Proving history
"In this in-depth discussion of New Testament scholarship and the challenges of history as a whole, historian Richard C. Carrier proposes Bayess Theorem as a solution to the problem of establishing reliable historical criteria"--Publisher's description.
Stats for nerds
2recommend
5mentions
4people
2016–2021years
60% recommend40% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- > You really believe that is what Chesterton meant?
I have no idea what he meant. I do not have ESP, and given that Chesterton is long dead, it probably wouldn't be effective even if I did. All I know is what the text says.
> First, if that is true, then how can you so vehemently deny something (the fact of sin) that you claim hasn't even been defined?
I deny that there exists a single Fact of Sin that is so privileged that it can be coherently referred to as THE fact of sin in a rational argument. The phrase "the fact of sin" is non-sensical, a turn of phrase cunningly designed to make you think it has a referent when in fact it does not. The rhetoric of Christianity is rife with such linguistic ploys. They are necessary to cover up the fact that Christianity is both logically incoherent and inconsistent with the laws of physics. It is the longest of long cons.
> from a cursory reading of the text, I think it's pretty easy to infer.
Yes, I know you think so, but you are wrong. Like I said, "the fact of sin" is a turn of phrase cunningly designed to make you think it has, not only a referent, but a self-evident one. But it doesn't. There is no self-evident "fact of sin", including:
> It's pretty obvious that when he says the fact of sin, he means the fact that sin exists.
That is far from obvious, because from that premise his conclusion does not follow. What does it even mean that "sin exists"? Does it mean that at some point in history some person committed a sin? Does it mean that at any given time there is at least one person committing a sin? Does it mean that humans have within them the potential to commit sins at any time even thought there could be times when they don't act on that potential? Don't bother answering, those are rhetorical questions. The point is that the idea that "sin exists" is another one of those phrases that is cunningly designed to make you think that it means something, and that you understand what it means, when in fact it is utter nonsense (because of its ambiguity).
> Backing up your claims with evidence
LOL. Can you show me any evidence that there is an afterlife?
There is no evidence for Christianity. None. Zero. And many of its claims are absurd on their face. Do you really believe that zombies walked the streets of Jerusalem and not a single person thought it was worthy of note other than the author of Matthew? Or that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and not a single person thought this was worthy of note other than the author of John? It's just ridiculous. These are transparent fictions.
A critical examination of the Bible reveals it to be nothing more than human mythology of the sort regularly produced by humans [1]. Christianity just happened to get a boost by being in the right place at the right time when Rome fell and created a power vacuum for the church to step in to.
Read Carrier's "Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus" and then come back and we can talk.
---
[1] Note: I in no way mean to denigrate or disparage the value of mythology. But it is important not to conflate it with reality.
- Don't know about a paper, but here's a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Proving-History-Bayess-Theorem-Histor...
- The whole field is mired in methods that don't work. A counterpoint is the book 'On the Historicity of Jesus' and 'Proving History' by Richard Carrier. It's not as easy to dismiss as many suppose.
- > I have no idea what he meant. I do not have ESP, and given that Chesterton is long dead, it probably wouldn't be effective even if I did.
An author writes to convey information and meaning. One of the main responsibilities a reader has is to find out what the author meant by his words. [1] I don't think one needs ESP or to interview the author personally to find out the meaning he was trying to convey in his writing.
> All I know is what the text says.
What the text says is what the author says, his meaning.
In this case, you are interpreting "fact of sin" to mean "as if there were only one.". That's quite an uncharitable and illogical interpretation. I don't think Chesterton thought that there exists only one fact about sin. It's common sense that there is more than one fact about such a broad topic as sin.
> the idea that "sin exists" is another one of those phrases that is cunningly designed to make you think that it means something, and that you understand what it means, when in fact it is utter nonsense (because of its ambiguity).
Webster says sin is "an offense against religious or moral law". Since you're not religious, let's go with offense against moral law.
What's moral law? Webster says "a general rule of right living"
So do offenses against rules of right living exist?
A man rapes and murders a person. Was that an offense against right living? I would say so. It was a sin. Rape and murder as well as other sins have been committed throughout history, are currently being committed and will be committed in the future. Sin exists.
> LOL. Can you show me any evidence that there is an afterlife?
I challenged your claim that William Lan Craig is a charlatan and you change the topic?
I don't have time to fully answer your challenges. I'll just leave some references. [2]
> Read Carrier's "Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus" and then come back and we can talk.
I may just do that. Thanks.
While we're on the subject of evidence, I will leave with these thoughts.
Science is wonderful and is capable of explaining many truths about the universe and has resulted in much good. But it has its limits. It can not speak to questions of morality, the human condition, etc [3]
Obviously, there is a large component of faith involved in Christianity or any religion or spiritual matters. But I always argue that it is the nature of reality that everyone is required to live by faith [4]
[1] Fundamental Factors of Comprehension in Reading (Davis, 1944):
http://www.iapsych.com/wmfhcaarchive/LinkedDocuments/DAVI11....
- Ability to select the appropriate meaning for a word or phrase in the light of its particular contextual setting
- Ability to determine a writer's purpose, intent, and point of view, i.e., to draw inferences about a writer
[2]
https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/how-do-we-kno...
https://carm.org/about-jesus/is-there-historical-evidence-of...
https://www.amazon.com/evidence-that-demands-verdict-life-ch...
[3]
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
"Accepting a scientific worldview needn't require giving up religious faith."
- This entire discussion reminds me of Richard Carrier's book Proving History, where he uses Bayes Theorem to "prove" Jesus didn't exist. On the other hand, there's also William Lane Craig, who uses it to "prove" that Jesus was resurrected! I agree that Bayes Theorem is relevant to the study of history, but it is slightly funny to see atheists and apologists alike take it far beyond its original scope.
I think Sheen's trilemma - Jesus is either liar, lunatic, or God - doesn't take into account the complexity of early Christian beliefs. "God" is a pretty slippery concept. Was Jesus just an ordinary human, who God adopted as his son because of his righteousness - either at his birth, baptism, or resurrection? Was he some sort of angel who God sent to prepare for the apocalypse? Maybe he was God himself, who came down in human form. Perhaps he was so divine that he wasn't human at all. Or, maybe he had nothing to do with the God of Judaism, and was something completely different. There were many, many different interpretations of Jesus, which were reflected in early Christian churches and the New Testament. Which of these interpretations is "right" would I suppose depend on your personal theology and beliefs.
