The probability of the Resurrection (Christianity, Christian, sunday, beliefs)

[OzzyRules]

All that David Hume could understand was his human perspective.

[TRANSPONDER]

David Hume can make his own case and so can you. Or Irkle.

Mine is simple. As simple as atheism, the burden of proof, the materialist default and a slab of nuclear shielding and just as strong.

The last thing that the resurrection account agree on is the women going to the tomb, finding it empty and running away. That's overlooking the contradictions about the running away.

Thereafter they contradict so gravely that they would be thrown out as unsafe evidence in any court of law.

According to Matthew, the women run into Jesus immediately and presumably deliver the angelic message without the disciples doubting them and they all troop off to Galilee to see Jesus. So far as John goes,there is no angelic message and it is assumed that the body has been removed. some of the disciples go along with Mary to look and then she sees Jesus and there are couple of rather pointless angels.
Luke on the other hand has an angelic message but not to go to Galilee at all. Nor is there any appearance by Jesus to the women, though Cleophas says they saw the angels. However he hear that Jesus appeared to Simon but we hear no details about this.

We do have a resurrection night appearance in both Luke and John but they differ considerably. In Luke the 'eleven' are all there (less Judas) and they afterwards see Jesus a lot more over 40 days, staying in Jerusalem to start off the Jerusalem church

John has them short of Thomas who returns later and the whole finger in the wound stuff. After that they meet Jesus on the shore in Galilee and are told to look after the flock, more or less.

Quite apart from that, mark ends with the empty tomb, angelic message and the women running away and saying nothing to anyone.

Plainly that wouldn't do so an ending or two was cobbled together from Matthew and Luke and thus sometime after they were written. But the gross discrepancies in the other resurrections indicates that Mark was where the story ended in the first place and there was no ending. If there had been they gospels would not disagree so glaringly. This is why I say that the resurrection accounts are not reliable and thus the resurrection did not happen because if it had the story would not contradict so much as to show the signs of fabrication.

Now I can just hear the objections. So let's have them by way of a proper rebuttal to a relevant rejection of the Resurrection, and not the 'believe or not' 'probability' nonsense.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

This thread isn’t about the Resurrection per se, which is why I didn’t place it in the Christianity forum. The Resurrection happens to be a favorite topic of militant atheists who like to ridicule Christianity as being only for credulous dolts (“Corpses don’t just get up and fly away”), so I will use it to make my larger points.

I do not see many atheists accusing Christians of being 'credulous dolts', although I have seen them pointing out when certain Christians are credulous dolts. I do see the use of 'militant atheists' by people who do not like to address the actual issues.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

In other threads, Transponder has chided me and other believers for wanting to focus on “how we think about the evidence” rather than on “the evidence.” Harry Diogenes has beaten the drum of Bayesian probability analysis, despite folks as diverse as Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, a professor at Cornell University who is a Ph.D. in Statistics and our beloved Irkle telling him that this approach just doesn’t work in analyzing metaphysical claims.

And once again the usual games.
1, you are poisoning the well when pointing out Shermer's qualifications versus some person on a blog. This is not addressing he actual arguments. And Dawkins is irrelevant as he is a biologist (who uses Bayesian reasoning without knowing this), not a Bayesian analyst.
2, you are misrepresenting Shermer, who did not argue against analyzing metaphysical claims, he argued against using subjective evidence, not objective.
3, must I tell you once again, you are confusing (probably deliberately) metaphysical claims as if they are true with using Bayes to determine if they are true or not. If metaphysical claims are true, Bayesian reasoning would provide a false positive. But we first need to determine if they are true.
4) if you are arguing we can not use Bayes to analyze if metaphysical claims are true, then you are admitting you have no evidence for those claims.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

Bayes’ Theorem is used to analyze the probability of a hypothesis (“Jesus rose from the dead”) in terms of a given body of data. The result is the ratio of “the unconditional probability of the conjunction of the hypothesis with the data to the unconditional probability of the data alone.” Huh? Irkle, unlike Harry, doesn’t claim to be a Bayesian whiz kid, but here’s a good article if you’re interested: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/. This also is quite good: https://brilliant.org/wiki/bayes-theorem/.

I do not claim to be a whiz kid, I just know what I am talking about. The arguments I present is the evidence for this, and you are free to rationally explain where I am wrong, but please avoid just asserting I am, or straw manning me.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

Let’s say Irkle claims nothing special for Grannie Firkle except that her recipe for rhubarb pie was the envy of all the women in Ashtabula. Oh, wait, he does claim that when she died and had been entombed in 2004, shortly thereafter she rose bodily from the dead and ascended into the clouds to the astonishment of Irkle and his mother Twirkle.

Insofar as Grannie Firkle's resurrection is concerned, the evidence, whatever it may be, will be rather limited. The claims will be subject to fairly straightforward Bayesian analysis that takes into account the billions of other grannies and similarly ordinary folk who have not risen from the dead and ascended into the clouds.

Even though Irkle is convinced of what he saw, he’ll have to agree the Baysesian probability is pretty much zero. (Basically, a Baysesian ratio of 0 means false, while a ratio of 1 means true.) Nevertheless, Irkle may well say “Who cares about Bayesian probability? I know what I and Mama saw.” If all evidence suggests Irkle’s and Twirkle’s senses and faculties are operating properly, Irkle may be entirely justified in incorporating Firkle’s resurrection into his belief system even if no one else does so.

But what about Jesus? Atheists apply the same analysis to Jesus that they do to Grannie Firkle.

Yes, we are consistent. That is good.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

This is precisely the mistake that the philosopher Hume made in his famous work on miracles. He analyzed miracles solely in terms of their likelihood given trillions of non-miraculous events and what he saw as the fixed laws of the universe. Indeed, Reverend Bayes arrived at his famous theorem in an effort to show the flaws in Hume’s reasoning. Virtually every philosopher now recognizes that Hume’s work, which was long regarded as the last word on miracles, is deeply flawed.

Your opinion and hyperbole as subjective priors are bad.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

The Christian claim is that Jesus, unlike Grannie Firkle, was the one and only son of God and that his Resurrection was a unique event in human history. How would we apply Bayes’ Theorem to this?

Excellent, we are now going to get to look at your evidence. Or are we? Because on the evidence of your previous posts (our priors), you will probably just make claims but not make an actual argument. Sorry, I went in to Bayesian modus there.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

We would have to proceed as Irkle has described his own spiritual quest. We would first have to decide between atheism, deism and theism. Evidence from many, many scientific disciplines is relevant to this question, as are vast bodies of non-scientific evidence as well as philosophical and theological arguments. We’d have to subjectively assign all sorts of probabilities to all sorts of evidence to arrive at a Bayesian ratio for the hypothesis “A theistic god exists” (or “doesn’t exist”). In almost every instance, this assignment would be largely subjective and influenced by personal biases and predispositions.

Assuming theism seemed to remain a viable option, we’d move on to a hypothesis like “Christianity is the most (or least) plausible theistic option.” This would involve a similarly complex and subjective Bayesian analysis (or pretense of one).

Assuming Christianity seemed to remain a viable option, we’d move on to a hypothesis like “The Resurrection occurred (or didn’t occur) as what would have been observable as a historical, real-world event.” This would involve a similarly complex and subjective Bayesian analysis (or pretense of one).

If I had concluded that theism had only a 2% likelihood of being correct, and Christianity had only a 4% likelihood of being the correct theistic explanation, by the time I got to the Resurrection the likelihood would be “It’s complete nonsense, not worth discussing.” If my likelihoods had been 98% and 98%, however, very little would be required for the Resurrection to be entirely plausible and I’d assigned high probabilities to every line of evidence.

Thank you for your biography, but I thought the OP was about the probability of the resurrection.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

Hence, one author applied Bayesian analysis to arrive at a 67% likelihood for the existence of God. Atheist Michael Shermer considered precisely the same lines of evidence and arrived at a likelihood of 2%. Shermer wisely deemed the exercise silly.

No, Shermer pointed out your author, Unwin, used subjective reasoning, and corrected the subjective argument that the existence of good means the chance of God is 20 times greater than not God.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

The point? This sort of “scientific analysis” is nonsense. It produces the illusion of “scientific certainty” where there is absolutely none. Religious belief or atheistic non-belief is a matter of personal conviction, not probability analysis.

Yes, you do like to repeat this contradiction of yourself. Either you did a probability analysis as you claimed above or you did not.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

But wait, there’s more: Someone like Harry arrives at his probabilities by insisting that all we’re allowed to consider is objective, scientifically verifiable evidence. This simply stacks the deck against religious claims.

Correct, your evidence IS that bad. This is the fault of your claims based on fiction, not on reality.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

People make huge life decisions every day on the basis of whatever evidence, testimony, experience, arguments and inferences seem relevant to them, without regard to whether everything is objective and scientifically verifiable. Harry is certainly entitled to his approach, but it’s artificially restrictive.

No, it is genuinely restrictive, as it removes argument from fiction and cognitive bias. That is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

Contrary to what Harry and Trans suggest, “how we think about the evidence” – what philosophers call epistemology – really is the central question. Atheists don’t get to set artificial rules for believers. We can’t have rational discussions on these forums because atheists and believers have entirely different epistemologies (meaning what constitutes knowledge and whether beliefs are rational and justified)
.

Good, because we are not setting artificial rules. We are applying the same rules to your religion, to every other religion (as you do), and to other claims such as should we fly in airplanes known to occasionally crash.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

I say the probability the Resurrection really occurred is “very high.” Transponder and Harry say “very low.” Neither of which tells us anything about the Resurrection, even if Trans or Harry attempts to create the illusion of objectivity by assigning a Bayesian ratio. The issue with respect to the Resurrection is simply what evidence and arguments you deem relevant over a wide variety of disciplines and what convictions you reach at each stage of the inquiry.

Yes, making assertions as you have done here tells us nothing about the Resurrection. I presume you will be eventually providing some evidence for the OP?

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

I've read a number of books where Christian scholars debate the Resurrection with atheist scholars. I'm always surprised that the debate proceeds as though we were talking about Grannie Firkle, as though the issue were simply whether a first-century guy named Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into the clouds. Framed in this way, even I would agree with the atheists that the better conclusion is "No, he didn't." But as someone who has arrived at strong convictions regarding theism and Christianity, I can rationally look at the same evidence and say "I'm satisfied he did."

Another biographic detail, another opinion.

Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle

And that's why the vast majority of threads go round and round but never really go anywhere.

They go round and round but never really go anywhere when you post because you make claims but never actually provide any evidence for your beliefs. When do we get to an actual argument from you about the probability of the resurrection?

Oh, wait. We have finished? So no rational arguments for the resurrection, just the usual opinion and fallacies?

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

Your fascination with my buttocks is adorable but you really needn't gush about them in every thread.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

It may look evasive of me to stay out of this thread (despite my having a dedicated thread on the subject) because it is a flawed approach, trying to use Bayes. What does Irkle say? 'Chided for not using the evidence'. What does he do? try to make is a 'likely or not?' matter.

That's not the evidence. The evidence (against) is the utter unreliability of the resurrection stories. To argue along the lines of :

'It is as likely that Jesus rose from the dead as not, all other evidence aside.'

'Miracles don't happen.'

'I could argue that, but if Jesus was a one -off son of God that could do miracles, then objecting that nobody else does them is irrelevant isn't it?'

'So you say it's a believe or not 50/50?'

''Better odds than that, because there is eyewitness testimony'.

That's the real argument. Isn't it? I'll make a very good case that the gospel resurrection isn't to be credited.

Lol (but not losing my posterior), you are arguing Bayes is flawed and then make Bayesian claims.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not arguing that Bayes is flawed as a theorem. In fact I'm glad you raise the point as I was going to ask whether I had grasped the application correctly - that Bayes applies to claims on the basis of their inherent probability without supporting evidence or whether the probability improves as supportive evidence appears.

My argument here is that the supportive evidence isn't really supportive at all but in fact undermines the case. In which case, assigning probability according to Bayes seems a bit redundant. That's if I get the theorem correctly.

[2x3x29x41]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

I do not see many atheists accusing Christians of being 'credulous dolts', although I have seen them pointing out when certain Christians are credulous dolts. I do see the use of 'militant atheists' by people who do not like to address the actual issues.

'militant atheist' = any atheist who has the temerity to articulate their atheism without fawning deference to theism

Churches on every other corner, religion permeating everything from vernacular to entertainment to government, Bible passages quoted at football games, door-knockers handing out tracts, and on and on. Yet if an atheist outwardly describes their atheism and rejects theism, every verbal attempt is made to portray them as some sort of weapon-wielding oppressor.

Note that it is not only theists who do this. The self-loathing theism-fluffers within the ranks of atheism engage in it as well.

[Diesel350z]

Physically? Probability it happened- ZERO PERCENT

[LogaKoga]

Originally Posted by Diesel350z

Physically? Probability it happened- ZERO PERCENT

Exactly. Well technically it might be something like 0.0000000001%, but yeah, everything we know about human physiology shows it's practically impossible for someone to be dead and buried for 3 days and then come back to life.

It's important to consider the Christ crucifixion story doesn't state he appeared to be dead but wasn't or might not have actually been dead; it states he actually died. If he hadn't and was buried a live while unconscious or semi-conscious, if there was enough oxygen in the tomb for him to survive 3 days it's minutely possible he might have escaped. But to actually be dead and buried 3 days and return to life? Nope. That simply doesn't happen.

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

I'm not arguing that Bayes is flawed as a theorem. In fact I'm glad you raise the point as I was going to ask whether I had grasped the application correctly - that Bayes applies to claims on the basis of their inherent probability without supporting evidence or whether the probability improves as supportive evidence appears.

Bayes reasoning relies on evidence that we know. That evidence can be actual evidence (you have a 1 in 6 chance of guessing a die roll), a logical argument, or even an objective estimated of unknown values, such as the probability of you wearing a bathrobe at this moment (1 in 20, maybe 1 in 40? I think most people would argue 50/50 is not very likely). But the conclusion is a probable conclusion, not an exact figure. The better the evidence, the better the conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out still applies.

If you are arguing for X, it should also force you to think of alternative explanations for X.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

My argument here is that the supportive evidence isn't really supportive at all but in fact undermines the case. In which case, assigning probability according to Bayes seems a bit redundant. That's if I get the theorem correctly.

No, supportive evidence is always good, it is ignorance or low probabilities that undermines any case. So the fact we do not see people being resurrected supports the resurrection being probably false, the assertion that Jesus is the son of God makes the case for the resurrection weaker (unless credible evidence is presented that Jesus really IS the son of God).