Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As I said the only way the crucifixion of Christ could be faked is with the full cooperation of the Roman and Jewish authorities

Just saying something doesn’t make it true though, especially when what you’re saying is also an argument from personal incredulity. 

Or You could just be considering a resurrection without any context.
Therefore the person in Staffordshire I would imagine has no particularly religious context.

Oh dear. You’re lost in circular reasoning here: the resurrection story is used to justify claims of a supernatural god; now you’re arguing that the “context” of a supernatural god validates the resurrection story. 

Can you see where you’ve gone wrong here?

The NT actually has three resurrections Lazarus, The boy who fell from the window who fell asleep during a meeting with Paul. So the NT, in your scheme gives us three potential religions. So either Jesus won because ''He survived because he survived'' Or he had a religious context in which it all makes sense.

Or the Jesus story “won” for reasons that could well have nothing to do with the resurrection story being true – like Christianity being selected by Constantine I as the approved religion for example. That’s the point.

Something which does not fit a niche in religion is hardly going to fit a niche in religious thinking.

See above re circular reasoning: the resurrection story justifies the religious thinking; the religious thinking justifies the resurrection story; the resurrection story justifies the….” etc, and round and round you go. 

There is the obscure phenomenon of survivor bias but that is completely put in the shade by the principle of survival of the fittest so unless you can come up with an actual example of something either surviving or dying out for no reason.........

Your ignorance of survivorship bias is showing here. The bias (which is common by the way) comes from looking at the survivors and drawing your conclusions from only that group. Once famous case for example concerned WWII bombers that needed extra armour, so the boffins looked at the bullet holes in them and decided that that’s where the armour should go – mainly in the wings and fuselage. What they forgot though was the silent evidence of the ‘planes that never made it back – ie, the ones that had been shot down because the bullets hit the engines and the cockpits, which is where the armour should really go.

Short version: evolution concerns natural selection, not artificial selection.     

Apart from all that though…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Surviver bias isn't an obscure phenomenon - it is extremely well known. In the form you are alluding it is framed around the notion that someone, or something, that survives must be somehow special, better, more valid, more worthy etc when in fact it might just be lucky.

Christianity happened to come along at the right time and in the right place. And that time wasn't the 1stC and that place wasn't Palestine. Rather in was around 313AD and Rome. Christianity hit lucky in being the right religion at the right time to attract a modernising Constantine.

Another religion that found their stars aligning in the same way would also have become dominant. Similarly, had Christianity not hit lucky, it would likely have gained no more prominence than a minor sect or cult (or rather a series of minor sects or cults).

Not helping yourself - so you are implying that resurrections were ten a penny back in those days. And of course there are countless other claims of dead people coming back to life in antiquity.

So did resurrection suddenly go out of fashion or are we looking at the claims of superstitious societies that fill the gaps of their lack of knowledge with stuff which isn't true. Remember thunder is the gods fighting, earthquakes are the elephants on which the earth rests moving etc etc.

No they weren't ten a penny, In fact it was incredible even in those days hence Paul being assailed by peoples doubts about it.

I don't have to help myself, it is you who has to square accepting documentation in one case 8 centuries after the event but rejecting out of hand documentation from 2 centuries.

Resurrection in two of the occasions is attributed to Jesus and the Holy spirit and Jesus was raised by God.

Secondly what has this got to do with Hillside's theory of survivor bias going on?

[ProfessorDavey]

... unless you can come up with an actual example of something either surviving or dying out for no reason.........

Happens all the time - if by good luck you sit in one plane seat rather than another you may survive a plane crash while someone in a different seat dies. What exactly is the reason for one person living and the other dying, beyond the good fortune of randomly allocated choice of seat. Certainly there is no evidence that the person who survives is somehow 'fitter' than the person who dies.

[Spud]

Spud,

That's a bit like saying that Harry Potter must have been able to fly on broomsticks because it was the wizard Dumbledore who said it was so. Adding an extra fantastical claim to a story ("angel") doesn't thereby validate the prior fantastical claim (a resurrection).

In Luke, the men on the road to Emmaus had to be shown that the Law and the Prophets pointed to the resurrection. So there is also that to consider. But I agree it is strange that the resurrection appearances may not have been included in Matthew's core narrative. Luke's introduction is a clue because it can be understood to state that many people were involved in the writing of the first account, by which he could have meant Matthew (which was his main source).
If this is so, then it would seem that additions by other disciples were superimposed onto a core narrative which included the teaching material, to make up the whole "Matthew" we have. But to me this is not as clear as the conclusion that Mark used Matthew and Luke as his main sources - of that I'm much more convinced.

[ProfessorDavey]

No they weren't ten a penny, In fact it was incredible even in those days hence Paul being assailed by peoples doubts about it.

Seems to be a pretty mainstream myth in ancient times and ancient mythology (and I include christianity in that category).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

Vlad - why is Jesus' resurrection so important but the resurrection of all these other gods etc not so? Or do you simply not believe in the resurrection myths of other religions and cultures but believe in the resurrection myth of Christianity despite there is no more evidence for the latter than the former.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No they weren't ten a penny, In fact it was incredible even in those days hence Paul being assailed by peoples doubts about it.

Yes they were. The resurrection story alone features multiply in preceding traditions, and itself is likely to rooted in pagan beliefs about the turning of the seasons.

I don't have to help myself, it is you who has to square accepting documentation in one case 8 centuries after the event but rejecting out of hand documentation from 2 centuries.

Yes you do - you need to consider why some stories are accepted by (some) people and others aren't - specifically you need to explain why you're not applying bog standard survivorship bias to justify the acceptance of some stories but not of others.   

Resurrection in two of the occasions is attributed to Jesus and the Holy spirit and Jesus was raised by God.

Fallacy of reification. You're arguing by assertion here.

Secondly what has this got to do with Hillside's theory of survivor bias going on?

Everything. See whether you can work out for yourself why.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

In Luke, the men on the road to Emmaus had to be shown that the Law and the Prophets pointed to the resurrection. So there is also that to consider. But I agree it is strange that the resurrection appearances may not have been included in Matthew's core narrative. Luke's introduction is a clue because it can be understood to state that many people were involved in the writing of the first account, by which he could have meant Matthew (which was his main source).
If this is so, then it would seem that additions by other disciples were superimposed onto a core narrative which included the teaching material, to make up the whole "Matthew" we have. But to me this is not as clear as the conclusion that Mark used Matthew and Luke as his main sources - of that I'm much more convinced.

You're missing the point. You can't justify a claim by asserting that an "angel" witnessed it without first justifying the claim "angel".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Surviver bias isn't an obscure phenomenon - it is extremely well known. In the form you are alluding it is framed around the notion that someone, or something, that survives must be somehow special, better, more valid, more worthy etc when in fact it might just be lucky.

I think we need to examine what you mean by survived in the context of religion and what it means to be lucky in the same context.

Christianity happened to come along at the right time and in the right place. And that time wasn't the 1stC and that place wasn't Palestine. Rather in was around 313AD and Rome. Christianity hit lucky in being the right religion at the right time to attract a modernising Constantine.

I'm minded of nuclear scientists working on a solution to the problem of conveying information of the dangers of nuclear radiation to not just future generations but future civilisations. They recognise that normal means of communication and transmission are not likely to work since the civilisation is likely to pass. However they acknowledge that religions can span civilisations.

This makes examples of survivor bias and stories of getting lucky seem rather paltry when making comparison with religion.

Another religion that found their stars aligning in the same way would also have become dominant. Similarly, had Christianity not hit lucky, it would likely have gained no more prominence than a minor sect or cult (or rather a series of minor sects or cults).

Again you are putting things all down to luck and therefore can neither give or feel the necessity to find cause. Again how do you get lucky as a religion?

[Spud]

Spud,

You're missing the point. You can't justify a claim by asserting that an "angel" witnessed it without first justifying the claim "angel".

But if there had been prophecies spanning centuries that someone's granny would one day rise from the dead...

[Gordon]

As I said the only way the crucifixion of Christ could be faked is with the full cooperation of the Roman and Jewish authorities Or You could just be considering a resurrection without any context.

Have you considered that the resurrection account could be wholly fictitious? No need for subterfuge or trickery, and a context for that could be the need for the local Jesus fan club to 'keep the dream alive' via a fantastical story that would appeal to the credulous and keep the show on the road - after all, the local culture was highly religious to the point of being a theocracy.

The claim is yours, as is the burden of proof, but you guys seem incapable of even considering the risks of mistake, exaggeration and lies and, in my view, unless you can show a basis for disposing of these risks then the resurrection story isn't worth taking seriously as historical fact.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think we need to examine what you mean by survived in the context of religion and what it means to be lucky in the same context.

Why? Both should be obvious I’d have thought.

I'm minded of nuclear scientists working on a solution to the problem of conveying information of the dangers of nuclear radiation to not just future generations but future civilisations. They recognise that normal means of communication and transmission are not likely to work since the civilisation is likely to pass. However they acknowledge that religions can span civilisations.

This makes examples of survivor bias and stories of getting lucky seem rather paltry when making comparison with religion.

No it doesn’t. Even if that story was true, it wouldn’t imply that the religious stories themselves were also true - just that the religions were a convenient vehicle for other, non-religious purposes. You know, the same rationale for Constantine I picking Christianity.
 
Short version: you’ve shot yourself in both feet here.

Again you are putting things all down to luck and therefore can neither give or feel the necessity to find cause. Again how do you get lucky as a religion?

Why not look at all those religions that have survived but whose stories you do not think to be true for your answer? If their content isn’t true, how come they did so well but for luck and happenstance?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

But if there had been prophecies spanning centuries that someone's granny would one day rise from the dead...

'
Those "prophecies" fail rational scrutiny.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seems to be a pretty mainstream myth in ancient times and ancient mythology (and I include christianity in that category).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

Vlad - why is Jesus' resurrection so important but the resurrection of all these other gods etc not so? Or do you simply not believe in the resurrection myths of other religions and cultures but believe in the resurrection myth of Christianity despite there is no more evidence for the latter than the former.

Religious context old boy. The ''gods'' manifest to have fun, or show off, or have their wicked way. So really there is no cosmic significance to this at all. In other pantheons Gods manifest in many strange not quite human forms maintaining a kind of distance....and perhaps God's manifest and die because these Gods may not have escaped or be above a realm of death or domination by greater but natural forces.

Key to my religion though is my own experience of Revelations 3:20. Because of that the resurrection story is consistent and meaningful. I have yet to encounter other Gods and I can join with whoever said other religions just don't seem to move me and, I think you'll find they don't seem to move a lot on this forum even those who are atheist as much as christianity seems to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why? Both should be obvious I’d have thought.

No it doesn’t. Even if that story was true, it wouldn’t imply that the religious stories themselves were also true - just that the religions were a convenient vehicle for other, non-religious purposes. You know, the same rationale for Constantine I picking Christianity.
 
Short version: you’ve shot yourself in both feet here.

Why not look at all those religions that have survived but whose stories you do not think to be true for your answer? If their content isn’t true, how come they did so well but for luck and happenstance?

So would you say that secular humanism is on the increase because it got lucky.

In other words just like your selective dismissal of old documents I expect you to come up. ''oh no, that didn't succeed because of survivor bias'' in an orgy of special pleading.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Religious context old boy. The ''gods'' manifest to have fun, or show off, or have their wicked way. So really there is no cosmic significance to this at all. In other pantheons Gods manifest in many strange not quite human forms maintaining a kind of distance....and perhaps God's manifest and die because these Gods may not have escaped or be above a realm of death or domination by greater but natural forces.

So now you’re trying a mash up of circular reasoning and the argumentum ad consequentiam "Old Boy"; An omni-fallacy if you will.

Good luck trying to explain what any of this has to do with the whether the resurrection story is actually true though.   

Key to my religion though is my own experience of Revelations 3:20. Because of that the resurrection story is consistent and meaningful. I have yet to encounter other Gods and I can join with whoever said other religions just don't seem to move me and, I think you'll find they don't seem to move a lot on this forum even those who are atheist as much as christianity seems to.

It’s pretty likely you’ve yet to encounter any gods, but in any case this still has sweet FA to say about whether the basic resurrection story is also true. You’re feelings about the story if it’s true are neither here nor there for this purpose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So would you say that secular humanism is on the increase because it got lucky.

In other words just like your selective dismissal of old documents I expect you to come up. ''oh no, that didn't succeed because of survivor bias'' in an orgy of special pleading.[/quote]

Then you expect wrongly. All faith claims are epistemically equivalent in the absence of some means of objective validation. Luck and happenstance or appeal to the emotions is all there is to separate them. "Secular humanism" on the other hand (albeit bearing in mind that it's anyone's guess what you mean by this term) is underpinned by reason. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

In other words just like your selective dismissal of old documents I expect you to come up. ''oh no, that didn't succeed because of survivor bias'' in an orgy of special pleading.

Then you expect wrongly. All faith claims are epistemically equivalent in the absence of some means of objective validation. Luck and happenstance or appeal to the emotions is all there is to separate them. "Secular humanism" on the other hand (albeit bearing in mind that it's anyone's guess what you mean by this term) is underpinned by reason.

Predictable that you should immediately go into your special pleading routine.

[ProfessorDavey]

Predictable that you should immediately go into your special pleading routine.

Nope Vlad it is you that is in classic special pleading mode:

Vlad - 'My resurrection is bigger than you resurrection.'
Everyone else - 'Why?'
Vlad - 'Cos it is'
Everyone else - 'But that's not an explanation - there's no more evidence for your resurrection than any of the others. Why is yours more important'
Vlad - 'Cos it is'
Everyone else - 'But that's not an explanation - why wont you engage with the point?'
Vlad - 'I'll squeem and squeeze until I'm sick. Yah boo - secular humanism, Dawkins, Dawkins, Dawkins'
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

In other words just like your selective dismissal of old documents I expect you to come up. ''oh no, that didn't succeed because of survivor bias'' in an orgy of special pleading.

Then you expect wrongly. All faith claims are epistemically equivalent in the absence of some means of objective validation. Luck and happenstance or appeal to the emotions is all there is to separate them. "Secular humanism" on the other hand (albeit bearing in mind that it's anyone's guess what you mean by this term) is underpinned by reason.

Look, If you are saying survival is either a matter of luck and that the best can go to the wall in survival bias then it may not even matter that  secular Human is underpinned by reason.....something i'm not persuaded of.

If something survives by being reasonable then the world would not be the place it is today.
At the moment secular humanism is doing well I would move because it fits the emotional mood that you can be good without this that and the other.

If something survives in religion then that it could be because it is fit in the context of religion. So Survival of the fittest trumps survival bias and sheer luck but is itself trumped because what you are putting down as the main influencers, civilisation and society collapse and yet the religion still stands.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope Vlad it is you that is in classic special pleading mode:

Vlad - 'My resurrection is bigger than you resurrection.'

I think you mean ''Erection''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Predictable that you should immediately go into your special pleading routine.

I’ll add special pleading to the list of terms you attempt but don’t understand...

Look, If you are saying survival is either a matter of luck and that the best can go to the wall in survival bias then it may not even matter that  secular Human is underpinned by reason.....something i'm not persuaded of.

…and now survivorship bias makes the list too.

If something survives by being reasonable then the world would not be the place it is today. At the moment secular humanism is doing well I would move because it fits the emotional mood that you can be good without this that and the other.

The “world is the place it is today” inasmuch as it has procedures and technologies that for many of us much better serve our needs than those that came before. That’s what happens when reason and evidence are applied in a purposive way.   

If something survives in religion then that it could be because it is fit in the context of religion.

And now circular reasoning joins the list…

So Survival of the fittest…

Evolution isn’t “survival of the fittest” – that’s a common misnomer…

…trumps survival bias and sheer luck but is itself trumped because what you are putting down as the main influencers, civilisation and society collapse and yet the religion still stands.

No, religions (plural) survive – either you think they do so because they’re all correct or you must allow for other factors. Coincidentally there’s a piece in today’s Indie that tells you why Christianity is one of them – basically better PR and a more successful army. Nothing to do with it’s various myths and shibboleths being true though:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/christianity-news-propaganda-archaeology-b1832070.html   

(For anyone interested when you click the link it asks you to sign up to read the article, but when you try it a second time it seems to work ok.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evolution isn’t “survival of the fittest” – that’s a common misnomer…

And where did I mention evolution, once again we are talking about survival......like introducing the idea that rational or true ideas are immune to survival bias...A red Herring on your part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And where did I mention evolution, once again we are talking about survival......like introducing the idea that rational or true ideas are immune to survival bias...A red Herring on your part.

No, it's the same mistake - in natural systems it's survival of the best adapted, not the "fittest". In purposive systems though (ie man-made ones like religions), it's survival by happenstance as the article illustrates. 

[jeremyp]

In Luke, the men on the road to Emmaus had to be shown that the Law and the Prophets pointed to the resurrection. So there is also that to consider. But I agree it is strange that the resurrection appearances may not have been included in Matthew's core narrative. Luke's introduction is a clue because it can be understood to state that many people were involved in the writing of the first account, by which he could have meant Matthew (which was his main source).
If this is so, then it would seem that additions by other disciples were superimposed onto a core narrative which included the teaching material, to make up the whole "Matthew" we have. But to me this is not as clear as the conclusion that Mark used Matthew and Luke as his main sources - of that I'm much more convinced.

It's telling, I think, that the stories associated with the crucifixion in each of the four gospels are broadly similar right up until the moment that corresponds to Mark 16:8. After that the stories diverge (except Mark, which just stops). The most likely explanation seems to me that the other three authors were just copying Mark and each made up their own stories (or collected different oral traditions) to fill in the post resurrection void.

[jeremyp]

Vlad,

No, it's the same mistake - in natural systems it's survival of the best adapted, not the "fittest". In purposive systems though (ie man-made ones like religions), it's survival by happenstance as the article illustrates.

There may be features of Christianity as a religion that make it better adapted to survive and grow in the conditions that pertained in Europe over the last two millennia. It may not be purely happenstance.

For example, great emphasis is placed on proselytism. Go out and spread the word is a big message of Christianity. Also, Christianity is not a religion that is tolerant of other beliefs ("I am a jealous god" etc). These two facets alone make for a religion that spreads fast and displaces other beliefs. Then there's the fact that Christianity is a religion that discourages rebellion against the status quo (render unto Caesar etc). This makes it attractive as a tool for rulers. There were probably several religions that Constantine could have chosen to help mould his empire. Why did he choose Christianity? Probably because he knew he could use it.