Bias Toward Bias

[Inigo Montoya]

I'd like to focus on the question of bias in these debates regarding, lately and specifically, a resurrected man. Or god. Or... god-man..

Goose once implied I was erroneously displaying "an a priori bias toward the supernatural." And now Liam joins recently with "Does common sense include the a priori conclusion that "this cannot happen"?"

Had I been less diplomatic in both cases I might have responded "You don't say!" I mean, did you not just hear yourself? Dead folk wandering around days after death, then floating up and off into the sky? I guess I'm the one being ridiculous with the raised eyebrow at your "counter."

Not only is this likely a very strawy straw-man (most aren't so foolish as to take on disproving X to an absolute certainty), but it's an absurd rebuttal easily flipped. What bias can I charge the believer of said tales with that allows them to ignore the whole of history and biology, save this one instance, and also notably to the exclusion of all supernatural claims in religions they don't subscribe to as well? I'm sorry, you mean you don't believe the supernatural events put forth for your consideration in the Vedas, the Quran, or in the life and times of Sathya Sai Baba? No bias on your part there, hmm?

"Well present those claims and we'll judge them each, historically, methodically, and see which has the greater explanatory scope and the fewest ad-hoc assumptions. And by that I mean we'll compare ancient Roman armies on the move with zombie sorcerers and pretend they're both apples. Not only will we pretend the claims are in the same universe, categorically, but we'll also only apply those methods of historical inquiry that positively correlate with what makes past events (all mundane, by the way) pass the standard of likelihood."

Annoying, isn't it, Liam?

Do I have a skeptical bias regarding obscure, second and third hand stories of magical deeds and acts from a pre-scientific, superrnatural community? Why yes, actually. Yes I do.

Call me crazy.


Question for debate:

Is it irrational or illogical to display a skeptical bias toward ancient and unverifiable miraculous/superrnatural claims?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 24 by Mithrae]

Exodus specifically describes some inferior but still quite impressive magics of the Egyptians for them as believe it, so pointing out other religions' miracle claims really isn't even a good "gotcha" moment against Christians.

It is. The Egyptians are described as doing the same things as Moses, so any claim from Christians that God is supreme, unique, falls by the wayside.

You accept that part of the story that disses YHWH's miracles as anymore than ordinary magic but pass on mentioning the ultimate proofs of HIS supreme uniqueness found in the miracles they could not "seem to" repeat by their magic??? Riiiiight...

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 26 by Mithrae]

Are you seriously asking why 1st century Jews born, raised and teaching in Palestine and environs weren't attributing miracles to Shiva and Ganesh? People to greater or lesser extents are products of their cultures and communicate to them.

Not people in general. Jesus. Go with the hypothetical. Jesus dies, and is actually resurrected. If Shiva/Ganesh etc really do exist, and were responsible for the resurrection, why would Jesus attribute it to Yahweh, the God of Moses, instead of Shiva or any of the other Hindu gods?

Or are you suggesting that if people speaking one language call the creator Yahweh, and people speaking another language call the creator Brahman, that's an important difference and/or they must be referring to different entities?

It's not just a difference in name. It's a difference in personality, attributes, history. Do Hindu people say that Brahman resurrected Jesus and promises that there will be a thousand year reign by Jesus at the end times?

You're certainly presenting an interesting theological position. But considering many Christians don't believe in a literal millennial kingdom on earth either, what significance is there in Hindus' shared absence of such a belief?

Consider an alternative hypothetical, in which the creator of a reality of which Earth is an infinitesimally insignificant part really couldn't give a flying banana whether people think he's got four arms or eight, whether they hold Homoousian or Arian beliefs, or Dvaita or Advaita or Vishishtadvaita. Why would 'he,' after all? Maybe he sends miracles when he's bored, lets plagues and famines and disasters happen when he's annoyed or just not paying much attention. Generally wants folk to prosper and get along, in a vague half-hearted kind of way, and maybe wasn't always too clued-in on the finer points of how to 'command' us little ants, each in our own different cultural milieu, in a way that'd get the best results, and had to fiddle around and experiment a bit (and perhaps still is).

That's pretty much how humans generally relate to lesser creatures, isn't it? A god might be much smarter, but the gap is so much greater and the time-frame in the life of a deity so much shorter; why should her interactions with humanity be so different or so much better? Of course people are going to say that she's all-loving and full of grace and justice and judgement, and that she's a he and has stellar objects radiating from every orifice, and each make up a dozen other culturally-unique stories besides.

So what? I am simply pointing out that those divergent theological claims do not provide any logical basis for doubting the alleged real-world miracle claims - either in this scenario, or in many extant religious philosophies from most if not all traditions.

You said "I reject them because if I allow the "Goddidit" claim to stand, then to be intellectually honest and consistent, I would have to allow it for ALL other religions and similar claims." I thought that "I reject them" meant that you considered them false. My apologies if I misunderstood.

Hmm. How do I get this as precise as possible? Since I cannot and as far as I am able to figure, no one can, prove miracles actually happen (I may be wrong on this) I live my life under the assumption that such miracle claims are not true. This isn't a flat out 100% declaration that there are no miracles, (I am human after all), but that when I look at the world, I see no difference between a world where there are miracles that simply cannot be tested to see if they are actually true, and a world where there are no miracles. So I go for the latter.

If there's no difference between the two worlds, you have just as much reason to live your life under the assumption that miracles sometimes do happen. Is that correct?

And of course we all agree that many miracle claims are false: But the assumption that they are all false is a greater leap of logic (or faith, as some would call it) than the belief that some smaller percentage are statistically likely to be false. So really, since there is no difference between the two worlds but the assumption that all miracle claims are false is the greater leap, it is more reasonable to suppose that some miracle claims are probably true.


That is essentially my position. I'd go a bit further in highlighting the positive side: That for observational reports by multiple not-obviously-unreliable witnesses there is less than 100% probability that their report is false, and for large numbers of independent reports (such as one example I came across recently) it becomes increasingly unlikely that they are all false even if individual reports are assumed to have relatively low probabilities of being true.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 32 by Mithrae]

But considering many Christians don't believe in a literal millennial kingdom on earth either, what significance is there in Hindus' shared absence of such a belief?

Okay...so if no one is presenting something as a claim, why even give it the time of day?

Consider an alternative hypothetical,...

I have, and my general response to such hypotheticals is to try to live my life as though it doesn't exist. After all, in that world, it exists, is far more powerful than me, but it certainly isn't deserving of my worship or servitude.

Of course people are going to say that she's all-loving and full of grace and justice and judgement, and that she's a he and has stellar objects radiating from every orifice, and each make up a dozen other culturally-unique stories besides.

But such claims wouldn't be true, then would they? They'd be made under a form of duress. In their minds, they have to praise this god, or he'll hit them with his big god stick.

If there's no difference between the two worlds, you have just as much reason to live your life under the assumption that miracles sometimes do happen. Is that correct?

No. Occam's Razor. Why would I believe the extra thing, if its existence is indistinguishable from its non-existence?

And of course we all agree that many miracle claims are false: But the assumption that they are all false is a greater leap of logic (or faith, as some would call it) than the belief that some smaller percentage are statistically likely to be false.

If a miracle is indeed true, then present one. I notice that in this latest reply from you, you didn't tackle my request for a miracle that you think is true, and that has evidence supporting it.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 32 by Mithrae]

If there's no difference between the two worlds, you have just as much reason to live your life under the assumption that miracles sometimes do happen. Is that correct?

No. Occam's Razor. Why would I believe the extra thing, if its existence is indistinguishable from its non-existence?

You're living your life under the assumption of something either way: A universe where miracles do happen or a universe where they don't. But as I pointed out, the latter also implies that every single report of a miracle is false, which is a greater assumption than merely recognising the statistical probability that some are false and some are not.

And of course we all agree that many miracle claims are false: But the assumption that they are all false is a greater leap of logic (or faith, as some would call it) than the belief that some smaller percentage are statistically likely to be false.

If a miracle is indeed true, then present one. I notice that in this latest reply from you, you didn't tackle my request for a miracle that you think is true, and that has evidence supporting it.

I'm not sure whether I edited it in before you started typing your reply, but in my post above I included one source cataloguing some 1400 independent reports of healing, necessarily attested by multiple observers since in each case a doctor of that period asserted that the healing could not be explained by contemporary medical understanding. For what it's worth the physician/historian author is elsewhere identified as an atheist and a sceptic (at least as of the early stages of her investigation, with no clear indication that she ever became religious).

Again, each of these reports obviously has some probability of being miraculous. At least until someone can prove philosophical naturalism It is statistically probable that some small percentage of those reports are outright fraudulent, and that many others have natural explanations simply unknown to the doctors of the day. But it is also statistically probable that some of them were genuine miracles: If we examined each and every one of those reports and with the best of our knowledge estimated a probability that they were false, and found them to have an 99% probability of falsehood on average (which is impossibly high), and if we used only the 300 most recent and/or most reliable reports just to make doubly sure, that would still ultimately mean a 95% probability that at least one of those reports was of a genuine miracle.

That's only based on the best knowledge available to us, of course. There might be factors which somehow give each report a 100% probability of falsehood - but there's simply nothing to suggest that (or even anything as high as a 99% probability, for that matter).

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 34 by Mithrae]

I'm not sure whether I edited it in before you started typing your reply,

That is indeed what happened. Your edit was posted at Xh34mins, the exact same time as my last post (I say Xh because I don't know what hour of the day it is for you)

But as I pointed out, the latter also implies that every single report of a miracle is false,

Not is false, but operating as though they are. If there is indeed a miracle, let someone make the claim and present their evidence to me.
To believe there are some miracles anyway, would be me believing something happens in the real world that is in complete violation of all known laws of physics, chemistry etc and for which I as of yet have no examples of.

No as for your example...no it is not an example. You link me to a book which is apparently an examination of a vast array of healings that one religion, the RCC, deems to be miraculous.
I didn't ask for one author's opinion, or a whole laundry list. I asked for one miracle that you think is true, and that has evidence supporting it, in contrast to other claimed miracles.

[Divine Insight]

The topic of the thread is about supernatural claims generally. You made an argument for why you dismiss one such claim, the resurrection of Jesus.

The OP of this thread begins specifically with the question of a resurrected man, or God, or God-man.

From the first paragraph of the OP:

I'd like to focus on the question of bias in these debates regarding, lately and specifically, a resurrected man. Or god. Or... god-man..

So this was not something that I specifically introduced. This was mentioned specifically in the OP.

Your argument was not valid, because in considering some event it is not logical to first assume a necessary relationship between that event and some particular interpretation of an entire religious canon, and nor is it logical to assume that the reporters of the event must be right about their whole theology or else wrong about that event.

I disagree that my argument is not valid. The only claims we have about this even come from the religious dogma. Moreover, it's this religious dogma that claims that Jesus had actually died. We don't know whether Jesus actually died. So we have no reason to believe the claims of a "resurrection" from death. He could have simply recovered three days later from a shock-induced coma.

So the moment you toss out the importance of the religious dogma you no longer have an "event" worthy of consideration. The simple answer in that case is that Jesus simply never died. Period. In order to argue against that you would need to go back to the religious dogma and start arguing for other claims this dogma makes about Jesus. But then you are right back to having a need to support the entire dogma again.

Scholars' investigation of the historical Jesus recognises and draws on the religious context of his time and culture, but does not assume a necessary connection with some specific interpretation of Jewish scripture and history.

In that case they have no way of knowing whether Jesus ever actually died. So they would be in a real pickle to try to draw any conclusions from the claim that Jesus was "resurrected" without also referencing all the other supernatural claims made by this dogma.

As I already said in an earlier post, for the sake of whatever debates you find most enjoyable you can discuss and debunk whatever theological specifics you like. But you will only be arguing against those theological specifics; it will not be a valid argument regarding the probability or otherwise of an alleged historical event, no matter which forum it's posted in.

We have no reason to think that a man having been resurrected from the dead was ever a "historical event". All that exists historically are rumors that such an event occurred, and those rumors contain far more than just the claim that some guy came back from the dead.

In short, there is no historical credence to the claim that some guy actually died and was resurrected from the dead after having been dead for three days.

So you are basically asking me to accept historical rumors as though they represent an actual verified historical event. I see no reason to do that. And I especially see no reason to do that if I am simultaneous being told that I then no permitted to even look into all the rumors that surround this event.

My point is that once we recognize that this claimed "event" is itself a mere part of a far greater collection of rumors, then looking into that larger collection of rumors is paramount. And when we do that we can see that these rumors are filled with self-contradictions, absurdities and immoral principles even though they claim to be about the actions, commandments, and directives of a supposedly moral God.

So in the bigger picture these rumors fail.

I don't see how you can reject this fuller analysis. Why would you reject looking into the entirety of the rumors? It seems to me that the only reason to make this objection would be to avoid the ultimate conclusion that this religious paradigm is necessarily false.

I totally reject any Christian apologists who flat out refuse to consider the totality of their theology for the sake of trying to make some sort of isolated point in the hope that in having made that point this would somehow contribute to, or offer support for, the ultimate larger theology in the end. It's doesn't work that way. If you can't make the whole theology work, then you've already lost the apologetic argument as far as I'm concerned.

[Mithrae]

So you are basically asking me to accept historical rumors as though they represent an actual verified historical event.

No, I'm not There's your binary thinking again: "If someone doesn't agree with 100% of what I type they must be asserting the complete opposite to be true!"

[Divine Insight]

So you are basically asking me to accept historical rumors as though they represent an actual verified historical event.

No, I'm not There's your binary thinking again: "If someone doesn't agree with 100% of what I type they must be asserting the complete opposite to be true!"

If that's your position then there are no "historical events" to even consider on this front.

I see no reason to accept stories and claims in the Christian Gospels as "historical events" anymore than I see a reason to accept the claims of the Islamic Qur'an.

So at this point to suggest that I am "biased" in my rejection of these claims as having no compelling evidence to support them is erroneous. Or that I am rejecting them entirely on the basis that they don't appear to be scientifically possible.

In fact, on that last point I take the opposite position. I'll be more than happy to accept any non-scientific claims of supernatural events. I only require two things:

1. The rumors that make those claims are consistent and not self-contradictory. (I don't see this being the case in the Biblical doctrines.)

And I allow for #1 only in terms of embracing plausibility. Then we come to #2.

2. Even if the claims appear to be logically consistent the question still arises whether there is sufficient evidence to actually believe the claims have merit in terms of actually having occurred. (Again I don't see this as being the case in the Biblical doctrines.)

So the Biblical tales fail both #1 and #2.

So much for any "bias" on my behalf.

And your argument seems to be that you expect me to ignore #1 entirely, and perhaps even go further and accept that #2 has merit.

I see no merit in either #1 or #2 when it comes to the claims made by the Christian Gospels. So there's no bias on my part.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Inigo Montoya]

Goose once implied I was erroneously displaying "an a priori bias toward the supernatural." And now Liam joins recently with "Does common sense include the a priori conclusion that "this cannot happen"?"

The real question is whether common sense tells us a) There is no power beyond the natural order or b) even if there were such an entity, it either could not or would not intervene in the natural order and create an exception.

I can see how common sense could answer in the negative to the question, "Do dead men rise again by natural causes". I do not see how common sense can answer the above questions.

Had I been less diplomatic in both cases I might have responded "You don't say!" I mean, did you not just hear yourself? Dead folk wandering around days after death, then floating up and off into the sky? I guess I'm the one being ridiculous with the raised eyebrow at your "counter."

I would say you are not addressing the real position of Christians. If I were you, so as not to constantly misrepresent the other side, I would rephrase the situation to which you object. Perhaps say something, "did you just hear yourself? There is a divine power beyond the universe that interceded in history by raising Jesus from the dead?"

What bias can I charge the believer of said tales with that allows them to ignore the whole of history and biology, save this one instance,

We ignore nothing. The whole history recounts how nature proceeds on its own. If someone claimed that a man came back to life after three days by natural means, I would a priori exclude it. But that is not the Christian proclamation. Now, if someone claimed that a man three days dead came back to life by an act of God, I would want to examine the historical evidence.

and also notably to the exclusion of all supernatural claims in religions they don't subscribe to as well?

I did not know that I had to deny other claims made outside my religion in order to be a Christian. To what doctrine are you referring?

I'm sorry, you mean you don't believe the supernatural events put forth for your consideration in the Vedas, the Quran, or in the life and times of Sathya Sai Baba? No bias on your part there, hmm?

Present to me the historical evidence for these, noting: a) the gap between written document and event alleged; b) number of claimed eyewitnesses, whether direct or indirect; c) the social/cultural context of the period.

If there is bias, it is bias for good historical work.

"Well present those claims and we'll judge them each, historically, methodically, and see which has the greater explanatory scope and the fewest ad-hoc assumptions. And by that I mean we'll compare ancient Roman armies on the move with zombie sorcerers and pretend they're both apples. Not only will we pretend the claims are in the same universe, categorically, but we'll also only apply those methods of historical inquiry that positively correlate with what makes past events (all mundane, by the way) pass the standard of likelihood."

Annoying, isn't it, Liam?

Yes. But not for the reason you mean.

Do I have a skeptical bias regarding obscure, second and third hand stories of magical deeds and acts from a pre-scientific, superrnatural community? Why yes, actually. Yes I do.

Call me crazy.

I have no idea if you are crazy. I am quite sure youre biased; I am pretty sure you don't understand how historical methodology works.

Is it irrational or illogical to display a skeptical bias toward ancient and unverifiable miraculous/superrnatural claims?

Not at all. The disciples themselves did: they assumed the tomb was empty because the corpse was moved. Many had a hard time believing even after touching Jesus. Some in Corinth claimed that the general resurrection had already occurred, and Paul was beyond skeptical.

But then, the quesiton you ask for debate was not my own. I asked whether it is rational to have an a priori assumption that miracles "CANNOT happen". There is an enormous difference.

[Mithrae]

You're living your life under the assumption of something either way: A universe where miracles do happen or a universe where they don't. But as I pointed out, the latter also implies that every single report of a miracle is false,

Not is false, but operating as though they are. If there is indeed a miracle, let someone make the claim and present their evidence to me.

Just as the complementary position is not 'believing' miracles are real, merely operating under the assumption that they are - and if there are no such thing as miracles, let someone present a case showing that the observational reports of them are false! However thinly or tentatively you want to define each position, the one which operates as though all observational miracle reports are false takes a bigger leap in logic than the one which operates as though a smaller percentage are (since that smaller percentage can be demonstrated and statistically inferred, but makes no implication about most specific reports).

Since you have asserted that there is no other difference between the two worlds/views, it follows that the latter is more reasonable.

To believe there are some miracles anyway, would be me believing something happens in the real world that is in complete violation of all known laws of physics, chemistry etc and for which I as of yet have no examples of.

Consider how many times a day (within hour-long blocks, for example) a human observes your home's bathroom... or laundry... or alley down the side of the building... or your workplace bathroom. I'd hazard a guess that even in big cities, the majority of what exists and occurs in a given hour is not observed by any human at all. Over all populated land surfaces of this planet, reliable scientific observations along with common human experience have a coverage of perhaps 1 or 2% even at macro scales in the visible spectrum of light.

So granted, early scientists decided to call the patterns recognised in our consistent observations 'laws,' believing that they were uncovering the divinely-ordained order in the universe. That has led to some unfortunate confusion further on down the line. Because as important and useful as they are in the scientific process, technology and everyday life, ultimately what they are is 'just' a set of observations... and fairly limited observations at that, even within the narrow scope of visible spectrums on populated land surfaces of the planet.

There are also reported observations of things which are anomalies or exceptions to those patterns, which we call miracles or paranormal or (though the term is ultimately incoherent) 'supernatural.' And observations A, B, C, D and E, which fit into some particular pattern, provide no logical basis for asserting that observation F, which does not fit that pattern, must be false.

Unless you are making a case for philosophical naturalism, of course?

No as for your example...no it is not an example. You link me to a book which is apparently an examination of a vast array of healings that one religion, the RCC, deems to be miraculous.
I didn't ask for one author's opinion, or a whole laundry list. I asked for one miracle that you think is true, and that has evidence supporting it, in contrast to other claimed miracles.

No it didn't meet your criteria, but it nevertheless demonstrates a high probability that miracles do occur. From that ~99% probability we could deduct a likelihood that the physician author simply doesn't know what would constitute a medical miracle (perhaps 1% chance ), and a possibility that all of the reports she investigated were simply made up out of whole cloth by the Vatican (1%? 10%? it would largely depend on how many priests would have to be tacitly complicit in that conspiracy). By any reasonable estimation that I can think of, we're still left with an 80-90% probability that there are some genuine miracles recorded there.

Most if not all singular exceptional events are likely to have a lower probability than that; being non-repeatable, all we'd need is an alternative explanation pulled out of thin air which nevertheless crosses a 20% threshold. But for one example you could look into the Hebrew sections of the biblical book of Daniel, for which the balance of evidence (perhaps 60 or 70% probability absent naturalist presumptions) suggests a 6th century BCE date of composition, but remarkably predicts future events of the Persian and Greek empires.