In principle the use of Bayes' theorem could explain why, on the basis of Carrier's idiosyncratic presuppositions, it is plausible to doubt whether there was a historical Jesus.
However it seems unlikely that this would lead many people to question a historical Jesus.
(I am not certain that Carrier''s presupposition are particularly idiosyncratic. However, if his presuppositions are generally accepted, I doubt whether Bayes' theorem really helps him.)
Andrew Criddle
The Mythicist Position
-
Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8522
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: The Mythicist Position
(A) Socrates is going to die like everybody else.
(B) (1) Socrates is a man.
(2) All men are mortal.
(3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
What's the difference between the two? Simply clarity. Syllogistic logic doesn't help or hurt the status of the argument. But it does help *us* *understand* exactly what the argument is. It helps us share the exact form of the argument with others, so they can also understand exactly what the argument is.
(A) is ambiguous. It might mean that Socrates is immortal except for the fact that everybody is going to die in an event that kills an otherwise immortal being. The logic behind it isn't as clear as in example (B), where the appeal is clearly to the mortality of human beings. We know the basis on which the arguer is arguing more clearly, so we can know why the argument fails or succeeds more clearly.
Mathematics, as Whitehead and Russell showed so long ago, is reducible to logic. There is only one reason that the language of probabilistic mathematics is used instead of the language of syllogistic logic. That reason is that the premises and conclusions being stated in the subject at hand are expressed as probabilities instead of certainties. As such, there's a mathematical tool for that.
The only problem with that tool is that it's being shoehorned into a field in which the participants (not universally but generally) are completely resistant to the use of math (or, indeed, clear logical expression). In the field of history, there is a strong belief in the irreducible intuition of the practitioner. Without that resistance, the use of mathematics to express statements of probability would be uncontroversial.
This further leads to the incorrect assumption by some that Carrier hopes that Bayes' theorem "helps prove" his point. That's just silly, but so it goes.
(B) (1) Socrates is a man.
(2) All men are mortal.
(3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
What's the difference between the two? Simply clarity. Syllogistic logic doesn't help or hurt the status of the argument. But it does help *us* *understand* exactly what the argument is. It helps us share the exact form of the argument with others, so they can also understand exactly what the argument is.
(A) is ambiguous. It might mean that Socrates is immortal except for the fact that everybody is going to die in an event that kills an otherwise immortal being. The logic behind it isn't as clear as in example (B), where the appeal is clearly to the mortality of human beings. We know the basis on which the arguer is arguing more clearly, so we can know why the argument fails or succeeds more clearly.
Mathematics, as Whitehead and Russell showed so long ago, is reducible to logic. There is only one reason that the language of probabilistic mathematics is used instead of the language of syllogistic logic. That reason is that the premises and conclusions being stated in the subject at hand are expressed as probabilities instead of certainties. As such, there's a mathematical tool for that.
The only problem with that tool is that it's being shoehorned into a field in which the participants (not universally but generally) are completely resistant to the use of math (or, indeed, clear logical expression). In the field of history, there is a strong belief in the irreducible intuition of the practitioner. Without that resistance, the use of mathematics to express statements of probability would be uncontroversial.
This further leads to the incorrect assumption by some that Carrier hopes that Bayes' theorem "helps prove" his point. That's just silly, but so it goes.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
-
Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8522
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: The Mythicist Position
In other words, I agree, Andrew. The theorem doesn't help him. All it does is lay bare his idiosyncratic presuppositions. Would that more did the same!andrewcriddle wrote:In principle the use of Bayes' theorem could explain why, on the basis of Carrier's idiosyncratic presuppositions, it is plausible to doubt whether there was a historical Jesus.
However it seems unlikely that this would lead many people to question a historical Jesus.
(I am not certain that Carrier''s presupposition are particularly idiosyncratic. However, if his presuppositions are generally accepted, I doubt whether Bayes' theorem really helps him.)
Andrew Criddle
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
-
Robert Tulip
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:44 am
Re: The Mythicist Position
I agree that the onus is on advocates of new ideas, such as astrotheology, to present them in a way that is plausible, persuasive and compelling for the objective reader.
Galileo was never going to convince the Pope that the earth goes round the sun, given the reactionary political climate of the counter reformation. However, by presenting his evidence in a rigorous and well-argued way, together with judicious use of rhetoric, Galileo convinced the broader public who were receptive to new evidence-based analysis.
The non-existence hypothesis regarding Jesus Christ is probably as big a cultural paradigm shift as the changes brought by modern astronomy, geology and biology. But the non-rigorous nature of theology, together with the emotional nature of religion, makes debate on Christ difficult. There is a need to explore some of the philosophical framework for the theological arguments.
Astrotheology argues that the non-existence of Christ is explained by the origin of the myth in astral frameworks used by Gnostic founders. This hypothesis immediately confronts a series of major problems.
Firstly, there is broadly entrenched suspicion and bias towards anything relating to astrology. Therefore an astral theology has to distinguish its claims from the magical assertions of horoscopy, something very difficult to explain to people who are predisposed to reject any discussion of such topics and have weak understanding of the relevant astronomy.
Second, the problem of lost and hidden data is a severe difficulty for astrotheology to explain.
Third, Christ Historicists maintain that their paradigms are perfectly adequate to explain Christian origins.
Fourth, it is difficult to explain to believers why inconsistencies between stories and data, for example on the settling of Nazareth, are important for an overall thesis.
So I think there needs to be a lot of careful work in exploring the astral motifs in the Bible. As my debate in another Acharya thread with Neil Godfrey illustrates, interpretations that seem obvious to one person can be opaque to others. Detailed and painstaking close textual analysis is needed against simple and clear hypotheses.
I understand the emotional problems caused by the polarising language in this debate. It is no help in convincing anyone for Acharya to speculate about misogyny as a motive for rejection of her arguments. Even if that were true, it gives readers the impression she is using the ad hominem methods which have been deployed against her, and only makes it harder for her to get a hearing.
Even if academia is incorrigibly biased, saying so does not convince doubters. It is more constructive to simply stick to presentation of solid material. In fact this is largely what Acharya actually does, for example with her forthcoming Moses book, but the problem is that her superb scholarship such as Christ in Egypt gets ignored because the Egypt parallels hypothesis is so confronting for dominant opinion. It is surprising when people such as Roger Pearse feel free to make vague comments about honesty without saying a thing to back them up, but it just illustrates that people look to different audiences to maintain their reputation for integrity.
I would certainly like to write a peer reviewed article on Astrology in the Bible, as I think Gakusei Don suggested Acharya should do. It is a topic I have been studying for a long time, and the discipline of sticking to claims that are rigorously defensible rather than vague speculation is probably an excellent way to make progress in this topic.
Galileo was never going to convince the Pope that the earth goes round the sun, given the reactionary political climate of the counter reformation. However, by presenting his evidence in a rigorous and well-argued way, together with judicious use of rhetoric, Galileo convinced the broader public who were receptive to new evidence-based analysis.
The non-existence hypothesis regarding Jesus Christ is probably as big a cultural paradigm shift as the changes brought by modern astronomy, geology and biology. But the non-rigorous nature of theology, together with the emotional nature of religion, makes debate on Christ difficult. There is a need to explore some of the philosophical framework for the theological arguments.
Astrotheology argues that the non-existence of Christ is explained by the origin of the myth in astral frameworks used by Gnostic founders. This hypothesis immediately confronts a series of major problems.
Firstly, there is broadly entrenched suspicion and bias towards anything relating to astrology. Therefore an astral theology has to distinguish its claims from the magical assertions of horoscopy, something very difficult to explain to people who are predisposed to reject any discussion of such topics and have weak understanding of the relevant astronomy.
Second, the problem of lost and hidden data is a severe difficulty for astrotheology to explain.
Third, Christ Historicists maintain that their paradigms are perfectly adequate to explain Christian origins.
Fourth, it is difficult to explain to believers why inconsistencies between stories and data, for example on the settling of Nazareth, are important for an overall thesis.
So I think there needs to be a lot of careful work in exploring the astral motifs in the Bible. As my debate in another Acharya thread with Neil Godfrey illustrates, interpretations that seem obvious to one person can be opaque to others. Detailed and painstaking close textual analysis is needed against simple and clear hypotheses.
I understand the emotional problems caused by the polarising language in this debate. It is no help in convincing anyone for Acharya to speculate about misogyny as a motive for rejection of her arguments. Even if that were true, it gives readers the impression she is using the ad hominem methods which have been deployed against her, and only makes it harder for her to get a hearing.
Even if academia is incorrigibly biased, saying so does not convince doubters. It is more constructive to simply stick to presentation of solid material. In fact this is largely what Acharya actually does, for example with her forthcoming Moses book, but the problem is that her superb scholarship such as Christ in Egypt gets ignored because the Egypt parallels hypothesis is so confronting for dominant opinion. It is surprising when people such as Roger Pearse feel free to make vague comments about honesty without saying a thing to back them up, but it just illustrates that people look to different audiences to maintain their reputation for integrity.
I would certainly like to write a peer reviewed article on Astrology in the Bible, as I think Gakusei Don suggested Acharya should do. It is a topic I have been studying for a long time, and the discipline of sticking to claims that are rigorously defensible rather than vague speculation is probably an excellent way to make progress in this topic.
Re: The Mythicist Position
[quote="Maximos"]GakuseiDon, it looks like you've misunderstood. What I clearly said was:
"I'm not aware of any courses ever teaching mythicism, are you? Academia has consistently blocked it."
So, I've already said that I'm unaware of courses teaching mythicism. The "it" was about mythicism in general and I thought that was implied in the context of my post. Maybe not.
The last two quotes from my previous post address this issue too, I thought you would've appreciated the Zindler and Price quotes.
I also already gave you a list of examples of academia keeping mythicism out but, you omitted all of that. I mean, I'm not sure how much more straight-forward this can possibly be:
1. [url=http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007 ... nd_eve.php]Fired for Saying Adam and Eve Mythical? A news report about a professor at a community college in Iowa who claimed he was fired for stating in class that the biblical Adam and Eve were mythical.[/url]
[quote="GakuseiDon"]"What is the onus on mythicist proponents here?"[/quote]
As I pointed out previously, "the onus is on biblical scholarship to take seriously and diligently examine the case for mythicism. They should debunk, once and for all, everything that can be debunked in accordance with credible evidence and they should acknowledge wherever mythicism has a better explanation &/or fills the gaps in our current understanding."
It seems to me that the next step is for academia to stop ignoring mythicism and do its job by responding objectively. Academia has a lot of catching up to do. Then, mythicists can respond to their criticism.
Have you read Dupuis, Baur, Strauss, Rev. Dr. Robert Taylor or "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" by well-known Biblical Scholar Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor? What on mythicism have you actually studied?
[quote="GakuseiDon"]"That is, to the idea that there was no historical Jesus; or at least, the idea that our sources are so hopelessly compromised that it is impossible to tell one way or the other."[/quote]
Previously you said: "I'm not a mythicist by any means, as I believe the evidence is strong for a historical Jesus, even if we can say nothing for certain about him, to the point he might as well have not existed."
What in your opinion is the very best credible evidence for a historical Jesus?
How do you "believe the evidence is strong for a historical Jesus" when no valid evidence exists (as you sort of acknowledge?)? THAT to me is the "fringe" theory here based on an ideology not evidence. The quote from Dr. Price exposes that notion.
[quote]"...As for this tiresome business about there being "no scholar" or "no serious scholar" who advocates the Christ Myth theory: Isn't it obvious that scholarly communities are defined by certain axioms in which grad students are trained, and that they will lose standing in those communities if they depart from those axioms? The existence of an historical Jesus is currently one of those. That should surprise no one, especially with the rightward lurch of the Society for Biblical Literature in recent years. It simply does not matter how many scholars hold a certain opinion."
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's[/quote]
Academia accepts a historical Jesus [b]DESPITE[/b] the evidence not because of it.
It appears that even some biblical scholars concede:
[quote]"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"
- F.F. Bruce, a founder of the modern evangelical movement, Who Was Jesus? 84[/quote]
[quote]"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."
- Dr. John Dominic Crossan, Who Was Jesus? 24[/quote][/quote]
[quote]"I'm not aware of any courses ever teaching mythicism, are you? Academia has consistently blocked it."[/quote]
There are not and there are not any on Astrotheology either. Thats the reason many like Carrier and others are so out of their element it was not a part of their frigging Phd....
"I'm not aware of any courses ever teaching mythicism, are you? Academia has consistently blocked it."
So, I've already said that I'm unaware of courses teaching mythicism. The "it" was about mythicism in general and I thought that was implied in the context of my post. Maybe not.
The last two quotes from my previous post address this issue too, I thought you would've appreciated the Zindler and Price quotes.
I also already gave you a list of examples of academia keeping mythicism out but, you omitted all of that. I mean, I'm not sure how much more straight-forward this can possibly be:
1. [url=http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007 ... nd_eve.php]Fired for Saying Adam and Eve Mythical? A news report about a professor at a community college in Iowa who claimed he was fired for stating in class that the biblical Adam and Eve were mythical.[/url]
[quote="GakuseiDon"]"What is the onus on mythicist proponents here?"[/quote]
As I pointed out previously, "the onus is on biblical scholarship to take seriously and diligently examine the case for mythicism. They should debunk, once and for all, everything that can be debunked in accordance with credible evidence and they should acknowledge wherever mythicism has a better explanation &/or fills the gaps in our current understanding."
It seems to me that the next step is for academia to stop ignoring mythicism and do its job by responding objectively. Academia has a lot of catching up to do. Then, mythicists can respond to their criticism.
Have you read Dupuis, Baur, Strauss, Rev. Dr. Robert Taylor or "Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel" by well-known Biblical Scholar Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor? What on mythicism have you actually studied?
[quote="GakuseiDon"]"That is, to the idea that there was no historical Jesus; or at least, the idea that our sources are so hopelessly compromised that it is impossible to tell one way or the other."[/quote]
Previously you said: "I'm not a mythicist by any means, as I believe the evidence is strong for a historical Jesus, even if we can say nothing for certain about him, to the point he might as well have not existed."
What in your opinion is the very best credible evidence for a historical Jesus?
How do you "believe the evidence is strong for a historical Jesus" when no valid evidence exists (as you sort of acknowledge?)? THAT to me is the "fringe" theory here based on an ideology not evidence. The quote from Dr. Price exposes that notion.
[quote]"...As for this tiresome business about there being "no scholar" or "no serious scholar" who advocates the Christ Myth theory: Isn't it obvious that scholarly communities are defined by certain axioms in which grad students are trained, and that they will lose standing in those communities if they depart from those axioms? The existence of an historical Jesus is currently one of those. That should surprise no one, especially with the rightward lurch of the Society for Biblical Literature in recent years. It simply does not matter how many scholars hold a certain opinion."
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's[/quote]
Academia accepts a historical Jesus [b]DESPITE[/b] the evidence not because of it.
It appears that even some biblical scholars concede:
[quote]"Apart from the New Testament writings and later writings dependent upon these, our sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic"
- F.F. Bruce, a founder of the modern evangelical movement, Who Was Jesus? 84[/quote]
[quote]"The Gospels are neither histories nor biographies, even within the ancient tolerances for those genres."
- Dr. John Dominic Crossan, Who Was Jesus? 24[/quote][/quote]
[quote]"I'm not aware of any courses ever teaching mythicism, are you? Academia has consistently blocked it."[/quote]
There are not and there are not any on Astrotheology either. Thats the reason many like Carrier and others are so out of their element it was not a part of their frigging Phd....