Hi @swamiadass and @dga471,
I’m glad to hear that Daniel took the time and trouble to read the Executive Summary of my OP. In my attempt to stay on top of comments here and over at TSZ, I’ve been getting by on about 2 or 3 hours’ sleep a night for the past five days or so, which is not exactly a healthy thing to do when you’re 57. For some reason, I’m feeling a lot better this evening, so I’d like to make a fresh start.
I’d like to address a remark of Joshua’s, bearing on an alleged mathematical fallacy of mine.
> The fallacy is mistaking P( Story1 ) for P(Story1 | Evidence) vs. P(Story2 | Evidence). The P( Story1 ) will always be low for ***just about every*** true story. P(Story1 | Evidence) vs. P(Story2 | Evidence), on the other hand, can point to clear winners and losers...…Multiplied a large number of maybes together and everything looks impossible.
I would like to point out in passing that my first degree was in mathematics.
I might add that you appear to be guilty of a mathematical fallacy of your own: that of confusing P(Story 1 | Evidence) with P(Evidence | Story 1), where where Story1 is a miraculous story and Evidence is the record we find in the Gospels. Of course, if a miracle happened in the 1st century A.D. then we might well expect to find a record of it in the New Testament - in other words, P(Evidence | Story 1) is high. But it doesn’t follow that P(Story 1 | Evidence) is high - especially when “Evidence” (from the New Testament) is several decades later than the events reported in Story1.
Actually, I addressed the point you raised in a non-technical fashion, in my OP, in the course of my discussion of the three hours of darkness which the Synoptic Gospels attest to (but not John). After refuting suggestions that the darkness could have been caused by an eclipse (which would have been too short) or a sandstorm (which would have sent everyone indoors), I wrote:
There remains the possibility that the three hours of darkness was a **supernatural miracle** , but an impartial historian, while not dismissing the possibility of a miracle, would tend to favor **the more parsimonious naturalistic explanation** that the circumstances surrounding the death of Jesus were mythologized in the decades after his death, like those of many other famous people in antiquity.
In other words, my thinking is basically as follows. I am not arguing that because P(Story1) is low, P(Story1 | NT evidence) is low. Rather, I am arguing that because (i) P(Story1) is low, (ii) P(Story1 | NT evidence) is incalculable due to the inscrutability of the Divine will, but (iii) P(Story2 | NT evidence) is not too low, where Story1 is a miraculous story and Story2 is a secular story, a historian would (and should) go with Story2. It is an adequate explanation, in the light of the evidence, and it avoids the need to posit miracles. It is therefore more parsimonious.
I’d also like to address a mathematical objection of Daniel’s:
This reminds me of the origin stories in your book: if we took every single claim in your origin story and looked at their prior probability and multiplied them together:What are the odds that an immigrant family would be of Indian ethnicity?
What are the odds that a second generation immigrant would end up being a student in an MD/PhD program?
What are the odds that an MD/PhD student would end up being an assistant professor at a top research university?
What are the odds that an assistant professor at a top research university would get tenure?
What are the odds that a tenured professor at a top research university would be a Christian?
Using this methodology your origins story would likely be judged a “fabrication” or “legend”!
I responded to this objection in Part B of my OP:
**It turns out that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ passion and crucifixion are highly doubtful, on no less than 17 points.** (Yes, you read that right.) One or two points would be bad enough, but perhaps acceptable: after all, improbable things happen every day, and it would be surprising if the historical details of Jesus’ crucifixion contained nothing out of the ordinary. But 17 highly improbable occurrences over a 24-hour time period strains credulity.
So it’s the relatively short time period that makes the argument a particularly telling one. 17 improbable occurrences in 24 hours is a bit fishy. The events in Joshua’s life, by comparison, stretch over a period of decades.
And this one:
I personally would be satisfied if there were reasonably strong (i.e. not fringe) arguments for the conservative view, not that the conservative view has to be made mainstream.For example, NT Wright seems to be a more conservative scholar who defends the Resurrection. I understand that not everyone in the field accepts all his arguments. But AFAIK he is a very respected figure in the field of NT studies as a whole, not some fringe figure. So if NT Wright defends some assertions with reasonable arguments, I would be satisfied with that.
Hang on. The issue we’re debating here is not whether Christians have good reasons to hold on to their faith in the Resurrection. I’ve already made it quite clear that I believe in sensus divinitatis: Christians like you and me are fortunate enough to sometimes be able to hear the “still, small voice of God” in the preaching and practice of the Christian message.
Rather, the question we’re debating here is whether non-Christians, presented with the evidence for the Resurrection in the New Testament, would be irrational in turning it down and saying: “Sorry, but this does not strike me as very impressive evidence.” Remember: the onus is on the Christian to make a case for the Resurrection. The onus is not on the Jew, pagan or skeptic to make a case against the Resurrection.
You object to Aquinas’ argument for miracles as follows:
This is not a convincing argument for me. The fact is that besides Christianity, there are other major religions - Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc. - to which large groups of people have converted to. Are these all miracles, too? In addition, how many conversions are genuine, as opposed to simply following what everyone around you is doing? This is why I think this is a very weak argument. It’s simply an argument from majority, and not a very powerful majority either.
I suggest you have a look at Professor Rodney Stark’s book on the rise of Christianity. In any case, Christianity grew slowly and steadily, whereas the growth of Islam was due largely to the power of the power of the sword. In any case, I think Stark could use some editorial assistance from non-Christian authors.