tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post3133503197618903152..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Care and Feeding of Prior ProbabilitiesVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59142034749813620312011-01-07T14:22:17.837-07:002011-01-07T14:22:17.837-07:00Further nonsense from Doctor Wiki!
Wiki: Utter no...Further nonsense from Doctor Wiki!<br /><br />Wiki: Utter nonsense! <br /><br />Reply: Your posts? I agree.<br /><br />Wiki: People at the time relied on their families more than people in modern societies with social safety nets, and they were more tribal than people in our own culture. <br /><br />Reply: Correct. You do realize that is an agonistic society? You looked for the good of the group, like the tribe or the family, before your own.<br /><br />Wiki: But look to tribal cultures on Earth today, and you'll still find ego, self-concept, greed, pride, dissent and crime. (Tribal cultures are pretty sick anyway.)<br /><br />Reply: And how are people punished? Consider reading some of Plutarch. Ostracism was a big way of punishing people. It was a way of cutting them off from the group that gave them their identity. I'm denying self-concept in that people worked on having a healthy self-esteem. Their view of themselves was based on the view of the one they identified with. Again, read some historical sources. Try Pilch and Malina. Try Jeffers. Try the Context Group.<br /><br />Wiki: Finally, I have no idea why you think that first century society was monolithic. <br /><br />Reply: I never said it was monolithic in belief. First-century culture was the same however in the honor/shame system and client/patron model.<br /><br />Wiki: It wasn't. There were at least two major factions, even within Judaism.<br /><br />Pharisees and Sadducees were the big ones. Then Zealots, Herodians, and Essenes. You know, my knowledge of these groups doesn't hurt my thesis at all.<br /><br />Wiki: And there were several other messiah factions, rebel factions, etc. By your reasoning, those factions could not have existed.<br /><br />Reply: Nope. They existed just fine. Followers would identify themselves with those Messiahs. When the Messiahs died, so did the movements. You might want to understand my position before you argue against it.<br /><br />Wiki: Moreover, Middle-Eastern Islamic cultures are even more honor-centric and monolithic than those of the first century, and yet their people have the same psychological systems as everyone else on Earth. They have egos and self-concepts.<br /><br />Reply: As a result of Western living coming in. Hard to avoid in the age of television and internet. Now I've given you some names to read. Where are yours?<br /><br />Wiki: Suppose a person in 1st century Jerusalem becomes a disciple of a messianic rabbi. The disciple's family probably thinks he's gone off his rocker, and the disciple pays a price for his associations with the rabbi. After the rabbi is executed, the disciple has two options. He can return to the fold with his tail between his legs, and suffer a great loss of honor, OR he can come to believe that he made the right decision all along, and retain the honor of his compatriots.<br /><br />Reply: Um. No. The latter would not be done in this case. His compatriots would have all been identifying with someone under YHWH's curse, which is something no Jew would do.<br /><br />Wiki: I fail to see the third option you implicitly propose, i.e., he returns to the fold with his honor intact. <br /><br />Reply: Only because I never proposed it. I say he stays with the rabbi because he believes the rabbi was raised by God, thereby God giving him vindication of his claims.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74274459701117266862011-01-07T14:15:35.396-07:002011-01-07T14:15:35.396-07:00In comes Doctor Wiki once again!
Wiki: Give your ...In comes Doctor Wiki once again!<br /><br />Wiki: Give your evidence that the 500 witnesses existed. It's hearsay from a biased source.<br /><br />Reply: Actually, no. It's an early Christian creed that is accepted by NT scholarship be it atheist or Christian, liberal or conservative. Paul stating this is treating it as a historical fact and inviting the readers to question the witnesses, something he would not have done had he known them to not exist. That also doesn't say anything about Peter and James and Paul himself. As for biased, that doesn't seem to matter when you post Carrier does it?<br /><br />Wiki: Again, you don't seem to understand what independence means. If I tell you I have a list of 1000 witnesses who saw me levitate, that doesn't mean you now have 1001 independent sources who saw me levitate. You have, still, just one.<br /><br />Reply: Duh. That's not my claim. My claim is Peter is separate from James who is seperate from Paul who is separate from the 500. Four claims.<br /><br />Wiki: If I had a bunch of committed followers before I levitated, those followers would not be independent and trustworthy witnesses to my levitation.<br /><br />Reply: James was a skeptic prior to the appearance. Paul was an opponent of the church. We know nothing of the stance of the 500. Peter was the only believer for sure who died for his claim willingly.<br /><br />Wiki: Their standing in society (and in my dojo) depends on their compliance with what I say. Also, if they speak out against me, they speak out against their original character in choosing to follow me. They are not independent witnesses.<br /><br />Reply: On the contrary, that is a point that hurts your case. To stand with Jesus would be to say you stand with one under YHWH's curse and who was identified as a traitor to Rome. It's basically saying to everyone, Jew and Gentile that you deserve death.<br /><br />Wiki: There are some claims that cannot be rationally believed only on the basis of eyewitness accounts. And miracles are one example of such claims.<br /><br />Reply: No reason given for this. Just an assertion. Please. Give me Hume. Be aware I've read him.<br /><br />More comingNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20235929898789106172011-01-07T14:06:20.371-07:002011-01-07T14:06:20.371-07:00Nick,
Give your evidence that these 500 witnesses...Nick,<br /><br /><i>Give your evidence that these 500 witnesses all got together with Peter and then with James...</i><br /><br />Give your evidence that the 500 witnesses existed. It's hearsay from a biased source.<br /><br />Again, you don't seem to understand what independence means. If I tell you I have a list of 1000 witnesses who saw me levitate, that doesn't mean you now have 1001 independent sources who saw me levitate. You have, still, just one.<br /><br />If I had a bunch of committed followers before I levitated, those followers would not be independent and trustworthy witnesses to my levitation. Their standing in society (and in my dojo) depends on their compliance with what I say. Also, if they speak out against me, they speak out against their original character in choosing to follow me. They are not independent witnesses.<br /><br />There are some claims that cannot be rationally believed only on the basis of eyewitness accounts. And miracles are one example of such claims.<br /><br /><i>Such a stance would have been seen as a violation of the group view. You were to look for the good of the group before the good of yourself and the identity came from the group.</i><br /><br />Utter nonsense! People at the time relied on their families more than people in modern societies with social safety nets, and they were more tribal than people in our own culture. But look to tribal cultures on Earth today, and you'll still find ego, self-concept, greed, pride, dissent and crime. (Tribal cultures are pretty sick anyway.)<br /><br />Finally, I have no idea why you think that first century society was monolithic. It wasn't. There were at least two major factions, even within Judaism. And there were several other messiah factions, rebel factions, etc. By your reasoning, those factions could not have existed.<br /><br />Moreover, Middle-Eastern Islamic cultures are even more honor-centric and monolithic than those of the first century, and yet their people have the same psychological systems as everyone else on Earth. They have egos and self-concepts.<br /><br />Suppose a person in 1st century Jerusalem becomes a disciple of a messianic rabbi. The disciple's family probably thinks he's gone off his rocker, and the disciple pays a price for his associations with the rabbi. After the rabbi is executed, the disciple has two options. He can return to the fold with his tail between his legs, and suffer a great loss of honor, OR he can come to believe that he made the right decision all along, and retain the honor of his compatriots. I fail to see the third option you implicitly propose, i.e., he returns to the fold with his honor intact.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75029527257954205362011-01-07T12:37:32.101-07:002011-01-07T12:37:32.101-07:00@Dr Logic
If your argument comes down to a number...@Dr Logic<br /><br />If your argument comes down to a number, a number that not even in the accounts about Pythagoras, I think your case is very weak. <br /><br />I do find the case interesting. <br /><br />I am still curious about the link between 153 and Pythagoras. You have showed me a wiki link to Archimedes. What is the link to Pythagoras?<br /><br />My issue was always with your linking between the gospel story of the catch of fish and Pythagoras story of fish. This still remains very weak.<br /><br />Maybe you would do better arguing that just the number was incorporated rather then Pythagorean account.<br /><br />I do find it curious that the the Jesus fish story set earlier in his ministry does not include a number. Rhetorically, it is curious that the author of John moves it backwards and adds the number 153. That is if we take the usual chronology of the gospel accounts. <br /><br />Questioning ones motives does not help much and really show there is no room left for valuable discussion. I apologise if I have done this. <br /><br />To repeat it is a valid question to ask why does the john account have the number 153, but this is a big step in showing that the Pythagorean account is basis for Jesus story.<br /><br />JakeJake Elwood XVInoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29858109265922345202011-01-07T09:30:36.411-07:002011-01-07T09:30:36.411-07:00Wiki: They're not independent. They're col...Wiki: They're not independent. They're collaborators. They SAY they're independent in their own accounts, but that's what you would expect a salesperson to do. That's what the Mormons did, too. You have one source - a group of collaborators.<br /><br />Reply: Okay. Give your evidence that these 500 witnesses all got together with Peter and then with James, who was the brother of Jesus and a skeptic, and all decided to make up an account that James and Peter died for.<br /><br />Wiki: Let me guess, you watch Fox News, too?<br /><br />Reply: No. I don't watch much TV either. Of course, we all know Fox just HAS to be wrong! They're biased! (Unlike MSNBC, CNN, or any other network.)<br /><br />Wiki: Also, since people of the first century (and before) had no ego, and no self-image, there are no allegories or messages about self-concept in the Bible, right? No one in the Bible has any pride or identity independent of the group? No one sees themselves as different in any significant way or takes pride in their difference? <br /><br />Reply: Such a stance would have been seen as a violation of the group view. You were to look for the good of the group before the good of yourself and the identity came from the group. You also were not to seek more honor than that which you were given. Do you know nothing about agonistic societies or the honor/shame context? Oh wait. I already know the answer to that.<br /><br />Wiki: That's why the rabbis of the first century had only the best interests of the community at heart, and none of them saw themselves as individuals or as important? Same with all the false messiahs? <br /><br />If you don't think that the top rabbis of the time didn't see themselves as important the way that televangelists, politicians or CEO's do today, then you're living in a fantasy world. <br /><br />Reply: No. I'm understanding an agonistic society. Unlike you, I've read something on that. The good rabbis would have seen themselves as clients of YHWH and the idea of them living good lives as an example was not to point to their greatness, but the greatness of YHWH. A client living a good life brought glory to the patron.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91644366415899710042011-01-07T09:25:33.763-07:002011-01-07T09:25:33.763-07:00Nick,
The appearances are listed in the earliest ...Nick,<br /><br /><i>The appearances are listed in the earliest Christian creed independently. There's Peter, there's James, there's the 500, and there's Paul. </i><br /><br />They're not independent. They're collaborators. They SAY they're independent in their own accounts, but that's what you would expect a salesperson to do. That's what the Mormons did, too. You have one source - a group of collaborators.<br /><br />Let me guess, you watch Fox News, too?<br /><br />Also, since people of the first century (and before) had no ego, and no self-image, there are no allegories or messages about self-concept in the Bible, right? No one in the Bible has any pride or identity independent of the group? No one sees themselves as different in any significant way or takes pride in their difference? That's why the rabbis of the first century had only the best interests of the community at heart, and none of them saw themselves as individuals or as important? Same with all the false messiahs? <br /><br />If you don't think that the top rabbis of the time didn't see themselves as important the way that televangelists, politicians or CEO's do today, then you're living in a fantasy world.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91719551679904697662011-01-07T09:00:13.998-07:002011-01-07T09:00:13.998-07:00Jake,
I think you make a good point.
The sequenc...Jake,<br /><br />I think you make a good point.<br /><br />The sequence is something like this:<br /><br />-Pythagoras lived around 500 BCE.<br /><br />-Pythagoras and his followers were enamored with numerical ratios because they thought geometric ratios were significant to cosmology.<br /><br />-Archimedes (~220 BCE) is associated with the Vesica Piscis ratio of 265:153.<br /><br />-The gospels were written in the mid-late 1st century CE.<br /><br />-Porphyry and Iamblichus wrote about Pythagoras much later, and they are the modern source for the fish story.<br /><br />The idea that the story about Pythagoras derives from the Christian story isn't implausible. However, that still leaves the fact that the number 153 was significant and associated with fish before the gospels were written.<br /><br />The alternative to Christian absorption of the pagan concept is that<br /><br />1) the fishermen counted all the fish (instead of saying "the nets were full almost to breaking" or some such thing)<br /><br />2) there really were 153 fish,<br /><br />3) the gospel author thought this number significant enough to write down, and<br /><br />4) that it's just a divine coincidence (or a sign from God) that the number 153 is associated with the Vesica Piscis, which later became a Christian symbol. <br /><br />I think this alternative theory is crazy. It makes much more sense that the 153 was absorbed into the gospel rather than it being a coincidence.<br /><br />Why is it so important for you that this not have been absorbed from external myths? Isn't it possible that the Resurrection took place, but that other myths were incorporated as evangelists moved back and forth along the shores of the Mediterranean? If your historical evidence for the Resurrection is strong, then the incorporation of other myths in the story isn't that important, is it? I mean, shouldn't we have expected myths to have been incorporated along the way? At least, before the gospels were formally written down?Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68452414575185370292011-01-07T07:35:57.057-07:002011-01-07T07:35:57.057-07:00highly improbable. Even if you thought God would r...highly improbable. Even if you thought God would resurrect a man (not a priori probable in the slightest), there are billions of men who have ever lived, and so you need billion-to-one evidence (at least) to say it would be any particular man.<br /><br />Reply: More Humean nonsense. Each case must be tested by its own strength. If you want, present some of these other resurrections. (You know, the ones like Mithra I find hilarious.) I am only claiming that God raised Jesus from the dead. Could it be there could be special circumstances involving this such as being God's broker on Earth, making atonement, being the Son of God, and having to be vindicated for supposedly dying under YHWH's curse?<br /><br /><br /><br />Wiki: Psychology is the crux of the argument, don't you see? I'm not arguing that your psychology is preventing you from accepting my position. That, indeed, would be a sidetrack from the argument, however valid. The crux of the argument is whether (1) the alleged witnesses would have said and done what they did had their claim been false, and (2) whether the witnesses were independent. That's where the psychology comes in.<br /><br />Reply: Somehow, I suspect you think this answers my point. It doesn't. I presented you with a weblink and you said it was biased.<br /><br />On your own page though, you can freely post up a link by Richard Carrier. That's not biased at all!<br /><br />Wiki: First, the witnesses were not independent. That means, you can't just multiply their individual improbability factors together. <br /><br />Reply: False. The appearances are listed in the earliest Christian creed independently. There's Peter, there's James, there's the 500, and there's Paul. <br /><br />Wiki:Second, human psychology is such that there are conditions under which the alleged witnesses would have done what they did even when their claims were false. Those conditions may be improbable, but they are not nearly as improbable as a resurrection followed by a convenient disappearance of the resurrectee.<br /><br />Reply: Haven't you learned yet about psychological history? It is extremely difficult to psychoanalyze someone in person who you can dialogue with. It's much harder to do so with history.<br /><br />Wiki: Huh?! While people of that era very likely were unaware of the psychology of self-concept, it's absurd to say they didn't have a self-concept. Self-concept is just how you see yourself. Your self-image. It relates to the ego and superego. You're suggesting that people in the first century had no ego or superego. <br /><br />Reply: People in the first century weren't individualists. They were in an agonistic society like most of the world is today. Go read Pilch and Malina some. Look at the Context group of scholars.<br /><br />Wiki: If you really think that people of the first century were so different from us that they lacked egos, then I don't think we have enough in common to continue discussion.<br /><br />Reply: Because people in the past had to be exactly like modern people!<br /><br />What are your references on the way ancient people viewed themselves? Oh that's right! None!Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57518321018225116422011-01-07T07:35:42.858-07:002011-01-07T07:35:42.858-07:00Dr. Wiki:
It's not circular. I don't have...Dr. Wiki:<br /><br />It's not circular. I don't have as a premise that miracles never occur.<br /><br />Reply: Then your proof that they have never occurred is?<br /><br />Wiki: My premise is the rational principle that past experience is a guide to future experience. If miracles occur frequently, then the world could look very different. <br /><br />Reply: Miracles have never occurred frequently. That's what makes them miracles. They are very rare exceptions to the rule. The reason they're recorded in the Bible often is just that. The Bible records the rare exceptions. <br /><br />Wiki: For example, we might see history appear like the world of Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, or any of a trillion radically different worlds in which magic is commonplace. <br /><br />Reply; In a fantasy setting, magic is not a miracle. It is a force that is used of a different kind to accomplish an effect. A miracle by definition is an act of God.<br /><br />Wiki: However, if miracles do not occur, then there are far fewer ways the world could look, or ways that history could look. So, even if we accept that miracles occur, we would also have to accept that they occur rarely. The miraculous past is that very rare (one in a trillion) kind of miraculous past that looks exactly like a non-miraculous past.<br /><br />Reply: My position is that they do occur rarely, but that they occur. That is the key issue. Now are you going to demonstrate a non-miraculous past?<br /><br />Wiki: Second, miracles are sometimes defined as exceptions to physical laws. How do we know physical laws? Because we have absolutely overwhelming statistical evidence that the laws are reliable, and have been pretty reliable throughout recorded history, and overwhelming evidence that they were reliable in prehistory. So, again, miracles are defined in large part by their infrequency.<br /><br />Reply: Correct. Miracles are infrequent. That does not mean they never happen. Also, miracles do not break laws of nature. An act by a free-will agent working in the system is not a violation of the system. Gravity is not violated because I catch a ball falling to the Earth.<br /><br />Wiki: This means miracles areNickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6838372479998418572011-01-07T02:38:46.470-07:002011-01-07T02:38:46.470-07:00@Dr Logic
You write "I don't think that t...@Dr Logic<br />You write "I don't think that the Pythagoras tale mentions the number 153".<br />You are right, but it is not a matter of thinking its a matter of comprehension. The number is not mentioned, in any of the accounts, Plutarch or Iamblichus/Porphyry. Plutarch the earliest account we have does not even mention counting the fish.<br /><br />The expanded accounts of Pythagoras fish story are only seen in Iamblichus/Porphyry who write in the 3rd and 4th C, well after gospels accounts of Jesus. <br /><br />The dating of the expanded accounts ultimately works against your claim of Christian absorption. I am not sure where Iamblichus/Porphyry get expanded elements from of guessing and counting fish from, though its obviously not from Plutarch.<br /><br />It would seem difficult to say that the Iamblichus/Porphyry expanded accounts where older then the gospel ones even though they are written down after. If there is another expanded account of similar or older age then Plutarch's then this would help your claim. <br /><br />However the evidence for absorption presented, if any absorption has happened only shows that the Iamblichus/Porphyry appear to have absorbed christian stories and traditions.<br /><br />In regards to the significance for the Pythagoreans of 153 it would help if you did more then just quote a wiki page. There is no mention of where the link with Pythagoras comes into it, I am not saying its not there but it would be helpful if we could read it.Jake Elwood XVInoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86341209955518136412011-01-06T23:06:48.899-07:002011-01-06T23:06:48.899-07:00Jake,
I don't think that the Pythagoras tale ...Jake,<br /><br />I don't think that the Pythagoras tale mentions the number 153, but it does tell a story about the great teacher walking on the shore, calling out to fishermen about a rather specific sized catch of fish (even if the actual number isn't specified).<br /><br />Beyond this, the number 153 was sacred to the Pythagoreans because it is involved in a ratio of lengths within intersecting circles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesica_piscis <br /><br />265/153 is close to the square root of 3 (the exact solution).<br /><br />When you draw the intersecting part of the circles, they look like a fish. A fish shape I expect you have seen before in Christian symbols.<br /><br />So, in the NT we have a story about the great teacher on shore, calling out to fisherman, a story that involves counting fish, and finding a total of 153. 153 is a sacred Pythagorean number also associated with fish (the Vesica Piscis).Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46742760537153263422011-01-06T21:58:47.878-07:002011-01-06T21:58:47.878-07:00Nick,
However, you say this goes against all expe...Nick,<br /><br /><i>However, you say this goes against all experience, but you are arguing in a circle. How do you know that throughout all of history in all the world a miracle has never happened?</i><br /><br />It's not circular. I don't have as a premise that miracles never occur.<br /><br />My premise is the rational principle that past experience is a guide to future experience. If miracles occur frequently, then the world could look very different. For example, we might see history appear like the world of Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, or any of a trillion radically different worlds in which magic is commonplace. However, if miracles do not occur, then there are far fewer ways the world could look, or ways that history could look. So, even if we accept that miracles occur, we would also have to accept that they occur rarely. The miraculous past is that very rare (one in a trillion) kind of miraculous past that looks exactly like a non-miraculous past.<br /><br />Second, miracles are sometimes defined as exceptions to physical laws. How do we know physical laws? Because we have absolutely overwhelming statistical evidence that the laws are reliable, and have been pretty reliable throughout recorded history, and overwhelming evidence that they were reliable in prehistory. So, again, miracles are defined in large part by their infrequency.<br /><br />This means miracles are highly improbable. Even if you thought God would resurrect a man (not a priori probable in the slightest), there are billions of men who have ever lived, and so you need billion-to-one evidence (at least) to say it would be any particular man.<br /><br /><i> I don't care about bias in the sense that I don't give a darn what position a person comes from in evaluating an argument. I care about the argument itself.</i><br /><br />Psychology is the crux of the argument, don't you see? I'm not arguing that your psychology is preventing you from accepting my position. That, indeed, would be a sidetrack from the argument, however valid. The crux of the argument is whether (1) the alleged witnesses would have said and done what they did had their claim been false, and (2) whether the witnesses were independent. That's where the psychology comes in.<br /><br />First, the witnesses were not independent. That means, you can't just multiply their individual improbability factors together. Second, human psychology is such that there are conditions under which the alleged witnesses would have done what they did even when their claims were false. Those conditions may be improbable, but they are not nearly as improbable as a resurrection followed by a convenient disappearance of the resurrectee.<br /><br /><i>The idea of "self-concept" would have been nonsensical to the ancient world. Your identity did not come from the self but from the group.</i><br /><br />Huh?! While people of that era very likely were unaware of the psychology of self-concept, it's absurd to say they didn't have a self-concept. Self-concept is just how you see yourself. Your self-image. It relates to the ego and superego. You're suggesting that people in the first century had no ego or superego. <br /><br />If you really think that people of the first century were so different from us that they lacked egos, then I don't think we have enough in common to continue discussion.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25520327001542478542011-01-05T17:33:33.403-07:002011-01-05T17:33:33.403-07:00A good Northern Irish discussion on the Resurrecti...A good Northern Irish discussion on the Resurrection has just started off here <br /><br />http://answersingenes.blogspot.com/<br /><br />under "The Great Resurrection Debate"<br /><br />All welcome. Well, it's not my blog, but I'm sure you're all welcome!<br /><br />GrahamMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32141343613929838472011-01-01T12:51:27.532-07:002011-01-01T12:51:27.532-07:00@Dr Logic
I was too hasty in my typing, but the ...@Dr Logic<br /> <br />I was too hasty in my typing, but the accounts of the pythagorean story that I have looked at and presented do not even mention the number 153. So to say that it is too coincidental because of this number seems more then stretched. Do you have versions of the Pythagorean fish story that mention the number 153?<br /><br />Now I understand that 153 is proclaimed as a special/extremely important to the Pythagoreans. I am curious though in the works of the Pythagoreans or accounts about Pythagoras as to where it is mentioned.<br /> <br />If your argument for myth absorption comes down to a number, a number that is missing from all the accounts presented for the Pythagoras fish story and only in one of the two accounts of the Jesus fish story, then your case is very weak.<br /><br />What are your thoughts on the case put forward by NT Wrights in "The resurrection of the son of God" against the myth absorption of the resurrection story?Jake Elwood XVInoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13921313587132451182011-01-01T10:27:59.877-07:002011-01-01T10:27:59.877-07:00Wiki: And you pretty much admit that you give them...Wiki: And you pretty much admit that you give them the benefit of the doubt. It means you're not looking for truth. You're looking for ways to justify your existing moral and religious beliefs. To justify your identity, foremost as a Christian.<br /><br />Reply: False. That's simply how you do history. I have enough reason to justify my belief. When I read Plutarch, I take him at his word unless I have reason to believe otherwise. The same with Tacitus or Josephus. If someone brings up reason for doubt, I will examine it.<br /><br />Wiki: Well, I am an atheist, and I certainly have an emotional investment in that, but I'm more committed to truth and epistemological validity than to atheism. I used to think that the Jesus myth was compelling, but I've been persuaded through my debates with Christians that the myth was itself a myth.<br /><br />Reply: I would like to know what is meant by Jesus myth. Do you mean by this that the resurrection accounts are myths, or that the idea that a person named Jesus described in the gospels is not a historical figure, i.e., that Jesus never existed such as Humphreys says?<br /><br />Wiki: I'm well aware that some authors have sometimes been a little too hasty to draw parallels between Jesus and other mythical figures. I have been persuaded that within a few years after the death of Jesus, a core of his followers came to believe that he was resurrected.<br /><br />Reply: This is the earliest testimony based on 1 Corinthians 15.<br /><br />Wiki: However, this is still not enough evidence to make the case for Christianity. My arguments in the preceding posts are all about how people can get these beliefs without their story being true.<br /><br />Reply: And it all hinges on psychology and a modern concept of man rather than an ancient one. Go check the sources I have given.<br /><br />Wiki: Moreover, the story does very likely contain myths. Justin Martyr DOES recognize the parallels with other religions. Martyr may be arguing that the other religions were inspired by the OT prophesies, but that makes for a lousy argument. He's already admitting that religions that predate Christianity have very strong parallels. <br /><br />Reply: Correct. I'm not saying that the argument is good that Justin gave. I really don't think the parallels are really good parallels. <br /><br />Wiki: And the Pythagorean story and the number 153 are too coincidental. Sure, you can find differences, but 153? Seriously? Even if you thought that the fishing story was true, do you really think it impossible that the authors added the number 153 as a flourish?<br /><br />Reply; Saying it is impossible is not the same as saying it is actual. What are the reasons? I'd be glad to get some commentaries out and research.<br /><br />However, I notice you have backed down on Mithras and not said anything about resurrection claims elsewhere. Would you like to present another?<br /><br />And I have also read what you've said. The reality is that it's just what I've seen before a number of times.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78014866544845923502011-01-01T10:21:07.392-07:002011-01-01T10:21:07.392-07:00Wiki: I think you're operating from a simplist...Wiki: I think you're operating from a simplistic and idealistic model of human reasoning. You assume that a man objectively collects facts about the world, and then rationally infers the way things are. He then acts according to how his preferences line up with the facts. Indeed, this is how people ought to reason. But it's not the way most people actually do reason.<br /><br />Reply: Correct. You're an example of having your mind made up and then looking for the facts. Who cares if scholarship doesn't support the parallels of Mithras and Jesus? They go against Christianity so let's just spout them off everywhere!<br /><br />Wiki: People don't usually infer beliefs. They get their beliefs first, and then rationalize why those beliefs are valid later. And the more emotionally important those beliefs are, the more they will do this.<br /><br />Reply: I'm INTJ. Emotion plays no part in what I do. Hence, I've changed my mind in life several times on issues. For someone however who is an emotional thinker themselves, I suppose you would punt to emotion.<br /><br />Wiki: The point of formal methods, such as science and Bayesian reasoning, is to overcome this tendency. The goal is to collect evidence without the interference of our emotions. That's why we have things like blind or double-blind studies.<br /><br />Reply: Spoken like a true modern. The same principles followed in medieval reasoning. Before you were allowed in debate to refute your opponent, you had to repeat his argument in your own words to his satisfaction. Also, you speak of a modern concept of science. Science simply means a body of knowledge. Any area where you can have knowledge is a science.<br /><br />Wiki: The Christian picture is that the disciples of Jesus were average guys with no particularly great commitment to the cause. They saw Jesus return from the dead, and that tipped them, rationally, from level-headed, materially-motivated skeptics into believers willing to die for the cause.<br /><br />Reply: Um. No. They were just as rational and level-headed afterwards. You're creating a false dichotomy. Had Jesus not returned from the dead, they would have just returned to their lives. They would have nothing to gain by perpetuating a myth of resurrection.<br /><br />Wiki: But this just seems to be accepted without question by Christians. What of their prior commitment to martyrdom and to the cause of Jesus? Did they consider their being in the Jesus cult to be safe? They had no prior commitment?<br /><br />Reply: Of course they had a commitment. When their leader was crucified however, they fled. Why? They knew Jesus was under God's curse then and that Rome and the Jews could be looking for them next.<br /><br />The rest next.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84416960840001000362011-01-01T10:15:01.425-07:002011-01-01T10:15:01.425-07:00Wiki: 1) Given his beliefs about Jesus, would he b...Wiki: 1) Given his beliefs about Jesus, would he be willing to make material sacrifices? <br />I think that he would.<br /><br />Reply: Evidence for this? Zip. For one thing, we have no record of vast material wealth from Paul. Second, Paul's view of Jesus would have been a man who died under the curse of YHWH as a blasphemer and a traitor to Caesar. To follow Jesus would have meant that Paul was publicly identifying with a figure the world saw as just that. <br /><br />Wiki: 2) Given his beliefs about Jesus, would he believe that he was betraying Yahweh?<br />I don't think he would believe he was betraying Yahweh any more than you do.<br /><br />Reply: I don't believe he was betraying YHWH because I do believe he saw YHWH acting in Jesus by raising him from the dead. Without being convinced of the resurrection, he would have been assured Jesus died under YHWH's curse.<br /><br />In fact, Paul was doing what he did because he was zealously serving YHWH in his opinion. Why do you think the Jews wanted to stop the Jesus movement? Because they knew what it meant to abandon the covenant. They'd been through that with Babylon already.<br /><br />The ironic thing is that in stopping the Christian movement, they were abandoning the covenant. In thinking they were serving YHWH, they were fighting against him.<br /><br />Wiki: 3) His writings suggest that he saw himself as an important figure in the religious community. He was very pious, even before he became a Christian. It was important for him to be seen as more pious than others. A conversion to Christian martyr was completely compatible with this psychology.<br /><br />Reply: Actually, if he already saw himself as pious, there was no need to switch. He was advancing in ranks in the Sanhedrin and was a student of Gamaliel. Again, how would it be pious to identify yourself with someone under YHWH's curse?<br /><br />Wiki: 4) Martyrdom was considered valuable among oppressed Jews in the first century. It's probably not unlike the value placed on martyrdom by Palestinians in the West Bank & Gaza. Not everybody values martyrdom enough to do something about it or to be an activist, but the value exists.<br /><br />Reply: Martyrdom to YHWH. That meant Paul believed YHWH was behind the Jesus movement? Why if their leader who was under God's curse was still in the tomb?<br /><br />Wiki: Given these facts, I think it's clear Paul had plenty of bias, and was quite capable of confabulating. First and foremost, Paul knows he is a figure of religious importance, and a man who is extremely pious. The rest he can confabulate.<br /><br />Reply: Shallow reasoning and ignorance of the ancient world can lead people to thinking that 2 Corinthians 11 is a benefit I suppose.<br /><br />Wiki: So, however Paul acquired his beliefs, whether by a real vision or not,he would act the way he did.<br /><br />Reply: False. Ancient people viewed personality as static. Hence, there was great suspicion in Acts when Paul was suddenly a Christian. <br /><br />Really. What reading have you done on the Ancient world? Google doesn't count.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28444790875185702152011-01-01T10:08:52.359-07:002011-01-01T10:08:52.359-07:00Wiki: Also, the model that you propose (implicitly...Wiki: Also, the model that you propose (implicitly) is that people don't do anything that isn't in their material self-interest. In reality, people do lots of things that are not in their material self-interest. <br /><br />Reply: Actually, this is what I do hold to as a good Thomist. The only reason anyone does anything is they perceive there is a good to be gained from the action.<br /><br />Wiki: Material self-interest is only valued to the extent that it satisfies an emotional or psychological self-interest. So, a gangbanger who gets a sense of accomplishment, brotherhood, and social status from committing violent crimes can simultaneously satisfy his values while denying his material self-interest (he's likely to die in a gang fight, or end up incarcerated).<br /><br />Reply: Correct. In this case, social approval is valued over material goods.<br /><br />Wiki: The question with respect to the first Christians is "What were their values and self concept?"<br /><br />Reply: With this, you need to read up on the way the ancients thought. They had no idea of a self-concept. That's a notion of individualism that most of the world doesn't live with today and neither did the ancients. <br /><br />Wiki: You blindly assume that these guys were average Joes who wouldn't do anything to harm their material self-interest or their status in society at large. <br /><br />Reply: No. You blindly assume these guys were just like you. The truth is, they were not. Read Jeffers. Read Malina. Read DeSilva. People did not think about themselves first but about the good of the group.<br /><br />Wiki: For example, I commonly see Christian apologists make statements about what views were common in Jewish culture at the time. However, that's like saying that gangbangers could not exist in our modern culture, or that gang culture could not feature prominently in the music mass market.<br /><br />Reply: Actually, they could easily because that fits in with our culture just fine of self-interest without regards to society as a whole. The ancients thought about the society first and the individual last. The individual was who he was because of who he identified with and not because of something in him.<br /><br />Wiki: Let's get back to Paul's psychology. <br /><br />Reply: In our next post.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68252743255593383912011-01-01T09:59:48.094-07:002011-01-01T09:59:48.094-07:00Nick,
Wow. You replied faster than I could paste...Nick,<br /><br />Wow. You replied faster than I could paste in the rest of my comment. I'll give you time to actually read what I've posted.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36297498168427390192011-01-01T09:56:25.722-07:002011-01-01T09:56:25.722-07:00Nick,
(continued)
I think you're operating f...Nick,<br /><br />(continued)<br /><br />I think you're operating from a simplistic and idealistic model of human reasoning. You assume that a man objectively collects facts about the world, and then rationally infers the way things are. He then acts according to how his preferences line up with the facts. Indeed, this is how people ought to reason. But it's not the way most people actually do reason. People don't usually infer beliefs. They get their beliefs first, and then rationalize why those beliefs are valid later. And the more emotionally important those beliefs are, the more they will do this.<br /><br />The point of formal methods, such as science and Bayesian reasoning, is to overcome this tendency. The goal is to collect evidence without the interference of our emotions. That's why we have things like blind or double-blind studies.<br /><br />The Christian picture is that the disciples of Jesus were average guys with no particularly great commitment to the cause. They saw Jesus return from the dead, and that tipped them, rationally, from level-headed, materially-motivated skeptics into believers willing to die for the cause.<br /><br />But this just seems to be accepted without question by Christians. What of their prior commitment to martyrdom and to the cause of Jesus? Did they consider their being in the Jesus cult to be safe? They had no prior commitment?<br /><br />And you pretty much admit that you give them the benefit of the doubt. It means you're not looking for truth. You're looking for ways to justify your existing moral and religious beliefs. To justify your identity, foremost as a Christian.<br /><br />Well, I am an atheist, and I certainly have an emotional investment in that, but I'm more committed to truth and epistemological validity than to atheism. I used to think that the Jesus myth was compelling, but I've been persuaded through my debates with Christians that the myth was itself a myth.<br /><br />I'm well aware that some authors have sometimes been a little too hasty to draw parallels between Jesus and other mythical figures. I have been persuaded that within a few years after the death of Jesus, a core of his followers came to believe that he was resurrected.<br /><br />However, this is still not enough evidence to make the case for Christianity. My arguments in the preceding posts are all about how people can get these beliefs without their story being true.<br /><br />Moreover, the story does very likely contain myths. Justin Martyr DOES recognize the parallels with other religions. Martyr may be arguing that the other religions were inspired by the OT prophesies, but that makes for a lousy argument. He's already admitting that religions that predate Christianity have very strong parallels. <br /><br />And the Pythagorean story and the number 153 are too coincidental. Sure, you can find differences, but 153? Seriously? Even if you thought that the fishing story was true, do you really think it impossible that the authors added the number 153 as a flourish?Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43630971813844733212011-01-01T09:52:07.613-07:002011-01-01T09:52:07.613-07:00Nick,
(continued)
Also, the model that you propo...Nick,<br /><br />(continued)<br /><br />Also, the model that you propose (implicitly) is that people don't do anything that isn't in their material self-interest. In reality, people do lots of things that are not in their material self-interest. Material self-interest is only valued to the extent that it satisfies an emotional or psychological self-interest. So, a gangbanger who gets a sense of accomplishment, brotherhood, and social status from committing violent crimes can simultaneously satisfy his values while denying his material self-interest (he's likely to die in a gang fight, or end up incarcerated).<br /><br />The question with respect to the first Christians is "What were their values and self concept?"<br /><br />You blindly assume that these guys were average Joes who wouldn't do anything to harm their material self-interest or their status in society at large. For example, I commonly see Christian apologists make statements about what views were common in Jewish culture at the time. However, that's like saying that gangbangers could not exist in our modern culture, or that gang culture could not feature prominently in the music mass market.<br /><br />Let's get back to Paul's psychology. <br /><br />1) Given his beliefs about Jesus, would he be willing to make material sacrifices? <br />I think that he would.<br /><br />2) Given his beliefs about Jesus, would he believe that he was betraying Yahweh?<br />I don't think he would believe he was betraying Yahweh any more than you do.<br /><br />3) His writings suggest that he saw himself as an important figure in the religious community. He was very pious, even before he became a Christian. It was important for him to be seen as more pious than others. A conversion to Christian martyr was completely compatible with this psychology.<br /><br />4) Martyrdom was considered valuable among oppressed Jews in the first century. It's probably not unlike the value placed on martyrdom by Palestinians in the West Bank & Gaza. Not everybody values martyrdom enough to do something about it or to be an activist, but the value exists.<br /><br />Given these facts, I think it's clear Paul had plenty of bias, and was quite capable of confabulating. First and foremost, Paul knows he is a figure of religious importance, and a man who is extremely pious. The rest he can confabulate.<br /><br />So, however Paul acquired his beliefs, whether by a real vision or not,he would act the way he did.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38492486205432311122011-01-01T09:49:47.928-07:002011-01-01T09:49:47.928-07:00Nick,
Sorry. I don't give a darn about bias. ...Nick,<br /><br /><i>Sorry. I don't give a darn about bias. I care about the arguments. You prefer to look at the motive and then disregard the argument. </i><br /><br />No, you're not interested in arguments. You're looking for ways to confirm your theory. A theory that makes you immortal, special, etc.<br /><br />Moreover, you've already admitted that your principle for interpreting claims is that you take them at face value, and that the claimant is "innocent until proven guilty". Well, I'm sorry, but that's not an epistemological principle. That is a moral principle or a principle from social contract. You're not interested in getting to the truth, but in upholding a moral principle (and out of context, to boot).<br /><br />Let's get back to Bayesian reasoning. Remember Bayesian reasoning? The point of this thread?<br /><br />Bayes Theorem says that when evaluating evidence, you have to consider the probability that the evidence would exist if the theory were false. The evidence with which you are presented is written evidence from alleged witnesses. The theory is something that contradicts all of our experience and all of physics (which is what makes it miraculous).<br /><br />So, our job as Bayesian reasoners is to evaluate P(E|~T). That means NOT taking the witnesses at face value. This is completely lost on you. You're effectively arguing that we should ignore the possibility that the witnesses are not telling things as they happened.<br /><br />Well, maybe I can put this in terms you will understand. We are all proven guilty. Psychological experiments demonstrate the probability of everything I have been saying. False memories, cognitive dissonance, frauds, schizophrenia, confabulation, etc. In particular, the more emotional investment a person has in a claim, the more likely they are to be susceptible to human psychological bias. (And bias was that thing you said you didn't care about, remember?)<br /><br />This means that knowing nothing other than person P made claim X, we can infer that there is some percentage probability that person P is lying or delusional with regard to their claim of X. That probability is probably on the order of 1%, but we can do better if we know how emotionally important X is to P's self-concept.<br /><br />So, when I told you that I levitated across the room, the dear Reverend Bayes would have you compare the likelihood of me having levitated across the room (1 in 10 billion, say) versus the background likelihood that I was not being truthful (1 in 100). And, if you were rational, you would doubt me, even if you knew nothing about me and my motives. (Of course, the fact that you do know my motives in this case should make you doubt my levitation claim even more.)<br /><br />Contrary to your central claim that we should give Paul the benefit of the doubt, rational thinking demands that we give him the benefit of the doubt only inasmuch as he makes a mundane claim, or a claim about something to which he is indifferent. Neither of which apply in this case.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49714731289812775222011-01-01T00:25:11.056-07:002011-01-01T00:25:11.056-07:00Finding sources for Iamblichus and Porphyry from 1...Finding sources for Iamblichus and Porphyry from 1st C will be impossible as they wrote their accounts in the 3rd/4th C. <br /><br />I have used The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library: An Anthology of Ancient Writings Which Relate to Pythagoras and Pythagorean Philosophy Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie translator<br /><br />The reference for Plutarchs can be found at penelope.uchicago.edu/oddnotes/plutarchsymp88.html<br /><br />I am always trying to find better sources in regard to this. If you have any suggestions that would be appreciated<br />There is a more modern translation which I have not read<br />On the Pythagorean Way of Life (Scholars Press Homage Series)<br />By (author) Iamblichus, Volume editor John Dillon, Volume editor J. Hershbell, By (author) John M Dillon, By (author) Jackson P Hershbell<br /><br />@Skeptical Skeptic<br /><br />my resources are quite poor.<br /><br />I have struggled to find much on the accounts of Pythagoras Fish story and would appreciate any help.<br /><br />If there are other accounts of the Pythagoras fishy story that are closer to the time of the writings of the Gospel of Luke and Matthew swell as being closer to the account of the miraculous draught of fish story then Dr Logic may have a some substance to his argument.Jake Elwood XVInoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7169875551049390842010-12-31T17:50:18.936-07:002010-12-31T17:50:18.936-07:00I think that some sceptics are playing "word...I think that some sceptics are playing "word association" games rather than assessing evidence. <br />For example, the history and genre of the Book of Mormon does not help us understand or evaluate the information in the Gospels <i>at all</i>. <br />I'm also fairly sure that High School history lessons about Primary and Secondary sources lie behind the mantras about eyewitnesses. <br /><br />GrahamMr Vealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931446615905211560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64626686033555503092010-12-31T17:21:10.260-07:002010-12-31T17:21:10.260-07:00Well, I saw on Doctor Wiki's page on a post ab...Well, I saw on Doctor Wiki's page on a post about Christianity that he's fine with trotting out Richard Carrier on history, though he is not a historian.<br /><br />But if I put up a link, that's "biased."<br /><br />Here's the criteria for deciding then if a claim is true or not.<br /><br />Does it go against Christianity?<br /><br />Then it's true! It doesn't matter that there's no evidence for it, scholars don't back it, and you can only find it on the internet, darn it, it comes up in Wikipedia and we know that's the authority!Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16175830373964472006noreply@blogger.com