The idea or the person

Originally posted by DeepThought
See above for my thinking about Bayes.

"Being an atheist does not stop one from..."

is probably the way forward, it makes it clear that the reader is not necessarily the person the comment is aimed at.

Makes it a bit precious doesn't it?

The use of 'you' in this context is perfectly clear enough and is common usage.

Originally posted by vistesd
Quick question: My understanding is that Bayes Theorem and "Bayesian Analysis" (as opposed to the "Frequentist" position—which is what I learned in statistics so long ago— ) are two different things. And that Bayes Theorem is universally affirmed (as you note), but “Bayesian Analysis” is not?

As Deep Thought says, the mathematics is undisputed and indisputable.

The applicability of that mathematics is not undisputed... However I would contend that
it is also indisputable.

However, I am not about to attempt to go over an explanation of why and how it's applicable
when Richard Carrier just wrote an entire book on the subject.

Anyone actually interested enough in this topic should read it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
... it allows you to see if any firm conclusions can be drawn from the available evidence.



What he did, was compare the relative likelihood of a mythical Jesus vs a Historical Jesus given the available evidence. And what he found was that the Mythical Jesus hypothesis was significantly more probable given the evidence than a historical Jesus.

I'm curious, how probable Goethe would have been--I mean, before he was born.

Originally posted by moonbus
I'm curious, how probable Goethe would have been--I mean, before he was born.

I don't understand what it is you are getting at.

But I would guess that he would have been just as wildly astronomically improbable as
anyone and everyone else.

Just as tossing a coin 40 times produces a wildly improbable sequence of heads and tails
that would have been practically impossible to predict before hand.

Originally posted by moonbus
I'm curious, how probable Goethe would have been--I mean, before he was born.

I am curious as to why you ask. You almost certainly already know the answer, so perhaps you are trying to make an argument about probability. I hope it is not this one:
1. The probability that Goethe would have been prior to his birth was extremely low.
2. Goethe did exist.
3. Therefore highly improbable things happen.
4. Therefore the highly improbable existence of Jesus did happen.
Step 4. is an error.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am curious as to why you ask. You almost certainly already know the answer, so perhaps you are trying to make an argument about probability. I hope it is not this one:
1. The probability that Goethe would have been prior to his birth was extremely low.
2. Goethe did exist.
3. Therefore highly improbable things happen.
4. Therefore the highly improbable existence of Jesus did happen.
Step 4. is an error.

Yes. this is also why I was talking about comparing the 'relative probability' of the two
hypothesis [Myth JC vs Hist JC]

It doesn't matter how improbable it is a-priori that a Historical JC would have been, or
that he would have been invented as Myth JC.

Because ONE of the two options definitely happened.

Either JC was a real person, or JC was a myth.

So what matters is not how probable is it that JC would have been made up.

What matters is the relative probability of Myth JC vs Hist JC GIVEN the evidence we have.

Richard Carriers answer, after analysing all the currently available evidence, is that Myth JC is
the more probable.

Originally posted by googlefudge
As Deep Thought says, the mathematics is undisputed and indisputable.

The applicability of that mathematics is not undisputed... However I would contend that
it is also indisputable.

However, I am not about to attempt to go over an explanation of why and how it's applicable
when Richard Carrier just wrote an entire book on the subject.

Anyone actually interested enough in this topic should read it.

Thanks. Another book on my "wishlist"!

Originally posted by moonbus
vistesd wrote:

"(3) Judaism has no real doctrine of messiah, but, rather, many opinions.* And the Tanach (the Hebrew Scriptures—“Old Testament” ) actually records a number of messiahs. It is recorded in the Bavli (the Babylonian Talmud) that Hillel said: “Israel need no look for the advent of messiah, since Isaiah’s prophecy about him was fulfilled in Kin ...[text shortened]... ul and retrospectively presaged by re-interpreting numerous prophetic passages in the Jewish OT.

I think that’s pretty correct—but the rabbis* may have been talking about Olam ha’Ba (The “world to come” ) before Paul as well. Both resurrection and transmigration of souls are present in Judaism, and I read of some rabbis who render Olam ha’Ba as “the world that is always coming”—in a sort of existential sense. There are also those who do not view messiah in a personal sense at all, but a kind of utopian (or at least quasi-utopian) state of community, justice and well-being that it is up to us to bring about.

Remember that I am writing from a perspective of liberal Judaism, and generally looking at beliefs across the Jewish spectrum. A particular Orthodox group, for example, might argue more closely for a particular belief. The lack of doctrine on such issues—what I “must” believe—is likely to be disconcerting to some; I find it freeing. (Also, I am a non-dualist, and that has a strong theological stream in Judaism as well.)

[Note: I studied some of this stuff pretty intensively some years ago when I was living as a kind of semi-recluse in the country; all I had was access to books. When we moved to a much smaller space in town, I had to purge my bookshelves severely. But now I have access to a synagogue and Talmud study, and the opportunity to participate in a group setting where I can ask questions. I am also slowly trying to replenish some of my books (unfortunately, economics dictate that that will be a slow process.]

_________________________________________________

* This is a later term, but is generally applied retroactively to folks like Hillel, etc.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am curious as to why you ask. You almost certainly already know the answer, so perhaps you are trying to make an argument about probability. I hope it is not this one:
1. The probability that Goethe would have been prior to his birth was extremely low.
2. Goethe did exist.
3. Therefore highly improbable things happen.
4. Therefore the highly improbable existence of Jesus did happen.
Step 4. is an error.

What I was getting at is that any unique or sui genris event is extremely improbable, by any measure. Christians maintain that the incarnation was just such an event, unique and unrepeatable. As Hume said, extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence, and I doubt that probability is the right tool to apply to unique or sui genris cases.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Because ONE of the two options definitely happened.

Either JC was a real person, or JC was a myth.

So what matters is not how probable is it that JC would have been made up.

What matters is the relative probability of Myth JC vs Hist JC GIVEN the evidence we have...

I don't see the two options as exclusive. There is a third possibility: that there was a real historical person, Jesus, a man, nothing more, born and conceived as all humans are, who died and stayed dead as all humans do, and a teacher of strange wisdom; this figure was later overlayered with a myth and inflated into super-human proportions (the Christ, which is a title or spiritual status not a name) for 'effect', to serve someone else's agenda (e.g. Paul's).

Originally posted by moonbus
What I was getting at is that any unique or sui genris event is extremely improbable, by any measure. Christians maintain that the incarnation was just such an event, unique and unrepeatable. As Hume said, extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence, and I doubt that probability is the right tool to apply to unique or sui genris cases.

Bayesian Theory tells us WHY extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.
Because extraordinary events have such low prior probabilities and thus require much
stronger compensatory evidence.


However you are making a mistake here.

No [serious] historian is claiming [for academic purposes] that the theological son of god Jesus
actually existed.

The competing camps are between those who think that it's more likely that the Christian religion
was founded on a real historical person called Jesus [or similar], and those who think it more likely
that the Christian religion was founded on a mythological being who never actually existed.

Bayesian analysis allows you to determine which of the two competing hypothesis is more probable
given the currently available evidence.


If you want to include the hypothesis that Jesus was both real AND the literal son of god that the bible
claims then you can do that. but you will find that that hypothesis is vastly more improbable that either
or both of the alternatives discussed above.

And it is that improbability which ultimately determines WHY you shouldn't believe that either god, or
Jesus as the son of god, actually existed.

Originally posted by moonbus
I don't see the two options as exclusive. There is a third possibility: that there was a real historical person, Jesus, a man, nothing more, born and conceived as all humans are, who died and stayed dead as all humans do, and a teacher of strange wisdom; this figure was later overlayered with a myth and inflated into super-human proportions (the Christ, whi ...[text shortened]... spiritual status not a name) for 'effect', to serve someone else's agenda (e.g. Paul's).

No that's not a third possibility. That IS essentially the Historical Jesus hypothesis.


The third hypothesis is the one I talk about in my last post. That Jesus was actually the
son of god. Which is rejected as nonsense by all mainstream historians. [at least for
academic purposes]

Originally posted by AppleChess
I haven't read it, but I suspect it isn't the only correctly reasoned and peer reviewed treatise on the subject. There are many heavy swingers on both sides. I know one side likes to imagine the other side doesn't have any. Richard Carrier appears to be an academic, I may have to read this book and add it to my collection. Won't happen for a couple weeks though.

For those that can't afford the book, there is a talk by Richard Carrier on the subject of this thread:
YouTube

He makes a very good case.

Originally posted by twhitehead
For those that can't afford the book, there is a talk by Richard Carrier on the subject of this thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

He makes a very good case.

There are a number of talks that he has given on youtube... This looks like a good one.

Originally posted by moonbus
What I was getting at is that any unique or sui genris event is extremely improbable, by any measure.

All events are improbable. That is the nature of reality, and a core feature of probability.

Christians maintain that the incarnation was just such an event, unique and unrepeatable. As Hume said, extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence, and I doubt that probability is the right tool to apply to unique or sui genris cases.
Probability is the right tool to apply if applied correctly and to the correct questions. Some questions can be dealt with via pure logic. Some can be dealt with via conclusive evidence. Some must resort to probability.
If the question is 'did Jesus rise from the dead?', then a probability calculation would say very very unlikely, unless there is extraordinary evidence that he did: hence Humes comment. So even Hume was talking about probability.
If the question is 'did a man named Jesus exist who was at least in part the source of the Jesus myths?' then it remains a probability question that is based on weighing up the evidence for and against.
There is really no other way to resolve the question unless you know of a way to show that he logically could not have existed, or you know of conclusive evidence one way or another.