'What do you know about 'The Urantia Papers'?'

[+Hammerclaw]

It's amazing how many religious books and religions have mysteriously materialized, seemingly out of thin air, over the last 200 years in America alone. That's not even taking into consideration lesser known works and the cults that, sometimes, arose from them. The Urantia Book is a late comer to very crowded field.

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's amazing how many religious books and religions have mysteriously materialized, seemingly out of thin air, over the last 200 years in America alone. That's not even taking into consideration lesser known works and the cults that, sometimes, arose from them. The Urantia Book is a late comer to very crowded field.

All true, but  there are a lot of  more recent ones. 

For instance, who could forget the Breatharians,  founded by Wiley Brooks in the 1970s, and who doesn't know of Scientology, founded by L Ron Hubbard in the 1950s? 

[psyche101]

On 12/5/2021 at 3:22 AM, Will Due said:

An interesting perspective. Simply put in response to your several questions, when reading the papers, one is only left to draw their own conclusions.

Thanks for your reply.

As with the supporting science that doesn't actually exist, or is supposed to be heading in that direction but isn't?

Edited December 6, 2021 by psyche101

[onlookerofmayhem]

6 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I would be interested in seeing what parameters are used for this computation, personally.

Not sure if this will satisfy your interest, but it's a pretty thorough explanation by Carrier himself :

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12742

[eight bits]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

So, arguably non-contradictory, but definitely having a bet each way. 

No, just plain non-contradictory. Historians, like many other people, discuss "what if's" routinely. "If the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor, then the United States would likely have remained neutral throughout the Second World War" doesn't imply that the speaker seriously doubts that the Japanese attacked.

Carrier is a Bayesian, so he "definitely" does understand the idea of hypothetical gambling as a way to explain the numbers used in probability models of uncertain confidence. So what? That has nothing to do with the logical relationships you're misstating.

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Personally i agree with your pov, given your own lack of experiences with such things 

Actually, I often read about things with which I lack experience. That's part of the fun. Some of what I read is more credible than other things I read.

As for assessing that credibility, I think you underestimate the usefulness of those few meager experiences of life which I have had. For example, I've learned from experience that it is often much easier for someone to make up a story about doing something than it is for them really to do that thing.

Regardless, we all apreciate your gift for making any topic be about you. It's awe inspiring. However, in this thread, your stories really don't corroborate the claims of the UB. That is, even if I 100% believed every word you've ever posted, that wouldn't change my view about the UB. They're two different universes of discourse. For example:

Mr W: A mysterious stranger silently handed me a bible and disappeared.

UB: Mysterious strangers tell us what really happened in those bible stories, at length, as if being paid by the word.

They just ain't the same thing.

ETA:

@Nuclear Wessel

As @onlookerofmayhem linked, Carrier has explained his calculation, and he is consistent across his works on the historical Jesus question.

However, Carrier's weakness as a Bayesian is that he is shaky about what the numbers represent. They are not the probability of anything; they are his probability of whatever is being discussed. Sometimes, the probability is not even his, but rather that of some hypothetical person.

Carrier does understand that to some extent, but he also seems to think that "proof" emerges from Bayes. Alas, no. Two Bayesians with the same information can and do reach conflicting conclusions.

At first glance, this would seem to be a dead end: you are only modeling what some person believes or could reasonably believe, and not anything much about objective reality, or even what several people might agree upon.

However, in practice, it does help organize analysis and interpret evidence. Why that is so is complicated, but maybe someday there'll be a thread over in the philosophy forum and it can be discussed there.

Edited December 6, 2021 by eight bits

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

All true, but  there are a lot of  more recent ones. 

For instance, who could forget the Breatharians,  founded by Wiley Brooks in the 1970s, and who doesn't know of Scientology, founded by L Ron Hubbard in the 1950s? 

Which occurred in the last 200 years. 

[eight bits]

OK, you got me started on Bayes and Jesus. So, double post coming right up.

(Thomas Bayes, 1702-1761, was an ordained clergyman, but a nonconformist. He's buried in London in the same unconsecrated ground as William Blake. His one nearly inscrutable contribution to probability theory was published posthumously, and featured a flawed proof of the theorem that now bears his name. What is today called "Bayesian analysis" is more reasonably attributed to Laplace. Acceptance of Laplace's theory has had its ups and downs over the years, but since the end of WW II, it has enjoyed widepsread real-world use and scholarly acceptance.)

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I am not sure what Carrier input as evidence, however academic historian s generally agree that using standard historical methodologies and what is considered normal historical  evidence, the existence of a real human Jesus is 100% or so close as to make no difference .

Carrier uses the same evidence as everybody else uses. There's not that much evidence that bears on Jesus's existence for anybody to work with.

One part of the Bayesian research enterprise is the analysis of heuristics, for example "standard historical methodologies." Laplace claimed that his methods were "common sense reduced to calculation." That means, if "standard historical methodologies" worked as a common-sensical guide to truth, then they could be re-expressed as probability models.

Part of Carrier's authentic contribution is to try to re-express the heuristics used by scholars of ancient history. God's work.

However, another part of Carrier's contribution is to bring standard historical methodologies to Jesus studies at all, in any form. The field is dominated by theologians and pastoral trainers, not by historians*. The best of the professional divines bring a "historical perspective" to their work, not historical training and surely not epistemological expertise.

"The existence of a real human Jesus is 100% or so close as to make no difference" is on its face a religious creed, and not a scholarly appraisal of tangible evidence. It is the sort of thing that theologians and pastoral trainers say, much more so than ancient historians, few of whom have any background in Jesus studies except those who go to church, synagogue, or mosque regularly.

I appreciate that you'd like the issue between us to be solely the passive acceptance of expert opinion versus independent investigation. And I like the sound of "independent investigation," too. But that's only one aspect of the issue. Another big factor is that Team Jesus is conspicuously understaffed in actual historians.

The expertise I am rejecting is mostly theology. Yup, I reject theology. What actual history there is, I engage with.

-

* Anecdote: I have admitted to being a dues-paying member of the guild (the Society of Biblical Literature). As you can imagine, I get spam from publishers in my postal and electronic mailboxes. For every one message or catalog from a general scholarly publisher (e.g. Princeton University Press), I get five or six messages from publishers of pastoral training and other devotional materials.

Even neutral things, like computer software to manage searches througn the ancient literature are pitched as just the thing to punch up my weekly sermons. Say what?

Edited December 6, 2021 by eight bits

[+Nuclear Wessel]

4 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Not sure if this will satisfy your interest, but it's a pretty thorough explanation by Carrier himself :

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12742

That source is a reasonable explanation as to why one ought to use Bayesian probability when discussing the evidence for/against something, but I think what might address my question better (based on what I found in his post) is reading Chapters 6 and 12 in On The Historicity of Jesus, as I am more curious as to what logic is applied to determining probabilities of 1/12000 and 1/3.

Where does the 1/12000 come from? Why is it 1/3 instead of 1/5? Why is it 1/12000 and not 1/12001, or 1/24000? On the surface, these probabilities mean absolutely nothing.

I'll try to make time to read OHJ--rather, those two chapters at least.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[Will Due]

 

In order to determine whether or not Jesus historically existed, the historical evidence is one thing but in my opinion, the best way to determine it, is to read what's recorded he said and did. Wherever it's recorded.

 

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

17 minutes ago, Will Due said:

the best way to determine it, is to read what's recorded he said and did.

How do we determine that those alleged "recordings" are not falsified?

[eight bits]

3 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Where does the 1/12000 come from? Why is it 1/3 instead of 1/5? Why is it 1/12000 and not 1/12001, or 1/24000? On the surface, these probabilities mean absolutely nothing.

The simplest interpretation is to imagine a hypothetical bet (there's no way to determine who wins the bet, but suppose there were). Here's a typical dialog: Let's suppose the correct answer to the question of Jesus's historical status will be announced in 1 hour.

Carrier (just taking the 1/3 for now): I think the probability that Jesus existed is 1/3.

8 bits: I own a ticket here that will pay the bearer $1 if and only if Jesus was a real man who actually lived, and otherwise it pays nothing. You can have it now for 34 cents.

Carrier: I don't want it for 34 cents. I'll give you 25 cents for it.

8 bits: 32 cents.

Carrier: Deal.

As to 12000 and not 12001, that's for the same reason that I'd cite the current time here in New England as 08:26 and not 08:26:30.721. All measured quantities are measured only to finite precision. Carrier has chosen to explore his levels of confidence to two significant figures. I chose to give the time to the minute. Oops, it's 08:27 now.

As to the [1/3, 1/12000] in the book, there are two 1/3's. The first was based on Carrier's interpretation of the Rank-Raglan model of literary heroes, what score within that kind of system Jesus would receive based on Carrier's interpretation of Matthew, and Carrier's estimate of what proportion of people who would score as high as or higher than he scores Jesus are historical people as opposed to mythical or fictional heroes. Carrier thinks between 1/3 and 1/15.

Throughout the book Carrier tracks what he thinks is a generous value (1/3 in this case) and also something more pessinistic (1/15). It will turn out that the pessimistic number(s) reflect his personal beliefs.

The second 1/3 comes after he's considered the various other pieces of evidence bearing on the historicity question. Taken together, Carrier estimates the evidence to be at best a wash (resulting in the first 1/3 remaining unchanged) or unfavorable, possibly very unfavorable (and so the initial 1/15 falls, maybe as low as the 1/12000 value). His personal view is that it is very unfavorable.

Looking at that argument critically (something called sensitivity analysis by Bayesians for whom this is not their first rodeo), we notice a few things. There are plenty of people who think that the evidence, taken as a whole, and however feeble it is, is nevertheless better than a wash. That puts a lot of pressure on the 1/3 to "hold the line" or persuade other people that "more likely than not" Jesus didn't exist.

Rank-Raglan is a topic in its own right, and not clearly useful for the chosen purpose. Carrier's Rank-Raglan version is partially unique to him, not anything standard. I think it is fair to say that he doesn't understand very well what his own 1/3 means. Worse, some of the people Carrier might want to persuade don't think so either.

That's about as far Carrier's view could possibly relate to the Jesus portions of the UB, but I'm open to questions of course.

Edited December 6, 2021 by eight bits

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

How do we determine that those alleged "recordings" are not falsified?

 

I was generally referring to the Bible. And further, the papers. This is how I determined that it was true. Although I recognized there were some problems.

When I first decided to see what all this Jesus business was all about almost 50 years ago, I simply took a Bible, after being prompted to do so by a friend and read the Gospel of Matthew.

I read it (I was an atheist then) saw him as a person and could not shake the overwhelming sense (that it was true) that if God were to appear on earth as a person, he would be what Jesus was described to be. I just knew it was true.

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Will Due

[+Hammerclaw]

29 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

How do we determine that those alleged "recordings" are not falsified?

And is their content falsifiable? Most certainly not. What we are dealing with is a relatively nascent belief system. When I first read the Urantia Book, years ago, it reminded me of the work by Science Fiction-Fantasy Author Emeritus Emil Petaja's novels based on The Kalevala. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Hammerclaw

[jmccr8]

7 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

In order to determine whether or not Jesus historically existed, the historical evidence is one thing but in my opinion, the best way to determine it, is to read what's recorded he said and did. Wherever it's recorded.

 

 

Hi Will

Most books have things people/characters in the book has said that doesn't mean that the person is historically real or what was said they said spoken by them. With your comment I could conclude that Harry Potter is a historically real person because there are books that say he said something.

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, Will Due said:

In order to determine whether or not Jesus historically existed, the historical evidence is one thing but in my opinion, the best way to determine it, is to read what's recorded he said and did. Wherever it's recorded.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

[Mr Walker]

On 12/6/2021 at 7:53 PM, Hammerclaw said:

Which occurred in the last 200 years. 

The UB was first revealed in the 1930s ( i think)  and then published in the 50s, so the religions i mentioned are more recent .. 

[Mr Walker]

On 12/6/2021 at 7:12 PM, eight bits said:

No, just plain non-contradictory. Historians, like many other people, discuss "what if's" routinely. "If the Japanese hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor, then the United States would likely have remained neutral throughout the Second World War" doesn't imply that the speaker seriously doubts that the Japanese attacked.

Carrier is a Bayesian, so he "definitely" does understand the idea of hypothetical gambling as a way to explain the numbers used in probability models of uncertain confidence. So what? That has nothing to do with the logical relationships you're misstating.

Actually, I often read about things with which I lack experience. That's part of the fun. Some of what I read is more credible than other things I read.

As for assessing that credibility, I think you underestimate the usefulness of those few meager experiences of life which I have had. For example, I've learned from experience that it is often much easier for someone to make up a story about doing something than it is for them really to do that thing.

Regardless, we all apreciate your gift for making any topic be about you. It's awe inspiring. However, in this thread, your stories really don't corroborate the claims of the UB. That is, even if I 100% believed every word you've ever posted, that wouldn't change my view about the UB. They're two different universes of discourse. For example:

Mr W: A mysterious stranger silently handed me a bible and disappeared.

UB: Mysterious strangers tell us what really happened in those bible stories, at length, as if being paid by the word.

They just ain't the same thing.

ETA:

@Nuclear Wessel

As @onlookerofmayhem linked, Carrier has explained his calculation, and he is consistent across his works on the historical Jesus question.

However, Carrier's weakness as a Bayesian is that he is shaky about what the numbers represent. They are not the probability of anything; they are his probability of whatever is being discussed. Sometimes, the probability is not even his, but rather that of some hypothetical person.

Carrier does understand that to some extent, but he also seems to think that "proof" emerges from Bayes. Alas, no. Two Bayesians with the same information can and do reach conflicting conclusions.

At first glance, this would seem to be a dead end: you are only modeling what some person believes or could reasonably believe, and not anything much about objective reality, or even what several people might agree upon.

However, in practice, it does help organize analysis and interpret evidence. Why that is so is complicated, but maybe someday there'll be a thread over in the philosophy forum and it can be discussed there.

Contradictory   

A person may  construct many contradictory  hypothetical scenarios, but they can only believe in ONE (or none)  of them  Logically, if seeking truth, they  will find that one of them has more evidences than the others.  

As to my experiences. you take ONE experience which is not quite like the revelations of the UB but ignore a lifetime of contact with an entity or entitles which resemble those described in the UB and my travels to parts of the galaxy which also (in part)   resemble that descried in the UB. BUT my perception is different; being   raised atheist /secular humanist,  reading golden age  Astounding/Amazing, pulp magazines  and popular mechanics from an early age.

Thus I don't see any of this through a religious lens.

On the other hand, an UB believer would say that i was visited by  a Midwayer,  as its visit precisely fits ONE of the roles of hose entities in the UB 

In my lifetime of experiences,  these are real powerful beings, with an interest in humanity  They aren't gods or magical, except in human eyes,    They use technology, logic  and reason, to accomplish their aims.  

I cant know the truth, sincerity,  or origin of the UB revelations. 

I can say that such revelations are not unknown, and that a human will always interpret and explain the revelation, from  the resources within their own mind. 

Many film makers and authors admit that the sources for their stories come from  similar encounters/contacts. 

Thus. when i see an alien being manifest in a large column of light, I don t think angel or miracle but transmat  beam /teleportation device    when i am healed or cured idont see it as a miracle but as an advanced technology, or use of  advanced psychology, eg mind melding using technology  

This is UM  this section is about   spirituality, religious experiences and beliefs.   I choose it as the most appropriate section   and yep I have over 60 years of experiences to relate.

whether the y change your mind one whit or jot is irrelevant 

The experiences and the psychological/spiritual development they have evolved in me go directly to this  section and indeed to this thread.

Other peole with similar experiences might perceive and respond to them in different ways.  Those without them might sincerely and logically disbelieve.    

Edited December 9, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Will Due]

 

A few more tidbits about the contacts made with midwayers.

 

"On many worlds the better adapted secondary midway creatures are able to attain varying degrees of contact with certain favorably constituted mortals through the skillful penetration of the minds of the latters’ indwelling. (And it was by just such a fortuitous combination of adjustments that these revelations were materialized in the English language.) Such potential contact mortals of the evolutionary worlds are mobilized in the numerous reserve corps, and it is, to a certain extent, through these small groups of forward-looking personalities that spiritual civilization is advanced. The men and women of these reserve corps of destiny thus have various degrees of contact with and through the intervening ministry of the midway creatures; but these same mortals are little known to their fellows except in those rare social emergencies and spiritual exigencies wherein these reserve personalities function for the prevention of the breakdown of evolutionary culture. And these reservists of destiny have seldom been emblazoned on the pages of human history.

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Will Due

[psyche101]

46 minutes ago, Will Due said:

A few more tidbits about the contacts made with midwayers.

Earlier you said the points you raised were supported by science. Turns out they weren't. 

I'd rather you clear that up before you throw more stuff at the wall.

Midwayers don't seem very interesting, the questions posed earlier regarding the skin colours would be more interesting. Are any of the UB posters going to address j's questions?

[+Hammerclaw]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The UB was first revealed in the 1930s ( i think)  and then published in the 50s, so the religions i mentioned are more recent .. 

What part of "the last two hundred years" don't you understand? 

[jaylemurph]

On 12/6/2021 at 12:42 AM, eight bits said:

No, just plain non-contradictory. Historians, like many other people, discuss "what if's" routinely. "

No.

We don’t.

At least never in our professional capacity as historians, we don’t. Maybe as private individuals shooting the breeze, but “what ifs” are the realm of alt-history science-fiction authors, not professional historians.

We stick to the interpretation of historical documents — the whys behind the what’s contained in the written archives of humanity.

Concerned as we are with reality, the confused, implausible, racist Urantia Bogroll literally never comes up in our discussions.

—Jaylemurph 

Edited December 9, 2021 by jaylemurph

[Mr Walker]

21 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

What part of "the last two hundred years" don't you understand? 

You said.

 It's amazing how many religious books and religions have mysteriously materialized, seemingly out of thin air, over the last 200 years in America alone. That's not even taking into consideration lesser known works and the cults that, sometimes, arose from them. The Urantia Book is a late comer to very crowded field.

i replied

 

All true, but  there are a lot of  more recent ones. 

For instance, who could forget the Breatharians,  founded by Wiley Brooks in the 1970s, and who doesn't know of Scientology, founded by L Ron Hubbard in the 1950s? 

 

 

Ie The UB isn't really a latecomer  to this crowded field 

There are probably (at least)  another  100 new religions established since Urantia.

Even chronologically within the 200 year period,  it isn't a latecomer, originating almost 90 years ago

Basically, however, I was agreeing with you about the emergence of 100s of new faiths in the last 200 years 

In the 19th century, it even had a name  "The great Awakening'

In the 20th century, "the New Age Movement " had a similar effect. 

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

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Mr Walker

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

You said.

 It's amazing how many religious books and religions have mysteriously materialized, seemingly out of thin air, over the last 200 years in America alone. That's not even taking into consideration lesser known works and the cults that, sometimes, arose from them. The Urantia Book is a late comer to very crowded field.

i replied

 

All true, but  there are a lot of  more recent ones. 

For instance, who could forget the Breatharians,  founded by Wiley Brooks in the 1970s, and who doesn't know of Scientology, founded by L Ron Hubbard in the 1950s? 

Ie The UB isn't really a latecomer  to this crowded field 

There are probably another  100 new religions established since Urantia.

Even chronologically within 200 year period  it isn't a latecomer, originating almost 90 years ago

Basically, however I was agreeing with you about the emergence of 100s of new faiths in the last 200 years  In the 19th century, it even had a name  "The great Awakening'

God fraking damn man! Are you really that dense? The last two hundred years starts the moment you say it here in 2021. That means any new religion from 1821-2021. The ones you're mentioning fall into that time period. 

[jmccr8]

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

e The UB isn't really a latecomer  to this crowded field 

There are probably (at least)  another  100 new religions established since Urantia.

Hi Walker

Then they are included within Hammer's 200 years, why are you trying to make exceptions? Not really a question so no answer is required as it is an observation.

[eight bits]

7 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

—Jaylemurph 

The other poster and I were discussing a specific example wherein a credentialed historian (Columbia PhD) proposed a what if scenario, for publication, on a matter within the scope of his expertise as an ancient historian.

I am at a loss to explain how this historian manages to do what you would not do. The thought occurs that in addition to his peer-reveiwed contributions to the professional literature, the scholar in question is in great demand as a historian for remunerated talks, debates, and interviews in film, on television, and in internet media, He also writes extensively on his own blog. Maybe all that writing and speaking provides him more opportunities than some other historians to do what you would not.

Regardless, the core issue was the other poster's claim that the propositon not A contradicts the proposition if A then B. It does not. In this case, Dr Carrier's acceptance that Jesus didn't exist doesn't contradict Carrier's view that if Jesus did exist and his tomb was found empty, then it is more likely that his corpse was stolen than that he resumed living.

And speaking of the other poster,

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I cant know the truth, sincerity,  or origin of the UB revelations. 

Nor can anyone else know their origin. Whatever it is, the UB shows little knowledge of science or New Testament scholarship beyond what was readily available to interested human beings at the time of the book's first publication.

As with your own tales, there is no evidentiary foundation even to suspect anything other than everyday natural, human, and completely terrestial explanations for what we read.