Witness Evidence

[robvalue]

Okay, RR, let's just get to the elephant in the room.  Sometimes testimony, however weak and unreliable it is, is the best source of information we have access to.  So if one of my kids breaks a flowerpot, I'll ask the most trusted one who dunnit, and I might even act solely on that basis.  But that's not really because I consider the testimony good evidence; it's because it lets me make a quick call and get back to watching the game.

However, I (can I say we?) suspect that you are trying to establish testimony as a possible "best" source of information, not in specific senses like this but in a general sense, and that once you've established the validity of testiomony as a source of evidence, you're going to start shoveling religious bullshit and saying, "You weren't there so you have to accept the testimony given in Scripture."  We have pre-emptively announced that we think this kind of testimony is invalid for a variety of reasons.

I, for one, seriously doubt you have a deep and abiding interest in the nature of testimony for its own sake.  I believe we've seen right through you from page one, and that you've been working very hard to pretend this discussion is about anything else than an indirect attempt at proselytizing.

Tell me I'm wrong about you.  Tell me this thread isn't about using people's wishy-thinking and thousands-year-old documents as a foundation for the "reality" of Jesus Christ my Personal Savior, for whom there is no better evidence.

Right. Even then, I don't get the point. If the bible does actually document real events, so what? Does RR expect us all to join a cult based on our theoretical admission that the stories are credible? Some theists honestly don't seem to see a distinction between believing a holy book to be true and joining the religion. Some of us aren't looking for things to worship.

Or does he want us to stop saying it's irrational to believe them? Because the real agenda is so guarded, we can't have a sensible discussion about any real consequences here. Just saying "But witness testimony might be true" for 20 pages doesn't advance things very much. Yes, any given testimony might be true. No one is saying otherwise. Trying to drag science down to the level of anecdotes is a dirty tactic and an admission that either you've got nothing of substance, or you have no idea what science is at all. The excuses for the latter are running thin after the amount of times the differences have been explained.