The crazier a thing you believe as a result of trusting your community, the stronger a tie to your community that shows. So when we signal loyalty via beliefs, those beliefs can get pretty crazy.
Very funny.
But even if god did get Mary pregnant, given my bayesian priors on seeing such miracles (I have seen none, nor do I know anyone who so it), I would have to be skeptical. Would it be too much to ask god to merely make one conspicuous miracle every generation or so, in a conspicuous place, so we could be sure? Then I would follow his rules more meticulously (eg, about not shaving, swearing).
I want to expand on Robin's comment. Some have hypothesized that promoting crazy beliefs helps a ruling coalition keep hold of power because the coalition's repressive efforts can be concentrated on the fraction of the population that shows signs of not believing the crazy beliefs. In other words, they can stay in power by cracking down on those who won't get with the program.
In a relative sense, yes, but in an absolute sense, it's still more probable that the woman had a reputation for virtue, which actual virtue makes more likely. She didn't need to be a slut, the rabbi was more than sufficient, although it needen't be him, Josef himslef is even more likely. The "He think's he's the father" line was unnecessary.
Eliezer: Hindsight bias? No crazier to believe at the time than many truths.
Hey Betty, your disease was given to you by countless little flying monsters, as many as the sands in the desert, but no one can see them. And they make babies by tearing themselves in half. Most of your ancestors were like that.
"Maybe it is "puerile", but it is also much more likely than the common belief."
I agree it is more likely and that "virgin birth" is a silly belief, but that's not the point. Elizer comes across like a fifteen-year-old who has just discovered the joys of provocation.
The books composing the New Testament were written many years after the events they describe, so the whole "virgin birth" story may have been made up long after Joseph and Mary were no longer around to contradict it.
This may be the stuff of urban legend, but . . . wasn't this just an issue of mistranslation? I had heard that the Hebrew word (or whatever the extant language was) for 'young woman' or 'young bride' had picked up some virginal baggage before making it into the Canon. Is there any basis to this version of events?
ScentOfViolets: Yes, the Greeks mistranslated "young woman" to "virgin" in the Septuagint. Standard story.
LemmusLemmus: I was never a Christian, so I don't bear the same deep abiding grudge that I do against Judaism for alienating my family from me.
But why should I be more fond of religion than of any other massively self-destructive folly?
And if you're shocked by my blaspheming the Virgin Mary, you may have some traces of reverence left that you need to get rid of. I mean seriously, think about the storyline here. Alleged virgin. Pregnant. "God did it."
The way this post got started was that I was talking to a friend recently who had been exposed to an attempted conversion by Scientology, and he was shaking his head in wonder. And then he said, "I don't understand how Scientology converts anyone, it's so ridiculous. At least the Christian religion has a powerful story. You can see how people would be converted by that."
I said to him, "I don't see that one story is any less ridiculous than the other. You're an atheist now, but you were raised as a Christian, right? You grew up being told about Christian beliefs, but not Scientologist beliefs. You may not realize how the Christian story sounds if you're not raised thinking it's normal. I mean, consider the Virgin Mary -"
Thank you - that's exactly what I've heard, but I didn't want to get lost in quibbling over the details. Since we are in agreement then, why post this story? Given the existence of Jesus (one can argue persuasively that there is not sufficient historical evidence that such a creature ever existed), this story would never have happened, would have been, well, silly. If it's about the priors of committed Christians, it doesn't work - a god that can create an entire universe in seven days just to lavish attention and affection upon the peoples of a certain small globe certainly wouldn't cavil at a virgin birth.
a god that can create an entire universe in seven days just to lavish attention and affection upon the peoples of a certain small globe certainly wouldn't cavil at revealing his existence to a heretical farmer through golden plates that require a magical gem to translate
Fixed that for you.
Surely, the repentant Xenu - who ordered the genocide of countless billions of intelligent beings - could, if he chose, decide to reveal the true nature of their sufferings to the denizens of the planet Earth through the writings of a science-fiction author of questiona...
I'm looking forward to part II, set in the year 28, in which the rabbi comes forward to the Nazareth Tablet claiming that he, not God, is actually the father of our Lord and Saviour, resulting in a prolonged war of words and claims in the media. Mary will finally win out by signing a 5m dinarii deal to write her memoirs (entitled 'Virgin: My Story').
Happy Bayesmas everyone! Have a rational, thoughtful, productive, faith-free nonspecific secular midwinter festival!
Eliezer, The claim isn't that you should not hate religion. The claim is that sociologically, this post is a bit like giving the Hated Enemy a kick in the pants. The point in it is fairly obvious (though, as people point out with the chronology, possibly historically false). People who already want to laugh at religion get to go "har-har", and people who for whatever reason want to not laugh at religion get to feel alienated from whatever it is you're up to here.
It is one of those posts that makes me wonder more acutely what you are up to he...
Sometimes puerile humor serves a purpose. Some people, apparently, still need to be shocked out of their deference for tradition.
I feel like Anna. I don't understand what this post accomplishes, and I would like answers to the questions Anna asks.
Well, let's see. First, while a mere kick in the pants is not funny, there's a long and extremely respectable tradition of satire that happens to involve a kick in the pants. "The Virgin Mary is a slut, haha" wouldn't be funny.
If you're asking what the higher purpose of this post is, it's right up at the top: If you grow up believing something, or even if the people around you seem to think it's "normal", then you may not notice the inherent absurdities in it. How many people hear the story of the Virgin Mary? How many see the humor in it, even after they become atheists? This is a kind of sleep, and one of the ways you wake up is by noticing that the people around you, and even yourself, are selectively overlooking flaws that would be obvious if the beliefs were only believed by one person.
"Mere messiahs" is along the same line. The point of "Mere messiahs" is not to attack Christianity, because superhero comics have the same problem. If only a single person had walked right up to you and said, "Here's this Superman guy - I really admire him!" and no one else had ever heard of Superman before, then you might be more likely ...
I doubt this is one of those posts that takes 8 hours, and it is the holidays!
People not raised deeply in religion (like, say, the Orthodox Jewish community), and who didn't have to wait 'till they were in their 20s to 'come out' as atheist, probably don't appreciate the level of militancy folk like Eliezer display. I'm 2nd generation, and despite my militant materialism, I don't share my (Catholic) parents level of hostility to religion. YMMV.
Anyway, here's some festive viewing for y'all.
People not raised deeply in religion (like, say, the Orthodox Jewish community), and who didn't have to wait 'till they were in their 20s to 'come out' as atheist, probably don't appreciate the level of militancy folk like Eliezer display.
Correct. If you were raised in a family of gentle and convenient religion, and you don't like having militant adult atheists running around, then outlaw serious religious impositions on children under 18 (study of Torah for half of each school day, fasting without food or water for 25 hours while walking a couple of miles to synagogue). Maybe then you'll see less bitterness from the adults! D'you think?
Wouldn't support such a law? Neither would I. But bear in mind: Not everyone has a childhood that makes "religion" a cute little teddy bear.
Religion is this cute voluntary thing, with no harmful side effects, that only Scrooge would attack? How strange that anyone would hold a grudge? A bizarre public belief, which everyone repeats, but which is right up there with the Virgin Mary for inherent absurdity. If just one person came to you and said such a thing, you would laugh at them...
This post did start out as just for fun. Sometimes I can feel the world trying to strip me of my sense of humor.
Eh, coming from a modern orthodox background but with "gentle and convinient" modifications here and there, that's not all fun and games too.
"Okay... so you're saying that being overly fanatic, absolutely strict in absolute observance of the Torah is a bad thing? But you're saying you believe the Torah is the absolute one true word of God, who must always be obeyed... But, rejecting this other stuff here is fanatical and over the top? uh....."
"Okay, so you're saying times were different then... so you're saying you don't believe the notion that the Torah is eternal and unchanging? er.. the question isn't if you agree with me or not, the question is if you even agree with yourself?"
(Though at the same time, they'll laugh at the joke: "The difference between a fanatic and a goy? Anyone a drop more frum than me is a fanatic, and anyone a drop less is a goy.")
Suffice it to say that in many ways my brain still feels scrambled sometimes. :) (I took the scenic route to rationality, including such things as interest in the occult, and for a while having convinced myself that the biblical flood happened..... on mars. As I said, extremely scenic route...)
Hrm.. I wonder how tied this is to procrastination... I think I ended up procrastinating fully accepting the rational consequences of, well, accepting that rationality is a Good Idea(tm). :)
Here is my ranking of religious people, in lessening order of how irritating I find them:
Fundies that don't try to make sense, have an inconsisten set of beliefs, which ends up boilng down to societal rules that are abhorrent to the Liberal Social Democrat Humanist. They will behead you if you meet a certain number of more-or-less reasonable criteria. They will not feel sorry about it.
Moderates that don't try to make sense, , have an inconsisten set of beliefs, which ends up boilng down to societal rules that are pleasant to the Liberal Social Democrat Humanist. They will not behead you, ever. They might feel guilty about not doing it.
Fundies that do try to make sense, have a mostly consistent and sensible set of beliefs, which is based on the literal revealed text, understood as well as possible, using the original language, with all the modern tools of hermeneutics and linguistics, who don't care about any sensibilieties, modern or traditional, only about those of their chosen Prophet(s). They will behead you if you meet a certain number of clearly established, sensible, consistent criteria that are applied at all times to everyone. They may or may not feel sorry about it,
"Sometimes I can feel the world trying to strip me of my sense of humor."
If you are trying to be funny, the customer is always right, I am afraid. The post wasn't productive, in my opinion, and I have no emotional stake in Christianity at all (not born, not raised, not currently).
Anna, if you're still reading this thread, do you have a blog? I read some of your comment on earlier religion posts and was intrigued by your point of view.
Of course the story above is not at all the story that Christian's tell. But yes, if someone believed in a virgin birth after hearing the above story they would be crazy.
Merry Christmas!
James,
There are a variety of possible scenarios under which absurdly vast positive and negative utility could be generated, e.g. strange laws of physics. If a scenario for vast utility or disutility appears internally inconsistent and strongly disconfirmed by empirical evidence, as with Christianity, it can easily be dominated by the possibility that we will discover exotic physics enabling the generation of vast positive utility. Then, if promoting more rational thought and action enhances our likelihood of achieving such an outcome (e.g. by creating supe...
Am I the first to laugh at Eliezer's scenario?
It's very simple: Mary was much more likely to be a liar than a virgin mother. This is true even if you assume that there are virgin mothers who are their own granny.
And the point is even simpler: don't ignore the outlandishness of a claim just because everyone believes it.
(But I would also not advise you to judge a claim according to an unbeliever's caricature. Make sure it's not a strawman.)
Carl,
Are you sure the dilution of Hellworlds would work if, given that you do something today that causes you to be damned, all future copies you make of yourself will spend eternity in Hell?
This is especially true since so many people believe that she was and by your own beliefs you must give this some weight.
Except that no sane person, Eliezer possibly included, believes this.
"Sometimes I can feel the world trying to strip me of my sense of humor."
Don't worry Eliezer, I found it funny even if others didn't! =D Merry Christmas from a fellow non-believer.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think this is a pretty good example of how easily people get hung up on a false dichotomy.
I'm trying to remember where I read the theory that the original Jamesian Christians (really a sect of judaism) didn't believe in the virgin-birth but that it was later added in to appeal to pagan/Hellenistic cult-followers who had plenty of stories of miraculous children-of-gods.
It's interesting that everyone gets into a tizzy whenever someone looks at religion and just tells it like it is, but the same doesn't happen with any other subject. We have some strange reverence for religion that we just don't have when it comes to something like economic models. The fact that everyone is so incredibly offended by religious beliefs being criticized doesn't justify avoiding the topic; we don't need to keep our mouths shut just because someone might irrationally be offended by frank and honest commentary. I don't think that any economist i...
It's interesting that everyone gets into a tizzy whenever someone looks at religion and just tells it like it is, but the same doesn't happen with any other subject.
I think you could get similar results for insisting that nations are just something people made up and should be judged on utilitarian grounds.
James,
Basement-level universes with Christian gods are much less probable than a chance at vast computing power through exotic physics. Christian gods must split their computational power across large numbers of beings, while my future selves in universes with vast resources could focus a large fraction of their capabilities on simulating their pasts.
Elizer,
you are misreading me.
I did not argue that belief in virgin birth (which many, possibly most, Christians do not believe in anyway) is unridiculous. It is ridiculous. I explicitly called it "silly".
But the post did not just argue that Mary's pregnancy came about in the normal way, you had to suggest that she had had sex with multiple men - a behaviour which most Christians would feel is deeply wrong.
The post is not meant to educate, it is meant to offend.
And that is both unhelpful and puerile.
Devil's advocate (literally) on xmas day, here we go:
Premise 1: The Bible contains some useful guidelines regarding interpersonal ethics. Premise 2: SOME people may not adhere to such guidelines absent metaphysical threats (e.g. damnation) or a public shaming (for going against doctrine).
In other words, I'm not convinced that widespread indoctrination MUST always yield worse results (in terms of the ethical behaviors within a group) than a widespread 'understanding' that all people are to think for themselves.
Say we come up with a (more or less comprehensi...
Everyone,
Get over yourselves. It's Christmas! If you're offended by the post, you're seeking to take offence.
I like the reference to 'coming out as an atheist'. I had to wait to leave my little town for university before I threw off the Catholic mantle, but I know deep inside that the inherent sense of guilt they spend all their time fostering will be with me for a long time. Inherent Guilt Bias - deconstruct that one.
How is a post like this any more offensive than a person trying to convince you that the virgin birth is actually a fact?
How is a post like this any more offensive than a person trying to convince you that the virgin birth is actually a fact?
"How is a post like this any more offensive than a person trying to convince you that the virgin birth is actually a fact?"
I, for one, never said so. But I hold some people to higher standards than others. Call it a bias if you like.
The post is not meant to educate, it is meant to offend.It wasn't meant to educate as it's filed under humour (or a word spelled somewhat similarly). Don't forget--especially during the festive season--the possibility of alternate explanations, you might not share his sense of humour?
James D. Miller:
In the extremely unlikely case that the whole Christianity thing is true, there may be 10^30+ future souls at stake depending on the combined decisions of at most 10^10 people; from an expected utility point of view those should dominate all decisions, unless you think you're forced by rationality to consider your own afterlife more important than that of (say) a billion billion others.
The post is not meant to educate, it is meant to offend.
Sometimes being offended is a necessary part of one's education.
People who grow up believing certain things,
even if they later stop believing them,
may not quite realize how the beliefs sound to outsiders...
(SCENE: A small cottage in Nazareth.)
Joseph: Mary, my dearest fiancée, there's something I've been meaning to talk to you about.
(Mary's shoulders slump. Slowly, as if under a heavy burden, she turns around to face Joseph.)
Joseph: You seem to be getting fat around the waistline, and throwing up in the morning, and, er, not getting any periods. Which is odd, because it's sort of like -
Mary: Yes! I'm pregnant! All right? I'm PREGNANT!
Joseph: How is that possible?
(Mary's shoulders slump further.) Mary: How do you think?
Joseph: I don't know, that's why I'm asking you. I mean, you're still a virgin, right?
(Mary looks up cautiously, and sees Joseph's face looking blankly puzzled.)
Joseph: Well?
Mary: God did it.
Joseph: You had sex with -
Mary: No! Haha. Of course not. I mean, God just snapped his fingers and did one of those miracle things and made me pregnant.
Joseph: God made you pregnant.
Mary: (Starts to sweat.) Yes.
Joseph: Mary, that is just so... completely...
(Mary's eyes squeeze shut.)
Joseph: ...COOL!
(Mary opens her eyes again, cautiously.)
Mary: You think so?
Joseph: Of course! Who wouldn't think so? Come on, we've got to tell everyone the news!
Mary: Maybe we should keep this between just the two of us -
Joseph: No, no, silly girl, this is way too important! Come on!
(Joseph grabs Mary's wrist and drags her out of the house. SCENE: The gathering square of Nazareth. A dozen well-dressed men, and the town's head rabbi, look on Joseph and Mary impatiently.)
Rabbi: What's this all about, Joseph? I trust there's a good reason for the fuss?
Joseph: Go ahead, Mary! Tell them what you told me.
Mary: Um... (She swallows.) God made me pregnant.
Rabbi, looking stern, yet understanding: Now, Joseph, you know you're not supposed to do that before -
Joseph: No, no, you don't get it! She's still a virgin! God made her pregnant directly!
(There's a long pause.)
Man #1: So, what you're saying here, basically, is that Mary tells you she's a virgin.
Joseph: Uh huh!
Man #2: And you haven't had sex with her.
Joseph: Uh huh!
Man #3: And now she's pregnant.
Joseph: Precisely!
Man #4: So you think that God did it.
Joseph: What other explanation could there be?
Rabbi: Joseph, that is just so... unbelievably...
(Mary holds her breath.)
Rabbi: NEAT!
(Mary exhales.)
Man #5: A miracle! A miracle right here in Nazareth!
Man #6: Wow! I thought that miracles only happened in Jerusalem!
Man #7: Come on! Let's spread the good news!
(They depart. SCENE: Mary is alone with her friend, Betty, in Betty's house.)
Betty: "God did it."
Mary: I panicked! It was all I could think of!
Betty: So who's the real -
(Mary lifts an eyebrow significantly. There's a brief pause.)
Betty: Ah. So that's why the rabbi went along with it.
Mary: Well, he thinks he's the father, anyway. Why, does it matter?
Betty: It puts some things in a different light.
Mary: Like what?
Betty: The rabbi has been telling all the pretty young girls that you, Mary, are the ultimate embodiment of feminine virtue, and when they grow up, they should be just like you -
Mary: I just feel so awful about the whole mess. What kind of thing is this to have hanging over my child's life?
Betty: You've got to put things in perspective, dearie. You told one little white lie. It's not as if you caused the fall of the Roman Empire.
Mary: But what if the Romans hear about it? I don't want my baby to end up being crucified!
Betty: No one's going to obsess about it that long. In a couple of months this whole thing will blow over.
Mary: I hope you're right...
(Exeunt Omnes.)