It is often stated that there is no evidence for God. That’s an easy conclusion to draw if we limit our understanding of the world to the way it seems to operate in day-to-day life. This includes the level of science and technology that we encounter on a regular basis today – things like smart phones with GPS and instant worldwide communication, modern medicine with vaccines and transplants, and AI that has made computers conversational and seemingly creative. In all these things, most people see no clear evidence for God’s existence and in fact, see evidence for the success of modern science and technology.
Given such observations, our minds usually generalize and conclude that they represent the fundamental nature of reality. In other words, what we see is all there is.1 We construct a story that explains what we see and then believe that the story represents all reality. It is then easy to reinforce this with selective learning, confirmation bias, and so on.
While this sort of behavior is commonly associated with theists, I think that something similar happens with atheists who see no evidence for God, or who, when given some, immediately assert that any other possible explanation that might exist must be the correct one. Since there are many true mysteries in science, despite the apparent successes, the only rational intellectual position is agnosticism instead of certainty.
In other words, there are cases where possible explanations exist for mysteries but there is no consensus among subject matter experts about whether they are right. In those cases, we cannot make strong assertions about which explanation is correct. Any belief that one must be correct is really just a form of dogmatism.
Now, this sort of blind insistence on natural explanations might be reasonable if we were confident that all remaining mysteries were such that they were almost certainly able to be explained within our current scientific and philosophical frameworks, but this is not the case. Mysteries in science point to the possibility that our understanding of reality itself could be very wrong, while mysteries in mathematics point to the possibility that any physics that is based on math (eg, all physics that we know of) will have holes in it.
Increasingly, to many who look carefully at the edges of our knowledge and experiences, it’s becoming clear that there is still a lot of mystery and uncertainty. While people sometimes invoke this stuff to “prove” some mystical truths, the reality is that the best we can do is state that there seems to be things that point to a reality of more.
If that’s the case, then the pendulum swinging from mystery to certainty may be swinging back again. Whether this is associated with theistic truths remains to be seen.
Now, all of this is very general, but there are some specific topics that can be discussed. Here is a list of the kinds of mysteries that I’ve been talking about. I hope to write more about these in future posts.
- The fine-tuned nature of the universe for the existence of life.
- Why is there something rather than nothing?
- The hard problem of consciousness.
- The quantum measurement problem and the meaning of wave equations. This may be further complicated by the fact that quantum physics seems to indicate that the universe is not “locally real”.
- The “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics in the natural sciences.
- The link between mathematics, which seems to be fundamental to the operation of the universe, and limits of mathematics such as the computational halting problem and Godel’s theorem.
- The big bang and the contingent nature of physical reality.
- A wide variety of human religious experiences.
- Philosophical problems such as the basis for morality.
All of these are problems for which theistic explanations are just one possible explanation. The question is whether we should allow such explanations as part of the possible set of solutions, or dogmatically reject them on principle.
- The phrase “What You See Is All There Is” is from the book “Thinking Fast and Slow, by the Nobel prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman. From the Wikipedia entry of his book: “To explain overconfidence, Kahneman introduces the concept he terms What You See Is All There Is (WYSIATI). This theory states that when the mind makes decisions, it deals primarily with Known Knowns, phenomena it has observed already. It rarely considers Known Unknowns, phenomena that it knows to be relevant but about which it does not have information. Finally it appears oblivious to the possibility of Unknown Unknowns, unknown phenomena of unknown relevance.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow ↩︎
Kelvin's Clouds 
“The fine-tuned nature of the universe for the existence of life.”
No evidence of fine tuning, and theists must explain why their god was evidently not very bright, or malicious, when it supposedly made our sun and chose constants that make it give humans and other animals cancer.
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Why shouldn’t there be something?
“The hard problem of consciousness.”
it’s from theh brain, how exactly we don’t know yet. No brain, no consciousness, and no one has shown a free floating “soul” exists. We may never know completely. Still no evidence for any gods.
“The quantum measurement problem and the meaning of wave equations. This may be further complicated by the fact that quantum physics seems to indicate that the universe is not “locally real”.”
No evidence tht the universe isn’t real, and we are in the infancy of quantum science. All this seems to be is a god of the gaps argument.
The “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics in the natural sciences.
“The link between mathematics, which seems to be fundamental to the operation of the universe, and limits of mathematics such as the computational halting problem and Godel’s theorem.”
Math describes the universe, so it being fundamental seems to be the wrong question to ask. Still no need for a god.
“The big bang and the contingent nature of physical reality.”
Yep, something seems to have started this universe, no need that it is a supernatural being.
“A wide variety of human religious experiences.”
which each theist discounts in favor of their own, and you all have the problem you can’t show your experiences to be what you claim they are.
“Philosophical problems such as the basis for morality.”
No evidence morality is not simply an invention by humans. Not one theist can show objective morality, and not one can show that they follow it since theists, includign christians, can’t agree on what morals their god wants. Christians also have a rather amusing problem since their god never gave morality to humans. Eve took it.
Claims of “mystery and uncertainty” are just lead ups to god of the gaps arguments.
“ ‘The big bang and the contingent nature of physical reality.’
Yep, something seems to have started this universe, no need that it is a supernatural being.”
Of course there is no need for a god in this case, because that possibility can’t be proven. Neither can any other possibility yet, so why isn’t a creator as reasonable a possibility as anything else?
How do you decide, among all the possibilities, which ones are possible and which are not? Specifically, how did you decide that any sort of theistic solution is wrong?
Most of the other questions I listed also have to do with fundamental aspects of reality and existence. The question about consciousness, for example, generally comes down to the question of dualism, which is a question about the fundamental nature of material reality. The fine tuning problem, which most subject matter experts consider to be a good question backed by plenty of evidence, relates to the nature of reality in a different way, as does the question about existence.
The “locally real” issue and the mathematical questions have to do with fundamental limits to our ability to know things with certainty.
Both of these categories – fundamental nature of reality and fundamental limits of knowledge – are much different than the typical god of the gaps sorts of arguments.
Incidentally, I wasn’t clear about the “not locally real” issue; I meant it in the sense of the Nobel prize a couple years ago for work done to show some specific quantum properties. The point is that there seem to be limits to how we can know whether objects have definite properties when not observed. See, for example, this article in Scientific American: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it
Why isn’t a creator a possibility? Because no theist has ever been able to show one exists, no matter how they try to change the parameters, claim it is hiding, etc. We can know that there is no Christian god since not one of the supposed events it caused can be shown to have happened.
Theists have been claiming each other’s “solutions” are wrong, so I don’t need to do much about that. Again, evidence is the key, and theists have none.
Dualism also fails since if there is some “soul” then we should be able to detect free floating ones since supposedly this soul interacts with the brain, an electrochemical organ. No evidence, no need for it, and thus no reason to believe in the supernatural.
There is no evidence for fine-tuning. There is lot of assumptions about fine tuning, and how it “looks” like an intelligence is involved. Nothing supports that either. If there is fine-tuning, the theist must explain why their gods failed in so many ways with their claims of how “perfect” the universe is and it being 99.999…% lethal to humans.
Claiming that we can’t know things with certainty is a lovely thing for theists to hide behind. Unfortunately, despite appeals to quantum physics, it seems that reality doesn’t just up and magically change. We can indeed know if objects have certain properties without observing them since we know that tides happen and we don’t have to be looking at the moon to know it causes them.
All of these are god of the gaps arguments since you claim that if we don’t understand something, then it has to be a god. We may never completely understand many of these things. Still no evidence for gods.
the article is interesting but it still has yet to show that things at the quantum level change what is at the level we function at.
“All of these are god of the gaps arguments since you claim that if we don’t understand something, then it has to be a god.”
No, I’m not saying that there “has to be a god” at all. I’m saying that they show theism to be a reasonable possibility that I can choose, just like non-theism is a reasonable possibility that you can choose. However, neither of us can rationally assert their position with certainty.
I do think that theists often overstate their points, but I also think atheists sometimes overstate their position. In my opinion, both are examples of the kinds of cognitive errors alluded to in my post, as I mentioned in the article. (I highly recommend Kahneman’s book for an accessible and fun introduction to these sorts of cognitive issues, if you haven’t read it.)
Your assertions generally seem to be that lack of evidence for god means that there is therefore no god. Do you use that type of reasoning consistently? For example, for those (even atheistic) scientists who do believe there is a fine tuning question, one of the most common solutions is the presence of some sort of multiverse. Similarly, one popular interpretation for quantum mechanics is the many-worlds interpretation that basically posits a different type of multiverse. However, even though both of these are accepted as possible solutions of the original questions, neither has any evidence to show whether these are true. From your standpoint, does that mean that the scientists are all wrong to suggest those possibilities?
I’m glad you enjoyed the article, by the way. I thought they did a good job clearly explaining some rather subtle things.
Unfortunately, Jim, there is nothing that shows that theism is a reasonable possibility. Theists, including Christians, have spent 2000+ years trying to show that gods exist and in not one instance has “god” been the answer to any question. I can indeed assert that there are no gods with rationality and certainty since this is the case.
Humanity’s gods have been getting vaguer and vaguer as time has passed, since theists must try to make it plausible that these gods could somehow exist somewhere and in some form. That’s where the “ground of being” nonsense that Tillich invented comes from. If you can’t define it, the idea is that no one can show it isn’t really there.
Theists, including you, do overstate your claims. Again, no evidence so no rational need to believe in some vague possibility that gods exist. Atheists can show that no god as defined by humans exist. I’m not sure how that is “overstating” anything. Perhaps you can explain it further. I do note that Kahneman’s book was described as flawed since the research is based on couldn’t be replicated.
Concerning the lack of evidence for any gods, you find fault in saying if there is no evidence there is no god. Now, would you consider it a flaw if I said since there is no evidence for fairies, that means there are no fairies? A lot of theists in my experience want special treatment for their gods in these cases. So, yes, I do that type of reasoning consistently, but theists often don’t.
Again, no evidence for fine-tuning so no reason to believe it exists. To assume that some entity is required to do this *and* that a 99.999…% deadly universe is somehow only meant for humans is ridiculous if you have no evidence. No evidence for a multiverse either, though it is a fun thought experiment. I’m a big fan of science fiction and comic books.
I am saying that scientists are wrong in saying that baseless assertions are true when they have no evidence for them. Suggesting them is fine, claiming that there is evidence is a whole other thing. That humans can think up such things doesn’t mean that they are real. This reflects a lot of the various “philosophical arguments for god” since again, that humans can make up arguments doesn’t automatically make the arguments true. The ontological argument is one of the worst, since it assumes some “maximally great” entity has to exist if humans can simply imagine it does.
“Theists, including Christians, have spent 2000+ years trying to show that gods exist and in not one instance has “god” been the answer to any question.”
I think the point of my original list was that there are a number of outstanding questions for which theism is a possible answer. Since those questions as yet have no other answer, theism cannot be excluded. And some of the items show that our understanding of the universe is incomplete in ways that prevent us from proving, or perhaps ever being able to prove, that it is incorrect.
As for evidence (not proof) of theism, the broad range of human experiences that have produced various theistic frameworks are themselves evidence. If there was no such set of experiences, then theism could only be thought of as a made-up story. But given the range of experiences, theism can be considered a valid hypothesis. Then some of the questions and observations can be considered relevant evidence for confirming or disconfirming that hypothesis.
Why do you consider human religious experiences to have zero evidential value when there are no natural explanations? Granted, it may be weak evidence, but still nonzero.
I tend to agree with you regarding the philosophical arguments like the “ground of being” and the ontological argument being weak. I think the contingency argument is less weak, though, which is why I listed it.
“Atheists can show that no god as defined by humans exist. I’m not sure how that is “overstating” anything. Perhaps you can explain it further.”
Unequivocal statements that there is no evidence seem overstated to me, as described above. Also, statements about the ability to disprove any god’s existence seem overstated since it is generally considered impossible (or nearly so, depending) to prove a negative.
Since “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, even rejecting my statements above, how does one prove the absence of any god?
So, not accepting the existence of a god seems reasonable, but stating that such a position is “proven” or even “provable” seems overstated. Does that help?
“I am saying that scientists are wrong in saying that baseless assertions are true when they have no evidence for them. Suggesting them is fine, claiming that there is evidence is a whole other thing.”
So if a multiverse proposition is baseless, asserting the existence of one is wrong but suggesting them as a possible explanation (a hypothesis?) is fine. In which case, why isn’t suggesting theism as a possible explanation also not fine even if one believes it to be just as baseless?
“I do note that Kahneman’s book was described as flawed since the research is based on couldn’t be replicated.”
Do you have a reference that discusses this? He won the Nobel prize for things related to that work, and I’ve seen it mentioned many times in discussions of cognitive errors. The basic principles of WYSIATI seem to be related to other well-known cognitive biases such as the Dunning-Kruger effect and the things that cause us to be certain about something even when we’re wrong (see “On Being Certain” by Robert Burton, for example). Exploration of these cognitive errors is one of the other things that causes me to think that many metaphysical assertions are overstated – it’s basic human nature to do so.
You “think” your point was this? How is it that you don’t know? Again, your claims of theism being a “possible” answer fails since despite constant claims and constant looking, it has never been an answer for anything at all. Again, you have no more than god of the gaps claims: if there is no answer (you forget the idea of *yet*) then theism has to be a possibility. This makes no sense since there is no evidence for theism of any kind at all.
Jim, you start with a presupposition that you can’t support and that makes any other claims fail since the premise can’t be shown as true. Our understanding is incomplete? So? No need shown for a god. That someone can’t show some vague nonsense doesn’t actually exist changes nothing about that. I can’t show that a worm isn’t tapdancing on Ceti Alpha V, but it doesn’t matter since that worm can’t be shown to impact what we see. Just like some vague “theos”.
All that human experience has shown is that humans assign agency when there is none to be found. Your attempt to claim that since humans make up gods means that gods exist, a fallacy appealing to tradition and popularity. The range of experiences shows there there is no one “truth” when it comes to divine claims, something that most, if not all, religions claim. I am curious though, how do you think questions serve as evidence? And not one observation claimed to show a god exist has been shown to e true.
It is zero evidential value since experience is subjective.
Why is the contingency argument less weak? We see zero evidence a god is needed.
Until you can show evidence any gods exist at all, stating unequivocally that there are no gods as humans claim isn’t overstated. It’s a remark about the facts as they stand. Offering a “well, maybe…” ignores that despite looking desperately, magic has never been an answer. I could say “well, maybe some worm exists on Ceti Alpha V, and it’s a god if I choose to define “god” that way, it would make a god exist”, is rather ridiculous.
It’s not hard to prove a negative when a god has attributes assigned to it. Again, the attempt by theists to make their gods more and more vague is notable since that attempt is intended to make a negative harder to prove.
What you have is both absence of evidence *and* evidence of absence. There is no evidence for “gods”. At any time gods are claimed to have done something, no one noticed and when about their normal lives, showng evidence that nothing supernatural happened.
A hypothesis isn’t a wild ass guess as many average people assume. A hypothesis starts with observations and asks “why”. We don’t have that observation to even start with. And yes, I do have a reference that says that, the Wikipedia article you cited, scroll down to “replication crisis”. The Nobel prize is not perfect, so appealing to that fails too.
it’s curious how you say many metaphysical assertions are overstated, and yet that’s what you do with baseless claims of gods existing.
“You “think” your point was this? How is it that you don’t know?”
I meant that as an idiomatic way of saying that the intent expressed in the original post seemed a little different than this discussion, and so perhaps it would be helpful to restate it. Poor writing, sorry.
“Our understanding is incomplete? So? No need shown for a god. That someone can’t show some vague nonsense doesn’t actually exist changes nothing about that. I can’t show that a worm isn’t tapdancing on Ceti Alpha V, but it doesn’t matter since that worm can’t be shown to impact what we see.”
I don’t think anything demonstrates a “need” for a god, only that a god is a possible solution. I know other theists use terms like “need” and “proof”, but I try to avoid that, since that’s not what I believe.
No one is claiming that tap dancing worms exist, no one has ever claimed an experience of tap dancing worms, and the existence of tap dancing worms would not explain anything that is currently not explained.
“All that human experience has shown is that humans assign agency when there is none to be found. Your attempt to claim that since humans make up gods means that gods exist, a fallacy appealing to tradition and popularity. The range of experiences shows there there is no one “truth” when it comes to divine claims, something that most, if not all, religions claim. I am curious though, how do you think questions serve as evidence? And not one observation claimed to show a god exist has been shown to e true.
It is zero evidential value since experience is subjective.”
The number of different claims is a valid, but different, question. Debating specific characteristics of a god is valid, but different than debating the existence of any god.
I don’t think that questions are evidence in a general sense, but when an observation has no known explanation, then asking “what is causing this?” and testing competing hypotheses against the observation seems like the standard application of data as evidence. In that case, the question is not evidence, but the observation may be.
But maybe that’s wrong, or maybe you have a different model of evidence. What do you consider the relationship between observations and evidence? In other words, what is needed for an observation to be considered valid evidence?
Regarding human experience, for example, is it ever reasonable to consider human experience to be valid evidence?
In history, when there is no material (eg, archaeological) evidence and no general understanding of the relevant circumstances that refutes it (eg, other verified historical context), then human testimony is considered valid evidence for historical events, isn’t it?
Or in legal settings, when there is no material (eg, forensic) evidence regarding a matter, and no general understanding of the relevant circumstances that refutes it (eg, other well-established facts of the situation), then human testimony is considered valid evidence for claims being made, isn’t it?
Similarly, if there are human testimonies of religious experience that have no other material explanation, and no general understanding of the relevant circumstances that refutes them (eg, complete scientific explanations), then why wouldn’t human testimony have any evidential value?
What’s different about these cases?
So then, what do you consider to be the nature of evidence, what makes evidence strong, and what makes it weak? You focus a lot on (lack of) evidence; how do you define it? This conversation has made me realize that I need to be more careful about that – there are various models for interpreting observations as evidence (or not).
“Why is the contingency argument less weak? We see zero evidence a god is needed.”
Contingency, or first cause arguments, are often either answered by stating that we simply have to take some assertions, such as materialism, as a given, a “brute fact”, or if it’s a valid challenge about materialism, then it also applies to any sort of deity. But existence of a deity entails aspects of reality outside of materialism, by definition, and the principles of contingency don’t seem to be well defined for such domains, so such a statement is not as well founded as it is for strictly materialist domains.
“And yes, I do have a reference that says that, the Wikipedia article you cited, scroll down to “replication crisis”. The Nobel prize is not perfect, so appealing to that fails too.”
Thanks for the pointer, it sounds like there’s some serious doubt about some of his conclusions. However, one of the reasons that I like the general WYSIATI model is that it is reflected in different ways in other work, hence the other things I mentioned. Similar, not identical, reflecting different ways humans build sometimes faulty models of the world. And yes, including theists.
Jim, if you can’t show a need for a god, then you have nothing to base a possible solution on, especially when you can’t show a god merely exists.
It doesn’t matter if tapdancing worms don’t exist. They are as possible as your god and why wouldn’t they explain anything that currently is not explained?
You need characteristics to have a god, Jim. So debating what a god is is exactly the same as claiming a god exists. You can’t have one without the other.
Questoins are never evidence, and you have yet to show that they are. Askign “what is causing this?” and then claiming “magic!” since you have no evidence fails. Nothing has been observed to say magic is an answer. You have no evidence to support your hypothesis, which makes it worthless. Again, a scientific hypothesis isn’t a wild-ass guess. What observations support that a god exists? Where is this magic?
Human experience can be supported with evidence. Otherwise, it is simply subjective feelings.
No, human testimony isn’t’ considered evidence on its own. It does have to have corroborating evidence to support it. That you have no archaeological evidence, and no historical context is a problem for theists. Why is there no evidence is the question you should be asking.
In a legal setting, if I say “Jim killed Jack”, there needs to be evidence for that claim. No one will simply take my word for it. Your problem is that there are always other explanations for claims of religious experience. I’ve always found it amusing that theists will claim that their experiences should be accepted without question, but those of other theists are completely unreliable.
Evidence is facts that support a claim. Not feelings, not visions, etc. If there are no facts, then there is no evidence. A fact would a path worn by 600,000+ people and animals from Egypt to Canaan accompanied by trashpits, latrines, etc. Interpretation can differ, but the fact is that those things exist.
The assertion of contingency is just that, a baseless assertion. No need to accept that assertion at all, just like there is no reason to presuppose a god is needed. We can say we simply don’t know. That many humans are uncomfortable to admit that they don’t know doesn’t mean we need to salve their upset by making baseless claims.
“It doesn’t matter if tapdancing worms don’t exist. They are as possible as your god and why wouldn’t they explain anything that currently is not explained?”
I can’t think of any observation that could be explained by the worms.On the other hand, the list I gave is intended to support, not prove, the possibility of a deity. Take for example the observations that indicate the universe had a beginning, that they suggest (not prove) the existence of a creator. Perhaps one way of stating that a little more clearly is that they increase the probability of some hypotheses (like theism, perhaps some quantum fluctuation models, etc), while decreasing the probability of others (like the steady state model, for example).
Hypotheses are formed by inductive reasoning from observations. Human experience are observations around which hypotheses can be formed. Such hypotheses can be further evaluated with additional evidence, and there are several models for that to occur.
However, there seems to be a problem with us having different definitions for the word “evidence”. You make very clear black and white statements about evidence not existing. How do you define evidence; what kind of evidence would you accept for supernatural claims? Are those definitions consistent with the way you think of other things, or do you have special definitions for thinking of religious matters?
“… In a legal setting, if I say “Jim killed Jack”, there needs to be evidence for that claim. No one will simply take my word for it. …”
Sure, to assert something significant like a murder, you need a lot of evidence, enough to constitute some sort of proof; a simple statement wouldn’t cut it. However, in a murder trial, for example, if the suspect was placed at the scene of the crime by an eyewitness with no other corroborating evidence, that single observation would still have evidential value and be taken in account as such with the other evidence.
Perhaps this illustrates the difference between “proof” and “evidence”. It would take “proof” to convict someone of murder – lots of evidence that ties together, for example – and a single testimony is not sufficient. However, even though it is not sufficient to prove the whole murder, a single testimony can still be a valid piece of evidence toward that goal.
It is in this sense that I’m stating that human experience can be considered evidence, but not proof.
How do you distinguish between the ideas of “proof” and “evidence”?
“The assertion of contingency is just that, a baseless assertion. …”
I listed that argument because it’s been an active area of debate, in different forms, for millennia and still today. In cases like this when there is great variance in the conclusions of the subject matter experts (even just sticking to secular ones), then I’m reluctant to claim great certainty on my part. People are uncomfortable with such uncertainty, and often claim they know what is and is not possible.
In my experience, conversations like this are often helped by defining terms; that’s why I’ve been asking about your views on “evidence” and “proof”. From your blog, especially the history you posted there, the lack of evidence seems to be a big deal, so it would be helpful to understand what exactly you mean by that.
That you can’t think of anything is an appeal to personal ignorance. That you can’t even support a deity is needed, your claims all still fail. A beginning to the universe shows nothing to need a creator for. You assume your god fits that. Claiming probability fails since you have no way to determine the probability of a god existing.
Human experience isn’t an observation for anyone but the person involved. That’s why I discount it as evidence. Evidence are facts that can support a claim or not. A fact to support a supernatural claim would show that magic is the answer to a question posed about the supernatural claim. For example I can ask for a fact that showed a supernatural event happened. An example would be a burn victim being healed of their injuries with no material assistance. And yes, I hold the same for all matters, including all religions, claims of ghosts, etc.
It would not be accepted as evidence being simply a claim from one person. That claim would be researched and again, backed up with evidence. At best you may consider that having more people gives a higher probability that the claim is true.
Evidence isn’t proof. Evidence is those facts that support an argument. Proof is only in mathematics.
People are indeed uncomfortable about uncertainty. That’s why they invent gods.
“That you can’t think of anything is an appeal to personal ignorance. That you can’t even support a deity is needed, your claims all still fail. A beginning to the universe shows nothing to need a creator for. You assume your god fits that. Claiming probability fails since you have no way to determine the probability of a god existing.”
You don’t need to be able to quantify the probability of a hypothesis in order to assess whether an observation makes it more or less likely. Given a set of hypotheses, you can rank them on likelihood based on increases/decreases in probability over a set of observations. It’s not ideal, but also not uncommon in the analysis of complex systems.
For example, I’ve worked on teams solving problems in complex systems that involve electronic, software, chemical, physics, and mechanical elements. Observations can be confusing, even contradictory, and it’s not uncommon to simply list +/- results for different observations when rating different hypotheses. In that case, conclusions may not be certain and decisions are made with a level of risk. Happens all the time.
“A fact to support a supernatural claim would show that magic is the answer to a question posed about the supernatural claim.”
It sounds like you are rejecting any sort of probabilistic evidence, and only consider evidence to be observations that are unambiguous and necessary for proving a hypothesis. For example, by repeatedly insisting that observations don’t indicate any need for a god, as opposed to whether or not they simply support the possibility. Unfortunately, the real world is not always that cut and dried, especially with regard to non-repeatable events (analysis that has to be done after the fact like criminology, historical studies, some cosmology, certain types of failure analysis, etc), which include some of these topics.
It sounds like we don’t agree on what constitutes evidence, but I do agree with your description of proof.
“People are indeed uncomfortable about uncertainty. That’s why they invent gods.”
Sure, as well as make a lot of other mistakes in thinking. For example, when the set of subject matter experts on a topic have a range of opinions on a question, it doesn’t make sense for anyone, especially someone who is not an expert, to claim certainty. Yet this happens all the time, including the topics we’ve been discussing. Most of the things in my list fall in this category, so to claim certainty on any of them is to deny the uncertainty which really exists.
And how do you rank them if you don’t know the probability? You seem to be using a circular argument and it seems that probabilistic evidence is a contradiction in terms.
Why not only consider observations that are unambiguous and necessary? The world is that cut and dried when it comes to magic. And since you can’t show these supposed “non-repeatable events” that supposedly support the possibility of your god actually happen, you seem to have a problem. Such events in the sciences have evidence for them. Magic does not.
And yes, we don’t agree on what evidence is.
What you try to claim as evidence for god/gods, are those mistakes in thinking. There is a difference in claiming certainty and claiming that there has never been magic as the answer and no reason to assume that will change in the future. That something supposedly “happens all of the time” doesn’t mean it is correct.
Theists hide behind claims of uncertainty, when the uncertainty is so low that it is meaningless.
“And how do you rank them if you don’t know the probability? You seem to be using a circular argument and it seems that probabilistic evidence is a contradiction in terms.”
They can be ranked by assessing whether the observations make a hypothesis more or less likely. It’s very possible that such an assessment can be made without knowing absolute probability, obviously depending on the specifics of the situation. It’s fairly common to work with just changes in physical systems, rather than absolutes.
This is not a circular argument, just an application of probabilistic reasoning. For example, see the Wikipedia page on “Evidence”, and note this statement: “Probabilistic approaches, also referred to as Bayesian confirmation theory, explain the evidential relation in terms of probabilities. They hold that all that is necessary is that the existence of the evidence increases the likelihood that the hypothesis is true.” In addition, knowledge of absolutes is not always necessary to assess whether something is influenced positively or negatively.
For example, suppose a printing system started to show print quality problems typical of some sort of contamination. There could be many causes, but we test the ink and find excess levels of dissolved oxygen. This increases the probability that there is a leak in an ink line or a leak in the ink containment because those might allow air to to get to the ink. However, this decreases the probability of plastic leaching because the chemical reactions that would extract oxygen from plastic are complex and unlikely. The absolute probabilities are not known, but knowledge of physics and the system design can tell us how they change given the new information. The oxygen measurement was evidence, but only probabilistic and not conclusive.
This only illustrates some general principles; describing how they apply to the list will probably be the subject of future posts.
“Why not only consider observations that are unambiguous and necessary? The world is that cut and dried when it comes to magic. And since you can’t show these supposed “non-repeatable events” that supposedly support the possibility of your god actually happen, you seem to have a problem. Such events in the sciences have evidence for them. Magic does not.”
By “non-repeatable event”, I meant events that are being investigated but which cannot be repeated. For example: the creation of the universe, a crime, an unexpected one-time action in a complex system, ancient historical events, etc. In such cases, the only observations available may be ambiguous and the event itself simply cannot be repeated to generate more observations. We may discover new observations as investigations go on, but that’s not the same thing as repeating the event itself.
Many events in the sciences have ambiguous evidence. The questions we’re talking about are in the thick of scientific questions which are among the most contentious even without considering “magic”. You may want to believe that the observations are “unambiguous and necessary”, but wanting it doesn’t make it so.
“What you try to claim as evidence for god/gods, are those mistakes in thinking. There is a difference between claiming certainty and claiming that there has never been magic as the answer and no reason to assume that will change in the future.”
By mistaken certainty, I meant claiming more certainty than the consensus of subject matter experts in areas for which there are ambiguous observations. For example, there is great lack of consensus on how to think of the creation of the universe, even among just secular subject matter experts. The uncertainty is such that claims of deity cannot be ruled out for that particular observation when they are suggested by human experience (not just “made up”).
And similar reasoning applies to other observations, in addition to a large amount of human experience.
By saying that “magic” is not an option, you are making an assertion that not even all secular subject matter experts would agree with. That assertion may agree with your lived experience, your interpretation of the Bible, your understanding of science, and so on, so it would be a valid opinion given the lack of expert agreement. But that doesn’t make your assertion a certainty that everyone else has to accept, especially to the extent of passing judgment on other people’s lived experiences both now and throughout all history.
So you do use probability. Aka “whether the observations make a hypothesis more or less likely.”
And since you have no evidence for any god, the probability is vanishingly small. You have nothing to test, as opposed to your example
These supposed nonrepeatedable events concerning your god also have no observations, only claims of them.
Ambiguous evidence is still evidence, and baseless claims are not evidence at all. There is no “great lack of consensus on how to think of the creation of the universe”, Jim. Again, claims of “goddidit” are not evidence. And claims of knowing god exists are indeed just made up, since not a single theist can show that their experience is true to another person and a god actually exists.
Human experience is subjective by definition. Again, facts must support it for it to be considered true, and theists still have nothing. Magic is not an option since despite thousands and thousands ofyears of claims, it has never been the answer. And do show these supposed secular subject matter experts that disagree with me. Curious how theists have no problem at all in passing judgments on other’s lived experiences, all quite sure that every theist but them has no god and thus no experiences with it.
“So you do use probability. Aka ‘whether the observations make a hypothesis more or less likely.’”
Yes, because that’s how science and engineering works, which is different from proofs in math and logic. Admittedly, I approach it that way because of my background as a lifelong science geek and retired high tech R&D engineer. In science and engineering, observations are treated with varying levels of confidence and are used to establish levels of confidence in a hypothesis. Probabilistic reasoning gives a level of confidence, not a label of proven “truth”.
Another similar view came from listening to hundreds of debates between subject matter experts (SMEs) on specific matters relating faith to things like science, history, philosophy, etc. From that, forming a broad overview of the range of views.
The fact that they rarely found closure on a topic was commonly because there was great ambiguity in whatever supposed evidence, or supposed lack of it, was being discussed. It was fairly common, for both theists and atheists, when pressed to make a claim of absolute certainty, to respond that it can’t be done. This doesn’t mean a person can’t have strong opinions and commit themselves to a particular view, but that it is not rational to say that evidence shows it to be the only possible view.
One famous example of this is that even Richard Dawkins, when pressed on that question, has admitted that we simply cannot be certain. Even though people may feel strongly, they can still intellectually acknowledge the uncertainty.
Creation is an example of ambiguous evidence. While everyone agrees that the universe started at some point, the details of that, what came before, etc, are not agreed upon. Here’s how the Wikipedia article on the Universe sums this up: “There are many competing hypotheses about the ultimate fate of the universe and about what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang, while other physicists and philosophers refuse to speculate, doubting that information about prior states will ever be accessible. Some physicists have suggested various multiverse hypotheses, in which the universe might be one among many.”
These are examples of why it seems to me that SMEs disagree with you. Using a different way of assessing evidence than accepted science, history, and law (eg, saying subjective experience has zero evidential value). Insisting on absolute certainty about metaphysical matters. Ignoring the diversity of SME opinions on topics such as creation, that are broadly recognized as open questions.
Now, it’s very common for people to form their opinions from emotional reactions to life experience, or similar, and then look for ways to justify those opinions. Both theists and atheists – it’s how our minds work.
I think it’s better to be honest about that, and realize that this is a choice, not the inevitable result of some sort of proof process. Take responsibility for our choices as one among many possibilities. That’s what I was talking about when you described me as having “picked a religion” in my previous post.
Among the various rational possibilities for living with these metaphysical questions, I choose one based on Jesus, which I think represents the best choice upon which to build a life. How would you describe your choice, other than as a rejection of something else?
And yet you claimed you didn’t use probability. Again, do tell how you determine the probability of something you can’t show merely exists.
There are no “subject matter experts” when it comes to religion and philosophy. Both are based on subjective opinion, nothing else. For example, there are various Christians of contradictory sects that each claim that they are the expert in TrueChristianity™, aka, their version and who claim everyone else is wrong with no evidence at all.
I can be quite certain no gods exist as claimed by humans. Those gods have attributes that can be searched for. Despite that, there is no evidence at all for them. Theists must claim that their gods are vaguer and vaguer to argue that we can’t know for sure that something they can’t even define exists. I find it quite rational to say that gods, fairies, and a silver teapot orbiting Jupiter don’t exist since there is no evidence for them at all.
Theists always seem to think that atheists worship Dawkins. I don’t. I find many of his claims silly and baseless.
There is no evidence of gods and thus “creation” is not ambiguous. It was not caused by some being that needs human blood sacrifices by torture to make it happy. It was not created by Amun or Atum, the Egyptian force behind all things. We know this since not one of these gods can be shown to exist, and since theists all use the same arguments to try to claim their gods exist, you have quite a problem.
Subjective evidence does have zero value since theists will not accept that evidnce from each other than their particular god exists. Since you can’t even show “metaphysical matters” exist, you have nothing. You keep trying to claim that broad recognition is some how important. That’s an appeal to popularity fallacy.
There is nothing honest in accepting the baseless claims of theists. You choose a religion based on a figure you have made up to match what you want. There is no one “jesus” that Christians appeal to. I have chosen not to believe baseless nonsense that has no evidence and often causes massive harm in its ignorance and lies. I do believe that humans make our own morals, purpose and meaning, no imaginary friends needed. That means since those things are subjective, they can change and we are not stuck with the hate and harm in your bible.
I find epicureanism to be acceptable as a worldview. I choose (as much as any human can choose anything) to use that as a lens to view the world.
It seems that views on evidence, and human experience in particular, are at the heart of multiple topics here. Could you clarify one thing?
You’ve made it very clear in your comments that human experience has no evidential value at all without corroborating evidence, that human observations have “zero evidential value sence experience is subjective”.
Do you hold that claim for areas outside of religious claims? Or do you believe, even when there is no supporting corroborating evidence, that human experience has evidential value in some areas such as historical studies and law, just not for religious claims?
Yeah, there are many versions of Jesus bandied about these days, and you can find fringe views that say he never existed, but the most common view is that there was a man with that name who taught things that have had a profound impact on the world. We don’t recognize how big the impact is, here in the modern West, because it saturates our culture. But given that such a person existed, I’m more focused on that historical person and teaching than the inventions that came later.
yes, I do hold that for all areas. Why wouldn’t I? You seem desperate to make up things that I don’t subscribe to.
It is not a fringe view that your imaginary friend never existed. There is no evidence for delusional jew “historical jesus” and there is no evidence for magic jesus. There may be a slightly higher probability that there was a human core to the myth, since we can know that other myths were likely based on actual people, but that doesn’t mean there is evidence for either.
Yep lots of different jesuses and since people don’t agree what the bible claims he taught means, picking and choosing what they want, there is no one jesus that influenced the world. Your claim fails.
And since there is no one christianity, your lies about how the “west” was influenced is also quite a lie. Anything beneficial in the bible was already around long before this splintered cult.
your claims of “inventions” is the typical christian lie that only your version is the “true” one. like all christians, Jim, all you have is “My version is the real one.”
“yes, I do hold that for all areas. Why wouldn’t I? You seem desperate to make up things that I don’t subscribe to.”
Ok, so then with the examples I gave earlier, plus another one, it sounds like you would reject human experience in these cases:
In a trial when there is no forensic evidence on some point, only human eye witness testimony, that there is actually no evidence for that point at all? There certainly could be cases where a single testimony is insufficient to establish something, as in the murder example you gave, but you seem to be saying that any situation in which human experience is the only evidence, that should be ignored. Since uncorroborated human testimony is “zero evidential value”, is the legal system in error whenever such is used?
Similarly, when historians rely on human observations recorded in, for example, letters that describe personal experiences, or historian’s writings that record interviews of others’ observations, your reasoning would say that they are in error. In other words, recorded human observations should never be used, since they are of zero evidential value. That would invalidate a lot of history, wouldn’t it?
Another example of the use of subjective experience is in consciousness studies. Since consciousness is a private, purely subjective experience, one of the key ways it is studied by neurologists is to measure brain states and then correlate them with reported introspective observations. Those observations, being purely subjective, fall in the category you’ve defined as not having any evidential value. So are those scientists proceeding incorrectly?
The reason I’m trying to be specific on this point is not to make up a view for you, but to understand it correctly, including its implications. This is because those implications seem to be outside the normal way of thinking about human observations in multiple disciplines, and I want to be sure that is what you are saying when you “hold that for all areas”, rather than just for religious claims.
“It is not a fringe view that your imaginary friend never existed. There is no evidence for delusional jew “historical jesus” and there is no evidence for magic jesus. There may be a slightly higher probability that there was a human core to the myth, since we can know that other myths were likely based on actual people, but that doesn’t mean there is evidence for either.”
Do you know of any references from mainstream scholars that agree that Jesus never existed? I’m surprised to hear that just because I’ve heard so many atheist scholars admit that he existed and secular articles say the same, although they may disagree on details of his life and, of course, any supernatural claims. I’ve not kept track of such because that view has always seemed to be so pervasive. But, maybe you can show me where I’m wrong.
One reference I ran across is “In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart D. Ehrman wrote, ‘He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees.’” in “Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are”. But I don’t have any others at hand. Where do you see that perspective held in scholarly views?
How do you make the claim that “other myths were likely based on actual people”, given your views of historical testimony?
In what kind of a case would there be no other evidence than human experience? You seem to be reaching, Jim. If human experience can’t be supported by facts, then it is simply opinion.
This also holds with subjective claims unsupported in historical documents. Again, they are simply claims with no evidence to support them. If I said I saw a dragon in 1492, will you accept that as evidence or a claim that needs evidence to support it?
Consciousness is supported by EEGs, functional MRI, etc, so it is not only subjective experience.
You do seem desperate to make up what you want me to think and I do not agree with your strawman. You have yet to show that I’m not “normal”, and you seem to be looking for any loophole for your supernatural claims.
It’s also notable that you want to claim that “mainstream scholars” are only those who agree with your claims. You haven’t heard so many atheists scholars admit that since “so many” don’t’ exist. Again, these scholars don’t say that magic bible jesus existed. Some say that there is a possibility that the jesus myth had a human core, which is not magic jesus, but a delusional Jewish fellow. Not one says magic jesus existed and Christians don’t worship a delusional Jewish man. So, do you worship a delusional Jewish man, or do you worship jesus christ, divine son of god or god himself?
Richard Carrier, Hector Alvaros, Earl Doherty, Robert Price, etc are jesus mythicists. Ehrman, and other historical jesus supporters have no evidence that their historical figure existed, again, they postulate that it is more probable that the myth was not invented wholesale but had a human core to it. That may be true, but there is still no evidence for jesus christ or historical jesus. I believe I’ve given you these names before. Have you looked into them at* all*? It seems not, and that you are content to remain willfully ignorant to cling to your assumptions. Here’s carrier’s website to start: https://www.richardcarrier.info/
Ehrman’s baseless assertions are worthless when it comes to his claim that there was, without doubt, a historical jesus.
I said “likely” for the same reasons that historical jesus supporters say that jesus could have been a historical figure. It is easier to create a myth around a kernel of truth than it is to invent one wholesale. And neither processes are impossible. For example, it is likely that the Buddha was a real human being, but that real human being didn’t magically control elephants or whatever else myths have grown up about Siddartha Gautama.
“In what kind of a case would there be no other evidence than human experience? You seem to be reaching, Jim. If human experience can’t be supported by facts, then it is simply opinion.”
I was referring to whether there was forensic evidence on “some point” in a trial, not the entire trial. For the general idea that testimony (separate from physical or forensic evidence) is itself considered to have evidentiary value in trials, note this comment (and the related discussion): “Evidence, in this sense, is divided conventionally into three main categories:[4] oral evidence (the testimony given in court by witnesses), documentary evidence (documents produced for inspection by the court), and ‘real evidence’;” from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence-legal/. There are other similar references to witness testimony as itself having value.
“This also holds with subjective claims unsupported in historical documents. Again, they are simply claims with no evidence to support them. If I said I saw a dragon in 1492, will you accept that as evidence or a claim that needs evidence to support it?”
It would be obviously dubious if you said that, but historical documents in which a contemporary person wrote of their experience. If we had a historical document with that statement, it would be weak evidence that dragons existed, given what we know about the animal kingdom, but it might be evidence of other things, like whether some large lizards lived in that area, or whether the term “dragon” might have had different meanings back then, and so on. Yes, other evidence would be needed to support whatever hypothesis was being evaluated, but such a historical claim would have some evidential value.
Consider, for example, this description from Wikipedia’s entry on History: “To answer research questions, historians rely on various types of evidence to reconstruct the past and support their conclusions. Historical evidence is usually divided into primary and secondary sources.[121] A primary source is a source that originated during the period that is studied. Primary sources can take various forms, such as official documents, letters, diaries, eyewitness accounts, photographs, and audio or video recordings.”
“Consciousness is supported by EEGs, functional MRI, etc, so it is not only subjective experience.”
There is currently no direct measure of consciousness. One attempt to find such is to identify brain measurements that correlate with conscious events that are reported by individuals – those are the things you listed. (Note the difference between correlates and causes.) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_correlates_of_consciousness for the specific example of neural correlates of consciousness. Note the description of the “hard problem of consciousness” (coined by David Chalmers), commonly used to describe the idea of the fundamentally subjective nature of consciousness, often described as consisting of “qualia”. For the basic idea of consciousness being an internal state, see the well-known essay “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” by Thomas Nagel.
Not everyone accepts this view, but it is one strong theme in consciousness and philosophy of mind studies. For those who do accept it, human descriptions of their own (internal) experiences are taken as the only direct evidence for conscious experience, even though it’s recognized that such reports themselves may be inaccurate.
Even those who don’t accept the idea of qualia may yet regard subjective personal descriptions as valid evidence. See, for example, section 4.3 of the book “Consciousness Explained” by Daniel Dennett, well-known in philosophy of mind studies.
In all three of these examples, the point in debate is not whether subjective experiences have high evidential value on their own, but whether it is non-zero.
“You do seem desperate to make up what you want me to think and I do not agree with your strawman.”
Well, I’m actually trying to understand the absolutist statements that you are making. But, I could certainly be wrong. What specific statements have I made that misrepresent you? What would be a better explanation of your views, perhaps with examples and references?
Admittedly, one thing that I was not clear about is my statement about Jesus having existed. I was not claiming that there was consensus that “magic” Jesus actually lived, only that there was a real historical figure that one could study. Yes, I do believe in Jesus as the “son of God” with some associated “magic”, more than just a human teacher, but that’s not the point I was making. What I was referring to was that there was a real person with whom there are associated some teachings, and one could make a study of that one person and draw various conclusions with varying levels of confidence.
“I believe I’ve given you these names before. Have you looked into them at* all*?”
What specific references are you referring to?
Regarding Jesus mythicism, my point was not that there was no such view, but that, as far as I had been able to tell, it was not considered mainstream. Pretty much every reference I’ve run across describes it as a minority view, not accepted by most (even secular) academics, although there are certainly some who hold to it. I have heard Carrier debate several times, and so am familiar with his views in that sense, and checked out his website again, thanks.
For references regarding it as not mainstream, see the Wikipedia entry “Christ myth theory” and the many references in the 4th paragraph. Or the discussion in the Wikipedia article on “Jesus” under “Historical Views”, particularly reference [f]. Note that one of the references is an essay by Robert Price.
Are there any references (other than from mythicists themselves) that indicate that Jesus mythicism is not a fringe view?
Again, I have not said that testimony doesn’t have value. I have said it isn’t evidence since it is a claim and claims need facts to support them.
Why would it be “obiviously dubious”? You seem to be making an assumption, that dragons don’t exist and that I didn’t exist in 1492. Where is your evidence either is the case? I find this bemusing since you think I should accept the claims of your bible/religion without facts, but you want facts here. For example, given what we know about reality, no reason to assume anyone resurrected from being dead. The idea of resurrection may have other meanings. And you have no primary sources at all.
There is indeed direct measure of consciousness. If someone is unconscious, in a coma state, we can see that. That we can’t yet know the details doesn’t mean we aren’t measuring things. That consciousness has some likely subjective parts doesn’t mean we cannot measure it. No brain, no consciousness.
Subjective experience isn’t evidence, it is a claim and claims need facts to support them. Humans who are theists make claims about their experiences. Where are the facts that support those claims? To try to claim something is “not zero” and yet have no evidence to show seems to be contradictory to me.
Yes, you can certainly be wrong. I’ve told you what I think, given examples, and yet you make claims like this “Similarly, when historians rely on human observations recorded in, for example, letters that describe personal experiences, or historian’s writings that record interviews of others’ observations, your reasoning would say that they are in error. In other words, recorded human observations should never be used, since they are of zero evidential value.” And when I ask you to support these statements, you don’t.
There is still no evidence that a historical jesus existed either. All you and others have is an assumption that there has to be *at least* a human core to the myth, and a claim that it is more probable that there is a human core than there is not one. Where is the evidence that this human core existed?
I know you assume that magical jesus exists. So your appeal to a historical jesus makes no sense since that isn’t what you worship. It’s notable that it seems you have not looked into the names I’ve given, names of mythicists when it comes to jesus. You have claimed that jesus mythicists are wrong, and it seems you have not even looked into their arguments, despite your claims of supposedly knowing who Richard Carrier is and having heard his arguments. From your own words, it seems that you are relying on excuses of personal ignorance to repeat something that isn’t true. That something isn’t considered “mainstream” doesn’t mean it is wrong. You seem to be clinging to that assumption since it is all you have left when it comes to evidence for your religion’s claims.
it’s hilarious that you demand references from other sources that mythicism isn’t a “fringe view”. Do tell what you expect those sources to be. Shall I go to someone like Bart Ehrman who has no evidence for his delusional Jewish man jesus and expect him to say that an opposing hypothesis is true?
“‘I believe I’ve given you these names before. Have you looked into them at* all*?’
What specific references are you referring to?”
You made this statement before sharing the mythicist names. Please, what were you referring to in this statement?
“Again, I have not said that testimony doesn’t have value. I have said it isn’t evidence since it is a claim and claims need facts to support them.”
Where did I claim that you said it had no value? All I can find are references I made to you asserting that it has no evidential value, ie, “it isn’t evidence”.
“There is indeed direct measure of consciousness.”
Are you talking about measuring correlations or asserting causation? Neither of those are the same as measuring and characterizing the phenomenon of consciousness itself.
“it’s hilarious that you demand references from other sources that mythicism isn’t a “fringe view”. Do tell what you expect those sources to be.”
Perhaps, for example, a summary article that claims it to be a mainstream view, with a number of references. Just like I gave you to support the claim that it is a fringe view.
The statement that there is no evidence that a historical Jesus existed can only be made if you use different definitions for evidentiary claims than those typically used in science, law, and history, as indicated in the references I provided. In fact, there is evidence for Christianity. There are also good, broadly-accepted arguments against Christianity. However, neither of these are conclusive and so result in some level of uncertainty.
You seem to want a level of certainty that cannot be supported by rational, mainstream arguments, and so end up questioning standard science and scientific methods, and relying on fringe theories.
Jim, this isn’t that hard. I stated I had thought I had given you the names of the mythicists before. If I did not, then I have stated then now, and have you done any research into them?
You claimed I said that testimony had no value here “Why do you consider human religious experiences to have zero evidential value when there are no natural explanations? Granted, it may be weak evidence, but still nonzero.” I’m not sure where you made any refernces you made to me asserting that testimony has no evidential value. It also may be that I am misunderstanding what you mean.
It’s hilarious that you try to claim that the measurements gained by fMRI, EEGs, are disassociated events that are only correlated to consciousness. So, then what are those events from and what do they mean? They are exactly measuring and characterizing the phenomenon of consciousness itself. If this is untrue, then any measurement of any event is simply correlation, and not data of the event itself. That’s rather amusing since that means we can’t really trust EKGs, a voltmeter, etc. This seems to be where the theists ends up in little more than solipsism.
So, you want a summary article from the mainstream to say that what they claim as a fringe view is now mainstream. You don’t want evidence, just a rubberstamp. Again, Jim, that something is considered a “fringe view” by some, doesn’t make it wrong. Show that jesus christ existed. Since you have no evidence for your claims, why isn’t this a fringe view?
There is no evidence for a historical jesus. No documents saying that a delusional Jewish guy perhaps named Joshua ben Joseph thought he was the messiah and was cruxified. No witnesses saying that a delusional Jewish guy thought he was the messiah and was crucified. What you have is some scholars saying that it is more probable that the jesus christ character was at its core a delusional Jewish man, since we do know that there were various claimants to this title in the past. Your problem is that probability isn’t evidence.
There is plenty of evidence for Christianity, just no evidence for its myths being true. And since christains can’t even agree on how to interpret those myths, all you have is baseless opinion since you have no evidence. This is quite conclusive. Happily, I have a level of certainty that is well supported by rational arguments, “mainstream” or not. Again, your baseless assumption that “mainstream” is somehow more right than fringe is an unsupported claim. It is no more than an argument from authority fallacy.