Shrunk wrote:So is the evidence in favour of an historical Jesus so strong that someone holding the contrary position can justifiably be called a "denialist"? (If you want my opinion, I'm the commentator named "lutesuite" on Sandwalk.)

That Jesus historically existed is an hypothesis (1) in the field of ancient history. People may allocate to this hypothesis a truth value (a probability between 0 and 1) based on an assessment of the evidence.

Likewise that Jesus historically did not exist is an hypothesis (2) in the field of ancient history. People may allocate to this hypothesis a truth value (a probability between 0 and 1) based on an assessment of the evidence.

These two hypotheses are antithetical. Both cannot be true.

The Christian churches of the 21st century and their associated tertiary education industries obviously accept the hypothesis (1) that Jesus existed as true. Between the 4th and 17th century the hypothesis that Jesus existed was protected by the heresy laws of the church, and between the 17th and 19th centuries by the blasphemy laws of Christian nations and their states. There can be no doubt, after all these centuries, that the hypothesis that Jesus existed is true - is a paradigm.

The hypothesis (2) that Jesus did not exist could only emerge after the relaxation of the heresy and blasphemy laws (for obvious reasons - yet which are not often mentioned ). This hypothesis has been argued at least for a few centuries now, in various forms. Essentially the paradigm was and is being questioned.

A researcher in any field should be able to question the dominant paradigm in that field without being likened to a "holocaust denialist". AFAIK Bart Ehrman may have been the first to use the term against mythicists in his book "Did Jesus Exist". James McGrath seems to be just following the leader. It is obvious that both commentators are associated with the tertiary education industry associated with one Christian church organisation or another, which are obviously committed to hypothesis (1).

The comparison made between Jesus mythicists and Holocaust Deniers highlights the fact that the Biblical Historians are simply not used to having their fundamental hypotheses questioned. These have been accepted as true in accordance to the dogma of the church industry. But now they are being challenged.

I think the following extract is appropriate ...

Negative Evidence - Richard Levin
Studies in Philology; Vol. 92, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995) (pp. 383-410)

p.383
"The first point is that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless we look for negative evidence that might contradict it, and the second point is that many of us ignore the first point, because of the tendancy of our minds (not, of course, of "human nature") to look only for positive evidence that confirms a proposition we want to prove. This tendancy explains the remarkable tenacity of superstitions ... and of prejudices ....

p.389

The third basic point ... We must recognise, not only that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless we look for negative evidence that might contradict it and that we have a tendency to look only for positive evidence, but also that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless this negative evidence could exist. The principle is well known to scientists and philosophers of science, who call it disconfirmability. They insist that if a proposition does not invite disconfirmation, if there is no conceivable evidence the existence of which would contradict it, then is cannot be tested and so cannot be taken seriously. If it is not disprovable, it is not provable.

p.409

When combatants encounter an argument, they do not ask about the evidence for or against it; they just ask if the argument is for or against their side, since they believe ... that "the only real question ... is: Which side are you on".

... we not only tend to overlook or forget negative evidence that contradicts our beliefs, but when others point such evidence out to us, instead of thanking them for this chance to correct our beliefs, we tend to get angry with them, and this anger increases in direct proportion to our commitment to the beliefs.

Leucius Charinus wrote:
That Jesus historically existed is an hypothesis (1) in the field of ancient history. People may allocate to this hypothesis a truth value (a probability between 0 and 1) based on an assessment of the evidence.

Actually, no. That's not exactly how probability works. You left out a fuck of a lot of steps. In probability, you first have to figure out what constitutes your sample space. Then you have to categorize the families of events which appear in that sample space. Has anyone in this 'field' done this? I fucking doubt it, but you can always educate me.

By 'probability', I think you might be denoting what all the other wibblers denote by "(subjective) likelihood". Don't use the term 'probability' when it's not been earned.

That point bothered me too in Leucius Charinus' post.

He does say "People may allocate..." a value to the probability, which may leave room for subjectivity; but specifying "a probability between 0 and 1" suggests a far more scientific procedure than is justified. What does it mean to say, for instance that hypothesis (1) has a probability of 0.36, rather than 0.37? All you can really say is that one hypothesis feels less likely, or much less likely, than the other.

Evolving wrote:That point bothered me too in Leucius Charinus' post.

He does say "People may allocate..." a value to the probability, which may leave room for subjectivity; but specifying "a probability between 0 and 1" suggests a far more scientific procedure than is justified. What does it mean to say, for instance that hypothesis (1) has a probability of 0.36, rather than 0.37? All you can really say is that one hypothesis feels less likely, or much less likely, than the other.

The field specifically devoted to pondering Jesus, you know, as a going concern, is a garbage field, located somewhere just north of graph theory applied to underwater basket-weaving. People who don't know the significance of the term 'data' are trying to evaluate the quality of whatever it is they've decided to call 'data', because when you want to say something, it's a good idea to support it with 'data'. Circular argument is circular.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:
That Jesus historically existed is an hypothesis (1) in the field of ancient history. People may allocate to this hypothesis a truth value (a probability between 0 and 1) based on an assessment of the evidence.

Actually, no. That's not exactly how probability works. You left out a fuck of a lot of steps. In probability, you first have to figure out what constitutes your sample space. Then you have to categorize the families of events which appear in that sample space. Has anyone in this 'field' done this? I fucking doubt it, but you can always educate me.

Carrier uses Bayesian probability in his book "On the Historicity of Jesus".

I cant remember the end result allocated.

Maybe it was 0.3 (30%)

By 'probability', I think you might be denoting what all the other wibblers denote by "(subjective) likelihood". Don't use the term 'probability' when it's not been earned.

Here is how Carrier applied Bayesian probability to the probability that Jesus existed:

"Bayes's Theorem entails a concluding probability (the probability that Jesus existed)
from estimating three other probabilities:

(1.0) the prior probability that Jesus (calculated from Rank-Raglan scale)


(2.0) the probability of the evidence if Jesus did exist;
determined after evaluation of the following four elements:

2.1 Evidence outside Biblical literature (e.g. Tacitus, Josephus, etc)
2.2 Evidence from Acts of the Apostles
2.3 Evidence from the Gospels
2.4 Evidence from the Epistles

(3.0) the probability of that same evidence if Jesus didn't exist;
determined after evaluation of the following four elements:


3.1 Evidence outside Biblical literature (e.g. Tacitus, Josephus, etc)
3.2 Evidence from Acts of the Apostles
3.3 Evidence from the Gospels
3.4 Evidence from the Epistles

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Here is how Carrier applied Bayesian probability to the probability that Jesus existed:

[list]"Bayes's Theorem entails a concluding probability (the probability that Jesus existed)
from estimating three other probabilities:

(1.0) the prior probability that Jesus (calculated from Rank-Raglan scale)

There is no 'prior probability' for Jesus, because that wasn't established in any way. Hence, it's a bunch of made up shit.

It might be so, but I don't know. It sounds like shit to me.

The only people who fool around with this shit are people who think it's 'important' to come to a conclusion about it, because they think it might affect the course of the future. I say, wait, check back in 500 years, and see if it's still 'important'.

Animavore wrote:Hey! This is the "Is Jesus mythicism denialism?" thread, Not the "Historical Jesus" thread.

It isn't about that at all. It's about people who try to make a living off it, and charges of 'denialism' are yet another attempt to do that.

Evolving wrote:That point bothered me too in Leucius Charinus' post.

He does say "People may allocate..." a value to the probability, which may leave room for subjectivity; but specifying "a probability between 0 and 1" suggests a far more scientific procedure than is justified. What does it mean to say, for instance that hypothesis (1) has a probability of 0.36, rather than 0.37? All you can really say is that one hypothesis feels less likely, or much less likely, than the other.

The point in using probability is to avoid the black and white YES or NO answer to the question of historicity. There is - in theory - a grey area between the hypothesis that Jesus existed and its antithesis. Those who are convinced that Jesus existed can run with a probability of 1 (100%) if they like. But there will be some comfortable with a 80% or even a 50% chance. The same applies to the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist. I see both ends of the spectrum of belief, and positions between these antithetical positions.

Also history necessarily involves uncertainties. Statements made by historians like "almost certainly", "most likely", "less likely", "almost impossible" are in effect simply gauges of probability.

Finally as posted above, Carrier's approach using Bayesian probability in order to gauge the historicity of Jesus, acknowledges the probabilistic nature of historical hypotheses.


DENIALISM

Those who claim that Jesus Mythicism is denialism may be unaware of the legitimate nature of historical revisionism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

Within the academic field of history,
historical revisionism is the critical
reexamination of historical facts,
with an eye towards rewriting histories
with either newly discovered information
or a reinterpretation of existing information.

The assumption is that history as it has
been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate.

The pejorative use refers to illegitimate manipulation
of history for political purposes, for example Holocaust denial.

This meaning is described further in the
article historical revisionism (negationism).

In this instance, the historical revisionism is being turned on the question of the existence of Jesus.

Some people consider this to be an illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes.
(The usual position is that the historicity of Jesus is given to be true)

As a result these people accuse the mythicists of being Holocaust deniers vecause they are attempting to change the historical truth of the existence of Big J.

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Those who claim that Jesus Mythicism is denialism may be unaware of the legitimate nature of historical revisionism

That has nothing to do with whether or not anyone fiddling with this shit has legitimately appropriated the field of probability.

Introducing probability is a subterfuge of historians trying to sound like they have a modern methodology. Legitimacy is a term of art in post-modernism. Post-modernists have no use for probability in a technical role.

Leucius Charinus wrote:
The point in using probability is to avoid the black and white YES or NO answer to the question of historicity. There is - in theory - a grey area between the hypothesis that Jesus existed and its antithesis. Those who are convinced that Jesus existed can run with a probability of 1 (100%) if they like. But there will be some comfortable with a 80% or even a 50% chance. The same applies to the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist. I see both ends of the spectrum of belief, and positions between these antithetical positions.

The trouble with using the term "probability" is that it has a specific meaning in maths and physics. If you say there is an 80% chance that Jesus existed, you are effectively saying that, if you observe a sufficiently great number of potential Jesuses, the proportion of them that actually exists will tend towards 80%.

I think it's much better simply to say that one hypothesis seems much more likely than the other.

Yet the greatest testament to L. Ron Hubbard are the miracles ensuing from his work and the millions who forward that work with each passing day.

From narconon.org. Not providing a link, they can market their own bullshit.

Imagine how that claim could mutate in the next century or so. Then someone confuses Elron with Elrond and the greatest and truest religion is born.

Till the next one.

"What are the chances of that", I hear you ask?

Oh, dear. It looks like my nice little thread is going to end up tossed into that big, awful one.

For those not reading the Sandwalk discussion, McGrath has clarified what he means by "denialism":

In favor of mythicism the biggest proponents are Richard Carrier, who works outside the academy, Robert M. Price who has taught for many years at an unaccredited theological school, and Thomas Brodie, who has only articulated his mythicist views in a memoir. I do not think any of them are denialists, just as I don't think Michael Behe is, to the extent that he tries to persuade his peers and follows appropriate academic procedures in doing so. I used "denialist" to refer to those outside of the field who latch on to a fringe view and use it to dismiss an overwhelming consensus. If someone does a scientific investigation of climate change and draws a conclusion at odds with the consensus, I wouldn't call them a denialist - but I would use that label for those outside of the field who point to that single study as though it justifies ignoring the fact that 99% of climate scientists are unpersuaded by it.

Yup. Richard Carrier is not a denialist. But Jerry Coyne is one, because he read the arguments for and against Historical Jesus and found Carrier's the most persuasive.

Oh, and the evidence in favour of Historical Jesus is as conclusive as that for climate change.

A helpful framing of the discussion Shrunk, which is really more about "what constitutes denialism" when applied to any number of subjects. Not just Jesus.

To expand on my earlier post:

We can calculate, for instance, that if we perform the well-known double-slit experiment in a particular way the probability that a photon will be observed in a particular pixel at the back end of the apparatus is - say - 0.016%. That means that, if we perform the experiment with a sufficient number of photons, about 0.016% of them will be observed in that pixel, and the greater the number of photons, the closer we'll get to that figure.

"Probability" doesn't mean anything, as a concept, unless there is the possibility, at least in principle, of running the experiment, or making the observation, an arbitrary number of times.

Shrunk wrote:Oh, dear. It looks like my nice little thread is going to end up tossed into that big, awful one.

For those not reading the Sandwalk discussion, McGrath has clarified what he means by "denialism":

In favor of mythicism the biggest proponents are Richard Carrier, who works outside the academy, Robert M. Price who has taught for many years at an unaccredited theological school, and Thomas Brodie, who has only articulated his mythicist views in a memoir. I do not think any of them are denialists, just as I don't think Michael Behe is, to the extent that he tries to persuade his peers and follows appropriate academic procedures in doing so. I used "denialist" to refer to those outside of the field who latch on to a fringe view and use it to dismiss an overwhelming consensus. If someone does a scientific investigation of climate change and draws a conclusion at odds with the consensus, I wouldn't call them a denialist - but I would use that label for those outside of the field who point to that single study as though it justifies ignoring the fact that 99% of climate scientists are unpersuaded by it.

Yup. Richard Carrier is not a denialist. But Jerry Coyne is one, because he read the arguments for and against Historical Jesus and found Carrier's the most persuasive.

Oh, and the evidence in favour of Historical Jesus is as conclusive as that for climate change.

I work outside the field of Biblical Flood Geology and am a Flood Denialist.

Makes perfect sense!

chairman bill wrote:Yes, but rejecting Jesus is the greatest sin of all. Well, apart from denying the Holy Spirit

A key part of the Mythicist position - as I understand it - is that Christianity originally saw Jesus in a similar way to many* "spiritual" saviors common to religions of the area at that time. It was the Gospel of Mark (I think) that euhemerised this formerly mythical figure of Jesus Christ as a character in a story set on Earth.

That is, the Mythicists would argue that it is the Historicists who are the "deniers".





* Carrier likes to make the point that myths of a "son of god" who "died for our sins" then defeated death itself was about as common a theme as "grisly crime is committed, attractive investigators get on the case, truth is uncovered, criminal arrested" is on today"s TV shows. The attitude of many at the time to hearing the "good news" that God had a kid who died as redemption for humanity's sins then rose from the dead may well have been, "What, another one?"

Discussing a bit further with McGrath on his blog. He doesn't seem to have grasped that, by not accepting the Historicist position, one is not necessarily accepting the Mythicist position. It doesn't seem to have occurred to him that one could take the position that it is practically impossible to know anything with certainty about a figure who is alleged to have lived 2000 years ago.

Maybe I should write that up in some Bible Studies journal, and call it "Shrunk's Third Way"? (I'll give credit to you guys, don't worry.)

Holy shit. This guy!

Shrunk (aka lutesuite) wrote:

James McGrath wrote:I would indeed get upset if someone who is an academic were to dismiss as conspiracists or fools my colleagues who consider it far more probable that there was a historical Socrates than that there wasn't.

I wouldn't blame you. It's a good thing no one is doing that to you, isn't it?

All I see are people saying that, in their opinion. you have yet to demonstrate that the existence of Jesus is a fact in the way that the existence of Louis XIV is a fact. That's what I'm saying, anyway. And you've just agreed with me.

James McGrath wrote:I do not agree that only the existence of elite privileged individuals can be "facts" in a meaningful sense. And no one can demonstrate the historicity of an ancient non-elite person with the same kinds of evidence as an elite person in more recent times. Just because we cannot examine Tiktaalik in as many exemplars or details as organisms that lived more recently does not downgrade the importance of Tiktaalik or the evidence that it existed.

A most serious case of academic penis envy, if you ask me.

That's actually an interesting comparison to Tiktaalik in a way. I think it falls down as used, but if we were to consider the existence of Tiktaalik as a direct ancestor species of modern life we get a more interesting analogy. We cannot ever know whether Tiktaalik was "the" species which lead to modern land dwelling animals, but we we know that something a lot like Tiktaalik occupied that niche.

Much the same can be said for ancient "non-elite" (already hating that term and the baggage it carries) persons. Without supporting documentation it's going to be incredibly hard to say "yes, this person existed and is one of our ancestors" or similar, but we can say that there certainly were persons of that broad class - we know a lot from archaelogical and anthropological studies which inform us about how workers, serfs, peasants and so on lived.

ETA: I really hope the mods can remove the offtopic posts and send them back to the thread of doom and leave the on topic discussion about denialism here.

That said I can't resist passing judgement on the Carrier argument chronically abusing Bayes' theorem above. It's pseudoscience. This is how people come up with complete crap like the probability of God existing being 67%. It's complete junk of the junkiest order.

This is quite a good read for anyone interested:-
http://www.strangenotions.com/bayes-the ... dnt-exist/
(If you scroll down, as I inadvertently did you can see Carrier carrying on in his usual ungracious style in the comments section)