# Polycarp did you forget to take you pills? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 3, 2003, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640 "2003-12-03T03:54:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2003, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/261 "2003-12-04T22:28:49Z")
There’s a huge difference between “possible” and “likely.” Sure, it’s possible there’s a god, but is sure as hell ain’t likely. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/262 "2003-12-04T22:34:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. B \* > I’ve got to run, but **Polycarp** ’s interpretation of the New Testament is _precisely_ the point, as per the OP. Separately, let me ask you this: > > Just because I happen to personally lean toward Hinduism, my hard-fought study of Christianity is somehow invalidated? > > > [@](#): > > > > _by Truth Seeker_ > > This isn’t a good analogy. Rather, suppose you diligently study the Bible and reach a bunch of conclusions regarding what it really means. **Truth Seeker** : Just for clarification, please note I said “separately,” so that you would not construe it as an analogy to the **Polycarp** conundrum. I stated this because I care about what you think on a slightly-tangential topic. > [@](#): > > Suppose that, based on that same study and analysis, you also conclude Jesus had blue skin and the head of an elephant. Ganesh brings up any number of hairs to split, but in the furtherance of the conversation, I’ll avoid the semantics. I was raised to believe that Jesus has pale skin and great abs. According to my schooling, His countenance has a striking resemblance to one of the roadies from the Doobie Brothers, although I’m hard-pressed to find a physical description of Jesus in the Bible. How do I know he didn’t have blue skin or the head of an elephant? > [@](#): > > Seems to me that this calls into question your entire method. If you’ve reached one highly dubious conclusion, it casts doubt on your other, less obviously suspect conclusions as well. At the very least, it requires a detailed analysis of the rationale underlying your other conclusions to determine if those are equally infected with error. Fallacy. Interpretation of aged texts is neither uniform nor universal. Therefore, **Polycarp** ’s views need not necessarily be discounted simply because he believes a messianic avatar exists. If that brushes up against your theology, so be it, but please don’t be so speedy to discredit the man because of his honest interpretation. > [@](#): > > Having said that, the only way a religious debate makes any sense at all is if there is an agreement on the basic propositions you are arguing from. For Christians, those basic propositions are found in the Bible. That’s my biggest problem with conventional Bible dialog: students are corralled into a basic belief structure where even the noblest Houyhnhnms can be cast off into the Desert of Blasphemy. > [@](#): > > If you don’t happen to buy into the bible, you can think of it like a geometry problem or a LOTR discussion. What if I’m off somewhere in the middle? What if to me it’s a sacred text, a really neat allegory, replete with riddles and symbolism and historical problems? I think what you’re saying is if the Bible isn’t my way of life, my opinion is less valid than yours, or even worthless. And that’s troubling. Almost paradoxically, from where I sit, **Polycarp** ’s admission actually makes him _more_ believable. > [@](#): > > Believing in the Bible is well within the human norm. Believing that Jesus has revealed his secret identity to you through a web page is not. How Would Jesus Code? Hey, if see the Word of God in a tortilla, and that compels me to be a better man, why is that a problem? Honestly, my take is this is an object lesson, and a compelling one at that. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2003, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/263 "2003-12-04T22:52:56Z")
A few years ago, hundreds (maybe thousands) of people flocked to an office building in (I think) Florida, because there appeared to be a manifestation of the Virgin Mary on the smoked-glass windows of the building. Was it a miracle? I dunno. I seem to recall that either a storm somehow streaked the windows, or a windowcleaning firm somehow inadvertently caused the pattern. But regardless, people traveled to that building to see the phenomenon for themselves. Does **Polycarp** know who Jesus is? I dunno. Based on what I’ve learned and studied in my pursuit of my Christian faith, he shouldn’t; Jesus’ return isn’t supposed to work that way. But God ain’t using me as the fact-checker on his master plan, so I can’t definitively say one way or the other. I get the feeling, though, that many of the people in this thread who are defending **Polycarp** ’s statements would have mocked those who traveled to see the image of the Virgin Mary in the windows of an office building. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/264 "2003-12-04T23:05:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\ ***Truth Seeker** : > Asserting as fact that aliens have visited the Earth, _absent evidence_ is just as irrational as asserting that George Bush is an alien (after all, what test would prove that he _isn’t_? \*\*😕 What test would prove he isn’t?!? Look at it this way, is it more irrational to believe that the coin came up heads while it is still covered or after it is uncovered and you can **see** that it came up tails? > [@](#): > > \*\*Also, the Bible is evidence of nothing. The Bible is nothing but written assertion, much of it severely undemined by _actual_ evidence. Assertion is not evidence. \*\* :dubious: So I suppose you also believe that Tacitus is “evidence of nothing,” then. As they say in courts in the U.S. your objection goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. You may think that this evidence is heavily outweighed by other, conflicting evidence but it does not follow that it is, therefore, “evidence of nothing.” It is evidence just as Tacitus is evidence. It’s just that you find it easier to believe uncorroborated bits of Roman political history. Nor do I say that you are incorrect to do so. If one phrase has been beaten to death in this thread, it’s that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You may not find the bible to be _extraordinary_ evidence for the claims of christianity, but it _is_ evidence, all the same. ---
**Author:** ![Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bippy\_the\_Beardless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bippy_the_Beardless)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/265 "2003-12-04T23:05:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalhoun \* > \*\*There’s a huge difference between “possible” and “likely.” Sure, it’s possible there’s a god, but is sure as hell ain’t likely. \*\* 🙂 God, … **sure as hell** ain’t likely. Love it… ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2003, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/266 "2003-12-04T23:10:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > **minty** , I guess I’ll just agree to disagree. I find it unremarkable for someone who looks for and expects the imminent arrival of a supernatural being to suspect he may have spotted that being. You and I are apparently going to have to disagree on what “unremarkable” means. Given that hundreds of millions of people share beliefs (1) and (2), but only a tiny handful claim to know or even suspect the secret identity of the messiah returned to earth, and _only Poly_ goes so far as to proclaim a “hunch” that it’s a kid whose web site he once read, I would think that belief (3) is pretty darned remarkable. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/267 "2003-12-04T23:18:42Z")
Sorry, **minty**. Prevalence of belief has no effect on the remarkability of that belief. If five billion people believed we lived on the inside of a hollow earth, I would still consider it no more remarkable that one person thought a giant flying elephant carried the flaming ball we call the sun around the space inside. The only reason **Poly’s** claim seems more remarkable is that beliefs (1) and (2) are common in this culture. Ubiquity is not legitimacy. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/268 "2003-12-04T23:42:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Truth Seeker \* > \*\*\*\*😕 > What test would prove he isn’t?!? > > Look at it this way, is it more irrational to believe that the coin came up heads while it is still covered or after it is uncovered and you can **see** that it came up tails?\*\* How can you “see” that George Bush isn’t an alien? What constitutes proof that he isn’t? > [@](#): > > :dubious: > So I suppose you also believe that Tacitus is “evidence of nothing,” then. > > As they say in courts in the U.S. your objection goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. You may think that this evidence is heavily outweighed by other, conflicting evidence but it does not follow that it is, therefore, “evidence of nothing.” It is evidence just as Tacitus is evidence. It’s just that you find it easier to believe uncorroborated bits of Roman political history. > > Nor do I say that you are incorrect to do so. If one phrase has been beaten to death in this thread, it’s that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You may not find the bible to be _extraordinary_ evidence for the claims of christianity, but it _is_ evidence, all the same. \*\* Tacitus can be compared to other historians to documents of the time and to archaeological evidence. Furthermore his writing is not undermined by assertions of impossible events. If Tacitus claimed to have witnessed miracles he would have no credibility. The mere fact that an assertion can be written down does not make it “evidence” unless you consider any spoken assertion to be evidence as well. The Bible does not _prove_ a damn thing. It can’t even seriously be considered as offering anything like evidence of supernatural evidence. Lots of other religions have written assertions of supernatural claims as well. Would you say that the _Mahabarata_ is “evidence” that Hindu gods exist? Get real. There is not a shred of evidence for any supernatural event and Poly’s speculations are no more whacky than believing in “gods” or “angels” or that some Jewish wisdom teacher who died 2000 years ago is going to appear in the sky to whisk people off to a magic fairyland. It’s I find it rather hypocritical that some people here are willing to swallow some awfully fat belief pills but then want to jump somebody else for not having the _right_ fantastic belief. When did we decide that believing in angels, invisible deities and resurrected carpenters was normal but believing that a real person might be that same resurrected deity was “loony.” It’s _all_ nucking futs from where I’m standing. This whole thread is like reading one of those old attack threads against Mormons. Did this message board relocate overnight to the UK? Because it’s suddenly swarming with Scotsmen. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2003, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/269 "2003-12-04T23:46:46Z")
Ah, but do these Scotsmen like sugar? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2003, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/270 "2003-12-04T23:50:02Z")
Sorry, **Minty** , but you should know that _ad populum_ arguments don’t mean dick about validity. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/271 "2003-12-05T00:11:13Z")
_Ad populum_ aside, any conclusion which is derived in a logically consistent fashion from accepted axioms must be considered valid. And note, once again, that **Poly** ’s conclusion is _not_ that he’s identified the returned corporeal Christ, it’s that he’s identified a person he _thinks_ would fit the bill. I believe Christ is in my heart, rocky and uncomfortable though that place must be at times. If I believe this, can I shrink from the thought that he may, in the next moment, walk up to me and grasp my hand with real fingers? I hope I would not deny him. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/272 "2003-12-05T00:19:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*Sorry, **Minty** , but you should know that _ad populum_ arguments don’t mean dick about validity. \*\* Sorry, DtC, but you should know that validity is not the same as remarkability. > [@](#): > > One entry found for remarkable. > Main Entry: re·mark·able > Pronunciation: ri-'mär-k&-b&l > Function: adjective > Date: circa 1604 > **: worthy of being or likely to be noticed especially as being uncommon or extraordinary** > synonym see NOTICEABLE > > - re·mark·able·ness noun Whatever else one might say about point 3 of Poly’s post, I agree with minty that it (and not #1 &2) qualify as “remarkable”. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/273 "2003-12-05T00:25:59Z")
I think any claim to believe in impossible events is pretty remarkable. The fact that lots of people believe it doesn’t make it any less extraordinary of a belief. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/274 "2003-12-05T00:43:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jayjay \* > Ubiquity is not legitimacy. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic_ > Sorry, Minty, but you should know that ad populum arguments don’t mean dick about validity. No shit. But those are not my claims, so you can stop repeating that line as if it refutes something I’ve said. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/275 "2003-12-05T00:57:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\*And note, once again, that Poly’s conclusion is not that he’s identified the returned corporeal Christ, it’s that he’s identified a person he thinks would fit the bill. \*\* I keep seeing this distinction being drawn and, frankly, I just don’t get it. Is god holding auditions? Does this guy get promoted to Jesus of a position opens up? It seems to me that in the christian world view, someone is Jesus or not. > [@](#): > > \*\*If I believe this, can I shrink from the thought that he may, in the next moment, walk up to me and grasp my hand with real fingers? I hope I would not deny him. \*\* Maybe you should. > [@](#): > > And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:45). Even hardened sceptics will agree that this particular prophecy has come true in spades. Anyway, though, as I’ve said, I’m hardly an expert on interpreting the new testament, my understanding is that christians won’t have any need to recognize the second coming. As long as they’ve recognized the _first_ coming, they’re good to go. The problem with your position, **xeno** , is that you either believe it’s going to go down like it says in the book or you don’t. If you believe that it’s going to go down like it says in the book, then Jesus is not going to come up behind you in Times Square and give you a wedgy. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/276 "2003-12-05T01:05:58Z")
Who says the book can’t be wrong about how it goes down. Like I said before, the book was wrong the first time (if you buy into Christaianity, that is) so why can’t it be wrong again? ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/277 "2003-12-05T01:14:25Z")
**DtC** , evaluating evidence and teasing out truth values is more complex than that. Here are two cites you might be interested in. In the first, the first few paragraphs are a good introduction to the mathematical application of Bayesian statistics. Quit reading when it starts to get into quantum mechanics. The second cite is a much tougher read unless you have the background, however, it explicitly discusses the concept of “rational degrees of belief.” In very brief and somewhat inaccurate summary, no proposition ever has a truth value of one, it only approaches one. There is always some probability that any proposition will turn out to be true or false. You (depending on the consequences of belief) “believe” a proposition that has a truth value greater than 0.5. It follows that while it is, all else being equal, irrational to “believe” a proposition that has a truth value of 0.4, it is more irrational to “believe” a proposition with a truth value of 0.1. At the risk of hijacking my own post, I should point out that it may be perfectly rational to “believe” (i.e. act as if it were true) propositions with very low truth values _if_ the consequences of mistakenly not believing are sufficiently high. For example, even though you’re 90% sure that gun isn’t loaded, you still assume that it is and act accordingly. [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html) [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/) ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/278 "2003-12-05T01:19:15Z")
Exactly, **DtC**. If I believed “the book” to be inerrant literal prophecy, I wouldn’t accept **Poly** ’s propositions (1) and (2) in the first place. As it happens, I _don’t_ believe the Bible is inerrant, as I’ve made clear, and I’m not convinced Christ was promising a literal, physical return, either. -But I won’t discount the wedgy possibility based on its unlikeliness or unorthodoxy. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/279 "2003-12-05T01:23:00Z")
In the case of supernatural events, though, we are talking about subjects with truth values of absolute zero. You can’t quantify probablilities of the impossible. This is like one person claiming that 2+2=5 and then calling someone else crazy for saying that 2+2=6. Neither belief has _any probability at all_ of being true. ---
**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640/280 "2003-12-05T01:56:16Z")
_sigh_ Ok, I’ll try one more time. We know that the “supernatural” is “impossible” because it never happens. But that does not mean that the “supernatural” will never happen. There always remains some probability, albeit assymptotically approaching zero, that the physical laws we’ve worked out are incorrect and that all the data we have is dues simply to an extended series of wildly improbable measurement errors. Turning water into wine is “impossible” because we’ve observed lots and lots and lots of water for years and years and years and it never turns into wine. There is, however, one reported instance where this occurred. When balanced against all the counter evidence, however, this one instance is not compelling so we conclude that the proposition that water can turn into wine has a very low truth value. However, and this is the key point, we cannot conclude that that truth value is zero even if there were **no** reported instances of it occuring. It’s even more complicated than that. Turning lead into gold was long thought to be impossible. Now, however, we have gathered new evidence that has convinced us to change that proposition’s truth value from near zero to near one. The truly amazing thing about the biblical miracles isn’t how impossible they are, but how commonplace they are today. True, the modalities are different, but a decent opthamologist makes the blind to see four or five times a day. Anyway, the bottom line here is that the “supernatural” is impossible only because there is lots of evidence suggesting that it doesn’t happen. But the impossible can become possible and, in the real world, those truth values are _never_ either zero or one. NB – None of this is to say that your – or anyone else’s – ultimate conclusions are necessarily incorrect. But if you want to do it correctly, you need to have a more nuanced view on how you reach them and what they really mean. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/polycarp-did-you-forget-to-take-you-pills/216640.md?page=15)