Evidence for the existence of God: my ancestors saw God and talked to him, and he did really great things for them, and so they passed down stories about it so that we’d remember. Everybody knows that.
Evidence for the existence of Jesus: same.
Evidence for the existence of Hercules: same.
Evidence for the existence of Socrates: same.
Evidence for the existence of Newton: same. Okay, we have a few more records of this one.
We are sure with 99%+ probability both were real people, it would be possible but really difficult to fake all the evidence of their existence.
We are sure with quite high but lesser probability that the broad strokes of their life are correct: Socrates was an influential philosopher who taught Plato and was sentenced to death, Muhammad was a guy from Mecca who founded Islam and migrated to Medina, then returned to Mecca with his followers.
We think some of the specific details written about them in history books might be true, but definitely not all of them. Muhammad might have lived in a cave during his young life, and Socrates might have refused to escape from his death sentence, etc.
When a coin comes out tails ten times in a row, you’ll bet on it being rigged strictly depending on your prior belief about how much you expect it to be rigged. Evidence only makes sense given your prior belief, inferred from other factors. If I hear a report of a devastating hurricane, I believe it more than if the very same report stated that a nuclear bomb went off in a city, and I won’t believe it at all if it stated that the little green men have landed in front of the White House.
Even better:
Evidence for the existence of God: my ancestors saw God and talked to him, and he did really great things for them, and so they passed down stories about it so that we’d remember. Everybody knows that.
Evidence for the existence of Jesus: same.
Evidence for the existence of Hercules: same.
Evidence for the existence of Socrates: same.
Evidence for the existence of Newton: same. Okay, we have a few more records of this one.
Mohammed is solidly part of history.
Certainly not more solid than Newton
No, around the same level as Socrates.
We are sure with 99%+ probability both were real people, it would be possible but really difficult to fake all the evidence of their existence.
We are sure with quite high but lesser probability that the broad strokes of their life are correct: Socrates was an influential philosopher who taught Plato and was sentenced to death, Muhammad was a guy from Mecca who founded Islam and migrated to Medina, then returned to Mecca with his followers.
We think some of the specific details written about them in history books might be true, but definitely not all of them. Muhammad might have lived in a cave during his young life, and Socrates might have refused to escape from his death sentence, etc.
When a coin comes out tails ten times in a row, you’ll bet on it being rigged strictly depending on your prior belief about how much you expect it to be rigged. Evidence only makes sense given your prior belief, inferred from other factors. If I hear a report of a devastating hurricane, I believe it more than if the very same report stated that a nuclear bomb went off in a city, and I won’t believe it at all if it stated that the little green men have landed in front of the White House.
This is one of the principles of rationality I’m proud to say I discovered on my own: http://heresiology.blogspot.com/2006/01/intelligent-design-1.html
Short version: An interesting formation on earth might be a sign of human involvement, and interesting formation on mars, not so much.
Exactly. These are all sane beliefs, even though only some of them are rational.