikwut

Then directly refute him with the evidence you assume exists on how he is wrong. SHOW your own probabilities against his and justify them with evidence like he did. You obviously don't think his probabilities are correct, then show us which ones are more realistic and show us why with the evidence and background as he did. That surely is not too much to ask of you is it? You'll have to forgive me for being seriously skeptical of this claim. Until you present evidence for it, I feel fully justified in having a really low probability of belief in this claim - GRIN! I want to see at least an attempt of yours to refute his indictment against the established consensus on their abject failure using their own historicity criteria. Surely Carrier is correct in that isn't he?! If not, I have yet to see anyone refute his logic of having to do something far better than consensus guessing and assumptions. Incidentally, at least understand his online materials WITH the comments/conversations, which is where he explains things very well, if not a little huffy because of the dopes who harangue him on every trivial thing imaginable.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/9710

[_Philo Sofee]

I don't know how cool it is to be challenging in what seems to be a negative way on your thread. I didn't mean to come off as negative. I wanted to smack you upside your head. Got pretty close, right?

:-)

I didn't see this as a challenge so much as a good conversation. And stop whumpin me upside the head, I am sensitive.......