Very nice overview of Bayes Theorem and Historical Jesus

[Guest]

Philo,

Your missing the point, I'm the one that should be using your own resource against you not the other way around, i'm not attacking Bayesian reasoning. What I'm advocating and haven't seen Carrier or anyone else refute is for all intents and purposes Bayesian reasoning HAS been applied to history for a very long time.

I honestly haven't seen it as I have been apprised of Bayes Theorem and history through Carrier. I have been reading Historical Jesus scholarship now for a few years and I don't see it being used, and it *ought* to be. It's exactly why the criteria for historicity have failed so spectacularly. The historians are merely using their illogical and fatally flawed assumptions about Jesus and his existence.

Different language is used that's all. For example any historian who applies my arguments from no contrary and my above argument of no history of the mythical heresy can either plug in .97 into a Bayesian calculation or just say the arguments themselves refute the contrary argument through deductive historical reasoning to the best explanation. It is why I brought up Dan Vogel. If Carrier applied Bayesian reasoning to Dan Vogel's arguments respecting Joseph Smith he is gonna land right around where Vogel does.

This appears to me to be a dubious assumption on your part.

So, my argument is how on earth can Bayesian reasoning turn the issue of a historical Jesus from one of near expert unanimity 180 degrees to a mythicist position? That's ridiculous.

So because you can't conceive of it, it's not possible? Can you name for me the fallacy you are laboring mightily under here?

That is equivalent to saying that biologists in creating the history of human origins haven't used Bayesian reasoning (they don't for all intents and purposes) and if we do apply Bayesian reasoning we can get to a creationist position. It is absurd.

Yes it is, but not because of why you think.

Were going to get to the same evolutionary conclusions using either method because the weighing in Bayesian reasoning is based on the same logical rational arguments.

Now how am I supposed to accept that kind of assumption, really?

The probability of the traditional historical critical method reaching such a unanimous position in academia and bayesian reasoning turning that in the complete opposite direction is .01. This is because the critical reasoning and methods used in the traditional historical critical method are for all intents and purposes Bayesian to begin with. Carrier is playing a shell game.

Bayesian probability does not mean it turns a consensus into the exact opposite in any manner. Your assumptions about Bayesianism are honestly no good. I sincerely would suggest you get a handle on what it does and doesn't do first. You appear to not grasp what Bayesian probability is about.

Sincerely,
BYP

[Guest]

Philo Sofee,

I have a question. I've been reading threads like this for over 16 years. Probably much like you. Have you not decided for yourself that the historical Jesus existed or not?

I'm just curious about that.

I am agnostic on it, but the probability to me appears to be far less than when I was an apologist, without question. For instance, James A. Lindsay, the mathematician who completely changed my mind about the folly of God and infinity also has demonstrated why Bayes Theorem shows faith is a worthless way to acquire actual knowledge and truth. His analysis using Bayes Theorem is yet another nail in the coffin of my belief. See here: http://goddoesnt.blogspot.com/2012/12/d ... oning.html

[_Jersey Girl]

Philo Sofee,

I have a question. I've been reading threads like this for over 16 years. Probably much like you. Have you not decided for yourself that the historical Jesus existed or not?

I'm just curious about that.

I am agnostic on it, but the probability to me appears to be far less than when I was an apologist, without question.

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.

[Guest]

But Analytics, again the inputs are arbitrary?

No, inputs are based on evidence and our background knowledge of what we know about the world and how things work. Subjectivity never means arbitrary. Besides the prior probability in Bayes simply measures what liklihood we would give something without knowing evidence up front, but based on what we know. In other words, I say I can run the 100 yard dash, and the skepticism everyone would have is not based on evidence, but on a prior probability based on everyone knowing I am 55 years old, and don't run much. It's also based on the fact that 9 out of 10 humans cannot run that fast. It takes years to get that fast, and the majority of us don't put in that kind of time or workout. The prior probability is *already* made by you! You surely would not say there is a 50% chance I can do this would you? That's a prior probability. It's less you say? How much less? 20%? 30%? What can you personally reasonably believe? Because it IS a number. We can't get out of that.

And it is valid, even if subjective. Subjective does not mean meaningless guess work. Now if I were to present evidence then that changes the prior probability, but the prior probability is NOT the final probability, it's only the initial assessment we all already make in our everyday lives. Does that help? The prior *CAN* and usually is changed through evidence and our background knowledge as it is brought to bear upon the claim being made, whatever claim that is.

[_Philo Sofee]

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.

[_Philo Sofee]

Kishkumen:

Look at his work. Listen to him speak. Then decide whether he should taken seriously.

What is so fascinating is that I have done this, *extensively* for the past several years and I find him incredibly enlightening and empowering and logical. It is good to recognize that not all people see things the same. I am not trying to pick on ya Kish, I'm just saying that I am the one advocating people take the time and honestly and seriously evaluate Carrier's materials. I have, and it's why I tout his stuff.

[_EAllusion]

I'll agree with Philo and his link on this one; I can't think of a clear-headed way of examining the historicity of Jesus without evoking Bayes'.

What if you are a frequentist? I think Bayseian probability can both serve as a way to formalize the inferred reasoning we use and to generate insights that aren't immediately intuitive. But to insist that an empirical question can only be addressed through Bayes Theorem suggests a hardcore Bayesian position that is far from self-evident.

Regarding this thread, you definitely see people around the field of philosophy of religion and issues related to apologetics make dense Bayesian arguments where the Bayesian notation only serves to obfuscate what should otherwise be an accessible chain of thought. And, unfortunately, often-times those are terrible arguments where the use of Bayesian probability is just creating a thin patina of sophistication through use of fancy notation. I say this as someone who is at least conversant enough with Bayesian analysis to be able to read the material.

This is usually happens on the side of religious apologists. I've read more awful "God probably exists as demonstrated by this Bayesian jibber-jab" arguments than I care to recall. I have a sneaking suspicion the same would be going on with Carrier here. I'd have to read more of him on this subject.

[_Philo Sofee]

I'll agree with Philo and his link on this one; I can't think of a clear-headed way of examining the historicity of Jesus without evoking Bayes'.

What if you are a frequentist? I think Bayseian probability can both serve as a way to formalize the inferred reasoning we use and to generate insights that aren't immediately intuitive. But to insist that an empirical question can only be addressed through Bayes Theorem suggests a hardcore Bayesian position that is far from self-evident.

Regarding this thread, you definitely see people around the field of philosophy of religion and issues related to apologetics make dense Bayesian arguments where the Bayesian notation only serves to obfuscate what should otherwise be an accessible chain of thought. And, unfortunately, often-times those are terrible arguments where the use of Bayesian probability is just creating a thin patina of sophistication through use of fancy notation. I say this as someone who is at least conversant enough with Bayesian analysis to be able to read the material.

This is usually happens on the side of religious apologists, but I have a sneaking suspicion the same would be going on with Carrier here. I'd have to read more of him on this subject.

I had that sneaking suspicion also, so I have begun purchasing the books on Bayes Theorem he recommends, and find Carrier is far more credible than he is given credit for. One book I have found very powerful is E. T. Jaynes, "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science." It is true that people misuse Bayes, but this is not a good argument for not using it, but an argument for using it correctly. Jaynes is very adamant about that. I am not suggesting you have advocated this, just saying it in general.

[Guest]

EAllusion said:

This is usually happens on the side of religious apologists. I've read more awful "God probably exists as demonstrated by this Bayesian jibber-jab" arguments than I care to recall. I have a sneaking suspicion the same would be going on with Carrier here. I'd have to read more of him on this subject.

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

I am in the process of checking for myself whether Carrier is misuing Bayes, as I am reading up in many experts on Bayes, both critical for and against it. So far, I have found Carrier to be quite credible. Yes he can be a complete asshat sometimes. That is irrelevant to his arguments to me.

But to insist that an empirical question can only be addressed through Bayes Theorem suggests a hardcore Bayesian position that is far from self-evident.

Agreed entirely! Bayesians don't say this however. They do, however, say Bayes is one of the finest ways to keep our thinking straight and check ALL claims for their probabilities and weigh them against each other with evidence. It is, after all, the essence of probability to do just that, yes? Apologists of all religions use only one sided evidences and claims and ignore or downplay other claims. Bayes makes us honest in giving them as much realistic and hard analysis for their probabilities with the evidence as any other method out there. It keeps us far more honest because it exposes our assumptions.

[Guest]

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.

If these two assumptions are right what is the difference that Bayesian reasoning brings to the table, assuming Richard Carrier is correct, to so radically change the historical landscape that the critical historical method otherwise concludes?

Could you provide possibly two examples of historical evidence that when viewed through Bayesian reasoning changes or tilts the balance of evidence toward a mythical Jesus but using the traditional critical historical method the same evidence tilts toward a real historical Jesus? Given the above noncontroversial assumptions examples would have to exist, even abound.

I understand Bayesian reasoning Philo, you just waving your hand to my questions and saying it isn't so doesn't answer my arguments. Statements will never be arguments. 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 is you will resort to Wells, Doherty, some Price etc.. and guess what - you will be providing arguments in the same light that all the academics that use the critical method and that reject the mythicist position use you will just present them from that perspective and present it dressed up in a bayesian formula.

mikwut