Trusting the evidence, distrusting the evidence, and explaining the evidence

ApostateAbe
ApostateAbe's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Trusting the evidence, distrusting the evidence, and explaining the evidence

Someone in another forum (http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6991844#post6991844) commented on the title of Ehrman's delayed e-book on the existence of Jesus:

Quote:
Isn't it interesting that it is called:

The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

rather than the historical evidence for Jesus?

That alone already speaks volume about the quality of the evidence. Why, afterall, would you need to make an argument if the evidence was good enough?

"Why, afterall, would you need to make an argument if the evidence was good enough?"

I think this is an essential point, because it reflects the way of thinking among many of us, and it seems to be a misleading way of thinking. The seeming fallacy is to think about ancient historical claims purely in terms of whether or not we should trust them. We get in this mode of thought because we are critical thinkers and we argue against the claims of religion so much.

Of course, Ehrman's primary evidence would be the New Testament, and it is the same evidence that everyone already knows about, so a supporter of the theory that Jesus existed would place focus on the argument, not merely the evidence. To make a scientific case, normally all it takes is to present the evidence, and one side clearly wins. That isn't always how it works, however. Sometimes, everyone has the same evidence, but there are two or more different ways to interpret the evidence. Further, even in such cases, it isn't always a matter of reasonable uncertainty, because sometimes one party of the debate has far better arguments than all other parties.

The underlying methods of thinking are just as relevant as the both the evidence and the arguments, because the methods of thinking fundamentally influence one's conclusions, for better or for worse. Among atheists who believe or suspect Jesus never existed, they tend to judge the quality of the arguments based on the historical reliability of the evidence. This means they think it is a matter of whether or not we should trust the evidence. If that is how the debate is framed, then of course they win the debate, because we can't trust the evidence. It is the converse of the paradigm that conservative Christians hold. Since conservative Christians trust the historical reliability evidence, they believe the claims contained within the evidence, including the claim of the historical Jesus.

I don't mean to be insulting, but I hope to somehow make clear the fallacy of this way of thinking. Some of the most relevant information concerning Alexander the Great is inferred from ancient myths, and the myths are not historically reliable. The ancient myths claim among many other things that Alexander the Great was fathered by Zeus. It does not follow, however, that no knowledge about Alexander the Great should be inferred from such myth. The myths are our only sources of the stories of Bucephalas, the name of a heroic horse and a city that Alexander apparently named in its honor. The myths about this super-horse and the super-horse-tamer Alexander are various and extraordinary, so how do we explain the existence and contents of those myths? We can speculate that maybe Bucephalas was just a fictional invention by a general of Alexander, and we really would accept that hypothesis if it had plausibility and explanatory power. Alternatively, Alexander rode into battle a horse named Bucephalas that he liked. That hypothesis seems to have the most plausibility and explanatory power, so that is the explanation I accept, even if I have to depend entirely on unreliable myths. I am not saying that Jesus is exactly analogous, and I am not saying that all evidence for Bucephalas is untrustworthy. Don't miss the point. I am saying we need a better way to think about evidence than purely in terms of whether or not we should trust the ancient claims.

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the historical unreliability of the evidence, but it shouldn't be all about that. I advocate a different mode of thought. For me, it is neither about trusting nor about distrusting the claims found within the evidence. Instead, it is about best explaining the evidence.

How strongly does the theory expect the evidence? That is explanatory power (related to induction). Or, how strongly does the evidence expect the theory? That is plausibility (aka abduction). The relative probability of a hypothesis is decided by how well the expectations are fulfilled in both directions, from the theory to the evidence and the evidence to the theory.

To illustrate, birds, dinosaurs and fossils of the archaeopteryx strongly expect the theory of evolution, and the theory of evolution strongly expects the archaeopteryx. No such expectations exist for creationism. The criteria of explanatory power and plausibility are both fulfilled by the theory of evolution and not by creationism. Therefore, the theory of evolution is a more probable explanation for these evidences than creationism.

My theory of the historical Jesus is that he was a human doomsday cult leader, and I arrive at this theory by best explaining (not trusting) the earliest Christian writings. Again, it is not about trusting the New Testament, nor is it distrusting the New Testament. I am just trying to explain with the greatest probability how the contents of the New Testament came to exist as they do.

In all of human society past and present, all known doomsday cults are founded by a single human being who remains highly revered by the cult. When the cult founder dies, the cult typically dissipates. But, in a significant minority of cases, the cult lives on, evolves, diversifies and becomes a religion. That is what happened with Islam, Rastafarianism and Mormonism. Doomsdayism is a common characteristic of cults, and that is what we see in Mormonism ("...Latter-day Saints" ). In all cults we know about, the reputedly-human central figurehead was the actual-human founder of the cult. So, given the seeming universal pattern of cults, we strongly expect the reputedly-human figurehead of Christianity to be the actual-human founder of Christianity. The evidence strongly expects the theory, so the theory fulfills the criterion of plausibility.

Conversely, the New Testament writings are very much what we expect from the theory that Jesus was a doomsday cult leader. Imminent-doomsday prophecies are seen all throughout the earliest Christian writings--the letters of Paul (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-52), the gospel of Mark (Mark 8-9:1 and Mark 13), and the gospel of Q (via Luke 3:7, Luke 13:22-25 and Luke 12:40). Mark and Q attribute imminent doomsday prophecies to Jesus, and Paul believes that Jesus would be instigator of the imminent doomsday. And, of course, all early sources revere Jesus as the leader and founder of their religion, attributing miracles to him. All sources claim that Jesus was the Son of God and the Messiah. In other words, the evidence is what we expect if Jesus was the doomsday cult founder of Christianity. If Jesus was NOT a doomsday cult leader, then we would NOT expect these evidences. The theory fulfills the criterion of explanatory power.

If any theory in any field is considerably stronger than all competing explanations in both of those criteria, then I think that is all it takes. I don't think that the position that Jesus never existed has much if any advantage in either of those criteria. I think it follows only from the limited and misleading perspective that judging explanations should be purely about judging the accuracy of the claims within the evidence.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Interesting read. Doomsday

Interesting read. Doomsday cult are powerful draws. They bring immenience to each generation. Feeds the ego quite well. Right here, right now I am in and apart of a cosmic struggle. That is my background. I wonder how a religion like buddhism ever took off. It is missing that attribute. Any thoughts on that?

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ApostateAbe
ApostateAbe's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-04-04
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:
Interesting read. Doomsday cult are powerful draws. They bring immenience to each generation. Feeds the ego quite well. Right here, right now I am in and apart of a cosmic struggle. That is my background. I wonder how a religion like buddhism ever took off. It is missing that attribute. Any thoughts on that?

Yeah, doomsdayism is a powerful mechanism of cult adherence and evangelism, but it is found only in a minority of cults. There is a checklist of cult characters published by an academic society that I found useful here:

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

All items on the checklist reflect the design of cults, and the design is to elevate the leader, to keep the members inside the cult, to sustain the cult, and to recruit more members. Doomsdayism is one way to do that, but it is only one of many (it is not even an item on this checklist). If I were to take a guess about Buddhism, the cult founder (Siddhartha Gautama) would be appealing to his members by claiming that he had reached enlightenment, or ultimate knowledge that entails the answers to the most important questions, and the members may also achieve enlightenment by following him. That would be one of many methods of a cult leader.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
cult checklist

 Good checklist. Wanted to have it posted here. Looks like the site you reference may be shut off some day because there is direction to a new site.

 

 

1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

3) Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

4) The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

5) The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

6) The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

7) The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

Cool The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

9) The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

10) Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

11) The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

12) The group is preoccupied with making money.

13) Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

14) Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

15) The most loyal members (the “true believers&rdquoEye-wink feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Interesting and well thought

Interesting and well thought out read.  I have personally never given much thought to Jesus' historicity simply because I find it irrelevant.  He either existed as one individual, or he's a conglomerate of individuals with similar characteristics.  Christianity obviously needs some sort of catalyst.  

I have enjoyed the mental gymnastics though, and what you are saying makes a lot of sense. 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ApostateAbe
ApostateAbe's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2011-04-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Interesting and

Ktulu wrote:

Interesting and well thought out read.  I have personally never given much thought to Jesus' historicity simply because I find it irrelevant.  He either existed as one individual, or he's a conglomerate of individuals with similar characteristics.  Christianity obviously needs some sort of catalyst.  

I have enjoyed the mental gymnastics though, and what you are saying makes a lot of sense. 

Awesome, thanks. The reason I care is because I see atheism having a bigger place in society in the upcoming generations (it is already happening), and I would like atheists to have their history right. New social movements often carry with them their own faulty models of history (i.e. feminist history or conservative American history), but it doesn't have to be that way. Atheists can get their history right without slowing down the movement.

I have noticed that the hypothesis that the character of Jesus was a conglomerate of many other historical people is often presented in passing as a possibility, but it is seldom or never developed in detail, probably because it would amount to a difficult theory. We just don't have other examples of mythical characters in history that were wholly conglomerates of many other mythical characters, though we have modern myths to that effect. Acharya S and others have asserted that Jesus was a derivative of many other ancient godmen myths, but unfortunately the ancient evidence does not match the  claims, and the myths are purely modern. Almost all of the relevant archaeological sources are translated and available freely online, so don't believe those modern myths unless you can find the quotes in the translated texts. All of the confirmed evidence seemingly indicates that Jesus had a singular origin, and he diversified only afterward. That is the way that mythical characters always evolve, whether they first existed as human or not. They don't merge, unless they are already closely related (i.e. Yahweh and Elohim of the Pentateuch).