Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 06-08-2011, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

more on the Baysian probability of the Resurrection

Quote:

The problem is the implications of the McGrews’ article, which seems written to fortify the belief that the probability of the Resurrection occurring is high, while providing enough language to dodge responsibility for those who accuse them of making this accusation.

Anyone who thinks that the probability of the Resurrection is "staggeringly high" has some sort of problem.

Comments from Ed Babinski at that link seem quite pertinent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed Babinski

When I think of the ways an infinite God could have proven the resurrection and the bodily ascension into heaven, my mind boggles at the paltry nature of the Gospel stories. Partisan tales, unnamed Gospel authors. Writing during a crazy heated apocalyptic-minded, and miracle-minded time period....

An infinite God apparently saw fit to leave behind very interesting evidence from the past. ... But the point is that an infinite God could have preserved first century manuscripts, even in Jesus’ own langauge (Aramaic), and could have left behind definitive evidence as to where Jesus was buried, could have provided first person stories galore, could have had the resurrected Jesus preach to the entire city of Jerusalem, could have had Jesus rise into heaven in sight of the city of Jerusalem, could have left behind the names of the “many raised saints” and the people to whom they appeared when they entered the holy city, and what they said and what happened to them. Could have left behind stories Lazarus told to others after being raised and what happened to him. Could have left behind stories of others who knew such people. Could have left behind the parables and teachings of the post-resurrected Jesus, what the raised Jesus told the people on the road to Emmaus when he was delivering apparently a long sermon on the Christ in the Bible, could have preserved what raised Jesus taught the apostles during his weeks on earth before the ascension (as Acts claims, Jesus was around for weeks, teaching). Neither God nor man was interested enough to recall nor write down such lessons from the post-resurrection Jesus? But they recalled his pre-death parables, and even recalled such tidbits as the time Jesus looked at someone “with anger?” No one could remember these conversations, and furthermore the raised Jesus leaves town with a whimper, seen only by believers.

And God expects people to believe this all, and in a most “traditional” fashion? Or be damned for eternity?

Of course, Yahweh is testing us and eliminating doubters so that only the pure in heart go to paradise. It would be too easy to have real faith if the evidence was laid out so. We have our Yahweh appointed leaders to lead us and our Bibles to read. That is enough.

or so a half baked apologist would respond.

JoeWallack · 06-08-2011, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

McGraw writes:
...
In our paper, we concentrate on the Bayes factor. The Bayes factor shows the direction of the evidence and measures its force. We argue that it is staggeringly high in favor of R [Resurrection] for the evidence we adduce. Naturally, the skeptics will not be likely to agree with us on that. My point here and now, however, is that neither in the paper nor in my interview was there a mistake about probability, any insignificance or triviality in our intended conclusion, nor any deception...

JW:
Figures don't lie, but...

The McGraws ("McGra" is a clue) look like run of the mill Apologists, and bad ones at that:

http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/20...rer-about.html

Quote:

The other, older still (mid-1800's) is Simon Greenleaf:

All that Christianity asks of men on this subject, is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth. In the course of such an examination, the undesigned coincidences will multiply upon us at every step in our progress; the probability of the veracity of the witnesses and of the reality of the occurrences which they relate will increase, until it acquires, for all practical purposes, the value and force of demonstration.

Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists

What is really radical--in the sense of being countercultural and shocking to many--is an evidentialism like Greenleaf's that insists that the Gospels not be treated with kid gloves. No contrast could be greater than that between Greenleaf's challenge to men to be "consistent with themselves" when they read and judge the Gospels and to judge them as they would judge the "evidences of other things" and Hunsinger's attempt prophylactically to ward off judgement from the NT by telling us that it "calls us and our detached role as would-be authoritative, evidence-weighing spectators radically into question," that it "transcends every ordinary rational mode of perception," that the claims of Christianity are "never going to be plausible to rational or evidential considerations." Whence comes the great difference between these writers? It comes from the fact that Greenleaf, unlike Hunsinger, has confidence in the historicity of the Gospels and therefore in their ability to bear such scrutiny. It comes, in short, from the fact that Hunsinger represents a theological establishment that has lost its nerve.

JW:
As has been demonstrated Ad Nazorean on these unholy Boards, Greenleaf is not what the McGraws of the world claim it is:

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...59&postcount=3

Quote:

From the link above (and Greenleaf's book):

"The present design, however, is not to enter upon any general examination of the evidences upon any general examination of the evidences of Christianity, but to confine the inquiry to the testimony of the Four Evangelists, bringing their narratives to the tests to which other evidence is subjected in human tribunals. The foundation of our religion is a basis of fact--the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection by the Evangelists as having actually occurred, within their own personal knowledge. Our religion, then, rests on the credit due to these witnesses. Are they worthy of implicit belief, in the matters which they relate? This is the question, in all human tribunals, in regard to persons testifying before them; and we propose to test the veracity of these witnesses, by the same rules and means which are there employed. The importance of the facts testified, and their relations to the affairs of the soul, and the life to come, can make no difference in the principles or the mode of weighing the evidence. It is still the evidence of matters of fact, capable of being seen and known and related, as well by one man as by another. And if the testimony of the Evangelist, supposing it to be relevant and material to the issue in a question of property or of personal right, between man and man, in a court of justice, ought to be believed and have weight; then, upon the like principles, it ought to receive our entire credit here. But if, on the other hand, we should be justified in rejecting it, if there testified on oath, then, supposing our rules of evidence to be sound, we may be excused if we hesitate elsewhere to give it credence.

The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true. That man is a religious being, is universally conceded, for it has been seen to be universally true. He is everywhere a worshiper. In every age and country, and in every stage, from the highest intellectual culture to the darkest stupidity, he bows with homage to a superior Being. Be it the rude-carved idol of his own fabrication, or the unseen divinity that stirs within him, it is still the object of his adoration. This trait in the character of man is so uniform, that it may safely be assumed, either as one of the original attributes of his nature, or as necessarily resulting from the action of one or more of those attributes."

JW:
So the idiot (Greenleaf) Starts with the Assumption that Christianity is True and X-Strapolates that therefore Christian witness is Assumed to be True unless it is Contradicted by Christian witness. He than goes on to special plea that all the contradictions are not contradictions. The dumbshit was apparently also unaware of something called Textual Variation. See my
related Thread here on the Significance of Textual variation -

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

jgoodguy · 06-08-2011, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

McGraw writes:
...
In our paper, we concentrate on the Bayes factor. The Bayes factor shows the direction of the evidence and measures its force. We argue that it is staggeringly high in favor of R [Resurrection] for the evidence we adduce. Naturally, the skeptics will not be likely to agree with us on that. My point here and now, however, is that neither in the paper nor in my interview was there a mistake about probability, any insignificance or triviality in our intended conclusion, nor any deception...

JW:
Figures don't lie, but...

The McGraws ("McGra" is a clue) look like run of the mill Apologists, and bad ones at that:

http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/20...rer-about.html

Quote:

The other, older still (mid-1800's) is Simon Greenleaf:

All that Christianity asks of men on this subject, is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth. In the course of such an examination, the undesigned coincidences will multiply upon us at every step in our progress; the probability of the veracity of the witnesses and of the reality of the occurrences which they relate will increase, until it acquires, for all practical purposes, the value and force of demonstration.

Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists

What is really radical--in the sense of being countercultural and shocking to many--is an evidentialism like Greenleaf's that insists that the Gospels not be treated with kid gloves. No contrast could be greater than that between Greenleaf's challenge to men to be "consistent with themselves" when they read and judge the Gospels and to judge them as they would judge the "evidences of other things" and Hunsinger's attempt prophylactically to ward off judgement from the NT by telling us that it "calls us and our detached role as would-be authoritative, evidence-weighing spectators radically into question," that it "transcends every ordinary rational mode of perception," that the claims of Christianity are "never going to be plausible to rational or evidential considerations." Whence comes the great difference between these writers? It comes from the fact that Greenleaf, unlike Hunsinger, has confidence in the historicity of the Gospels and therefore in their ability to bear such scrutiny. It comes, in short, from the fact that Hunsinger represents a theological establishment that has lost its nerve.

JW:
As has been demonstrated Ad Nazorean on these unholy Boards, Greenleaf is not what the McGraws of the world claim it is:

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...59&postcount=3

Quote:

From the link above (and Greenleaf's book):

"The present design, however, is not to enter upon any general examination of the evidences upon any general examination of the evidences of Christianity, but to confine the inquiry to the testimony of the Four Evangelists, bringing their narratives to the tests to which other evidence is subjected in human tribunals. The foundation of our religion is a basis of fact--the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles, death, resurrection by the Evangelists as having actually occurred, within their own personal knowledge. Our religion, then, rests on the credit due to these witnesses. Are they worthy of implicit belief, in the matters which they relate? This is the question, in all human tribunals, in regard to persons testifying before them; and we propose to test the veracity of these witnesses, by the same rules and means which are there employed. The importance of the facts testified, and their relations to the affairs of the soul, and the life to come, can make no difference in the principles or the mode of weighing the evidence. It is still the evidence of matters of fact, capable of being seen and known and related, as well by one man as by another. And if the testimony of the Evangelist, supposing it to be relevant and material to the issue in a question of property or of personal right, between man and man, in a court of justice, ought to be believed and have weight; then, upon the like principles, it ought to receive our entire credit here. But if, on the other hand, we should be justified in rejecting it, if there testified on oath, then, supposing our rules of evidence to be sound, we may be excused if we hesitate elsewhere to give it credence.

The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true. That man is a religious being, is universally conceded, for it has been seen to be universally true. He is everywhere a worshiper. In every age and country, and in every stage, from the highest intellectual culture to the darkest stupidity, he bows with homage to a superior Being. Be it the rude-carved idol of his own fabrication, or the unseen divinity that stirs within him, it is still the object of his adoration. This trait in the character of man is so uniform, that it may safely be assumed, either as one of the original attributes of his nature, or as necessarily resulting from the action of one or more of those attributes."

JW:
So the idiot (Greenleaf) Starts with the Assumption that Christianity is True and X-Strapolates that therefore Christian witness is Assumed to be True unless it is Contradicted by Christian witness. He than goes on to special plea that all the contradictions are not contradictions. The dumbshit was apparently also unaware of something called Textual Variation. See my
related Thread here on the Significance of Textual variation -

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Ok they are BS apologists, but did they hit on something about the Bayes factor?

Toto · 06-08-2011, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

...
Ok they are BS apologists, but did they hit on something about the Bayes factor?

Baysian analysis AFAIK is just a way of organizing an argument with mathematical symbols. It doesn't add anything. Carrier claims that it just describes how we think anyway, with the advantage that it allows errors in logic to be spotted more easily.

JoeWallack · 06-08-2011, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Ok they are BS apologists, but did they hit on something about the Bayes factor?

JW:
It would appear that Dr. Carrier was temporarily overwhelmed by the smell of what they said the evidence was and had a gag reflex of vomiting. Dr. Carrier's error was mistakenly vomiting on their use of Bayes Theorem to weigh the evidence, rather than what they said the evidence was.

I think this is all illustrative of the misuse of Science (Apologetics). McGraw's determination of the evidence for the resurrection is nonsense (Step 1). McGraw than uses real science to weigh this "evidence" (Step 2). McGraw than postures that the conclusion is scientific (Step 3 - it's always 3 steps with these people, isn't it?).

In the big picture, how can the evidence for an Impossible event be staggeringly high? See McGraw. Specifically, the problem here is that McGraw's determination of what the evidence is, also needs to be subject to science. You do not pick and choose what part of your argument is subject to scientific methodology.

We get back to the same place:

"Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication" by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

The original resurrection narrative lacked any historical witness claim to a resurrected Jesus. This original was the base for the other Canonical resurrection narratives. Subsequently, historical witness was forged to the ending of the original narrative. All completely consistent with the fact that historical witness to a resurrected Jesus would be Impossible.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

jgoodguy · 06-08-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Ok they are BS apologists, but did they hit on something about the Bayes factor?

JW:
It would appear that Dr. Carrier was temporarily overwhelmed by the smell of what they said the evidence was and had a gag reflex of vomiting. Dr. Carrier's error was mistakenly vomiting on their use of Bayes Theorem to weigh the evidence, rather than what they said the evidence was.

I think this is all illustrative of the misuse of Science (Apologetics). McGraw's determination of the evidence for the resurrection is nonsense (Step 1). McGraw than uses real science to weigh this "evidence" (Step 2). McGraw than postures that the conclusion is scientific (Step 3 - it's always 3 steps with these people, isn't it?).

In the big picture, how can the evidence for an Impossible event be staggeringly high? See McGraw. Specifically, the problem here is that McGraw's determination of what the evidence is, also needs to be subject to science. You do not pick and choose what part of your argument is subject to scientific methodology.

We get back to the same place:

"Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication" by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2009)

The original resurrection narrative lacked any historical witness claim to a resurrected Jesus. This original was the base for the other Canonical resurrection narratives. Subsequently, historical witness was forged to the ending of the original narrative. All completely consistent with the fact that historical witness to a resurrected Jesus would be Impossible.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Nothing is impossible, but all the other naturalist possibilities have a higher probability. The existence of multiple inconsistent reports suggest highly that the reports are in error.

In any case, it appears that applying Bayes Theorem to the evidence is going to be interesting.

hjalti · 06-08-2011, 10:38 AM

Hmm.... if I recall correctly the McGraws' whole argument was based on the absurd assumption that the probability of a disciple remaining Christians and/or dying for their faith is 1/1000, and since there were 11 disciples we can put 0,001 11 times in the formula!

Apologists abuse everything, it's no argument agains using this Bayesian stuff that apologists don't want to use it correctly.

JoeWallack · 06-08-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Nothing is impossible,

JW:
Science is built on the fact that most things are Impossible. Is it possible that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1? No need to answer.

Saying "nothing is impossible" is philosophy, not science. Medical science for example would assume that the explanation for a resuscitation could not be a resurrection because resurrections are impossible. No need to weigh the evidence for a resurrection.

Joseph

aa5874 · 06-08-2011, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Nothing is impossible,

JW:
Science is built on the fact that most things are Impossible.....

Science is built on NO such thing.

jgoodguy · 06-08-2011, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Nothing is impossible,

JW:
Science is built on the fact that most things are Impossible. Is it possible that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1? No need to answer.

Saying "nothing is impossible" is philosophy, not science. Medical science for example would assume that the explanation for a resuscitation could not be a resurrection because resurrections are impossible. No need to weigh the evidence for a resurrection.

Joseph

1+1+1 = 1 using a simple 1bit flip flop circuit.

The problem with impossible is that are possibilities not known at any given time. You stated that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 was impossible, but a possibility existed that that was possible.

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

06-08-2011, 10:38 AM	#27
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	Hmm.... if I recall correctly the McGraws' whole argument was based on the absurd assumption that the probability of a disciple remaining Christians and/or dying for their faith is 1/1000, and since there were 11 disciples we can put 0,001 11 times in the formula! Apologists abuse everything, it's no argument agains using this Bayesian stuff that apologists don't want to use it correctly.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.