The Jesus Myth Part III

[dastardly stem]

I'm aware of the dilemma. My concern is you seem to actually think there are not, as Res put it, "extreme cases in which the chance of both statements being true was 100% or 0%". How could Jesus being a pizza be more probable than he being a pepperoni pizza? Please prove your case.

This was your claim...just asking you to verify it. Prove it out with the pizza absurdity you've taken up.

Stem, if the current discussion doesn't involve those extreme cases, you're just engaging in distracting nitpicking.

Distracting nitpicking? I figured that's what all posts the past few pages have been doing. I'm certainly willing to drop it.

[honorentheos]

I can't tell if you are joking here. Seriously. I hope you are because otherwise, it suggests you shouldn't have pulled the pin on the Linda Problem to begin with out of ignorance of the basic underlying logical application of the problem.

The probabilities assigned to the evidence provided in the preamble of the Linda Problem aren't meaningful in their values. Only in their relational logic. It doesn't matter what probability one may assign to Jesus being a pizza versus being a pepperoni pizza as a logic problem, only that one recognizes the logic dictates its more like something being a subset of a larger set is less or equally probable as it is to be part of the larger set. As a question of evidence that Jesus is indeed a bread-based food with toppings, it's just insulting to suggest it. Like doing so in the case of examining the Gospel of Mark if one isn't actually engaging in the logical problem in the abstract to make a more concrete point.

Dude.

I'm aware of the dilemma. My concern is you seem to actually think there are not, as Res put it, "extreme cases in which the chance of both statements being true was 100% or 0%". How could Jesus being a pizza be more probable than he being a pepperoni pizza? Please prove your case.

This was your claim...just asking you to verify it. Prove it out with the pizza absurdity you've taken up.

I don't even read Res Ipsa as making the same argument you are claiming. You are asking that one assume evidence being applied here makes the chance of Jesus being a pizza zero. Here's Res' statement in the original and with context:

The point of both of the examples I referred to was that the principle the Linda problem illustrates is true no matter what is put in the preamble. The probability of A+B is less than the probability of A regardless of what is said in the preamble. The only purpose of the preamble is to trick our brains."

No. Jesus is not more likely a pizza than a pepperoni pizza. If you think so please demonstrate it. There's There's little more to it. And there's more to the dilemma than someone outright suggesting the conjunction is more likely.

You're right. When I described the conjunction dilemma, I was ignoring the extreme cases in which the chance of both statements being true was 100% or 0%. What I should have said was "The probability of A+B can never exceed the probability of A, regardless of what is said in the preamble." There's no more to it than that -- it's just math. It doesn't matter what A, B and C are or what else is put in the preamble. So you're right that my technical wording of the problem was in error, but the error has no bearing on my point.

A quick aside, this statement you made is nonsense - "And there's more to the dilemma than someone outright suggesting the conjunction is more likely."

But back to Res' statement. He notes that his description, "The probability of A+B is less than the probability of A regardless of what is said in the preamble," should have been stated as, "The probability of A+B can never exceed the probability of A, regardless of what is said in the preamble."

This is perfect alignment with the logical statements regarding the probability that a thing is a subset of a larger set can't be more probable than it being contained in the larger set, regardless of the evidence. The underlying logic is independent of the evidence is so far as the probabilistic relationship is concern. At most, the two can be equally probable or improbable which is what Res clarified.

[dastardly stem]

Can you please give the probability for Jesus being a pizza and then provide it for Jesus being a pepperoni pizza. It looked like res ipsa agreed with me when he said, "You're right. When I described the conjunction dilemma, I was ignoring the extreme cases in which the chance of both statements being true was 100% or 0%."

But I'm interested to see if this really plays out as you say.

Stem, you're quibbling over a technicality that has no relevance to my point or to honor's. Unless you can explain why the difference between "It is more probable that Jesus is a pizza than Jesus is a pepperoni pizza" and "Jesus is a pepperoni pizza can never be more probable than Jesus is a pizza," is relevant to the argument, then you're just fixated on a red herring. The old difference between the two statements occurs when both statements are 100% true or 100% false -- and no one is claiming that "Jesus is a historical person: is 100% true or 100% false.

Pretty sure you brought up the pizza absurdity. I suppose I've been a bit too cheeky in referencing it, with some push back. But come on....why is this on me? You guys have thrown it out there. Ah well. Let's move on.

[honorentheos]

Stem, you're quibbling over a technicality that has no relevance to my point or to honor's. Unless you can explain why the difference between "It is more probable that Jesus is a pizza than Jesus is a pepperoni pizza" and "Jesus is a pepperoni pizza can never be more probable than Jesus is a pizza," is relevant to the argument, then you're just fixated on a red herring. The old difference between the two statements occurs when both statements are 100% true or 100% false -- and no one is claiming that "Jesus is a historical person: is 100% true or 100% false.

Pretty sure you brought up the pizza absurdity. I suppose I've been a bit too cheeky in referencing it, with some push back. But come on....why is this on me? You guys have thrown it out there. Ah well. Let's move on.

It was raised to demonstrate a point regarding logic problems and evidence. It was not brought up as an absurdity (well, it was but only to point out another one) but as Res was trying to get you to clarify why you were making evidence-based assumptions while arguing it was just a matter of simple logic. Making an outlandish claim about Jesus from a purely logical position that is, in fact, true (Jesus IS more likely to be a pizza than a pepperoni pizza) but almost insulting if one means to involve it while also involving evidence regarding the nature of Jesus is almost too perfect of an illumination of the problem that became the sinkhole that swallowed the thread.

I take specific issue with it as you inserted it as a means to dismiss the evidence from historical context for the probability the Jesus in the Gospel of Mark is based on a historical person whose live had meaning for the time, even if that person was mythologized in that text. Your reaction to the Jesus-pizza application is analogous to how your use of the Linda Problem is perceived when it comes to examining the actual evidence in Mark which you simply handwave away as not convincing so not worthy of discussion.

[Res Ipsa]

Stem, you're quibbling over a technicality that has no relevance to my point or to honor's. Unless you can explain why the difference between "It is more probable that Jesus is a pizza than Jesus is a pepperoni pizza" and "Jesus is a pepperoni pizza can never be more probable than Jesus is a pizza," is relevant to the argument, then you're just fixated on a red herring. The old difference between the two statements occurs when both statements are 100% true or 100% false -- and no one is claiming that "Jesus is a historical person: is 100% true or 100% false.

Pretty sure you brought up the pizza absurdity. I suppose I've been a bit too cheeky in referencing it, with some push back. But come on....why is this on me? You guys have thrown it out there. Ah well. Let's move on.

It's on you because you've absorbed some extremely bad habits from participating in the Mormon Apologetics wars. In normal discourse in which we are trying to figure something out, getting something wrong or making a mistake is simply part of the process. And if the error or mistake doesn't change the argument, we don't make a federal case out of it.

In the Mormon Apologetics wars, any mistake or error is turned into a huge "gotcha" that somehow undermines the substance of the argument, even if its irrelevant to the argument. Because the discourse isn't structured toward actually finding truth, it encourages tactics that distract and obscure rather than clarify and enlighten.

You caught me in a mistake that had nothing to do with my argument. I corrected it and pointed out that it was irrelevant to my argument. That should have been the end. But when Honor copied my irrelevant mistake, instead of understanding it had nothing to do with his point, you made a federal case out of it again. That's why it's on you.

[dastardly stem]

Pretty sure you brought up the pizza absurdity. I suppose I've been a bit too cheeky in referencing it, with some push back. But come on....why is this on me? You guys have thrown it out there. Ah well. Let's move on.

It's on you because you've absorbed some extremely bad habits from participating in the Mormon Apologetics wars. In normal discourse in which we are trying to figure something out, getting something wrong or making a mistake is simply part of the process. And if the error or mistake doesn't change the argument, we don't make a federal case out of it.

In the Mormon Apologetics wars, any mistake or error is turned into a huge "gotcha" that somehow undermines the substance of the argument, even if its irrelevant to the argument. Because the discourse isn't structured toward actually finding truth, it encourages tactics that distract and obscure rather than clarify and enlighten.

You caught me in a mistake that had nothing to do with my argument. I corrected it and pointed out that it was irrelevant to my argument. That should have been the end. But when Honor copied my irrelevant mistake, instead of understanding it had nothing to do with his point, you made a federal case out of it again. That's why it's on you.

It was over. He brought it up again and I asked. That's no gotcha move nor is it making a federal case out of it.

As of the latest, it appears he agrees, "At most, the two can be equally probable or improbable which is what Res clarified." Happy we're all in agreement on that.

All my best. I really gotta stop pulling this back up today. Hope this finds you well.

[honorentheos]

As of the latest, it appears he agrees, "At most, the two can be equally probable or improbable which is what Res clarified." Happy we're all in agreement on that.

Dude, you are dense.

[honorentheos]

I'm aware of the dilemma. My concern is you seem to actually think there are not, as Res put it, "extreme cases in which the chance of both statements being true was 100% or 0%". How could Jesus being a pizza be more probable than he being a pepperoni pizza? Please prove your case.

This was your claim...just asking you to verify it. Prove it out with the pizza absurdity you've taken up.

Stem, if the current discussion doesn't involve those extreme cases, you're just engaging in distracting nitpicking.

Res, I think you are giving Stem too much credit. He isn't organizing his thoughts in the same way you are. I believe his concern with the pizza analogy is assuming evidence that Jesus might be a pizza is an absurdity on its face, not as a logic problem. It didn't occur to him that the problem you recognized and corrected in your description was the problem. He's just sure no one believes Jesus is a pizza, so it's stupid to argue he's more likely to be a pizza than a pepperoni pizza. When he says we're all in alignment about it being equally improbable if the probabilities of Jesus being both the set and subset are zero, he's not doing so based on an understanding of the logic but because no one actually argues for Jesus being a pizza so of course both statements have a probability of zero. It's surficial aligned but there's an entire level of discussion separating them that makes it difficult to bring into focus.

[huckelberry]

I wrote the phrase "never been known as an argumentative group" with extreme irony intended. I have remained puzzled as to why what I am pointing to gets zero traction in this discussion. Perhaps after enough sitting and nodding in LDS chapels the phrase ,never been known as an argumentative groups, gets read as a simple observation instead of comic irony.

In one of the previous threads I made the comment that it was likely Jesus was viewed as politically opposed to Roman to a sufficient enough degree he was publicly crucified. As I recall, both you and Physics Guy found that to be an argument missing from the gospels to which I responded the method of execution combined with an understanding of the historical context in which the narrative is positioned give this a better probability than that Jesus was not politically outspoken and threatening to Rome. I laid this out in more detail in this thread, here:
viewtopic.php?p=2757739#p2757739

It's critical to understand how much of a figurehead for Rome the Herodians were, and their fit in the story around John the Baptist and the ministry of Jesus is meaningful. The religious elite, supportive of Herodian rule, are the primary opponents of Jesus in the gospel narratives even in their current forms. The progression of the gospels chronologically from Mark to John show a softening towards Rome and hardening towards the Jews, reflective the Romanizing of the messages of Christianity and its ultimate conquest of the Empire contributing to its destruction.

The burning of Rome in July 64 CE being blamed on the Christians is contextualized by Publius Cornelius Tacitus as an attempt by Nero to use an unpopular group to shift blame from himself since many believed he caused the fires to make way for his own building projects. Tacitus doesn't claim Nero started the fire, nor that the Christians did, but he does claim the Christians were hated for apparent "abominations" and that their origin was a "mischievous superstition" requiring suppression when it first appeared. His disgust with Rome isn't hidden, suggesting it to be exactly the cesspool where Christianity might find footing.

The text in full:

“But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor (Nero) and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration (burning of Rome in 64 AD) was the result of an order (given by Nero). Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called “Chrestians” by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all (Christians) who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.” Tacitus, Annals, 15.44

During this same time as Tacitus is writing of in Jerusalem, Jewish resentment of Rome was hot enough Romans were being attacked by rebels while the populace resisted taxation to which the Romans responded with plundering the temple of its wealth and capturing Jewish leaders. This set off the four year Jewish Revolt that was fought by two future emperors of Rome - Vespasian who left the fight after Nero's death to assume the position of Emperor of Rome, and Titus his son who ended the war in victory for Rome in 70 CE.

It isn't clear to me what you wish to have discussed, then, since it seems you wish to use the idea that the Christians were persecuted for being radicals but rejected the argument they were politically rebellious against Rome.

Honorentheos. I think your historical review in this post and the earlier one you link here are well presented, helpful and on point. I do not recall making a disagreement over what you present here. Your point that the temple confrontation is definitely political makes sense to me.

Perhaps Linda is both a looker and and a terrible flirt. Or perhaps a terrific flirt. She entered and all sense was lost. She jiggled somewhere and the discussion was fritters.

[Res Ipsa]

Stem, I think you provided me with some valuable information in your response that suggests to me a way to reframe the discussion in a way that lets us move forward. I'm going to start by trying to accurately describe your thought process to make sure I understand it. If I get something wrong, please correct me, not by just telling me I'm wrong, but by revising what I wrote to make it accurate.

The discussion began as a discussion of Carrier's version of a non-historical Jesus.

Of course, even if we conclude Carrier is wrong, we can't automatically conclude that the story of Jesus is based on an actual historical person.

So, let's set Carrier aside and discuss the more general issue instead of Carrier's specific hypothesis.

People have been arguing that the contents of Mark are evidence of a historical Jesus. I disagree. In fact, I don't even understand why they think what they are talking about is evidence at all.

I wonder why that is.

Maybe someone is making a basic mistake in logic. If so, that would explain why we are drawing such different conclusions.

This reminds me of something I read about the conjunctive dilemma.

Maybe the conjunctive dilemma is a good analogy for what I'm seeing people conclude from the contents of Mark?

It seems to fit. I can analogize Mark to the preamble in the Linda example. I can analogize the list of statements made after the preamble to 1) Jesus is a myth and 2) Jesus is a myth and a real person.

Hypothesis: The reason other people are seeing evidence in Mark that I don't see is that they are making a basic mistake in logic like the mistake illustrated in the Linda problem.

Again, I fully recognize that the odds that I've completely and accurately described your thought process are very low. What I'm asking is that you revise what I've written to make it accurately (or at least more accurately) describe your thought process.

Thanks.

All nicely put, Mr. Ipsa. I do have other ventures to move onto. I'm thinking when I get a chance I'll start a new thread going in a new direction. But I'm likely to abandon this thread. I'll be honest I'm only minimally interested in you showing me a better way. That little addendum/thought wasn't meant to be so, well, interesting.

Thanks, and no problem. I was much more interested in trying to understand your thinking than in trying to change your mind. Onward and onward. Or something.