Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-25-2011, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

So, I think that we really do need to make sense of the early Christian writings with a more probabilistic perspective, which in this case is somewhere in the center of the two extreme opposing perspectives. We need to find best explanations for any given claim, and the best explanations may involve historical elements, even if our only knowledge of such things are contained in the untrustworthy writings of ancient Christians.

What do you think?

I don't think there is any point debating this.

No matter what historical phenomenon we seek to understand, our accepted explanation should always be the best one available. We measure the quality of an explanation based both on its probability and on its explanatory power. Ideally, the explanation that we accept should have the highest available ratings in both categories; this isn't always possible, though, and some good intellectual judgement is required to figure out how much of each we might be able to sacrifice in exchange for more of the other.

For example, there are many ways to explain the appearance of the revolutionary—Christian—understanding of the Jewish Messiah around the first century ᴀ.ᴅ. The hypothesis that 'every single aspect of it was entirely fabricated with no basis in reality' has a high degree of explanatory power (it can, literally, explain every aspect as a human invention), but it is severely lacking when it comes to probability, primarily because people don't change their views overnight with no reason, and the 'it was all invented' hypothesis, therefore, only pushes the questions further to 'why was it invented?'.

This does not follow. The story of Jesus Christ was not invented out of whole cloth, and clearly drew on existing Hellenistic and Jewish themes. But this does not show that there was a historical individual who fit the profile of the historical Jesus.

Quote:

Likewise, we can explain this change in thinking as a result of 'the Messiah really came to earth, told everyone what his actual properties were, lived up to them, etc.'. This explanation, while explaining every aspect of the Messianic-mindset revolution by declaring it factual and actual, is as horribly improbable as the explanation that the whole thing was made up.

It is more than improbable, as it depends on a supernatural explanation.

Quote:

And so we seek a balance for optimization: maximum explanatory power with maximum probability. Weighting these factors allows us to determine the cost-benefit analysis of trading one for the other, and thus we're able to achieve an optimal explanation given whatever data we have available. . .

Have you thought this through? What are the costs and what are the benefits? Why should they be balanced?

You might not have read up on all of Abe's historical theorizing. The problem many of us have is that Abe has decided that his own theories are THE most probable, and everyone else's are nutty. But he hasn't actually come up with a persuasive way of measuring the probability.

avi · 05-25-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B

So what is the fuss about then? All I am saying is that many myths have some historical background, and I see no reason why that should not apply to Jesus.

The fuss is whether or not the gospels represent a valid claim for an historical figure named JC. For me, at least, the converse seems reasonable: the new testament has a mythical character, particularly with reference to the portrait drawn of JC.

How would you respond, David, to my writing:
"...no reason why that should not apply to Paul Bunyan."

In other words, rewriting your sentence, above, keeping in mind Paul and Jesus:
"...many myths have some mythical background, and ..."

avi

ApostateAbe · 05-25-2011, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

So, I think that we really do need to make sense of the early Christian writings with a more probabilistic perspective, which in this case is somewhere in the center of the two extreme opposing perspectives. We need to find best explanations for any given claim, and the best explanations may involve historical elements, even if our only knowledge of such things are contained in the untrustworthy writings of ancient Christians.

What do you think?

I don't think there is any point debating this.

No matter what historical phenomenon we seek to understand, our accepted explanation should always be the best one available. We measure the quality of an explanation based both on its probability and on its explanatory power. Ideally, the explanation that we accept should have the highest available ratings in both categories; this isn't always possible, though, and some good intellectual judgement is required to figure out how much of each we might be able to sacrifice in exchange for more of the other.

For example, there are many ways to explain the appearance of the revolutionary—Christian—understanding of the Jewish Messiah around the first century ᴀ.ᴅ. The hypothesis that 'every single aspect of it was entirely fabricated with no basis in reality' has a high degree of explanatory power (it can, literally, explain every aspect as a human invention), but it is severely lacking when it comes to probability, primarily because people don't change their views overnight with no reason, and the 'it was all invented' hypothesis, therefore, only pushes the questions further to 'why was it invented?'.

Likewise, we can explain this change in thinking as a result of 'the Messiah really came to earth, told everyone what his actual properties were, lived up to them, etc.'. This explanation, while explaining every aspect of the Messianic-mindset revolution by declaring it factual and actual, is as horribly improbable as the explanation that the whole thing was made up.

And so we seek a balance for optimization: maximum explanatory power with maximum probability. Weighting these factors allows us to determine the cost-benefit analysis of trading one for the other, and thus we're able to achieve an optimal explanation given whatever data we have available.

This is the approach that should be applied to every attempt to explain historical phenomena—Biblical or otherwise. Granted, it doesn't guarantee our explanations to be true (no approach has this effect), but it does assure us that our arguments will be as strong as possible with any given data set; and this is how we decide which explanation to accept: based on the strength of its accompanying argument. Thus an explanation with a high probability and impressive explanatory power will succeed in giving us the most convincing premises possible, and as many premises as possible to necessitate the conclusion: it will be the strongest.

And this is where the rational sit. Sit elsewhere and your claims are no longer relevant in the realms of logic, reason, or reality.

Jon

I actually think that the biggest weakness of Perspective #2 (Jesus-minimalism) is its lack of explanatory power, and I think I may have a different definition of "explanatory power." It is sometimes equated with "predictive power," though it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with future data. Basically, a theory with "explanatory power" means that the data is what we should very much expect to see given the theory.

You were talking about a principle that I think is more appropriately called, "explanatory scope." A theory with "explanatory scope" can explain a wide array of data.

These definitions are based on "Argument to the Best Explanation," by C. Behan McCullagh, outlined on Wikipedia here: Historical Method: Argument to the best explanation.

There are five relevant criteria, and two of them are explanatory power and explanatory scope. A month ago, Toto had about the same conflation between those two principles as you do (maybe it is more common than I thought), and I wrote a thread on it here:

"Explanatory power" explained

The best explanation is not necessarily achieved by a "balance" between anything. It is not necessarily a zero-sum thing. The best theory may have an excess of each of all relevant criteria, and that would most certainly make it the best explanation. Though, of course, the "balanced" theory may be the winning theory in many issues of New Testament debate. Perspective #1 (maximalism) has all of the criteria but a severe deficiency in one: plausibility. Perspective #2 has a whole lot of explanatory scope, consistency with accepted beliefs... and nothing else.

spin · 05-25-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

I don't think there is any point debating this.

No matter what historical phenomenon we seek to understand, our accepted explanation should always be the best one available. We measure the quality of an explanation based both on its probability and on its explanatory power. Ideally, the explanation that we accept should have the highest available ratings in both categories; this isn't always possible, though, and some good intellectual judgement is required to figure out how much of each we might be able to sacrifice in exchange for more of the other.

For example, there are many ways to explain the appearance of the revolutionary—Christian—understanding of the Jewish Messiah around the first century ᴀ.ᴅ. The hypothesis that 'every single aspect of it was entirely fabricated with no basis in reality' has a high degree of explanatory power (it can, literally, explain every aspect as a human invention), but it is severely lacking when it comes to probability, primarily because people don't change their views overnight with no reason, and the 'it was all invented' hypothesis, therefore, only pushes the questions further to 'why was it invented?'.

Likewise, we can explain this change in thinking as a result of 'the Messiah really came to earth, told everyone what his actual properties were, lived up to them, etc.'. This explanation, while explaining every aspect of the Messianic-mindset revolution by declaring it factual and actual, is as horribly improbable as the explanation that the whole thing was made up.

And so we seek a balance for optimization: maximum explanatory power with maximum probability. Weighting these factors allows us to determine the cost-benefit analysis of trading one for the other, and thus we're able to achieve an optimal explanation given whatever data we have available.

This is the approach that should be applied to every attempt to explain historical phenomena—Biblical or otherwise. Granted, it doesn't guarantee our explanations to be true (no approach has this effect), but it does assure us that our arguments will be as strong as possible with any given data set; and this is how we decide which explanation to accept: based on the strength of its accompanying argument. Thus an explanation with a high probability and impressive explanatory power will succeed in giving us the most convincing premises possible, and as many premises as possible to necessitate the conclusion: it will be the strongest.

And this is where the rational sit. Sit elsewhere and your claims are no longer relevant in the realms of logic, reason, or reality.

Jon

I actually think that the biggest weakness of Perspective #2 (Jesus-minimalism) is its lack of explanatory power, and I think I may have a different definition of "explanatory power." It is sometimes equated with "predictive power," though it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with future data. Basically, a theory with "explanatory power" means that the data is what we should very much expect to see given the theory.

You were talking about a principle that I think is more appropriately called, "explanatory scope." A theory with "explanatory scope" can explain a wide array of data.

These definitions are based on "Argument to the Best Explanation," by C. Behan McCullagh, outlined on Wikipedia here: Historical Method: Argument to the best explanation.

There are five relevant criteria, and two of them are explanatory power and explanatory scope. A month ago, Toto had about the same conflation between those two principles as you do (maybe it is more common than I thought), and I wrote a thread on it here:

"Explanatory power" explained

The best explanation is not necessarily achieved by a "balance" between anything. It is not necessarily a zero-sum thing. The best theory may have an excess of each of all relevant criteria, and that would most certainly make it the best explanation. Though, of course, the "balanced" theory may be the winning theory in many issues of New Testament debate. Perspective #1 (maximalism) has all of the criteria but a severe deficiency in one: plausibility. Perspective #2 has a whole lot of explanatory scope, consistency with accepted beliefs... and nothing else.

ApostateAbe apparently doesn't know what he's talking about. He's simply off the planet when he ignores the raw ingredients to his oft quoted and seemingly still ununderstood best explanation. He has nothing that equates to "observational statements" in a historical context. You can't really have explanatory scope or power in a historical context without them either. Data, nude and crude, is not sufficient. ApostateAbe appears to be the king of historyless analysis of history.

Toto · 05-25-2011, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
...
There are five relevant criteria, and two of them are explanatory power and explanatory scope. A month ago, Toto had about the same conflation between those two principles as you do (maybe it is more common than I thought), and I wrote a thread on it here:

"Explanatory power" explained

I don't know why you keep posting links to threads where you failed to make your point.

The Argument to the Best Explanation seems to me an attempt to quantify a gut level feeling about when historical theories are entitled to respect even if they can't be proven to a scientific certainty. Richard Carrier used it when he evaluated Doherty's original Jesus Puzzle and decided that it was the best explanation of the evidence. You might want to review his discussion here for how ABE is used in ancient history. It is always a rather tentative conclusion when the facts are so equivocal.

What you label "minimalism" is not a theory. It is, in fact, the normal method historians use in dealing with historical sources.

ApostateAbe · 05-25-2011, 07:21 PM

If anyone cares about any of the claims from Toto or spin, please let me know. I try to hold myself back from arguing with them, but it is not my wish to ignore any legitimate points that they put on the table, especially if they are seen as important.

JonA · 05-25-2011, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

I don't think there is any point debating this.

No matter what historical phenomenon we seek to understand, our accepted explanation should always be the best one available. We measure the quality of an explanation based both on its probability and on its explanatory power. Ideally, the explanation that we accept should have the highest available ratings in both categories; this isn't always possible, though, and some good intellectual judgement is required to figure out how much of each we might be able to sacrifice in exchange for more of the other.

For example, there are many ways to explain the appearance of the revolutionary—Christian—understanding of the Jewish Messiah around the first century ᴀ.ᴅ. The hypothesis that 'every single aspect of it was entirely fabricated with no basis in reality' has a high degree of explanatory power (it can, literally, explain every aspect as a human invention), but it is severely lacking when it comes to probability, primarily because people don't change their views overnight with no reason, and the 'it was all invented' hypothesis, therefore, only pushes the questions further to 'why was it invented?'.

This does not follow. The story of Jesus Christ was not invented out of whole cloth, and clearly drew on existing Hellenistic and Jewish themes. But this does not show that there was a historical individual who fit the profile of the historical Jesus.

The question again becomes one of probability: Is it more probable that a few Jews in the first century went to work completely turning the Messianic prophecies on their head (to the point that they are, in content, no longer Messianic at all), or that there was, as we already know there to have been in abundance, a dude whose followers thought he was the Messiah but ended up getting executed by the Romans?

I'm still not convinced that the former of these is more probable.

Quote:

It is more than improbable, as it depends on a supernatural explanation.

What does? An historical Jesus? Hardly; we know apocalyptic preachers were far from uncommon in early first century Palestine, and we know that they were just the type of people the Romans loved to raze.

Quote:

And so we seek a balance for optimization: maximum explanatory power with maximum probability. Weighting these factors allows us to determine the cost-benefit analysis of trading one for the other, and thus we're able to achieve an optimal explanation given whatever data we have available. . .

Have you thought this through? What are the costs and what are the benefits? Why should they be balanced?

They don't have to be balanced in the sense of being equal; instead they should be balanced in the sense that no other available explanation can offer a more optimal cost-benefit rating.

Quote:

You might not have read up on all of Abe's historical theorizing. The problem many of us have is that Abe has decided that his own theories are THE most probable, and everyone else's are nutty. But he hasn't actually come up with a persuasive way of measuring the probability.

You likely noticed that the method I advocated made something of an appeal to solid measurement values. However, I don't think we'd want to delude ourselves into thinking that such a clear-cut valuation of our competing hypotheses is possible. I spoke largely of idealizations.

Probability must be measured in some fashion, and I think in large part the disagreements revolve around how to valuate the probability of this or that.

One thing, though, is certain: If we attempt to limit our evidence to historic texts—as many seem to do—, then there is no way to even begin addressing the issue. Thus, because of the amount of information in play and the drastic ways in which it varies, nailing down an absolute system for measuring probabilities of various scenarios is, at present, neither overly feasible nor without controversy.

I plan to read through the argument you linked to on the Infidels site; I will address any concerns I have with it here.

Jon

JonA · 05-25-2011, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If anyone cares about any of the claims from Toto or spin, please let me know. I try to hold myself back from arguing with them, but it is not my wish to ignore any legitimate points that they put on the table, especially if they are seen as important.

At this point what I see are a group of debaters who have been at it for so long that they are no longer arguing the issues, but are instead simply accusing one another of having no evidence.

This tends to happen when both sides feel that the debate is growing stale, and neither one is willing to restate their theses and evidence again and again.

I think a fresh look at the matter would be helpful; I also think a restatement of the premises and conclusions on both sides would offer much in the way of furthering discussion.

When making a post, a good question to ask oneself might be: 'If I put this post in front of someone who has never read the thread, would they be able to figure out what the topic up for discussion is?'

But that's just my humble opinion

.

Jon

Toto · 05-25-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

...
The question again becomes one of probability: Is it more probable that a few Jews in the first century went to work completely turning the Messianic prophecies on their head (to the point that they are, in content, no longer Messianic at all), or that there was, as we already know there to have been in abundance, a dude whose followers thought he was the Messiah but ended up getting executed by the Romans?

I'm still not convinced that the former of these is more probable.

What is the probability of this? A mere dude got executed by the Romans (as many did) but 1) none of his followers or brothers were executed, since the Romans tended to go full bore in snuffing out rebellions and 2) his followers put together a movement that was invisible to history for a few generations?

There are just too many questions left open.

Quote:

What does? An historical Jesus? ...

I thought you were referring to the full maximalist plot line, with Jesus rising frolm the grave.

Quote:

They don't have to be balanced in the sense of being equal; instead they should be balanced in the sense that no other available explanation can offer a more optimal cost-benefit rating.

I still think you are balancing the wrong things.

Quote:

...
Probability must be measured in some fashion, and I think in large part the disagreements revolve around how to valuate the probability of this or that.

...

Richard Carrier will be publishng a book at some point on the question of how to evaluate historical probabilities, using Baysian statistical theory.

jgoodguy · 05-25-2011, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

...
The question again becomes one of probability: Is it more probable that a few Jews in the first century went to work completely turning the Messianic prophecies on their head (to the point that they are, in content, no longer Messianic at all), or that there was, as we already know there to have been in abundance, a dude whose followers thought he was the Messiah but ended up getting executed by the Romans?

I'm still not convinced that the former of these is more probable.

What is the probability of this? A mere dude got executed by the Romans (as many did) but 1) none of his followers or brothers were executed, since the Romans tended to go full bore in snuffing out rebellions and 2) his followers put together a movement that was invisible to history for a few generations?

There are just too many questions left open.

Quote:

What does? An historical Jesus? ...

I thought you were referring to the full maximalist plot line, with Jesus rising frolm the grave.

Quote:

They don't have to be balanced in the sense of being equal; instead they should be balanced in the sense that no other available explanation can offer a more optimal cost-benefit rating.

I still think you are balancing the wrong things.

Quote:

...
Probability must be measured in some fashion, and I think in large part the disagreements revolve around how to valuate the probability of this or that.

...

Richard Carrier will be publishng a book at some point on the question of how to evaluate historical probabilities, using Baysian statistical theory.

Complicating the evaluation of Christian history is the fact that 90% of written documents from antiquity are missing and the orthodox church selectively retained and edited what was left. This is the basis I have to object to any argument from silence for that period. How can a possible silence be detected against a larger silence.

Carrier is writing 2 books one as noted above and one on applying that probability to a historical Jesus.

Carrier writes

Quote:

I want to make the argument more serious and finally get to a point where we can either agree that it’s undecidable or that historicity is defensible by a logically valid method or that its not. I’m hoping maybe 20 years from now my book will have started a debate that will end within 20 years or we will have a consensus on one of those three end points. Even though my book will argue for one of those endpoints, I don’t assume that’s where it’s going to end up, but I think it’s probable that it will.

So it is going to take 20 years to decide if historicity of Jesus is valid. :banghead:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-25-2011, 07:21 PM	#46
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	If anyone cares about any of the claims from Toto or spin, please let me know. I try to hold myself back from arguing with them, but it is not my wish to ignore any legitimate points that they put on the table, especially if they are seen as important.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.