Very nice overview of Bayes Theorem and Historical Jesus

[_Philo Sofee]

I feel some caution commenting about Bayes theorem, I have no serious understanding of it. I can assume it has its use. However even using quite simple math principals I cannot help considering that the accurcy of the result is significantly dependent upon the accuracy of the number plugged into the equationk, garbage in garbage out I have heard.

i cannot help but think that each element in the relationship turns into number only by way of historical assessment. If you have a piece of evidence , say a piece of writing called Hebrews, is it an example of a reflection of belief in a recent Jewish human or some divine angel dying? There are a few people who see the second. I do not. One of those few who see what I do not see, added that chumps like me don't read Greek. well I do not but there are thousands of people studying the writing who do. They do not see this mythic Jesus portrayed there so some sort of assessment is happening prior to considering how this piece of evidence is counted.

I am curious as to what clear examples of Christian writing can be found exist prior to the 20th century which describe a Jesus dying in the celestial realms as a divine figure come to us in a ritualistic portrayal .

The Ascension of Isaiah fits the bill of your question amigo.....

[_Philo Sofee]

These appear to be the elements Carrier uses for his mythicist argument.

Element 2: When Christianity began, Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse. There was no 'normative' set of Jewish beliefs, but a countless array of different Jewish belief systems vying for popularity.Element 3: When Christianity began, many Jews had long been expecting a messiah: a divinely chosen leader or savior anointed (literally of figuratively 'christened', hence a 'Christ') to help usher in God's supernatural kingdom.Element 4: Palestine in the early first century CE was experiencing a rash of messianism.Element 7: The pre-Christian book of Daniel was a key messianic text, laying out what would happen and when, partly inspiring much of the very messianic fever of the age, which by the most obvious (but not originally intended) interpretation predicted the messiah's arrival in the early first century, even (by some calculations) the very year of 30 CE. This text was popularly known and widely influential, and was known and regarded as scripture by the early Christians.Element 8: Many messianic sects among the Jews were searching the scriptures for secret messages from God about the coming messiah, in both the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint.Element 11: The earliest definitely known form of Christianity was a Judeo-Hellenistic mystery religion.Element 15: Christianity began as a charismatic cult which many of its leaders and members displayed evidence of schizotypal personalities. They naturally and regularly hallucinated (seeing visions and hearing voices).Element 16: The earliest Christians claimed they knew at least some (if not all) facts and teachings of Jesus from revelation and scripture (rather than from witnesses), and they regarded these as more reliable sources than word-of-mouth.Element 17: The fundamental features of the gospel story of Jesus can be read out of the Jewish scriptures.Element 29: [W]hat are now called 'Cargo Cults' are the modern movement most culturally and socially similar to earliest Christianity, so much so that Christianity is best understood in light of them.Element 30: Early-first century Judea was at the nexus of countless influences, not only from dozens of innovating and interacting Jewish sects (Element 2, and 33), but also pagan religions and philosophies.Element 31: Incarnate sons (or daughters) of a god who died and then rose from their deaths to become living gods granting salvation to their worshipers were a common and peculiar feature of pagan religion when Christianity arose, so much so that influence from paganism is the only plausible explanation for how a Jewish sect such as Christianity came to adopt the idea.Element 32: By whatever route, popular philosophy (especially Cynicism, and to some extent Stoicism and Platonism and perhaps Aristotelianism) influenced Christian teachings.

Do, you agree with all those elements? I don't. If they are used to calculate the probability that Jesus either did or did not exist then they are flawed in my opinion. Rubbish in, rubbish out.

Yes, because of one fundamental fact about them, they are the background we have of the subject. ALL background information is included in any calculation using Bayes Theorem. One is not allowed to subjectively pick and choose which evidence one will use to support their own pet theory. ALL information in, whether it's liked or not. That is why he used it. Apologists notoriously simply pick what supports their theory and then pretend their theory is proven without checking other claims and how well the evidence we have fits them as well, and from that we can compare the probability of which claims fit the evidence, but with all claims, ALL background information is used, absolutely ALWAYS. That prevents bias, and exposes our own assumptions, and it helps keep us honest. At least that's how other Bayesians have also described it. Carrier is not wrong to do it this way, so far as I understand, which is very little for now. I understand just enough about Bayes to be dangerous....

[_Mary]

If Ehrman with his extensive knowlege in the field and approaching it with very few, even zero * unquestionable * theological assumptions, finds no use for BT then I am inclined to trust his judgements.

Those elements are up for debate.

[_Mary]

How do you know you even have all of the background?

[_Philo Sofee]

How do you know you even have all of the background?

An outstanding question! We don't know. That's why new knowledge CAN change the probabilities. We are dealing with what is probable based on ALL we know, or what we can. But pre- judging it or pre-selecting it is truly subjective and this is one of the absolute strongest ways Bayes keeps us honest. We don't get to say what is valid or what is not based on our beliefs. We don't get to label anything "garbage" UNTIL we test it all. We put ALL cards on the table and then ask based on the claim, how well does the evidence and our background knowledge jive with that claim? Now, how well does that *same* evidence and background jive with the other claim or claims? We MUST be as thorough and complete as we possibly can or the probability is skewed. It's why apologists don't like Bayes.

When I do Bayes on many areas of Joseph Smith and Mormonism I guarantee I am going to get crap throw my way because apologists want *verification* ONLY, not actual reality with ALL evidence shown. That is the underlying flaw of absolutely everything FARMS and FAIR produces. It is the perfect recipe for confirmation bias, not getting to what is real. It is why the popular resort to "anti-Mormon" is thrown around. They then ignore anything under that label and pretend that is all that is needed. It's not. Bayes Theorem gets us to be as objective as possible using absolutely everything hiding nothing. We are beginning to demand it of Mormonism, but why not in all areas? There is no good reason not to if we want to honestly know what is most probably true as opposed to what isn't.

On Ehrman.... relying on one man's biases is something I just won't do anymore. I need to understand the probabilities of everything now. I suppose my enthusiasm for Bayes comes from feeling deceived and therefore I want reality and truth, PERIOD. Until I find a more valid and honest method than Bayes, I shall continue using it. I sort of had the same attitude as an apologist concerning FARMS materials. I read it ALL, and I read it repeatedly in order to memorize it so I could use it instantly and quash any argument. I see your approach to Ehrman in that light. It's not the correct way to go. At least not on my take. Of course, your mileage may vary, and that's fine, but actual justification comes from analyzing ALL evidence (pro and con, whether we like it or not, whether it supports our views or not) and all our background knowledge of what we understand how the world works.

Only then, when using the ***same*** parameters testing competing claims can we justify or verify whether one claim is more probable than another. So far as I can tell, there is no better way. There may be, and I am open to testing this, but for now Bayes is the method NO apologist wants to use, and that makes me think there is a reason. That reason has been shown in Carrier, Lindsay, Loftus, and many others. It is because it's thoroughly the most objective realistic and honest way to find out what is most probably true. That is all I am after now. Bayes levels the playing field, privileging NOTHING over anything else UNTIL it's all compared realistically, and only then can justification occur on what level of beliefs we can have on any claims being made. We want the same in our courts of law, we need it at all levels in our lives. At least, that's how I see it for now. New evidence can certainly change my mind if it is warranted, valid, and accurate. But that takes testing, not mere proclamation.

[_Philo Sofee]

If Ehrman with his extensive knowlege in the field and approaching it with very few, even zero * unquestionable * theological assumptions, finds no use for BT then I am inclined to trust his judgements.

Those elements are up for debate.

The irony is Ehrman uses Bayes in every book he writes, and is ignorant of that fact. If he is putting some information out as being more valid than something else, he is using Bayes probability. He uses evidence, background knowledge of the Gospels, Jesus, etc., and he just hasn't formalized the math. We ALL use Bayes all the time.

In fact, Ehrman arrived at agnosticism through his skepticism about God and evil, because the evidence lowered the probability for him of there being a God. That's Pure Bayes Theorem....

When Ehrman began school he was a Christian Bible believer. The more he learned, the more evidence that was amassed, the less he believed the Bible was what he was taught. Bayes thinking lowered the probability that the Bible is God's word to him. That is called rational thinking. The evidence when it is compelling cannot be ignored. It must be integrated into our belief systems, whether we like it or not.

[_richardMdBorn]

Actually, on examining the evidence in Carrier, I find your argument misinformed on what he did. When using Bayesian probability, it is essential to include ***all*** background knowledge as we are able and of what we know into the probability. Carrier clearly did this using the Jewishness arguments as well as the Hellenistic background, from the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls 11Q Melchizedek document, and extra biblical Jewish materials, apocryphal and pseudepigraphic materials. He did not present a dichotomy of Jewish verses Hellenistic as you present, he included ***all*** known background, as is proper for proper reasoning and probabilistic calculating. I honest to goodness don't think you yet grasp his argument.

How do you know that you've used all background information. At some point you have to limit it by date or geography, or the model becomes unwieldy.

[_richardMdBorn]

The irony is Ehrman uses Bayes in every book he writes, and is ignorant of that fact. If he is putting some information out as being more valid than something else, he is using Bayes probability. He uses evidence, background knowledge of the Gospels, Jesus, etc., and he just hasn't formalized the math. We ALL use Bayes all the time.

So the use of Bayesianism is not as innovative as you think it is. You remind me of the saying that to some one who has a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[_Philo Sofee]

Richard

Philo:
Actually, on examining the evidence in Carrier, I find your argument misinformed on what he did. When using Bayesian probability, it is essential to include ***all*** background knowledge as we are able and of what we know into the probability. Carrier clearly did this using the Jewishness arguments as well as the Hellenistic background, from the Old Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls 11Q Melchizedek document, and extra biblical Jewish materials, apocryphal and pseudepigraphic materials. He did not present a dichotomy of Jewish verses Hellenistic as you present, he included ***all*** known background, as is proper for proper reasoning and probabilistic calculating. I honest to goodness don't think you yet grasp his argument.

Richard:
How do you know that you've used all background information. At some point you have to limit it by date or geography, or the model becomes unwieldy.

At the risk of being redundant, I was already asked this excellent question by Mary and will repeat here what I told her.
An outstanding question! We don't know. That's why new knowledge CAN change the probabilities. We are dealing with what is probable based on ALL we know, or what we can. But pre- judging it or pre-selecting it is truly subjective and this is one of the absolute strongest ways Bayes keeps us honest. We don't get to say what is valid or what is not based on our beliefs. We don't get to label anything "garbage" UNTIL we test it all. We put ALL cards on the table and then ask based on the claim, how well does the evidence and our background knowledge jive with that claim? Now, how well does that *same* evidence and background jive with the other claim or claims? We MUST be as thorough and complete as we possibly can or the probability is skewed. It's why apologists don't like Bayes.

When I do Bayes on many areas of Joseph Smith and Mormonism I guarantee I am going to get s*** throw my way because apologists want *verification* ONLY, not actual reality with ALL evidence shown. That is the underlying flaw of absolutely everything FARMS and FAIR produces. It is the perfect recipe for confirmation bias, not getting to what is real. It is why the popular resort to "anti-Mormon" is thrown around. They then ignore anything under that label and pretend that is all that is needed. It's not. Bayes Theorem gets us to be as objective as possible using absolutely everything hiding nothing. We are beginning to demand it of Mormonism, but why not in all areas? There is no good reason not to if we want to honestly know what is most probably true as opposed to what isn't.

On Ehrman.... relying on one man's biases is something I just won't do anymore. I need to understand the probabilities of everything now. I suppose my enthusiasm for Bayes comes from feeling deceived and therefore I want reality and truth, PERIOD. Until I find a more valid and honest method than Bayes, I shall continue using it. I sort of had the same attitude as an apologist concerning FARMS materials. I read it ALL, and I read it repeatedly in order to memorize it so I could use it instantly and quash any argument. I see your approach to Ehrman in that light. It's not the correct way to go. At least not on my take. Of course, your mileage may vary, and that's fine, but actual justification comes from analyzing ALL evidence (pro and con, whether we like it or not, whether it supports our views or not) and all our background knowledge of what we understand how the world works.

Only then, when using the ***same*** parameters testing competing claims can we justify or verify whether one claim is more probable than another. So far as I can tell, there is no better way. There may be, and I am open to testing this, but for now Bayes is the method NO apologist wants to use, and that makes me think there is a reason. That reason has been shown in Carrier, Lindsay, Loftus, and many others. It is because it's thoroughly the most objective realistic and honest way to find out what is most probably true. That is all I am after now. Bayes levels the playing field, privileging NOTHING over anything else UNTIL it's all compared realistically, and only then can justification occur on what level of beliefs we can have on any claims being made. We want the same in our courts of law, we need it at all levels in our lives. At least, that's how I see it for now. New evidence can certainly change my mind if it is warranted, valid, and accurate. But that takes testing, not mere proclamation.

[_richardMdBorn]

Philo:

You're as optimistic about Bayesianism as you used to be about the LDS. Perhaps over time you'll become more realistic about it. Just as this actuary is skeptical about confidence intervals since I am aware of important factors which are not included in the computations.