Very nice overview of Bayes Theorem and Historical Jesus

[_Analytics]

I am sorry you would rather believe that this poorly attested myth he is championing is more convincing than the decent indirect evidence for Jesus' existence.

I'm tired of you assuming I have some weird personal preference for Jesus not existing historically.

If you don't want to engage Carrier's actual arguments or refer me to somebody that does, that's fine. But I'm not the kind of guy that is going to be persuaded by a bishop telling me he's personally disappointed in me for not wanting to believe the evidence in favor of the restoration that "objective" people know is convincing.

[Guest]

On the issue of Doherty:

Doherty presents a Christ myth that would be difficult to date with any confidence before the middle of the second century CE. The earliest "Gnostic" text, the Gospel of Thomas, contains no traditional Gnostic cosmology or theology, and it dates to the first half of the second century. According to Tertullian, Marcion created the classic Gnostic ditheism ca. 144 CE. Positive evidence for Docetism and Possesionism before the middle of the second century is fairly weak or controversial. But here we have Earl Doherty telling us that Paul, who does, contrary to mythicist view, mention biographical details about Jesus, is really talking about some mystical phantom fighting demons in the air.

This is the Christ myth the current batch of mythicists date, without warrant, to the middle of the first century CE. This is the kind of thing we are to believe is more credible than the idea that Jesus existed.

[_Kishkumen]

I'm tired of you assuming I have some weird personal preference for Jesus not existing historically.

If you don't want to engage Carrier's actual arguments or refer me to somebody that does, that's fine. But I'm not the kind of guy that is going to be persuaded by a bishop telling me he's personally disappointed in me for not wanting to believe the evidence in favor of the restoration that "objective" people know is convincing.

I guess what it takes for you or Philo Sofee to acknowledge a response to Carrier is such is that the respondent adopt Carrier's methodology and use it to show how he is wrong. Far be it from you guys to acknowledge that historians who do not use Bayesian analysis might have sound reasons for being skeptical of Carrier's use of the same, and to respond to those reasons in a substantive way. And so, you are not the only person who is getting tired of the other side of the discussion.

[_Jersey Girl]

I think, as with the Riskas affair, it's an excess of enthusiasm.

I think that while enthusiasm supplies the motivation for learning, it's not a very good teacher. I am a bit cynical about the historical Jesus and I lack the education to fully understand Bayes Theorem (I can barely spell it). Probabilities mean virtually nothing to me in terms of attempting to answer a question that I believe I can never know the answer to. I am content in my not knowing and being part of the silent audience that reads what these guys lay down and a chance to learn something new from them.

[_Kishkumen]

I would be interested in what Philo and Analytics have to say about this mathematician's criticism of Carrier's work:

https://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/a-mathematical-review-of-proving-history-by-richard-carrier/

But ultimately I think this book is disingenuous. It doesn’t read as a mathematical treatment of the subject, and I can’t help but think that Carrier is using Bayes’s Theorem in much the same way that apologists such as William Lane Craig use it: to give their arguments a veneer of scientific rigour that they hope cannot be challenged by their generally more math-phobic peers. To enter an argument against the overwhelming scholarly consensus with “but I have math on my side, math that has been proven, proven!” seems transparent to me, more so when the quality of the math provided in no way matches the bombast.

I suspect this book was always designed to preach to the choir, and will not make much impact in scholarly circles. I hope it doesn’t become a blueprint for other similar scholarship, despite agreeing with many of its conclusions.

[_Analytics]

I'm tired of you assuming I have some weird personal preference for Jesus not existing historically.

If you don't want to engage Carrier's actual arguments or refer me to somebody that does, that's fine. But I'm not the kind of guy that is going to be persuaded by a bishop telling me he's personally disappointed in me for not wanting to believe the evidence in favor of the restoration that "objective" people know is convincing.

I guess what it takes for you or Philo Sofee to acknowledge a response to Carrier is such is that the respondent adopt Carrier's methodology and use it to show how he is wrong. Far be it from you guys to acknowledge that historians who do not use Bayesian analysis might have sound reasons for being skeptical of Carrier's use of the same, and to respond to those reasons in a substantive way. And so, you are not the only person who is getting tired of the other side of the discussion.

LOL. It's been a good thread. Just as I don't need to see the words modus ponens and modus tollens to evaluate whether an argument is logically valid, I don't need somebody dressing up their arguments with a priori and conditional probability to see that it is following basic Bayesian reasoning. Quoting Tucker, "historians generally practice methods that are derived from Bayesian logic." Or as I said above, "The Bayes approach is to look at all of the evidence, and then evaluate how consistent it is with competing hypotheses. That's what a competent analysis would do anyway--expressing it in Bayesian terms just formalizes the reasoning."

Contrary to repeated assertions to the contrary, I don't really care whether Jesus was historical or not. I do find it to be an interesting question though. Did he exist? I'm agnostic about that. On the one hand, I find Carrier's arguments to be compelling. On the other hand, I recognize the fact that most experts hold other opinions, and also recognize the fact that while I feel confident in evaluating whether his arguments are valid, I don't begin to have the background or expertise to know if they are sound.

So, I'm agnostic. If it somehow mattered and wasn't a mere intellectual exercise, I'd put my money with somebody in the mainstream. I have a ton of respect for you guys. I'd absolutely love to hear somebody knowledgeable make a compelling case that Jesus existed historically. But until such an argument is made and brought to my attention, I'm stuck in a position like Professor Anthon's: I cannot evaluate an argument that has not been made.

[_Maksutov]

I think, as with the Riskas affair, it's an excess of enthusiasm.

I think that while enthusiasm supplies the motivation for learning, it's not a very good teacher. I am a bit cynical about the historical Jesus and I lack the education to fully understand Bayes Theorem (I can barely spell it). Probabilities mean virtually nothing to me in terms of attempting to answer a question that I believe I can never know the answer to. I am content in my not knowing and being part of the silent audience that reads what these guys lay down and a chance to learn something new from them.

"...there is little to be gained in persisting in questioning the physical reality of the man Jesus. The historicity of Jesus does not appear to be as important as having the experience of Jesus. Religious ritual is theater; theater is designed to evoke strong emotions in the audience. Emotions are the core of the religious experience, whether a feeling of oneness with God, a feeling of shame and contrition, a sense of being seized by a divine spirit, or even the experience of evil.

So, whether or not Jesus ever lived, ever existed, he does now. His dwelling place is with the various other gods and demigods, old and new, in a virtual heaven that spans cyberspace and literature. Every believer has their Jesus, the one who mirrors them. To the soldier, he is a holy warrior; to a mother, a devoted son; to a working man, he is a carpenter; to the preacher, he is the greatest story ever told..."

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2001/garrarddec2001.html

[_Philo Sofee]

I understand your point of view Maksutov, but again that's all just theological make-believe so far as I've been able to figure out through reading a lot of stuff. I'm tired of believing in the make-believe I was raised in it. All I'm doing is exploring for what is real and what is true. That's why I enjoy studying history, mathematics, philosophy, science etc. I don't know anything hardly in any of the subjects, it's why I try to get as much reading done as I can. I have discovered for my own self that I am very ever seldom correct about anything I believe. So it takes a grain of salt for myself to even agree if what I say is true or what I believe is actually true. Nine times out of ten it's not. And so I'm plodding along through it all enjoying great conversations and learning new ideas with terrific friends here.

[_Analytics]

I would be interested in what Philo and Analytics have to say about this mathematician's criticism of Carrier's work:

https://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/a-mathematical-review-of-proving-history-by-richard-carrier/

I haven't read Proving History, but in general I agree--or at least can't find anything specific that I disagree with--in "A Mathematical Review of 'Proving History' by Richard Carrier."

From what I've seen in the two reviews I've read and the references to it in On the Historicity of Jesus, if I would have written such a book, I'd focus on general "Bayesian Reasoning" more and Bayes' Theorem itself less. I'd definitely want to convey why it works and why it matters and how to use it in an informal way more, and less on mathematical proofs and formulas.

Carrier does seem to be trying to impress with the mathematical formality of how he does it. It is in fact off-putting. To me the arguments he phrases this way are clear, but I can see how it could be confusing to people with different backgrounds. It would be ironic if the mathematically formal way he talks distracts from his arguments and drives away otherwise qualified people from engaging with his ideas.

[Guest]

LOL. It's been a good thread. Just as I don't need to see the words modus ponens and modus tollens to evaluate whether an argument is logically valid, I don't need somebody dressing up their arguments with a priori and conditional probability to see that it is following basic Bayesian reasoning. Quoting Tucker, "historians generally practice methods that are derived from Bayesian logic." Or as I said above, "The Bayes approach is to look at all of the evidence, and then evaluate how consistent it is with competing hypotheses. That's what a competent analysis would do anyway--expressing it in Bayesian terms just formalizes the reasoning."

Contrary to repeated assertions to the contrary, I don't really care whether Jesus was historical or not. I do find it to be an interesting question though. Did he exist? I'm agnostic about that. On the one hand, I find Carrier's arguments to be compelling. On the other hand, I recognize the fact that most experts hold other opinions, and also recognize the fact that while I feel confident in evaluating whether his arguments are valid, I don't begin to have the background or expertise to know if they are sound.

So, I'm agnostic. If it somehow mattered and wasn't a mere intellectual exercise, I'd put my money with somebody in the mainstream. I have a ton of respect for you guys. I'd absolutely love to hear somebody knowledgeable make a compelling case that Jesus existed historically. But until such an argument is made and brought to my attention, I'm stuck in a position like Professor Anthon's: I cannot evaluate an argument that has not been made.

Well, that's fine, and on most days I have no beef with you either, but you never responded to the my response regarding those many executed Jesuses. Yes, we can spend a great deal of time constructing a case for the historical Jesus. I am not persuaded that he is wildly improbable and no one has said anything in response to my reasons for finding him plausible. Nor have you responded to my comments about the unlikely probability of Doherty's Christ myth being a real thing in the middle of the first century CE. I gave you some data points. Do you have anything to say about them? Because you told me that Carrier provided a much more convincing hypothesis for Jesus according to a mythicist point of view. I am unconvinced, and I have offered decent reasons why. I have also provided you a mathematician PhD's pretty stinging review of Carrier. Mind you, the guy is an atheist and a PhD mathematician, who also agrees with many of Carrier's positions. He finds Carrier's grasp and application of BT severely wanting. I would like to know what you think of what he said.

I see so much here that looks like "you don't know math, so your methodology and criticisms are invalid." I admit I don't know the math. It is clear to me that you guys either can't or won't say what is wrong with what Symmachus and I have said thus far regarding Carrier's judgment of prior probability. His stupid statement about crucified Jesuses in superabundance is a fine example of where he would run adrift when translated into such a mathematical guess.