Originally posted by moonbusI don't know if anyone has done the analysis, but I think Mohammed would score very very likely to have existed, but the Angel Gabriel who is claimed to have dictated the Quran, would score very very low.
So, what's the Bayesian 'verdict' on the probable existence or non-existence of ...... Mohammed?
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs I pointed out in another thread, Christianity is very heavily belief-centric; the account of the miracles allegedly worked and the prophecies allegedly fulfilled is essential to the faith. Hence, one wants to know whether the account is accurate or has been redacted or indeed fabricated.
Whether or not it is the first question, it is the question being discussed in this thread. What questions would you put first and why?
Pagan religions generally, and Buddhism specifically, are much less belief-centric. Buddhism emphasizes the cultivation of a state of mindfulness and offers techniques which have been empirically developed to produce that state; it does not matter what one believes, though, of course, there are 'doctrines' of a sort for those who find them helpful in the cultivation of mindfulness. The first question for a Buddhist is something like: are you making progress towards the cultivation of mindfulness? Is the technique working for you in your life? Not: did the Buddha really exist. If you succeed in maintaining the state of mindfulness, it does not matter whether the Buddha really existed. "If you meet the Buddha, kill him!"
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSimilarly, the evidence that Joe Smith existed is pretty solid by modern standards (birth certificate etc),though that could conceivably change in 2000 years (if records should be lost or destroyed).
I don't know if anyone has done the analysis, but I think Mohammed would score very very likely to have existed, but the Angel Gabriel who is claimed to have dictated the Quran, would score very very low.
Whereas the testimony that golden tablets existed is pretty flimsy (the people who testified that they existed never actually saw them, only handled them in a bag, so the tablets could have been lead not gold, and the tablets magically disappeared later, and one of the people who testified later recanted).
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsHow can you know that JC is accurately shown in the Shroud if you don't know what he looked like?
But show me the reference to a myth that describes the person resurrected was put to death in the same manner as Jesus in the Gospels and is also accurately shown of the image of the Shroud of Turin.
Originally posted by moonbusThen what are you on about saying that that is not the first question? You are not making sense.
As I pointed out in another thread, Christianity is very heavily belief-centric; the account of the miracles allegedly worked and the prophecies allegedly fulfilled is essential to the faith. Hence, one wants to know whether the account is accurate or has been redacted or indeed fabricated.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by moonbus
gf: " We, today, have evidence of various sorts from the period in question [the foundation of Christianity] and we want to determine what that evidence tells us. We want to know what it is we can say, and with how
much confidence, based upon the evidence we actually have.
The way to do this [the only valid way to do this] is to do a Bayesian analysis ...[text shortened]... troy the pagan religion or pagans' 'faith' (for want of a better word) in the Olympian gods? No.
So, what's the Bayesian 'verdict' on the probable existence or non-existence of Zoroastor, Arjuna,
Buddha, Mani, Socrates, and Mohammed?
Well given that to date there is only one [that I know of] historian who has adopted and applied Bayesian
analysis to history, and is an expert in Christianity and thus did the research on Jesus... I would have
to answer that a full analysis has not been done on those characters.
What's your point? Whatever the verdict is, it's irrelevant to the validity of the verdict on JC.
As Twhitehead says, it's very likely true that Mohammed was a real person, but as he was just a guy
who had visions that's not very remarkable.
Buddha being a fictional magic being gets the same verdict as being wildly implausible as the bible god.
Incidentally, I would dispute the claim that the first question is, "are the claims true?"
It's the first question for a rationalist scientific skeptic. Which is what I am.
The fact that it's not the first question for others is where they go wrong.
I still don't understand why you think it even remotely relevant that other people are irrational in their beliefs.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was replying to googlefudge on p. 10who wrote that "In a wider sense, when dealing with religious claims, the [first] question is "are they true/valid?""
Then what are you on about saying that that is [b]not the first question? You are not making sense.[/b]
I disagree with that claim. It applies only to religions, such as Christianity, which are heavily belief-centric. Truth-claims are moot in practise-centric religions, such Buddhism and Yoga.
1 edit
gf: "It's the first question for a rationalist scientific skeptic. Which is what I am.
The fact that it's not the first question for others is where they go wrong.
I still don't understand why you think it even remotely relevant that other people are irrational in their beliefs."
Short answer: because there are things which are true but cannot be proven. And second because there are things which are important but are not truths.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by moonbus
gf: "It's the first question for a rationalist scientific skeptic. Which is what I am.
The fact that it's not the first question for others is where they go wrong.
I still don't understand why you think it even remotely relevant that other people are irrational in their beliefs."
Short answer: because there are things which are true but cannot be proven. And second because there are things which are important but are not truths.
because there are things which are true but cannot be proven.
Such as what?
And how can you possibly know that?
And second because there are things which are important but are not truths.
Again, such as what?
Originally posted by moonbusOK, it makes a bit more sense now. You did seem to go off on a tangent without really explaining why.
I disagree with that claim. It applies only to religions, such as Christianity, which are heavily belief-centric. Truth-claims are moot in practise-centric religions, such Buddhism and Yoga.
I disagree that truth claims are not important with regards to Buddhism and Yoga, although they may not be important to adherents, they should be important to anyone considering the religion, including adherents - although they may not be the first or most important question. Some versions of Buddhism do have very strong and central beliefs that should be questioned.
Originally posted by googlefudgeRead Kurt Goedel, also Immaneul Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's all about limits of provability.because there are things which are true but cannot be proven.
Such as what?
And how can you possibly know that?And second because there are things which are important but are not truths.
Again, such as what?
Your mother loved you. One cannot prove that sort of thing. And it was important.
For anyone who reads the Bible, or any sacred writing for that matter, at any level beyond the literal factual--which is after all the most primitive and least fruitful--for anyone who delves into sacred literature at the allegorical, poetical, moral, or mystical level, the question of its truth becomes moot.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by moonbusFirst people get hung up on 'proving' things like it's a binary between things having zero probability or 100%
Read Kurt Goedel, also Immaneul Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's all about limits of provability.
Your mother loved you. One cannot prove that sort of thing. And it was important.
probability with nothing in between.
Everything outside mathematics*** is just shades of grey from so light it looks white to so dark it looks black
and everything in between.
'Proving' something then just becomes demonstrating the probability that that something is true beyond some
reasonably defined boundary.
Whether something is actually true is never what we actually asses. Because we can never be certain.
So the question is what we can reasonably and justifiably claim to know is true.
Hence my question, because you cannot by definition know the truth of any statement that cannot be proven.
Your mother loved you.
You state this as fact, and then claim it cannot be proven.
I disagree, but that's irrelevant to the fact that your statement in inherently self contradictory.
If you cannot prove "Your mother loved you" then you cannot know if it is true.
One cannot prove that sort of thing
As it turns out this kind of claim is absolutely the kind of claim that can be assessed via a Bayesian analysis
of the available evidence. Of which there are many different sorts. You could analyse peoples actions, brain functions,
hormone responses, etc etc.
This doesn't give you mathematical certainty, only probability, but that is no different from any other claim.
***And sometimes even inside mathematics.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by moonbusNinja-Edit
Read Kurt Goedel, also Immaneul Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It's all about limits of provability.
Your mother loved you. One cannot prove that sort of thing. And it was important.
For anyone who reads the Bible, or any sacred writing for that matter, at any level beyond the literal factual--which is after all the most primitive and least fruitful- ...[text shortened]... at the allegorical, poetical, moral, or mystical level, the question of its truth becomes moot.
For anyone who reads the Bible, or any sacred writing for that matter, at any level beyond the literal factual--which is after all the most primitive and least fruitful--for anyone who delves into sacred literature at the allegorical, poetical, moral, or mystical level, the question of its truth becomes moot.
Bull.
There is nothing in the bible or any other sacred text or religion that is good or beneficial that cannot be
replicated and/or bettered by a secular/scientific/rational society/group/person/world-view.
And if you think that truth isn't relevant to morality then you don't understand morality.
I am sick and tired of people claiming that the truth doesn't matter while providing precisely zero valid
justification for that claim.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAre you saying that one can know only what can be proven?
First people get hung up on 'proving' things like it's a binary between things having zero probability or 100%
probability with nothing in between.
Everything outside mathematics*** is just shades of grey from so light it looks white to so dark it looks black
and everything in between.
'Proving' something then just becomes demonstrating the probabi ...[text shortened]... ut that is no different from any other claim.
***And sometimes even inside mathematics.
You said the truth of a claim is prior. I say meaning is prior. If you don’t know what something means, you don’t know what would be true if it were true. Sacred literature is an idiom especially rich in layers of meaning. Just because you don’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. You are like a tone deaf person listening to Mozart and decrying it for sounding dull.