Survivor bias

[jeremyp]

Firstly Religion does not fit into survivorship bias studies since religions often do not have the same features as each other.

And often they do.

Survivorship bias doesn't really have much going for it as an explanatory for anything.
In the UK would you say there is survivorship bias for secular humanism?

Clearly you still don't get it.

Finally I can still see you mistaking survivorship bias for The reason things survive.

Survivorship bias doesn't necessarily say anything about why things survive. Christianity survived for whatever reason - probably being at the right place at the right time, politically. You'd have to examine all the religions that didn't make it to find out if any of its articles of faith had anything to do with it.

[jeremyp]

Survivorship bias is about situations where competition has broadly an equal chance of surviving but gets through by chance and the survivors characteristics are mistaken for the real reason of success.

How goes that not apply to Christianity?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

Yes but you are guilty of survivor bias here because you have overlooked the Jewish unicyclists here and ignored any effort to explain their obvious lack of success in corporate law at this time.

Not very bright is it...

If, say, a mysterious illness has swept the US in the 1930s that wiped out non-Jewish trainee unicyclists then there would have been a crop of successful Jewish unicyclists because they'd be the ones you'd have heard of. That doesn't mean that they were inherently better - or more "fit" - at unicycling, but only that they appear to be so to you because you ignored the other 99% who never made it.

Now for "non-Jewish trainee unicyclists" substitute "religions that failed", and for "Jewish unicyclists" substitute, "religions that thrived".

Get it now?

Perhaps if you read up a little on survivor bias before posting again you'd be less prone to making the same mistake again?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How goes that not apply to Christianity?

Surviving by chance is not the same as survivorship bias which is an error in analysing that success.

It also ignores Fitness and Niche amongst other things and even then I don't know that Darwinian evolution or natural selection is the total reason for the survival of ideas......For example are you prepared to say that science has survived merely by chance.......or that it is merely and Darwinianly evolved?

[Gordon]

I would propose that Christianity had less chance of survival than loads of religions. I do think though that the 'survivor' you have identified is churchianity rather than Christianity although that only survives on christianity's coat tail and not the other way round.

Don't be daft, Vlad, it is self-evident that Christianity has survived since we are talking about it in 2015 whereas as other religions that co-existed with it are defunct - it would be easy for current Christians to see this as confirmation that Christianity is therefore more 'true' than the alternatives - but that may be just bias if there are other reasons why Christianity has survived.

One of these may be the 'churchianity' you mention which gave Christianity power and influence both socially and politically, and it is this rather than the supernatural claims that is the key to its survival and will likely be the key to its decline as its influence wanes.

I understand that what you are saying is because religions are all shit

There is that too.

[jeremyp]

Surviving by chance is not the same as survivorship bias which is an error in analysing that success.

Correct. Christians make an error in analysing the success of their religion by not surveying the other religions that didn't make it to see if they had the same attributes as Christianity.

It also ignores Fitness and Niche amongst other things and even then I don't know that Darwinian evolution or natural selection is the total reason for the survival of ideas......For example are you prepared to say that science has survived merely by chance.......or that it is merely evolved?

What alternatives have there been to science for explaining the World that did not survive?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Correct. Christians make an error in analysing the success of their religion by not surveying the other religions that didn't make it to see if they had the same attributes as Christianity.

Any evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What alternatives have there been to science for explaining the World that did not survive?

yes, the French philosophical approach to science......a version of which has been suggested by Bluehillside's poster boy Sean Carroll who has suggested removing falsifiability from science.

[jeremyp]

Any evidence?

How many Christians are aware that there were hundreds of messiahs around at the time of Jesus or thatChristianity was one of a group of mystery religions in the Greek world at the time. I'm pretty sure Hope (as an example) ignores all these other similar religions when he claims Christianity is unique.

You sometimes hear Christians say "only in Christianity does God assume human form, suffer death and then get resurrected" which might be true today but it was a common motif in the first century.

[jeremyp]

yes, the French philosophical approach to science......a version of which has been suggested by Bluehillside's poster boy Sean Carroll who has suggested removing falsifiability from science.

That's still science though, isn't it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How many Christians are aware that there were hundreds of messiahs around at the time of Jesus or thatChristianity was one of a group of mystery religions in the Greek world at the time. I'm pretty sure Hope (as an example) ignores all these other similar religions when he claims Christianity is unique.

You sometimes hear Christians say "only in Christianity does God assume human form, suffer death and then get resurrected" which might be true today but it was a common motif in the first century.

1) If there were hundreds of messiahs Jeremy why are you a Jesus Myther?
Special pleading what?
2) Any evidence that Christians weren't  or aren't aware of other messiahs......... when asked for evidence you just reasserted!
3) Christians are aware of other dying and rising Gods. That's why CS Lewis and others refer to Christianity as myth become fact.

Sorry to comprehensively have pissed on your bonfire Jez.

[Jack Knave]

Jack Knave wrote:

Interesting stuff, Jack, although I'm not sure about 'merely' symbolic, since you could argue that humans are intensely symbolic animals.   However, as you say, this argument partly explains every religion, although no doubt there are other factors.   The anthropologist Scot Atran has some interesting stuff on how tribal religions 'carry' cultural information, e.g. they encode stuff like agricultural and hunting techniques, issues to do with fertility, survival of the tribe and so on.   Presumably, industrialism gives a fatal shock to this kind of religion.

Christians tend to baffle me, when they want to say that their ideas are true and literally correct, and so on.  Why not say that it's my set of symbols?  I suppose it was meant to be universally applicable, which is obviously not correct.

We are symbolic because of our relationship with the Unconscious - it doesn't have to be religious in nature to be so.

In the early days of tribes religion and culture were basically one and the same thing. It is only as the modern world approached that things became more differentiated.

"Presumably, industrialism gives a fatal shock to this kind of religion." - Not too sure what you are implying here. You could argue that Marxism is a kind of modern religion where we are the gods, or the leaders are - often referred to by psychologists as inflation or megalomania. Something had to fill the void left by Christianity as the central factor in society.

"Christians tend to baffle me, when they want to say that their ideas are true and literally correct, and so on.  Why not say that it's my set of symbols?  I suppose it was meant to be universally applicable, which is obviously not correct.

You could say the same about the US and the West's belief in its system of governing life. We all want to change other people to see the world the way we do - it's the tribal instinct.

[jeremyp]

1) If there were hundreds of messiahs Jeremy why are you a Jesus Myther?
Special pleading what?

The word "Messiah" just means "anointed one". King David was a Messiah (if he existed).

Anyway, I'm not a mythicist. I think there was a founder of Christianity and I think he was executed. I wouldn't go much further than that though.

2) Any evidence that Christians weren't  or aren't aware of other messiahs......... when asked for evidence you just reasserted!

No, you asked for evidence that some Christians don't survey the failed religions. All the messiahs running round is disputed fact (Josephus).

3) Christians are aware of other dying and rising Gods. That's why CS Lewis and others refer to Christianity as myth become fact.

CS Lewis is not all Christians. Can you name any of the other mystery cults around at the time?

[wigginhall]

Good point about Marxism, Jack.  It seems like secular eschatology really.   

Yes, it's true that many people, religious or not, want to convert everybody else.   I was thinking about the split in Christianity between symbolism and literal truth, but anyway, it's din-dins.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's why CS Lewis and others refer to Christianity as myth become fact.

I rather like the Narnia books (for sentimental reasons), but he is a bit of a numpty otherwise.

'Myth' cannot become 'fact' merely because people believe it. Myth is always myth, fact is always fact regardless of how many people recognise them to be as such. Sure people can come to recognise that which they once considered fact to actually be myth, likewise people can come to recognise that which they once considered myth to actually be fact - but that isn't about what they actually are, but about how they are perceived.

[Jack Knave]

If you are saying Christian culture has changed to fit circumstance you are mistaking Christianity for culture.  The central feature of Christianity is Christ and knowing him. That informs cultures but is never altered by them.

But that simple process then sets up questions about how do you get to know him and from that relationship how do you live and conduct your life - and that is culture and ethics. Cultural norms will even state how you get to know him and so on. You can't escape it. What do you think caused the Reformation? Standard ways of doing things some being corrupt. The new ways created allsorts of cultures like the Anabaptists. Or the Puritans who said music and dancing etc. was not of God, all of which came from this alleged relationship with JC and God. And all this has shaped our world in one way or another - the twist and turns of life.

When the wright brothers decided to make a plane and not strapped wings to flap on themselves they were assured success. There was no chance about it.

But it didn't occur in a vacuum they were standing on the history that came before them and what they used had been developed by others - all the twists and turns of life.

[Jack Knave]

As applied to Christianity: people sometimes survey all the extant religions and then claim some feature that only their religion has makes it unique and therefore True. But they ignore all the religions that have died out and that had the same features as their favourite.

That's a good and pertinent one. Many of the features of the NT have ideas similar to other faiths and philosophies. The need for them to reject this and so make their faith unique is a typical tribal trait.

[wigginhall]

I thought that early Christianity had its roots in Jewish apocalypticism,  'the signs of the close of the age' and so on.  But this faded as the age did not close, so Christianity changed considerably from an end-time orientation to something quite different. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I rather like the Narnia books (for sentimental reasons), but he is a bit of a numpty otherwise.

'Myth' cannot become 'fact' merely because people believe it. Myth is always myth, fact is always fact regardless of how many people recognise them to be as such. Sure people can come to recognise that which they once considered fact to actually be myth, likewise people can come to recognise that which they once considered myth to actually be fact - but that isn't about what they actually are, but about how they are perceived.

I'm pretty sure his understanding of myth differs from yours not least in the respect of the literary and historical expertise he had.

Having studied numerous myths he concluded that the New testament was reportage and what other religions were missing was Christ. He was saying that Christianity had particular unique elements. Now we have to ask ourselves if his view is right and yours is not an antitheists survivorship bias in favour of philosophical materialism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's still science though, isn't it.

is it?

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm pretty sure his understanding of myth differs from yours not least in the respect of the literary and historical expertise he had.

Well perhaps we should use the dictionary definition - indeed the Oxford dictionary definition which, as an Oxford academic, I guess he would acknowledge:

Myth
1 a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events: ancient Celtic myths | [ mass noun ] : the heroes of Greek myth.
2 a widely held but false belief or idea: the belief that evening primrose oil helps to cure eczema is a myth, according to dermatologists.
• a fictitious or imaginary person or thing. nobody had ever heard of Simon's mysterious friend—Anna said he was a myth.
• an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing: the book is a scholarly study of the Churchill myth.

So, although 1 doesn't quite iterate is specifically there is a clear indication that the story isn't actually true. @ goes further to make clear it is a 'false belief' - therefore the notion that a false belief somehow becomes fact is a non-sense statement.

[Jack Knave]

Gordon, I think you don't know what the core Christian claims are. That is because you are guilty of survivorship bias toward Secular Humanism.

By all means prove me wrong by listing them here and now.

The idea that ideas survive through pure chance is as nonsense as saying mathematical equations survive through pure chance, or combinations of numbers survive through pure chance. An idea which is universal never dies nor mutates.

That you guys compare Leprechauns and spaghetti with God or sixties music with religion just shows how misinformed you guys are.

"An idea which is universal never dies nor mutates."

What do you have in mind here, as an universal idea? Example please.

[Jack Knave]

Without either of these, and noting that christianity failed to take root in the place and time of its inception, then I doubt anyone would be talking about christianity today - and as with the Gladwell examples, both of these elements of good fortune for christianity were just luck.

That's a good point. Did God fail?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"An idea which is universal never dies nor mutates."

What do you have in mind here, as an universal idea? Example please.

Er the scientific method
Any moral argument
Any Divine argument
Anything which could if true apply to all men and women
Anything which could if true apply to the whole cosmos.......

........that sort of thing.

[Jack Knave]

But their ability to become lawyers in the first place was down to good luck of time and place of birth.

have you actually read the book or just making ill informed comments as usual Vlad?

Surveyors bias can include things like luck but it is not a fundamental aspect of it. It is to do with how data may be incomplete due to the unwarranted focus on certain specific data because it has in fact survived for the observer who because of their 'location' less favourable data is out of view.