Science and spirituality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just to correct you: whether the resurrection story is a hoax, a mistake, a deliberate manipulation of the facts, a case of survivorship bias or anything else naturalistic is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is whether or not the Christian version of the story satisfies the basic tests of historicity which, for reasons that have been set out exhaustively on the this mb, it does not. That’s why it has no place in academic history.   

No amount of your “look over there” distractions about other possible explanations changes that – even if you conclude that every known possible naturalistic explanation fails the tests of historicity too, that does not have any effect on the validity of the supernatural version.

Short version: the burden of proof is still with you to demonstrate your claim, not with others to demonstrate alternatives.

You’re welcome.     

There are no historical documents outlining the hoax hypothesis, how it was done or who perpertrated it.

It absolutely falls on what the resurrection is accused of.

A bit like that other antitheist gaffe...accusing the principle of sufficient reason of not having sufficient reason.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There are no historical documents outlining the hoax hypothesis, how it was done or who perpertrated it.

It absolutely falls on what the resurrection is accused of.

A bit like that other antitheist gaffe...accusing the principle of sufficient reason of not having sufficient reason.

Did you not read the correction you were given, or did you not understand it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the viability of Conspiratorial beliefs David Grimes PLOS ONE
Magazine.

How long does it take for a conspiracy to come out S. Blaiw The Correspondent.

[Gordon]

On the viability of Conspiratorial beliefs David Grimes PLOS ONE
Magazine.

How long does it take for a conspiracy to come out S. Blaiw The Correspondent.

Links please.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Links please.

Just out of interest, why? I’ve already explained to him (and he’s ignored or not understood) that even if there were not one piece of evidence for a hoax or for any of the many other possible naturalistic explanations for the resurrection story, that would move the epistemological dial on the Christian narrative not one jot of a smidgen of an iota. If the Christian story fails the basic tests of historicity (as it does) then no amount of evidence or lack of it for other possible explanations changes that.

Vlad is just playing his “look over there” distraction card while he makes good his escape, so I don’t see how asking him where “there” is would address anything useful or relevant.
     

[jeremyp]

Had it been a hoax it should have died out sooner.
Hoaxes of longevity should still be around today....You’ll be able to list the hoaxes of similar longevity I take it.

What's your view on Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism? Are these hoaxes? Why haven't they died out?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Links please.

You 've been provided with the references please don't take the piss.

[Nearly Sane]

You 've been provided with the references please don't take the piss.

stop lying

[Sriram]

Hinduism is at least 4000 years old....maybe older...  It is also probably the most acceptable philosophical position (among all religious philosophies) in today's world.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's your view on Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism? Are these hoaxes? Why haven't they died out?

Buddhism IMHO is an anthropology philosophy with techniques that apparently work. Hinduism is a range of religious practices with an underlying monist philosophy. Philosophies are not hoaxes.
Islam is a monotheism, Mormons is an American Christian sect based on Gold artifacts which couldn't later be produced, a polygamy that seems to be a male fantasy and an alternative history that is majorly contradictory to evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

Buddhism IMHO is an anthropology philosophy with techniques that apparently work. Hinduism is a range of religious practices with an underlying monist philosophy. Philosophies are not hoaxes.
Islam is a monotheism, Mormons is an American Christian sect based on Gold artifacts which couldn't later be produced, a polygamy that seems to be a male fantasy and an alternative history that is majorly contradictory to evidence.

'anthropology philosophy', you eating alphabetti spaghetti?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'anthropology philosophy', you eating alphabetti spaghetti?

Sorry they don't have commas in alphabetti spaghetti.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry they don't have commas in alphabetti spaghetti.

Obviously not.

[ProfessorDavey]

Had it been a hoax it should have died out sooner.

But surely the key point of a hoax is that it is a deliberate deception - in other words the hoaxer knows that the story is one that they have made up and isn't true.

That isn't the same as a genuine belief in something that isn't true.

So I doubt there are many people who think that christianity arose due to a hoax - in other words those actually present at the time made up stuff they know to be untrue. Possible of course, but completely unnecessary for the development of christianity later. I suspect the most likely explanation is that later authors etc embellished, exaggerated and/or misinterpreted what had come from earlier. So an empty tomb is interpreted as a resurrection (when that may not be what those there at the time thought), a dream like vision is exaggerated to a real physical Jesus with wounds you can push your finger in, a vague recollection passed down through several generation is embellished to create a detailed (too details to be believable) narrative.

Now unless those people in the late 1stC through to the middle 4thC (note that none of them were there at the time of the purported resurrection) genuinely knew that they were creating something untrue - in other words they knew there was no resurrection but made stuff up nonetheless, then there is no hoax. What you have is genuine believers creating stories and documents that support their genuinely held belief, regardless of whether what they believe is true or not.

It is only a hoax if the people transmitting the story know it to be untrue but make up stuff to deliberately deceive. I see no more reason for that to be the case for the resurrection than for a belief that the earth was flat or the sun went round the earth - genuinely held beliefs that were passed on for generations, with stories to embellish etc. Neither is true, but I see no hoax there as I don't see evidence of people who knew the earth was round or went round the sun deliberately creating a deception.

[ProfessorDavey]

On the viability of Conspiratorial beliefs David Grimes PLOS ONE
Magazine.

How long does it take for a conspiracy to come out S. Blaiw The Correspondent.

Actually those articles are about conspiracy theories which aren't the same as hoaxes. And the second is really just a summary of the first - links here for those interested.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
https://thecorrespondent.com/653/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-conspiracy-to-come-out

But back to hoaxes - as these require deliberate deception - in other words the perpetrator knows the thing they are foisting on the public is untrue, it is hard to see how the hoax, rather than the belief in the untrue thing can exist for long. How come - well imagine if someone creates a hoax - they, by definition know this to be untrue, but the (perhaps gullible) who belief it think it is true rather than know it is untrue. Once the original hoaxer dies then unless that hoaxer passes on not just the belief that the thing is true, but also the knowledge that it is untrue (i.e. a hoax), then the hoax cannot be perpetuated as a hoax.

Either the person will reveal it to be untrue in which case the hoax will die. Alternatively they won't reveal it to be untrue and later generations will have a genuine belief that it is true rather than a knowledge that it is untrue. So there is no longer deliberate deception so the hoax no longer exists, although the belief in something that is not true persists.

Now I suspect there are countless things that might have originally been a hoax, that persist as genuine beliefs. But as the hoaxer is long gone in many cases we will never know whether the person originally creating the story knew it to be untrue and therefore a hoax.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Actually those articles are about conspiracy theories…etc

All true, but with respect I think you’re getting suckered into Vlad’s look over there distraction scam.

Imagine that he’d pitched up here propounding his belief that storks deliver babies (perhaps he read it in a book that referenced an ancient stork tale that had been recorded by the priests of a nascent stork faith several decades after a stork was supposedly seen in the vicinity of a newborn). What then if you were to counter with, “but what about the cabbage patch story, or the good fairy story?” and Vlad replied, “but there’s no firm evidence for either – and what’s more, here’s a link that says that there isn’t”.

And let’s say that the link is from a reputable source, and that it does indeed show that there’s no good evidence for the cabbage patch or the good fairy stories.

How then would that be relevant to Vlad’s stork claim, let alone up the epistemological ante for it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But surely the key point of a hoax is that it is a deliberate deception - in other words the hoaxer knows that the story is one that they have made up and isn't true.

That isn't the same as a genuine belief in something that isn't true.

So I doubt there are many people who think that christianity arose due to a hoax - in other words those actually present at the time made up stuff they know to be untrue. Possible of course, but completely unnecessary for the development of christianity later. I suspect the most likely explanation is that later authors etc embellished, exaggerated and/or misinterpreted what had come from earlier. So an empty tomb is interpreted as a resurrection (when that may not be what those there at the time thought), a dream like vision is exaggerated to a real physical Jesus with wounds you can push your finger in, a vague recollection passed down through several generation is embellished to create a detailed (too details to be believable) narrative.

Now unless those people in the late 1stC through to the middle 4thC (note that none of them were there at the time of the purported resurrection) genuinely knew that they were creating something untrue - in other words they knew there was no resurrection but made stuff up nonetheless, then there is no hoax. What you have is genuine believers creating stories and documents that support their genuinely held belief, regardless of whether what they believe is true or not.

It is only a hoax if the people transmitting the story know it to be untrue but make up stuff to deliberately deceive. I see no more reason for that to be the case for the resurrection than for a belief that the earth was flat or the sun went round the earth - genuinely held beliefs that were passed on for generations, with stories to embellish etc. Neither is true, but I see no hoax there as I don't see evidence of people who knew the earth was round or went round the sun deliberately creating a deception.

I'm not the one saying it's a hoax though. There are no historical records of hoaxing anywhere near the start of the first century. We know hoaxing to be a feature of publishing and pamphleteering(encyclopedia britannica) So we are in the wrong kind of time for hoaxing both in terms of it being much of a thing and the consequences of being swayed by it or being in on it.

But supposing it was a deliberate hoax...what is the motivation for it? If we say to make pots of money?to achieve political power, to be the vehicle by which the roman empire culturally survives collapse then we are crediting the perpetrators with supernatural foresight which is of course a bit of a thin hypothesis.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm not the one saying it's a hoax though. There are no historical records of hoaxing anywhere near the start of the first century. We know hoaxing to be a feature of publishing and pamphleteering(encyclopedia britannica) So we are in the wrong kind of time for hoaxing both in terms of it being much of a thing and the consequences of being swayed by it or being in on it.

But supposing it was a deliberate hoax...what is the motivation for it? If we say to make pots of money?to achieve political power, to be the vehicle by which the roman empire culturally survives collapse then we are crediting the perpetrators with supernatural foresight which is of course a bit of a thin hypothesis.

Look over there - a squirrel!   

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not the one saying it's a hoax though.

So why are you raising it - we are in the world of genuine belief in something that is untrue, rather than a hoax which is a deliberate attempt to pass of something the hoaxer knows to be untrue as being true.

There are no historical records of hoaxing anywhere near the start of the first century. We know hoaxing to be a feature of publishing and pamphleteering(encyclopedia britannica) So we are in the wrong kind of time for hoaxing both in terms of it being much of a thing and the consequences of being swayed by it or being in on it.

I disagree - I suspect hoaxing has gone on over the centuries and certainly the manner of dissemination of biblical claims, via textural documents and word of mouth are perfectly amenable to hoaxing. But when we are dealing with beliefs, rather than something with a physical footprint (like a mashed together human and monkey skeleton) it is pretty well impossible to tell the difference, at a distance of centuries, between genuine belief in something that isn't true and a deliberate deception.

But supposing it was a deliberate hoax...what is the motivation for it? If we say to make pots of money?to achieve political power, to be the vehicle by which the roman empire culturally survives collapse then we are crediting the perpetrators with supernatural foresight which is of course a bit of a thin hypothesis.

Given that, as you say, no-one is claiming a hoax then this question has no relevance. But for the sake of arguments there are plenty of reasons why someone may claim that they were witnesses to something 'miraculous', even if they know it isn't true. It plays to some fairly basic psychology of making stuff up to gain attention. And if you claim a special proximity to a miracle then there is the glow of specialness that will flow from a claim of witnessing a 'miracle'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So why are you raising it - we are in the world of genuine belief in something that is untrue, rather than a hoax which is a deliberate attempt to pass of something the hoaxer knows to be untrue as being true.
I disagree - I suspect hoaxing has gone on over the centuries and certainly the manner of dissemination of biblical claims, via textural documents and word of mouth are perfectly amenable to hoaxing. But when we are dealing with beliefs, rather than something with a physical footprint (like a mashed together human and monkey skeleton) it is pretty well impossible to tell the difference, at a distance of centuries, between genuine belief in something that isn't true and a deliberate deception.
Given that, as you say, no-one is claiming a hoax then this question has no relevance. But for the sake of arguments there are plenty of reasons why someone may claim that they were witnesses to something 'miraculous', even if they know it isn't true. It plays to some fairly basic psychology of making stuff up to gain attention. And if you claim a special proximity to a miracle then there is the glow of specialness that will flow from a claim of witnessing a 'miracle'.

I think when hoaxing means execution then that isn't a very fertile context for hoaxing,

[ProfessorDavey]

I think when hoaxing means execution then that isn't a very fertile context for hoaxing,

I thought we were talking about the purported resurrection, not the earlier death.

I think people coming back to life is a well-trodden and fertile claim down the centuries.

[jeremyp]

Buddhism IMHO is an anthropology philosophy with techniques that apparently work. Hinduism is a range of religious practices with an underlying monist philosophy. Philosophies are not hoaxes.

I think that depends on the philosophy.

Islam is a monotheism,

But is it a hoax or is it true, and if the former, why hasn't it died out?

Mormons is an American Christian sect based on Gold artifacts which couldn't later be produced, a polygamy that seems to be a male fantasy and an alternative history that is majorly contradictory to evidence.

So it is a hoax and yet it has failed to die out just like Christianity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that depends on the philosophy.
But is it a hoax or is it true, and if the former, why hasn't it died out?
So it is a hoax and yet it has failed to die out just like Christianity.

It is a monotheism and in that respect it is true imo.
I don't think anyone was trying to hoax anyone. I'm sure Mohammed sincerely believed his experience. Obviously we disagree on the trinity

[jeremyp]

It is a monotheism and in that respect it is true imo.

Islam and Christianity can't both be true. Jesus can't both be the son of God and a mere prophet at the same time.

I don't think anyone was trying to hoax anyone. I'm sure Mohammed sincerely believed his experience. Obviously we disagree on the trinity

So it's possible that Jesus and his followers sincerely believed their experience and yet were wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Islam and Christianity can't both be true. Jesus can't both be the son of God and a mere prophet at the same time.So it's possible that Jesus and his followers sincerely believed their experience and yet were wrong.

He can't be a mere prophet but he can be a prophet too. And it would be easier and seem more convenient in certain contexts to believe he was a mere prophet.