2025-01-22

The Buddha Meets Bayes

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

ChatGPT image — don’t look too closely for sensible design

Forgive me if this is old news and I am the last to learn about it, but anyone interested in Buddhism and Bayes’ Theorem as a tool for evaluating the historical status of the Buddha in a way somewhat comparable to what Richard Carrier has done with Jesus will want to read

Kingsley, John. “A Bayesian Analysis of Early Śramaṇic Origin Stories Part I: Historicity of the Buddha.” Master of Arts, Loyola Marymount University, 2022. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/etd/1256/.

From the Introduction:

Because of the depth and time needed to complete a full Bayesian analysis of both the Buddha and Mahāvīra, this paper will focus mostly on the historicity of the Buddha, and offer further research suggestions for that of Mahāvīra. However, the main objective of this paper is not necessarily to prove, one way or another, that these figures did or did not exist. It is to simply provide a framework for the methodology that I think is most effective at forcing historians – and theologians – to deductively and empirically analyze the questions in their respective fields.

Bio
Latest Posts

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

The Buddha Meets Bayes - 2025-01-22 00:38:08 GMT+0000
Paul’s Letters and Accounting for Paul’s Name - 2025-01-21 10:58:18 GMT+0000
Ceasefire and hostage exchange - 2025-01-20 22:38:53 GMT+0000

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

2 thoughts on “The Buddha Meets Bayes”

Andrew Dabrowski says:

2025-01-22 02:12:14 GMT+0000 at 02:12

Kingsley was explicitly inspired by Carrier, who’s mentioned 44 times.
I hope this doesn’t become a trend, but it may be too late. At least Kingsley doesn’t seem to have lost his head.

Loading...

Reply
1. Neil Godfrey says:
  
  2025-01-22 03:24:26 GMT+0000 at 03:24
  
  Indeed, Carrier is Kingsley’s Muse. I have no problem applying Bayesian processes to hypotheses. So long as the conclusion itself remains in the realm of hypothesis and does not leap into “therefore…. (probable/likely) historical fact”.
  
  Loading...
  
  Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

"By the way, my thanks to Neil for an ongoing superb job of exposing Jim’s review for what it is: a farcical and none too effective exercise in mythicism assassination, nothing to do with rational, let alone unbiased, scholarship. I’m also happy to see even Jim giving Neil credit where credit is due."

— Earl Doherty, June 2011
"Neil, in my mature judgement (I am now an old man), this fine 4-part study is a brilliant reworking, an instructive restatement of Hayden White’s Metahistory (and his subsequent writings). Your critique of certain historiographic representations as imbedded in the case study of the “scientistic”, “empirical” Richard Carrier provides a solid starting point for the more honest “fictive” reading of the New Testament that you encourage. Your last paragraph is a very intelligent call to sensitive readers of these texts. I suspect a whole generation of biblical students has been educated without the insights provided by the incomparable White. Bravo!"

-- Timothy Bagley, - November 2024
"I want to say here that this site is so resourceful and highly on top of the most modern scholarship in the areas discussed here. . . I know of no other site which offers a wide range of topics related to careful critical analysis of historically and scripturally related issues."

-- Martin Lewadny, - March 2009
"For an excellent example of generally high-quality scholarship by someone who isn’t a biblical studies professor, see Neil Godfrey’s work posted on the website vridar.org."

— Tom Dykstra, – JOCABS 2015
"Neil, this is actually rather useful. Good job."

— R. Joseph Hoffmann, – June 2014
"Neil, You’ve done a clean job in your posting on ‘Jesus the Healer’. It reflects well on you. Best, John"

— John Moles, September 2011 (personal email)
"Here I give an admittedly subjective short list, in random order, of useful, high level and regularly updated weblogs on the study of the Old Testament . . . ‘Vridar: Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science’ (http://vridar.org/) by Neil Godfrey"

-- Klaas Spronk, - Bibliotheca Orientalis LXXI, 3/4 (2014)
"These reviews of yours are so bloody weird!"

— James Crossley, – April 2010
"Neil Godfrey and Tim Widowfield, who both write at Vridar . . . happen to be some of the most astute and well-read amateurs you can read on the internet on the subject of biblical historicity. I call them amateurs only for the reason that they don’t have, so far as I know, advanced degrees in the subject. But I have often been impressed with their grasp of logic and analysis of scholarship. I don’t always agree with them, but I respect their work."

— Richard Carrier, – March 2014
"I’d like to thank you for this very nice representation of what I was trying to show in the book. It’s always gratifying when a reader zeroes in on exactly those aspects I thought were most interesting and most central to my argument. Thank you for this careful and engaged reading of my work – much appreciated!"

— Eva Mroczek, – June 2017
"Thanks for your very elaborate review! I realized that I hadn’t added your blog to our blogroll. This oversight has been corrected. Looking forward to more segments."

— Anthony Le Donne, – September 2009
"Fantastic. I’m so glad you’re helping to spread these ideas!"

Nancy Fraser - June 2019 (personal email)
"Thanks much for this book review. I think it expands, and contributes to, the effort in honouring Thomas that we with Lukasz originally had in mind with this volume. Best, Emanuel"

-- Emanuel Pfoh - August 2020
"Note that I do not use the term ‘amateur’ pejoratively. . . . In fact, Godfrey is extremely well read and his librarian skills have brought many important academic works to my attention."

Raphael Lataster - August 2019
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=145080#p145080
Neil made a good synthesis of the work without being an “expert” of the field.

-- Enrico Tuccinardi, - October 2022
It is worth saying another word of appreciation here for Neil Godfrey's effort to make Bruno Bauer accessible in English.

-- Peter Kirby, - May 2023
"Many thanks for this post, and for the quality of your blog."

— Philippe Wajdenbaum, – November 2018
"I’ve even been cited by atheists with approval (which I really don’t know how to take, so thanks, I think, but I’m not sure, Vrider (even though I feel like I need to take a shower now))."

-- Jim West, – September 2010
"Thanks for this detailed interaction! I’ll try to offer something more substantial than 'Thank you' in response at some point, but I didn’t want to wait . . . to express appreciation for your detailed interaction with what I’ve written!"

— James McGrath, – June 2009
"Vridar is consistently thought-provoking, well-informed, and asking the right questions. There are intelligent, thoughtful comments and commenters regularly offering productive discussion. Books and publications are covered with a range of perspectives with attempts at fair and accurate representation of others’ arguments and content (where there are occasional and inevitable missteps on that I notice Neil making corrections and apologies where warranted, which wins points with me). Please carry on."

— Gregory Doudna, – January 2019
Congratulations, Vridar, . . . I declare, Vridar, your own hard work translating Bruno Bauer will make a major difference in future studies of Bruno Bauer and the evolution of Hegel’s philosophy of religion.

-- Paul Trejo, - April 2023
"I find your blog most interesting and appreciate your ongoing effort to keep to the evidence for the issues discussed!"

-- Thomas L. Thompson, - April 2020
"I still wonder at all the material you turn out for Vridar. The more I read your stuff (and I still do, of course), the more I realize how much we all owe you. Your voice is unique."

— Earl Doherty, November 2013 (personal email)
"I think you have a high quality blog that provides a positive public service by discussing academic topics within a wider audience."

— Russell Gmirkin, – October 2016
"Very good. This post is going straight to the March 2016 Biblical Studies Carnival."

—N.T. Wrong, – March 2016
"Neil, for what it is worth it is obvious to me that if you had earlier in life tracked into a graduate program at one of the world’s leading research universities you would be one of the world’s formidable ones. You are doing essentially the same quality now (apart from the philology and languages) except mostly sticking to commenting on others’ work as informed comment/discussion."

— Gregory Doudna, – January 2019
"I always enjoy reading Neil’s blog because I think that he is careful, thorough, intellectually fair, and honest."

— April DeConick, – November 2007
This is superb work, Neil, and reminds me of Albert Schweitzer’s work from a century ago. . . . .

I commend you for being the first to even TRY to translate Bruno Bauer’s brilliant Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres Ursprungs, which is now more than 150 years old.

. . . . .Thank you for your historic effort.

-- Paul Trejo, M.A., - November 2022
Editor, An English Edition of Bruno Bauer’s 1843 Christianity Exposed
"I have found your website really valuable as an interpretive filter for Biblical scholarship, especially the origins of Christianity and historicity of Jesus issue. Your clarity of expression, fair comments and personal insights are much valued. I refer to your site frequently as yet more names and publications pop up requiring an academic critique and helpful recommendations for book purchases. So, please continue to delve deeply and share this intellectual sustenance with your grateful readers."

— Mary Booker, – February 2020 (personal email)

Neil Godfrey on The Buddha Meets Bayes: “Indeed, Carrier is Kingsley’s Muse. I have no problem applying Bayesian processes to hypotheses. So long as the conclusion itself…” Jan 22, 03:24
Andrew Dabrowski on The Buddha Meets Bayes: “Kingsley was explicitly inspired by Carrier, who’s mentioned 44 times. I hope this doesn’t become a trend, but it may…” Jan 22, 02:12
GEORGE A HALL on Paul’s Letters and Accounting for Paul’s Name: “Up until the past few few years, the ONE vector I’d never heard of for Paul’s name was the Aramaic…” Jan 22, 01:48
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “In short, I mean what the judge means when he tells the jury to come to a decision “beyond reasonable…” Jan 22, 00:19
Neil Godfrey on Paul’s Letters and Accounting for Paul’s Name: “Who knows what the authors were thinking? Justin seems to believe in the historical fact of Jesus having done certain…” Jan 22, 00:08
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “I am saying that some types of knowledge and conclusions do not involve mathematical weighing of odds. By insisting that…” Jan 22, 00:02
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “I am sorry if I have seemed to have made unreasonable conclusions. I was not aware that anything I wrote…” Jan 22, 00:00
Neil Godfrey on The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History”: “I mean that the probability of the Pearl Harbor attack not happening is so small that it is reasonable to…” Jan 21, 23:57
Gordon Rouse on Paul’s Letters and Accounting for Paul’s Name: “So would Paul claiming to be from the tribe of Benjamin (in Philipians) also be an allusion to King Saul?…” Jan 21, 23:03

Neil Godfrey

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

Share this:

Like this:

2 thoughts on “The Buddha Meets Bayes”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Discover more from Vridar