Fun with Bayes' theorem and the argument from silence

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
ApostateAbe
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: Fun with Bayes' theorem and the argument from silence

Post by ApostateAbe »

MrMacSon wrote:Yes, absence of evidence is predictive.
Yes, or theories are predictive, and one of the predictions may be absence of evidence. If all competing theories both make that prediction, then no strong argument is made from absence of evidence.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Fun with Bayes' theorem and the argument from silence

Post by MrMacSon »

ApostateAbe wrote: If all competing theories both make that prediction, then no strong argument is made from absence of evidence.
That doesn't make sense.
User avatar
ApostateAbe
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: Fun with Bayes' theorem and the argument from silence

Post by ApostateAbe »

MrMacSon wrote:
ApostateAbe wrote: If all competing theories both make that prediction, then no strong argument is made from absence of evidence.
That doesn't make sense.
OK, I think of the strength of an explanation as being relative rather than absolute. An explanation is strong only if it is stronger than all competing explanations. Are you with me on that?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Fun with Bayes' theorem and the argument from silence

Post by MrMacSon »

An explanation is essentially a statement of fact, or a series of facts to provide an explanation; it is more an absolute than a relative, or should be.

Arguments are relative. Probability and 'predictability' help.

add: contemplating or philosophizing, during discussion, or autonomously, are other dimensions for processing information
User avatar
hjalti
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:28 am

Re: Fun with Bayes' theorem and the argument from silence

Post by hjalti »

MrMacSon wrote:
ApostateAbe wrote: If all competing theories both make that prediction, then no strong argument is made from absence of evidence.
That doesn't make sense.
If both theory A and B make the same prediction X. Then finding that X is the case doesn't make either A or B more probable. Right? How does that not make any sense?
User avatar
cienfuegos
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:23 pm

Re: Fun with Bayes' theorem and the argument from silence

Post by cienfuegos »

hjalti wrote:
MrMacSon wrote:
ApostateAbe wrote: If all competing theories both make that prediction, then no strong argument is made from absence of evidence.
That doesn't make sense.
If both theory A and B make the same prediction X. Then finding that X is the case doesn't make either A or B more probable. Right? How does that not make any sense?
IN the case of Jesus historicity though, the theory has been found to be malleable, thus it loses its predictive power. Let me explain.

Our evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth executed under Pilate comes from Gospels that report Jesus was known far and wide. Our actual evidence doesn't support that. It is not what one would predict based on the Gospel evidence (our only evidence of this individual actually existing, by the way). Not only do we find no non-Christian witnesses, no archaeological finds, we find nothing in the writings of Christians telling us that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by Pilate. This is unexpected and we often find scholars commenting on why the evidence does not what we would expect.

So, now the theory abandons its primary evidence from the Gospels and proposes a Jesus who was obscure, who was not known wide and far, whose followers were illiterate. It seems legitimate to do this because it is what the evidence shows, but note we are no longer making a predictive hypothesis. We are fitting our hypothesis into the evidence and introducing tensions between our primary evidence which says one thing and the new theory which says another in an attempt to reconcile the very fact that we do not find what we ought to find based on the theory that the Gospels recount some historical truth.

So now we have a theory that an obscure Jesus was killed by Pilate and was subsequently elevated to the position of Son of God (anything less than this and I would say we don't have an actual historical Jesus). Here we have a problem of explaining how obscure, failed messiah Jesus was somehow rapidly transformed into the Son of God and his religion sweeps through the region all the way to Rome in 30 years or less. (It sounds romantic to me, actually.) I understand that there are ways to make this seem plausible, but the tensions in the evidence exist and we have accept some unprecedented events (crucified criminal accepted as Son of God even by many gentiles, let alone Jews). There were many other failed would-be messiahs who do not achieve such astounding success.

My point in all this, is that the predictive power of the competing theories is not equal. Even when the theory has been reworked to fit the future events, tensions continue to exist. In the mythicist theory, there is no such tension. The evidence supports early beliefs in a heavenly jesus, a celestial high priest which is very like thoughts current among Jewish intellectuals (for example, Philo and his logos). We see Paul expressing just such thoughts that are again reflected in Hebrews, Ascension of Isaiah, and many non-Christian writings like Wisdom of Solomon, Isaiah 52/53. Paul's writings fit very comfortably in an evolutionary line from those non-Christian writings. We see that words not originally attributed to Jesus become attributed to Jesus in later writings (such as the example of Eugnostos the Blessed and the Sophia of Jesus). We see that early quotes of Jesus are actually quotes of LXX scripture, which is exactly where the mythicist position says Jesus was originally discovered, by studying and reflecting on scripture (which conforms well with what Paul himself says). So much of this evidence is in line with mythicism, it is hard to fathom a compelling argument against it.

All that would not take away from the possibility that a historical figure was later merged into this mythical Jesus figure. That is a possibility, but I don't see a compelling reason to add the extra embellishments that such a theory would require.
User avatar
ApostateAbe
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: Fun with Bayes' theorem and the argument from silence

Post by ApostateAbe »

cienfuegos, the problem of how the character of a messiah that gets crucified develops into a popular religion is a problem, no doubt about it, but I do not understand how the problem is solved by mythicism. With mythicism, you still have a myth of a messiah who gets crucified as a criminal. Either way, I think the problem is solved because the crucifixion seems to roughly fit some "prophetic" passages in the Torah, the myth of Jesus was shaped to fit those passages, and what started as a disadvantage turned into an advantage. I think it would be a positive point for mythicism if the problem did not likewise exist for the mythicist model. If anything, it would be a greater problem for mythicism, because you would expect the myths of a messiah to fit the standard messiah template, and only historical facts would force the myths to vary from the template.
User avatar
cienfuegos
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:23 pm

Re: Fun with Bayes' theorem and the argument from silence

Post by cienfuegos »

ApostateAbe wrote:cienfuegos, the problem of how the character of a messiah that gets crucified develops into a popular religion is a problem, no doubt about it, but I do not understand how the problem is solved by mythicism. With mythicism, you still have a myth of a messiah who gets crucified as a criminal.
No you don't. You have the Son of God, Savior of the World killed by demons who do not recognize him. There's no criminal in this story.

EDIT2: This is essentially what I am talking about:

"Nevertheless they see and know whose will be thrones, and whose the crowns when He has descended and been made in your form, and they will think that He is flesh and is a man.

14. And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is."

(Ascension of Isaiah, 9.13-14)

EDIT: In fact, we have at least one later Christian who seems to specifically respond to the criminal on a cross story:

"For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man. The Egyptians certainly choose out a man for themselves whom they may worship; him alone they propitiate; him they consult about all things; to him they slaughter victims; and he who to others is a god, to himself is certainly a man whether he will or no, for he does not deceive his own consciousness, if he deceives that of others. (Municius Felix, Octavius, Ch. 29)"

Municius Felix doesn't express any need to explain that Jesus of Nazareth only took mortal form temporarily when he was crucified by Pilate. This seems to me to witness to the development of a Christianity that is not accepted by M. Felix. "All his help is put to an end with the extinction of the man," would fall right into the trap, wouldn't it? Jesus of Nazareth was killed. He is dead and gone.
Either way, I think the problem is solved because the crucifixion seems to roughly fit some "prophetic" passages in the Torah, the myth of Jesus was shaped to fit those passages, and what started as a disadvantage turned into an advantage. I think it would be a positive point for mythicism if the problem did not likewise exist for the mythicist model.
There you have it. The problem does not likewise exist for the mythicist model.
If anything, it would be a greater problem for mythicism, because you would expect the myths of a messiah to fit the standard messiah template, and only historical facts would force the myths to vary from the template.
What standard messiah template? A great deal of effort has gone into demonstrating that there was not a single messiah template.

You have two unsupported assumptions in this very short response.
Last edited by cienfuegos on Tue Nov 11, 2014 1:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Fun with Bayes' theorem and the argument from silence

Post by MrMacSon »

ApostateAbe wrote: ... you would expect the myths of a messiah to fit the standard messiah template, and only historical facts would force the myths to vary from the template.
There is very little logic in ancient god-fearing myths.

Yes, the Jesus narrative
ApostateAbe wrote:... seems to roughly fit some "prophetic" passages in the Torah, the myth of Jesus was shaped to fit those passages ...

though not necessarily
ApostateAbe wrote: ... as a disadvantage turned into an advantage.
The crucifixion is an anomaly to Judaism but, in the context of animal sacrifices stopping or largely diminishing after the fall of the temple, it is highly feasible a myth of an ultimate human-sacrifice-substitute developed out of the evolving theologies.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Fun with Bayes' theorem and the argument from silence

Post by MrMacSon »

cienfuegos wrote: There you have it. The problem does not likewise exist for the mythicist model.

What standard messiah template? A great deal of effort has gone into demonstrating that there was not a single messiah template.
I agree.
Post Reply