MrStakhanovite wrote:That is not the argument Christian apologists make using Bayes, what they argue is that the tomb was found empty and that his resurrection is the best explanation for that empty tomb.
Well that is certainly a silly argument isn't it? Someone could have stolen the body, it could all be a hoax etc, or perhaps he was just drugged and appeared to be dead.
Do you think religion is something which most consider provable scientifically, or through observable evidence?
mfbukowski wrote:How about questions like whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet?
A Bayesian analysis can be applied to Archeology, and used to determine if the physical remains of the past support a Book of Mormon understanding.
It could also be applied to Book of Mormon authorship.
Both of those topics could be combined to a greater analysis if Joseph Smith was a Prophet or not.
Interesting.
What sort of remains would show what kind of "understanding" of the Book of Mormon?
Is there a religious "understanding" of the Book of Mormon, perhaps analogous to the fact that even physical evidence of the resurrection cannot prove the religious belief that Jesus took away our sins?
And how would such an analysis show that Joseph was or was not a "prophet"?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
mfbukowski wrote:But is this a derail then too? Now I am very confused.
I thought the thread was about if Bayesian analysis had anything to do with Mormonism and proving it true.
Silly me! I guess you were right.
This thread has nothing to do with the truth of Mormonism, so I guess I was mistaken. Sorry for the derail, continue talking about evidence of absence or whatever
I like you a lot more when you aren't this snarky.
mfbukowski wrote:Well that is certainly a silly argument isn't it?
Silly? No. I think they fail, but I take them seriously.
mfbukowski wrote:Someone could have stolen the body, it could all be a hoax etc, or perhaps he was just drugged and appeared to be dead.
Yes. So?
mfbukowski wrote:Do you think religion is something which most consider provable scientifically, or through observable evidence?
Depends on what the religion stipulates. If you affirm that God has a physical body and resides within the physical universe, near a star, then that is a very scientific question.
MrStakhanovite wrote: Depends on what the religion stipulates. If you affirm that God has a physical body and resides within the physical universe, near a star, then that is a very scientific question.
I haven't read Stak's paper. But based on the link Chap posted earlier in the thread explaining Bayesian logic, there are two factors one would have to take into account when weighing the probability of something like the resurrection or the historicity of the Book of Mormon: prior probability and "evidence".
One of the biggest differences between naturalists and supernaturalists is their assessment of prior probability. For a naturalist, the failure to reliably reproduce "supernatural" phenomena in a laboratory combined with the large number of "supernatural" claims that have been debunked as hoaxes or fantasies makes it incredibly unlikely that future claims of this sort will turn out to be valid. For the believer, a combination of anecdotal evidence, personal experience, and rationalization about the non-observability of the supernatural bolsters the probability of such events. The supernatural, for the believer, is a bit like quantum uncertainty: it goes away if someone is observing it too closely, which explains why no one's been able to reproduce or record it under controlled conditions.
Naturalists and supernaturalists also differ in their assessments of human trustworthiness. Naturalists are incredibly jaded about the trustworthiness of eyewitnesses, whose credibility has been utterly demolished in devastating study after devastating study. Believers, by contrast, are nurtured in a community where mutual trust is a foundational value, and questioning certain types of testimony is the worst kind of betrayal.
If we could bridge these divides, then we'd have a much firmer basis for discussion and mutual understanding.
mfbukowski wrote:Well I am just trying to get educated, really. My telling you guys what I think doesn't work so I thought I would just ask questions and let you explain your views to me.
Suppose I just do that and dispense with the sarcasm- yeah, that seems to be a good approach.
It's just that everyone is so positive that I am wrong, I will see if they can answer my questions. After all, then they will be able to show me how wrong I am.
Does that meet your approval?
I don't think everyone is so positive you are wrong. That's generally the basis of discussion: differing opinions and perspectives. We should be able to learn from other people's perspectives, even when we don't agree with them. For example, I think you have motivated me to read more about Pragmatism than I ever expected. I still don't find it a particularly enlightening approach to life, but I do understand it better, and for that I thank you.