The Jesus Myth Part III

[honorentheos]

...You then argued it wasn't being presented purely as a fun little trivial logic problem, but that it was meant to support the higher probability of the statement "Jesus is a myth" when examining the Gospel of Mark. You introduced it in defense of the "Jesus is a myth only" position.

I'll disagree with your assumption about why I did what I did. I did it as explained to res ipsa in my initial response to him:

The Linda problem isn't intended as applied here to compare the two hypotheses. The use of the Linda problem goes like this. Marks story is like the preamble for Linda. Then we consider: Is it more likely the story of Jesus is myth or is it more likely the story of Jesus is myth and there is a real person behind the myth? It's a conjunction fallacy to think the added proposition is more likely

I can appreciate there was a lack of clarity, but I assure you, as I suggested, this was not in consideration of the myth position held by Carrier. It was a simple thought on logic not intended to compare the two hypotheses Res Ipsa was after.

You just said, again, it was to, and I quote, " Marks story is like the preamble for Linda. Then we consider: Is it more likely the story of Jesus is myth or is it more likely the story of Jesus is myth and there is a real person behind the myth?"
That's you arguing for evidence and assumptions taken from a reading of the Gospel of Mark, not a pure logic problem. The use of the Gospel of Mark as preamble (evidence) doesn't give any statement one can form out of the Gospel of Mark any inherent comparative value in terms of probability under the Linda Problem. I could say the Gospel of Mark posits that Jesus is a real person and make that A. You could argue it clearly shows Jesus is a myth, and claim that is A. We could combine those two statements to argue that "Jesus is a historical person" is more probable than "Jesus is a historical person who was also mythologized" or "Jesus is mythological person who was contextualized into history" and there'd be no point to this. If that was you aim, it then goes back to Res' question as to why raise it at all?

It seems rather clear you favor placing the claim, "Jesus is a myth" as a primary aim. I assume it is because most participants in the thread are in favor of the Jesus in the gospels by mythologized in some way. So you then want to make the case anyone who posits that behind this myth is a historical person is falling prey to the Linda Problem because that is conjunctive.

As keeps being presented to you, the argument is we've left the Linda Problem behind by this point and are weighing the evidence. And part of that evidence is the geo-political context evidence in Mark as well as the limiting structure the better fits a person who rose to prominence in adulthood rather than a god-king fabricated whole cloth out of myth. This HAS to be included in the discussion as we are examining evidence not just casually debating logic problems as they may apply to the Gospel of Mark. But even in that case, dismissing the other statements that support the historical Jesus are additive, conjunctively asserting that any appearance of historical context in the text is the work of the later authors who fabricated the Jesus myth.

[dastardly stem]

You just said, again, it was to, and I quote, " Marks story is like the preamble for Linda. Then we consider: Is it more likely the story of Jesus is myth or is it more likely the story of Jesus is myth and there is a real person behind the myth?"
That's you arguing for evidence and assumptions taken from a reading of the Gospel of Mark, not a pure logic problem. The use of the Gospel of Mark as preamble (evidence) doesn't give any statement one can form out of the Gospel of Mark any inherent comparative value in terms of probability under the Linda Problem. I could say the Gospel of Mark posits that Jesus is a real person and make that A. You could argue it clearly shows Jesus is a myth, and claim that is A. We could combine those two statements to argue that "Jesus is a historical person" is more probable than "Jesus is a historical person who was also mythologized" or "Jesus is mythological person who was contextualized into history" and there'd be no point to this. If that was you aim, it then goes back to Res' question as to why raise it at all?

As I see it there is no evidence in Mark that Jesus really lived. We can treat it as a story. The preamble on the Linda problem isn't evidence of any claims. It's simply a story to set up the dilemma. I see the confusion, but I can't take Mark as evidence, but as the story. It applies in the Linda problem not as evidence but as preamble void of evidence.

It seems rather clear you favor placing the claim, "Jesus is a myth" as a primary aim. I assume it is because most participants in the thread are in favor of the Jesus in the gospels by mythologized in some way. So you then want to make the case anyone who posits that behind this myth is a historical person is falling prey to the Linda Problem because that is conjunctive

.

No. I'm offering an example to think about logic. Whether there is evidence that Jesus lived is a whole other exercise.

As keeps being presented to you, the argument is we've left the Linda Problem behind by this point and are weighing the evidence. And part of that evidence is the geo-political context evidence in Mark as well as the limiting structure the better fits a person who rose to prominence in adulthood rather than a god-king fabricated whole cloth out of myth. This HAS to be included in the discussion as we are examining evidence not just casually debating logic problems as they may apply to the Gospel of Mark. But even in that case, dismissing the other statements that support the historical Jesus are additive, conjunctively asserting that any appearance of historical context in the text is the work of the later authors who fabricated the Jesus myth.

I'm happy to get more into this "evidence". Might even start a new thread on it, perhaps coming from a different angle than previously.

[honorentheos]

As I see it there is no evidence in Mark that Jesus really lived.

Exactly. That's what makes the Linda Problem a diversion. Your assumption is that the statement, "Jesus is a myth" is comprehensive of the evidence contained in the Gospel of Mark which makes the entire last 10 pages or more of this thread convoluted. It would have been more valuable to have abandoned the Linda Problem and gone back to discussing the evidence. Keeping it in meant simply stating, "Jesus is a historical figure" because that's what others see in the text is sufficient as a rebuttal while not actually progressing the real debate needed.

[honorentheos]

The proposition is combining set theory with the logic of the Linda Problem. Pizza is a set containing different subsets including pepperoni pizza. All pepperoni pizzas are contained within the set of "pizza" but not all pizzas are contained in the subset of pepperoni pizza.

If "X" were a pepperoni pizza, it would also be a pizza. But there are numerous other ways "X" could be a pizza but not a pepperoni pizza. Based purely on logic and set theory, it is more probable "X" is a pizza than it is that "X" is a specific subset of pizza, in this case a pepperoni pizza.

Inserting any object in for "X" doesn't change this logic, including Jesus.

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.

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.

[dastardly stem]

As I see it there is no evidence in Mark that Jesus really lived.

Exactly. That's what makes the Linda Problem a diversion. Your assumption is that the statement, "Jesus is a myth" is comprehensive of the evidence contained in the Gospel of Mark which makes the entire last 10 pages or more of this thread convoluted. It would have been more valuable to have abandoned the Linda Problem and gone back to discussing the evidence. Keeping it in meant simply stating, "Jesus is a historical figure" because that's what others see in the text is sufficient as a rebuttal while not actually progressing the real debate needed.

Needed? I simply disagree with you on that. But we can get to it.

[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.

[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.

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.

[Res Ipsa]

The proposition is combining set theory with the logic of the Linda Problem. Pizza is a set containing different subsets including pepperoni pizza. All pepperoni pizzas are contained within the set of "pizza" but not all pizzas are contained in the subset of pepperoni pizza.

If "X" were a pepperoni pizza, it would also be a pizza. But there are numerous other ways "X" could be a pizza but not a pepperoni pizza. Based purely on logic and set theory, it is more probable "X" is a pizza than it is that "X" is a specific subset of pizza, in this case a pepperoni pizza.

Inserting any object in for "X" doesn't change this logic, including Jesus.

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.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

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

[dastardly stem]

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.