« 58th Skeptics’ Circle | Main | Apologies for the absence »

April 12, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"So it’s the lost tomb of no-one special."

Wouldn't that have been true even if the filmmakers were right?

//Oh yeah, I went there.

just in time for after easter!

You can expect a public correction and apology from the filmmakers within a week or so.

Ahh hahahahahahahahaahhahahahahaha! Oh man...that was rich! Hahahahaha... An apology for an obvious overstatement! What a lark!

Douchebags.

OTOH, I was sort of half-rooting for it to be Jesus' tomb. Wouldn't finding his corpse really be the death-knell for Christianity as a whole? I mean, if he didn't rise from the dead and then get taken bodily up into heaven... that kind of blows it for the religion except as a philosophical exercise. Without the miracles, it's just another guy who said a few smart things.

Oh, Jan, you forget the real miracle: the way that theists can rationalize away any evidence. They'd just claim it was faked, or that it was left by God to test the believers' faith or to fool the heathens, or that it was Christ's spiritual body which ascended to Heaven.

Joseph Smith was a convicted con-artist, L. Ron Hubbard said that the way to get rich would be to make up a religion, Peter Popoff was debunked as a fraud by James Randi, and yet all of them still have their true believer followers. There are some for whom no evidence is sufficient to destroy belief.

Of course you're right, Tom. Wishful thinking on my part -- hell, if people can believe Hubbard, they can believe anything! I was thinking about Mormonism while I vacuumed the house this morning (in itself a miracle), and wondering why Smith chose "Moroni" as the angel's name. And then it occurred to me -- he was the Hubbard of his day, making stuff up that was so transparently stupid, no one should have taken it seriously, but good lord, did they ever! And much to his benefit -- mandatory tithes *and* unlimited, constantly varied sex with his harem! Yeah, I can see why he did it. Stories like that make it really hard to be a humanist.

Indeed, there are many theologians who are uncomfortable with the notion that Jesus "rose upwards" to Heaven, since we've been upwards and there's no Heaven there. So they say it was a spiritual, not a physical, ascension and presume that every other Christian in the world understands and accepts this interpretation. Except the majority of Christianity really believes Jesus' body shot upwards into the sky and went to Heaven. So while the theologians have their bases covered in case Jesus' body is ever found, the rest of Christianity will either be in denial of the fact or will eventually come around to accept the notion of spiritual ascension. Either way it's rationalizing their irrational beliefs.

What if they find his body... IN ORBIT!?

"So it’s the lost tomb of no-one special."

Their mothers thought they were special.

Your friend, Mary.

marygodsbitch.blogspot.com


Why does that question plague me with visions of JC orbiting in a massive "Big Boy" rocket, à la Dr Evil in Austin Powers?

There is nothing in the clarified statements of the scientists who researched this tomb to indicate that this is not the tomb of Jesus and his family. I'm really disappointed that skeptics ignore the actual scientific evidence that indicates a good probability that this could be his tomb in favor of the sketchy circumstantial evidence that neither proves or disproves anything. Just because some of the arguments are weak, doesn't mean that the theory is invalid. Sometimes I think other skeptics have an objective to find any evidence against something, so that they can immediately rule that something out without giving it any more thought.

Colin:

You’re looking at this back-to-front. Just because scientists can’t say for sure that this is not the tomb of Jesus, that doesn’t mean there is a reason to suppose that it is the tomb of Jesus. Didn’t you read my original review of the film? I clearly showed there that there is NOT a good probability that this could be his tomb of Jesus. Sorry – the statistics simply don’t support that claim; the filmmakers misinterpreted what the statistician said.

The burden of proof is upon the people claiming this IS the tomb of Jesus. So far, they have not provided any convincing evidence of that. I’m afraid that you are the one who needs to give this more thought.

The timing is right for this tomb to be Jesus Christ. Most ossuaries are dated to that specific era.

The location is right for this tomb to be Jesus Christ. Talpiot is located between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. It's not like it's in Syria or something. And the gospels describe him being laid in a tomb, so resurrection aside, it's not unexpected to find him in one.

The names are right for this tomb to be Jesus Christ. "Jesus, son of Joseph" "Maria (in it's latinized form)" "Jose' (in it's nickname form). Even the speculative relationships have names that are supported by tangential evidence. There are no names in the tomb that defy explanation, aside from Matthew, but an unknown name doesn't automatically ruin the existing evidence.

Finally, the tomb's markings (all seeing eye) are indicators that this is the tomb of Jesus Christ, although it requires linking pieces of history to form a theory. But I haven't seen a good explanation against the theory- regarding Templar Knights being exposed to the tomb and using the symbol to the present day. It's certainly plausible and valid.

Is this the tomb of Jesus Christ? It might be, and that is all I'm saying. The scientists involved don't want to make a definitive statement either. That isn't a reason to immediately dismiss the actual incontrivertable evidence.

Skeptico replies to Colin

Re: The names are right for this tomb to be Jesus Christ.

Actually, they’re very common names for that period. I covered all this in my original review. Did you read it? Because you’re still ignoring all the points I made there.

There is no reason to suppose this is the tomb of Jesus. There is no “incontrovertible evidence” – not even any good evidence.

Actually, you are ignoring the rare forms of the common name.

"Jesus, son of Joseph" has only been found once before, so I don't see how you can claim it to be extremely common. And the first one didn't come from a documented archaeological site.

Mary is a very common name, but as I understand it, latinizing the name on an ossuary is not very common.

Joseph is a very common name, but the nickname Jose' is not very common on an ossuary.

Let me ask you this. If the names are so commonly found together, can you point to another tomb with this cluster of names? Can you point to another tomb that even comes close to this theory? The burden of proof is not on you, but you won't accept that there is proof and that the proof is valid. Valid, but it's not definitive. Incontrivetable, but it's not definitive. And I don't think it should be definitive. That's where the book and film went wrong.

Not good evidence? Are you the judge of evidence now? Evidence is evidence. Either the tomb comes from the era of Jesus or not. Either the tomb is near Jerusalem or not. Either the names have a connection to the gospels or not.

I will grant you that the filmmakers have jumped to assumptions with names that can't be explained by the gospels alone, but they do manage to work them into a hypothesis (or claim) that at least connects the dots from various gospels. Is it not fair to develop an explanation that fits the available evidence? Especially for the story of Christ, which we only have anecdotal or partial truths?

You have yet to convince me that the proof that has been burdened on behalf of my argument is invalid.

Re: Actually, you are ignoring the rare forms of the common name.

No, you are ignoring the statistics which show these names are not that unusual. Only Mariamne was unusual, and I explained why this had to be taken out. The experts are now backtracking on even the other names – another point you continue to ignore.

Re: Let me ask you this. If the names are so commonly found together, can you point to another tomb with this cluster of names?

I don’t have to – the statistics, that you are ignoring, demonstrate they are common. That said, there have been several Jeshua bar Yehoesef ossuaries found.

Re: The burden of proof is not on you, but you won't accept that there is proof and that the proof is valid.

Because there is no proof. As I explained, but you ignore.

Re: Not good evidence? Are you the judge of evidence now?

Yes, I am. That’s why I wrote the original article.

Re: Either the tomb comes from the era of Jesus or not. Either the tomb is near Jerusalem or not. Either the names have a connection to the gospels or not.

It came from the era, and it was near Jerusalem. That’s it! The names were nothing special.

Re: I will grant you that the filmmakers have jumped to assumptions with names that can't be explained by the gospels alone, but they do manage to work them into a hypothesis (or claim) that at least connects the dots from various gospels.

They have forced them into a pre-conceived hypothesis

Re: Is it not fair to develop an explanation that fits the available evidence? Especially for the story of Christ, which we only have anecdotal or partial truths?

No, it is not fair to force an explanation that does not fit.

If you want to debate this any more you will need to read my original review and deal with the actual criticisms I made.

I did read your original review. You seemed caught up on the statistical claims, which you don't even have an argument against until the statistician (whom you admit is not a hoaxer) clarifies his math.

You also straw man the documentary to death by knocking it's presentation and the fact that they warn of actor recreations (probably a legal thing).

You seem to ignore my point that the names in their context are unusual. Latinized Maria should be considered in it's own statistical bubble rather than be compared to every Mary found, just as the Joseph nickname (the one identified specifically in the Bible as a brother of Jesus) should be considered seperately. And "Jesus, son of Joseph" should be compared stastistically to other ossuaries with the full name. I've only heard that there is only one other "Jesus, son of Joseph" ossuary, so somebody is lying here- either you or Simcha. I don't have much of a way to prove Simcha's claim, so I would be interested to see your evidence for many ossuaries with "Jesus, son of Joseph". And I'll come back and admit that I'm wrong. I'm willing to do that.

You say they forced them into a pre-conceived hypothesis. I say that the evidence they found fit their pre-conceived hypothesis. They didn't go and make up the Acts of Philip. It existed- with Mariemne clearly being Magdelene, and her going to Greece. You can shoot holes in the Acts of Philip all you want (just as you can to the other gospels), but the fact is that the connection was not forced.

You concede to two of my points, but not the names. But the names (special or not, and I have shown that they are unique) are part of the evidence, and by pointing to their common nature, you are not categorically eliminating the possibility of this tomb being that of the Bible's Jesus. It's the combination of evidence that leads to the possibility. What you've done is taken your pre-conceived opinion that either Jesus doesn't exist or that these filmmakers are frauds, and you have formed a belief that this is not his tomb. That belief has clouded your judgement just as much as Simcha's belief that this tomb is certainly that of Jesus Christ.

It can't be certain, it won't ever be proven one way or another, therefor neither side should insist on their opinion.

You also straw man the documentary to death by knocking it's presentation and the fact that they warn of actor recreations (probably a legal thing).

I'd probably not use a term like "straw man" if you don't know what it means.

Nowhere in the article (unless you have read something I missed) did Skeptico state that the findings were wrong because of the presentation and disclaimers. It's not a fallacy of logic to say

The film is wrong for the following reasons...and placing a "recreation disclaimer" on a presentation of 1st century people is retarded

It would be fallacious to say

The film is wrong because they placed a "recreation disclaimer" on a presentation of 1st century people.

See the difference?

It's true that I didn't know the exact origin of "straw man", but I've seen it thrown around enough to get the gist.

For instance this was in your link "a metaphor for a fight in which one party does not attack their opponent but instead sets up a straw man and attacks that. Substituting a hard target for an easy one."

That's exactly what I'm talking about. He started with an easy target (the documentary itself and the statistics) despite having actual evidence against the three major facts: the time, the place, and the names.

And next time you post, maybe you'll want to actually address some of the actual points that I made instead of debating the specifics of the term "straw man". Or am I just imagining the irony of your attempt to attack the easy target of my lack of understanding of "straw man"?

And next time you post, maybe you'll want to actually address some of the actual points that I made instead of debating the specifics of the term "straw man".

Here's evidence that you made the point:

You also straw man the documentary to death by knocking it's presentation and the fact that they warn of actor recreations (probably a legal thing).

Did you or did you not say that? If you didn't know, there's a little slider on the side of the screen over here ------>

You can click it and drag it up to review your previous comment. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Ok, now for those in the cheap seats. A straw man means the only point you attack is a made-up version of your opponents argument; attacking something they didn't say. Just making a random observation that the filmmakers did something stupid is not a straw man - Skeptico is not basing the fact they were wrong on the fact the film sucked, he's basing his argument on the facts presented in said sucky film.

One more time:

The film is wrong for the following reasons [insert argument]...and placing a "recreation disclaimer" on a presentation of 1st century people is retarded.

OK.

The film is wrong because they placed a "recreation disclaimer" on a presentation of 1st century people.

Not OK.

We could do this all day.

You have neither refuted my claims that the evidence for the tomb is valid and worthy of the hypothesis that it may be the tomb of Jesus Christ nor have you adequately shown that skeptico wasn't setting up easy targets to knock down. Just because there was some relevant information after his straw men, doesn't mean that he didn't put up straw men.

I still stand by my original quote that skeptico straw mans the documentary rather than having any credible challenge that the tomb was from the time of Jesus, in the appropriate area of Israel, and included exact names from the gospel. He has simply spent his energy attacking the method and not the actual data.

And you are only proving my point by furthering the debate over "straw man". Because you have absolutely nothing to refute my argument with, so you are spending your time attacking my knowledge of debate terms.

Again, do you have anything to add to the conversation about the Jesus Tomb? Because your self-righteous attention to terminology has only served to further my argument.

I'm sorry Colin if you just don't get it, but Skeptico was not using a straw-man. I don't know what other words in English will explain that.

Nowhere did I try to refute your silly claims; I'm sure Skep will get right on that.

What I did point out is your mis-use of the straw man fallacy. Accusing someone of using a logical fallacy when they did not is being an asshole. Please apologize and move on.

I still stand by my original quote that skeptico straw mans the documentary rather than having any credible challenge that the tomb was from the time of Jesus...

Another claim! I'm sure you'll tell me you didn't make this point later, but please show me where the article attacks a claim the filmmakers did not make.

Again, do you have anything to add to the conversation about the Jesus Tomb?

Part of your argument is that the article uses the straw-man fallacy. I've shown that it has not. Again, nowhere in the article does Skeptico debate a claim the filmmakers did not make.

Because your self-righteous attention to terminology has only served to further my argument.

I fail to see how.

Unless you can prove otherwise, please withdraw the claim from your argument.

Colin, if you can't express your arguments clearly, then how do you expect to convince anyone?

(Included a closing tag for a hanging Bold)

You haven't actually read the book or seen the documentary have you? Is this why you keep harping on about nonsense?

My silly arguments? I'm actually arguing the points of the blog. You are debating the finer details of debate rhetoric. That seems to me to be far more an asshole (and silly) thing to do than my rightful claim that skeptico spends much of his original post attacking weak targets. He has NO proof that this is not the tomb of Jesus Christ, so he aims his sites at the film or the method- that means he is putting up a weaker argument to supplant the facts. What is a straw man again? Could you post your pointless link so that I can continue to talk in circles.

OK, here are examples from his blog post (besides the long and pointless opening paragraph):
1. He uses the tomb of the Beatles as an analogy that is irrevelant because it does not disprove the hypothesis of the film. He is setting up the easy target of this analogy without debating the facts. He is debating the assumptions made with the obscurity of 2000 years in a time without much recorded history.
2. He uses the statistical math as a target, and yet admits that the respected statistician hasn't actually released his calculations. So, he is debating nothing but the presentation of the math, not the math itself.
3. He uses the Mariemne connection as an easy target because it requires speculation. It is not one of the confirmed facts of the tomb.
4. He uses the easy target of DNA evidence because it also requires speculation. The filmmakers claim that the DNA indicates that the two people in the ossuaries could be unmarried- skeptico fails to see the point that if they were familial DNA, it would rule out this tomb. The argument that she could be married to anyone in the tomb does not refute the facts that the two people aren't related.

The only thing in the original blog that wasn't shooting at easy or irrelevant targets is the reference to the argument from Ben Witherington, and that is speculative at best because there isn't any accurate contextual information that we can research about Jesus Christ since all the history about him was written years later by people with an agenda.

The only evidence that anybody has found of his existence has been this tomb itself.

Skeptico replies to Colin

Re: I did read your original review. You seemed caught up on the statistical claims, which you don't even have an argument against until the statistician (whom you admit is not a hoaxer) clarifies his math.

Nonsense. I specifically argued against including Mariamne because that would be circular reasoning. Please explain why that argument is wrong.

Re: You seem to ignore my point that the names in their context are unusual.

You are ignoring the point that the rarity or otherwise of the names have already been allowed for in the statistics.

Re: They didn't go and make up the Acts of Philip. It existed- with Mariemne clearly being Magdelene

So what? The Acts of Philip are unreliable – another point you have not refuted but continue to ignore.

Re: … by pointing to their common nature, you are not categorically eliminating the possibility of this tomb being that of the Bible's Jesus.

Never said I had – btw THAT was a straw man argument you were making there.

Re: What you've done is taken your pre-conceived opinion that either Jesus doesn't exist or that these filmmakers are frauds, and you have formed a belief that this is not his tomb.

You must be a mind reader then, to know what my pre-conceived opinion was. Unfortunately, a poor mind reader, since I approached it with an open mind.

Re: It can't be certain, it won't ever be proven one way or another…

Possibly not.

Re: …therefor neither side should insist on their opinion.

Wrong. Whether it can’t be proven is not the issue. The issue is, is there a reason to suppose it is the tomb of Jesus. The evidence is unconvincing, therefore we should not insist it might be.

Re: I still stand by my original quote that skeptico straw mans the documentary rather than having any credible challenge that the tomb was from the time of Jesus

Yes, except you have not demonstrated that. You have only demonstrated you have not understood my arguments. For example, you go on to say:

Re: He uses the tomb of the Beatles as an analogy that is irrevelant because it does not disprove the hypothesis of the film.

The analogy is to help explain what the filmmakers really found. I was trying to make it clear and memorable. And hopefully a little lighthearted. You need to lighten up.

Btw, I never claimed the analogy “disprove[d] the hypothesis of the film”, so another straw man from you there.

Re: He uses the statistical math as a target, and yet admits that the respected statistician hasn't actually released his calculations. So, he is debating nothing but the presentation of the math, not the math itself.

Nonsense. I showed that the probability of Mariamne should be removed. Again, you haven’t shown why I was wrong in this.

Re: He uses the Mariemne connection as an easy target because it requires speculation. It is not one of the confirmed facts of the tomb.

Huh? Mariamne was included in the stats to arrive at the 1 in 600 figure. It’s one of the core assumptions of the film.

Re: He uses the easy target of DNA evidence because it also requires speculation.

It’s not my fault if the DNA evidence was an easy target – the filmmakers included the DNA evidence as a core part of their film except it means very little.

Re: The only thing in the original blog that wasn't shooting at easy or irrelevant targets is the reference to the argument from Ben Witherington…

Nonsense. You have not refuted, or probably even understood my numerous arguments. Address my actual points or go away.

You have not refuted my arguments either. For instance, you repeatedly argue about the common names, but then you admit that the names included in the statistics have their uncommon elements factored in. So are they common or not? Let's not be wishy washy about it.

You just seem to want to run around the argument with cute analogies that don't and can't refute the actual evidence.

You guys are the experts on "straw men" I can tell. So what do you call it when you attack the weaker speculative part of a hypothesis, and ignore the actual facts? Is there a name for that?

I don't have to be a mind-reader to tell that you've made up your mind about this tomb. It's quite obvious by your smug comments that you've automatically dismissed it and anybody who challenges you.

The Acts of Philip links Mariamne to Magdelene. Thus, she is included in the statistics. Are you suggesting that the person who wrote Acts of Philip invented a Mariamne pseudonym for Magdelene (along with her connection to Greece) so that Simcha could hoax us all? The connection was there, not forced, and he used it as part of his speculation. You've invented the circular logic argument; it's not relevant.

I understand that Mariamne is a core assumption of the film. You're attacking the assumptions, not the facts. We could assume anything- including that Mariamne was the secret wife of Jesus (and not Magdelene). And there is no way to refute that. My point- you are refuting something that can neither be proven nor disproven.

You seem to really want to build up that DNA evidence as "the core part of the film". I believe the evidence was just to show that the two ossuaries were unrelated, so that the speculation couldn't be immediately dismissed. When did they turn it into a core part of the film? They didn't, but you insist on knocking down this target without even understanding it.

It's so cute how you tell people to "go away" with arrogance and dismissiveness. I don't need to refute your arguments because your arguments are complete shit. They don't refute the evidence of this tomb's potential importance. It's your job now to tell me how the proof that has been burdened: the time, the place, and the relevant names- are absolutely wrong. If you can't, and you haven't yet, then all you have is your own smug and baseless opinions.

Skeptico replies to Colin

Re: You have not refuted my arguments either.

Your sole argument is that the names are unusual. You have not submitted one piece of evidence to support that claim. They are not unusual. The exact probabilities of the names are included in the stats, and so their rarity has been taken into account. The only rare name is Mariamne, and I explained why that had to be taken out. You continue to ignore these facts.

Re: For instance, you repeatedly argue about the common names, but then you admit that the names included in the statistics have their uncommon elements factored in. So are they common or not? Let's not be wishy washy about it.

What on earth are you babbling about? Read what I wrote above.

Re: You just seem to want to run around the argument with cute analogies that don't and can't refute the actual evidence.

No, an analogy doesn’t prove anything. The purpose of an analogy is to help explain a complex issue. You are either too stupid to understand the analogy or (more likely) are just not interested in hearing anything that conflicts with your pre-conceived opinion about this film. Still, your argument here is pretty funny. Read the comment you made next, highlighted below to see why:

Re: You guys are the experts on "straw men" I can tell. So what do you call it when you attack the weaker speculative part of a hypothesis, and ignore the actual facts? Is there a name for that?

LOL. In your sneaky complaint about “cute analogies” you just “attack[ed] the weaker speculative part of [my post], and ignore[d] the actual facts. Is there a name for that?

But actually no – that’s not a straw man. A straw man is where you make up an easily refutable version of your opponent’s argument, assign that made up argument to your opponent, and then attack that made up argument. Please show me where I attack a position the filmmakers didn’t take. That you think the DNA evidence was not a key part of their argument is irrelevant – it was an actual argument they made. In fact though, it wasn’t a major part of my rebuttal, only 102 words of a 2,400 word article. So your “point” (if I could dignify it so) was weak as well as incorrectly labeled.

Re: I don't have to be a mind-reader to tell that you've made up your mind about this tomb. It's quite obvious by your smug comments that you've automatically dismissed it and anybody who challenges you.

Really? Evidence please I had made up my mind before I saw the film.

Re: The Acts of Philip links Mariamne to Magdelene. Thus, she is included in the statistics. Are you suggesting that the person who wrote Acts of Philip invented a Mariamne pseudonym for Magdelene (along with her connection to Greece) so that Simcha could hoax us all?

As I wrote before, and as several experts have reported, The Acts of Philip are unreliable, and even then the Magdalene interpretation is just the speculation of one person. No contemporary documents refer to Magdalene as Mariamne. More importantly, even the Acts of Philip don’t say that Magdalene was Jesus’ wife. The filmmakers had to assume that to get the 600 to 1 odds. As I explained at length, but you still do not understand, this is circular reasoning.

Re: The connection was there, not forced, and he used it as part of his speculation. You've invented the circular logic argument; it's not relevant.

Speculation is right. And speculation is not evidence. I didn’t “invent” the circular argument, the filmmakers used circular logic. Obviously you just don’t understand the point I was making.

Re: I understand that Mariamne is a core assumption of the film. You're attacking the assumptions, not the facts.

It is an assumption and it is also a conclusion – which is why it is circular reasoning. And of course I am attacking an assumption they made. Why wouldn’t I if it is a poor assumption?

Re: You seem to really want to build up that DNA evidence as "the core part of the film". I believe the evidence was just to show that the two ossuaries were unrelated, so that the speculation couldn't be immediately dismissed. When did they turn it into a core part of the film? They didn't, but you insist on knocking down this target without even understanding it.

It was a large part of the film. Not my fault. And which part of the DNA evidence didn't I understand?

Re: It's so cute how you tell people to "go away" with arrogance and dismissiveness. I don't need to refute your arguments because your arguments are complete shit.

Mind your language.

Re: They don't refute the evidence of this tomb's potential importance.

Why not? Why is the Mariamne circular reasoning argument invalid?

Re: It's your job now to tell me how the proof that has been burdened: the time, the place, and the relevant names- are absolutely wrong. If you can't, and you haven't yet, then all you have is your own smug and baseless opinions.

No it is not. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. Unless you can show me some evidence that this is the tomb of Jesus, other than your claim that these names are rare, then all you have are your own smug and baseless opinions.

Some questions for you to answer if you wish to continue with this:

  1. Why is the Mariamne circular reasoning argument invalid?
  2. What is your evidence that The Acts of Philip, and Bovon's interpretation of it, are reliable?
  3. Why wouldn’t I attack an assumption if it is a poor assumption?
  4. What is your actual evidence for saying this is the tomb of Jesus?
  5. Which part of the DNA evidence didn't I understand?

Put up or shut up.

When did attacking the assumptions of an argument become something you shouldn't do? Oh, I guess when it shows that argument to be wrong.

All those philosophy professors taught me wrong. Do you think I could get a refund on those classes? Would you help me to explain to them why attacking assumptions is invalid Colin?

It's been long enough since I read the initial articles here that I hesitate to address the substance of the arguments. But I'll lay this point out in plain English for Colin, who seems to be struggling with it:

A straw man argument is when you argue against a claim which is a caricature of your opponent's actual arguments. Instead of addressing your opponent's actual points, you simplify or distort those points into something ridiculous and easy to refute, and them proceed to knock it down. For instance, when a Creationist argues against the idea that "one day, some animal just decided to evolve an eye," they are arguing against a straw man. No scientist would make such a claim; it's a caricature of the theory of evolution, which would instead say that random mutations resulted in simple photoreceptors, which gave certain populations a survival advantage over other populations, and over time those photoreceptors and those animals got more complex, until we have a variety of different animal eyes.

When you argue against some point that is incidental to a person's argument, and then claim that you have refuted their argument, I think that's something closer to a red herring. You're picking out some trait which is unimportant to the point (say, using an analogy to clarify your argument), arguing against that incidental point, and then claiming that you have refuted the argument though the point wasn't vital to it.

I suppose the latter could be considered a straw man, in that you're pretending that this incidental point makes up the entire substance of the argument, but it seems like there ought to be another term for that.

Another aspect to the straw man is the false dilemma, where a ludicrous extreme is presented as the only alternative to a viewpoint you don't agree with:

"The banning of meat products is the only humane option."

"I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I like to eat meat, and I should have that right."

"oh - perhaps you'd like to see all vegetarians lined up against a wall and shot, then?"

You can't easily disprove speculations (within the context of possible accuracy) made about someone whose life is so mysterious and relatively undocumented. For instance, I've speculated that Jesus hoaxed everyone with common magic tricks and a faked resurrection, and that Judas and maybe a few others were the only one's to know. Somebody could easily tell me that this can't be true because Jesus was not described as a hoaxer in the Bible. Jesus being married and having a child is not outside the realm of possibility. A lot of focus has been put on Magdelene from Da Vinci Code woo, but people are still free to speculate outside of the drama from that movie. And when you focus only on the speculation, you ignore the obvious facts.

1. The filmmakers included her name because there was an ancient story that places Mariamne (or Magdelene) in Greece. It's weak and speculative, but her name is included in this cluster for that reasons. I'm pretty sure that the statistician accounted for the chance that this name may be irrelevant.

2. There is no evidence that the Acts of Philip are reliable. Nor is there substantial evidence that they are unreliable. If you start accounting for odd miracles (and Word being written years after the death of Jesus), then you must discount the entire New Testament and there is no point anyway. I actually kind of prefer this argument.

I've always admitted that this part of the hypothesis is weak and speculative, but it isn't integral to the evidence- you can remove it and still have a compelling tomb.

3. You are welcome to attack whatever you'd like, but by focusing on the assumptions, you have completely ignored the actual evidence. Like I've said before, we can speculate all day long because there isn't any way to know the details of the life of Jesus Christ.

4. Just the fact that there is a "Jesus, son of Joseph" and a "Maria" together in the same tomb near Jerusalem, and the tomb is dated to the time of Christ, makes it important. None of those facts have been conclusively disproven. I'm just trying to show that this tomb could be important, and that the basic facts support that argument.

Then you have the circumstantial evidence: Jose' name, the chevron, and the cross next to Jesus' name. Alone, these items of circumstantial evidence are not compelling, but viewed in the context of the tomb's facts they are at least interesting.

The real problem with the book is the focus on the James ossuary. For every connection that these guys prove for that ossuary to be in the tomb, there is at least one fact that cancels it out.

I'm willing to accept that this tomb may not be the Christ tomb. I'm also willing to accept that this tomb may be Christ's tomb. There hasn't been sufficient proof to rule this tomb out. There has been proof that the specualtions may be off-target, but that doesn't eliminate the tomb as a probablility.

Skeptico replies to Colin

Your last response was better, but I’m afraid you’re still missing the important points. And you’re just flat out wrong in some of the things you write.

Re: 1. The filmmakers included her name because there was an ancient story that places Mariamne (or Magdelene) in Greece.

Yes - in Greece. Doesn’t that make it less likely? The tomb is in Jerusalem.

Re: It's weak and speculative, but her name is included in this cluster for that reasons. I'm pretty sure that the statistician accounted for the chance that this name may be irrelevant.

Really? How did he account for it, exactly? What percentage did he allow for “this name may be irrelevant”? How is that calculated, exactly?

Of course, we know he did not allow for the name being irrelevant. On the contrary, the calculations specifically assumed the name was relevant. (Without it, the 1 in 600 odds disappear.) I find it hard to see how you can think the statistician had allowed for this – your idea was directly contradicted by the explanations given in the film that showed it was included as relevant and essential.

Re: 2. There is no evidence that the Acts of Philip are reliable. Nor is there substantial evidence that they are unreliable. If you start accounting for odd miracles (and Word being written years after the death of Jesus), then you must discount the entire New Testament and there is no point anyway. I actually kind of prefer this argument.

But some documents are thought by scholars to be more reliable than others. The Acts of Philip are thought especially unreliable. But perhaps more importantly, the Mariamne = Magdalene explanation is the interpretation of only one person – all the other scholars disagree with him.

I don’t think there is much doubt any more that the Mariamne ossuary is not Magdalene.

Re: 3. You are welcome to attack whatever you'd like, but by focusing on the assumptions, you have completely ignored the actual evidence.

But what is evidence but facts and assumptions? Clearly, facts, if they really are facts, are not subject to doubt. Facts are things known to be true. To determine how you interpret those facts you have to make assumptions. Since you can’t contradict facts, all you have left to examine are assumptions. And virtually all the assumptions made by the filmmakers are in doubt, and many have been flatly contradicted by experts. In addition, one of their assumptions was also a conclusion they drew – which (as I have explained ad nauseam) is fallacious circular reasoning. I haven’t ignored evidence. On the contrary, you have ignored virtually all the contradictory evidence. As did the filmmakers.

Re: 4. Just the fact that there is a "Jesus, son of Joseph" and a "Maria" together in the same tomb near Jerusalem, and the tomb is dated to the time of Christ, makes it important.

No it doesn’t. The odds of this occurring are quite good. When you consider this along with the other problems noted by experts, it is really unlikely that this is the tomb of Jesus.

Re: Then you have the circumstantial evidence: Jose' name, the chevron, and the cross next to Jesus' name. Alone, these items of circumstantial evidence are not compelling, but viewed in the context of the tomb's facts they are at least interesting.

Mildly. As a novelty. And as a basis for a misleading book and film. But not as a connection to Jesus.

Re: There hasn't been sufficient proof to rule this tomb out. There has been proof that the specualtions may be off-target, but that doesn't eliminate the tomb as a probablility.

I agree we can’t completely eliminate the tomb as a possibility - you could probably never do that conclusively. However, it does really eliminate it as a probability. There are not equal probabilities that this is/is not the tomb of Jesus. Just because there are two possibilities (is/is not Jesus), this doesn’t mean that each is 50%. There is really no compelling reason to suppose this is the tomb of Jesus. There is just nothing that would really make us say that it is – it’s just that Cameron was too quick to latch onto the Jeshua bar Yehosef inscription and only went looking for evidence that would confirm what he wanted to find. That’s not how science is done and it’s not how skepticism is done. As I wrote before, this exercise demonstrates why we should look to peer reviewed scientific literature, and not TV films, to answer scientific questions.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site