Very nice overview of Bayes Theorem and Historical Jesus

[_Kishkumen]

I should add that I am not personally invested in your belief or disbelief in the historical Jesus. I apologize for any misunderstanding in which I attributed to you, unwittingly, a personal investment in the argument, Analytics.

[_Kishkumen]

OK, help me out here. The review I linked seems to me to say that Carrier actually blows his application of Baye's:

Carrier correctly states that he is allowed to divide content between evidence and background knowledge any way he chooses, provided he is consistent. But then fails to do so throughout the book. For example on page 51 is an explanation of a ‘prior’ probability which explicitly includes the evidence in the prior, and therefore presumably in the background knowledge (emphasis original):

“the measure of how ‘typical’ our proposed explanations is a measure of how often that kind of evidence has that kind of explanation. Formally this is called the prior”

Going on to say (emphasis original):

"For example, if someone claims they were struck by lightning five times … the prior probabilty they are telling the truth is not the probability of being struck by lightning five times, but the probability that someone in general who claims such a thing would be telling the truth."

This is not wrong, per se, but highly bizarre. One can certainly bundle the claim and the event like that, but if you do so Bayes’s Theorem cannot be used to calculate the probability that the claim is true based on that evidence. The quote is valid, but highly misleading in a book which is seeking to examine the historicity of documentary claims.

If he blows it this badly, how can his methodology and results be sound?

[_Philo Sofee]

OK, help me out here. The review I linked seems to me to say that Carrier actually blows his application of Baye's:

Carrier correctly states that he is allowed to divide content between evidence and background knowledge any way he chooses, provided he is consistent. But then fails to do so throughout the book. For example on page 51 is an explanation of a ‘prior’ probability which explicitly includes the evidence in the prior, and therefore presumably in the background knowledge (emphasis original):

“the measure of how ‘typical’ our proposed explanations is a measure of how often that kind of evidence has that kind of explanation. Formally this is called the prior”

Going on to say (emphasis original):

"For example, if someone claims they were struck by lightning five times … the prior probabilty they are telling the truth is not the probability of being struck by lightning five times, but the probability that someone in general who claims such a thing would be telling the truth."

This is not wrong, per se, but highly bizarre. One can certainly bundle the claim and the event like that, but if you do so Bayes’s Theorem cannot be used to calculate the probability that the claim is true based on that evidence. The quote is valid, but highly misleading in a book which is seeking to examine the historicity of documentary claims.

If he blows it this badly, how can his methodology and results be sound?

I am on a mobile device and it won't let me copy the URL so I will have to wait until tonight to post Carriers response to this. If we're going to have a discussion of the pros and cons of Richard Carriers materials then we need to read both sides fairly. Carrier also has several people in his comments who are demonstrating that the mathematician Ian is misrepresenting Carriers use of Bayes theorem. That matters. I no longer believe in just reading one side of things. They are for my sincere suggestion is read Carriers responses to the critiques he has every critique listed on his blog along with responses and some very intelligent people in the comments making comments. Yes he's arrogant, yes he's cocky, and no I don't give a damn about that. All I want is to see where the argument goes and who has the best evidence. After considerably reading all sides of this equation I don't find Carrier to be so long as you are. But again mileage varies between people and that's okay. I will get the URL to Carriers blog and his specific response to that specific really quite shallow critique tonight when I get home. I have read both of Carriers books "Proving History" and "On the Historicity of Jesus" 6 times each over the course of 4 years. It's because it is an intriguing idea. I have also been reading far more than I used to as many of the historical Jesus scholars as I have time for. So yes I don't know very much but no I'm not half-assed as ignorant and uncritical in my thinking as some people assume.

I suspect as I have been doing my entire life that I will be changing my mind as new evidence comes in. That is what makes critical thinking valuable. When you stop adjusting what we think we know that's when you become uncritical. Critical thinking explores in-depth and detailed all sides including reading what the scholars contribute to the discussion before throwing them away or writing them off or criticizing them. That's why I read a lot so that I can see all sides. It's not because I'm being uncritical in my thinking it's precisely what allows me to develop my critical thinking skills. Even though I will be the first to admit sometimes they suck. And the only cure for that is to continue learning by actually reading all sides carefully instead of just critiques of one side or the other because you don't like it. At least that's what the books on critical thinking that I've read in the last 4 years have said to do. I'm simply following their advice.

[_Kishkumen]

If we're going to have a discussion of the pros and cons of Richard Carriers materials then we need to read both sides fairly.

How about this: why don't you explain your understanding of this criticism of Carrier and why it is wrong. I suppose I am not interested in a battle of links. I want help from those who claim they understand Carrier to help me understand his method and why criticisms of it are wrong. I keep reading all of this stuff about how great Carrier is that is short on specifics and explanations. So, yes, I understand that you and Analytics are really into this BT stuff and, in your case, very impressed with what he has shown. You both are also pretty critical of people who don't use his method to critique him but instead rely on some good old-fashioned historical reasoning, such as:

"If you think a mythical and mystical Jesus is the best explanation for Jesus, you should provide some great evidence for the proliferation of mythical and mystical Jesuses in the time Paul and the earliest Gospel, Mark, were written. If you can't, then your theory has a huge problem."

Seriously, if part of what makes Carrier's mythical Jesus more compelling than the historical existence of Jesus is a mythical Christ who looks like the product of mid-second-century speculative theology, then I would have a big problem agreeing with you and others on this thread that this mythical Christ explanation is more compelling than the historical existence of Jesus.

But, every time I bring up little things like this--another being the fact that no, the assumption that the Romans were crucifying guys named Jesus all the time, is not the actual question, but whether the combined evidences regarding Roman governance, Pilate and his activities, religious resistance to Roman authority, charismatic Palestinian religious rebels, etc. amount to something much more specific and amenable to probability analysis than the Romans crucified lots of guys named Jesus--I get no response from you guys. And the response I want is from you guys, not "yeah, I will link to this blog that covers it."

I don't accuse you of being half-assed, Philo. I am concerned that your failure to address any specific issue I have raised, coupled with the claim that we are all appealing to emotion instead of raising issues, shows either a problem in mechanical reading or one in critical thinking. Because, yes, I am actually making real points here. My agreement with Symmachus is not some back-slappin' bros move of apologists. Symmachus and I are quite capable of disagreeing with each other, even sharply, and we have. No, we each recognize the point the other person is making as two trained historians.

[_Analytics]

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.

Hi Kish,

I did in fact read everything you wrote. Out of not wanting this thread to mushroom, I didn't respond to all of your points. You might be making a great point about whether Doherty's Christ myth was a "real thing." But on the other hand, when Carrier spends hundreds of pages giving the background and evidence that allegedly shows the plausibility of mysticism, it comes across as a bit flippant to dismiss it all in a single paragraph. I'm not saying you're wrong or that your skepticism isn't well-founded. I'll definitely keep in mind when I return to On the Historicity of Jesus.

I see so much here that looks like "you don't know math, so your methodology and criticisms are invalid."

That was the opposite of my intention. I apologize if that's what I sounded like. My point is actually quite the opposite--in all likelihood, Carrier's weakness is in the evaluation of the evidence and thus that's what should receive the focus.

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.

I don't know what I should have responded to. Most of what you guys said seemed to be based upon speculations of what Carrier's arguments are and how they work. It's like you are operating under the conception that Bayesian analysis (at least in Carrier style) is geared towards proving historical people don't exist.

[_Analytics]

I should add that I am not personally invested in your belief or disbelief in the historical Jesus. I apologize for any misunderstanding in which I attributed to you, unwittingly, a personal investment in the argument, Analytics.

Peace.

[_Kishkumen]

It's like you are operating under the conception that Bayesian analysis (at least in Carrier style) is geared towards proving historical people don't exist.

Hey, Analytics:

I am sorry we're at cross purposes. Yes, I think much of the point of Carrier's work is, at least in the eyes of many New Atheists, to show that Jesus did not exist. On the other hand, I am aware--because I have read and watched some of Carrier--that part of the exercise is to examine the probability of various elements of the gospel narratives, etc. Of course, the punchline is ordinarily this: and therefore Jesus did not exist.

I don't know what else I should be taking away from such statements that I am missing.

And really, I don't give a crap how much Carrier writes about something, and I am not arguing with him here. My reason to be here is to argue with other living people as a living person. And just because some arrogant prat writes reams of crap does not mean one cannot respond to it in a paragraph. As Robert M. Price observed regarding Mopologetics, sometimes that is more than it deserves.

[_Philo Sofee]

I'm still looking for the link I promised you Kish. In the meantime, while you find one that is critically against Carrier, I find one that is not. So, what are we to conclude? How does it happen that an expert in Bayes Theorem says Carrier is correct in applying it the way he did? That his methodology is good? See here http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... #more-8192

[_Kishkumen]

I'm still looking for the link I promised you Kish. In the meantime, while you find one that is critically against Carrier, I find one that is not. So, what are we to conclude? How does it happen that an expert in Bayes Theorem says Carrier is correct in applying it the way he did? That his methodology is good? See here http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arc ... #more-8192

OK, in this blog post's "comments" section, it looks to me like the PhD Bayesian fellow, Tim Hendrix, takes Carrier to school and it seems pretty clear, for all of Carrier's posturing, that he is out of his depth.

[_Analytics]

Hey, Analytics:

I am sorry we're at cross purposes.

For what it's worth, I will always respect you and consider you a friend. I'll debate vigorously, but please--never take it personally.

Yes, I think much of the point of Carrier's work is, at least in the eyes of many New Atheists, to show that Jesus did not exist. On the other hand, I am aware--because I have read and watched some of Carrier--that part of the exercise is to examine the probability of various elements of the gospel narratives, etc. Of course, the punchline is ordinarily this: and therefore Jesus did not exist.

You should be refreshingly surprised, then, that in On the Historicity of Jesus, he doesn't do this at all. He does spend several pages analyzing the gospels, attempting to demonstrate that they are mainly made up, and ends up concluding that they don't give us any information one way or the other about whether Jesus existed or not.

And really, I don't give a crap how much Carrier writes about something, and I am not arguing with him here. My reason to be here is to argue with other living people as a living person....

I appreciate this. I agree with the sentiment, and dislike repeating, "Carrier says, Carrier says...." I REALLY hate it, if you want to know the truth. Speaking as one living person to another, my most hated teacher in middle school was a Mr. Carrier. I'm saying "Carrier says this and that" because I don't own any of these arguments. I'm just trying to relay what I found persuasive. If you can disabuse me of any of this, I'd appreciate it, lol.