RichardKennaway comments on Tell Your Rationalist Origin Story - Less Wrong

30 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 25 February 2009 05:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (399)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilosophyTutor 31 December 2011 05:19:05AM *  2 points [-]

Citation needed, or clarification what you mean by "anyone substantially like him". Because I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a real person named Jesus who was really crucified at the roots of the proto-Christian movement -- I'd probably assign less that 5% chance that Jesus was completely fictional. (though of course many other elements, like the birth at Bethlehem are almost certainly fictitious)

There is absolutely no direct evidence that dates from the time Jesus supposedly lived that any such religious leader was born, lived or died except for one contemporary reference to a rabbi called Jesus with a brother called James. Given that Jesus was not supposed to be a rabbi, and that both Jesus and James were common names from the time, and that Jesus had several other brothers and sisters who were also named in the Bible multiplying the possibilities for a false positive substantially, this is very weak evidence.

Given that Jesus was supposedly a very noteworthy figure who died in a noteworthy way founding a major religion, the total absence of any historical record of him or anyone substantially resembling him would be very surprising if he was real.

Given that lack of evidence the most parsimonious explanation is just that Jesus is fictional. An alternative, unfalsifiable hypothesis is that someone existed who played a causal role in the founding of Christianity but that they were so boring they left no trace in history and hence bore very little resemblance to the figure described in the Bible.

"Very surprised", indeed. The thousands of first-century Christian martyrs would be very surprised, too at this unfortunate news from our PhilosophyTutor.

Not just the first century ones, I would say, but this is not evidence.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 31 December 2011 10:06:26AM *  1 point [-]

An alternative, unfalsifiable hypothesis is that someone existed who played a causal role in the founding of Christianity but that they were so boring they left no trace in history and hence bore very little resemblance to the figure described in the Bible.

Someone -- many people -- played a causal role in the founding of Christianity, since Christianity was, in fact, founded [1]. Does modern scholarship have anything to say about what did happen to start Christianity?

[1] I have just thought up an imaginary Christian heresy that claims that Christianity was in fact never founded at all. God planted it as an already well-developed sapling some time in the late 1st or early 2nd century "AD", giving everyone involved false memories of how it had started. That's why there's no historical evidence from Jesus' lifetime.

Comment author: David_Gerard 31 December 2011 01:37:09PM *  2 points [-]

Paul of Tarsus is assumed to have existed. The only evidence for him is his works in the Bible - seven written by the same author, a few more by this author with others' text mixed in, a few clearly not written by this author - but this is evidence that one person, who called himself Paul, wrote these things. I suppose it's possible he was an entirely fictional construct, but scholars tend to go with "dude wrote this stuff." Much like Socrates (and unlike Jesus), his existence is secondary to his body of work.