Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 4:02 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Witness Evidence
RE: Witness Evidence
(November 21, 2015 at 6:52 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: Witness Evidence
People say they've seen things for all sorts of reasons. for it to be able to be taken seriously it needs to be coupled with physical evidence particularly if the claims are out side of the usual.
"There is a cat in my garden" Requires a different level of proof from. "there's a cat in my garden tinkering with a home made spaceship"



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
RE: Witness Evidence
Also no one is likely to care about the first claim, whether it's true or not. When something is of no consequence, whether you believe or disbelieve it really doesn't matter.

However, if I was interested (and I was round your house) I'd want to see it. So then it would become apparent whether you're talking shit.

I find it hard to believe RR really can't differentiate between all these different scenarios. I think the need to justify his belief in scripture is twisting his brain and making him say things other parts of his brain must know are ridiculous. Cognitive dissidence. I find it very hard to believe he would carry on this way in real life.

The alternative is he genuinely doesn't understand any of this and is unwilling or unable to learn.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: Witness Evidence
Summary of this thread:

1) "More than 1000mm of rain falls in Vancouver each year." I accept someone's "testimony" at face value, proving that testimony is, at least sometimes, an acceptable form of evidence.

2) "Jesus walked on water." Since testimony is an acceptable form of evidence (proven in point 1 or I'm an inconsistent hypocrite!), and since there is no other evidence available, the testimony is the best form of evidence.

3) "Jesus can enter my heart and cure my kidney stones if my faith is strong enough." ibid.

If I don't agree with all of this, I'm showing bias in favor of believing in rain, and against believing Jesus walked on water. Because that's how Scientism works: I willingly accept whatever testimony I already believe in, and ignore the powerful testimony of Scripture and of living Christians.
Reply
RE: Witness Evidence
This whole thread is an argument from ignorance, I have concluded.

If witness testimony is not obviously flawed, and there's no other evidence to consider that contradicts the testimony, it should be assumed to be true by default, RR would have us believe. If this isn't what he is saying, then he is simply agreeing with us that disbelief is the default and judgement should be reserved until supporting evidence is produced. Of course he's conflating disbelief with belief to the contrary, intentionally or otherwise, to try and make our position look less favourable.

However, as soon as we switch to claims from other religions, or just anything that goes against Christianity, I bet the logical fallacy becomes all too clear and the rules would change in an instant. Suddenly the motivation would become suspect, whereas it was always given a free pass before.

I just met Allah! He's the one true God! Yahweh doesn't exist, Allah told me!

Now, any Christian will instantly dismiss this as a complete lie, because they consider my motivation to be in question. However, the claim should instead be met with the same scepticism as any other claim, and it should fail for that reason, since I'm providing no evidence.

If you're considering very unusual claims, questioning the motivation is really just confirmation bias at work. Objectivity should be key if you're at all interested in actual truth. Considering motivation is fine for everyday claims, it's a way of stopping yourself being conned. But once you're dealing with substantial and extraordinary claims, you really need to just focus on the available evidence. Even if someone has "no reason to lie" and "appears to be telling the truth", that still doesn't guarantee that what they think is the truth actually is the truth. People are absolutely amazing at being mistaken, particularly regarding extraordinary things.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
RE: Witness Evidence
(November 22, 2015 at 1:32 am)Kitan Wrote:
(November 22, 2015 at 1:28 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:


Do you ever offer anything except hooey?

[Image: ukze2.jpg]
Reply
RE: Witness Evidence
(November 22, 2015 at 11:38 pm)robvalue Wrote: This whole thread is an argument from ignorance, I have concluded.

I just met Allah! He's the one true God! Yahweh doesn't exist, Allah told me!

Now, any Christian will instantly dismiss this as a complete lie, because they consider my motivation to be in question. However, the claim should instead be met with the same scepticism as any other claim, and it should fail for that reason, since I'm providing no evidence.

That's right.  If testimony is evidence, then whichever cultural institution grows faster, and has more adherents, will have the greater supporting evidence.  In a couple decades, we will all need to take the perfectly logical step of becoming Hindus, or maybe Buddhists, or maybe even Muslims.

And this is the problem which Christianity, as well as with Pascal's wager.  With a global world full of so many ideas, it's not a matter of evidence for God or not-- it's a matter of the weight of evidence of dozens of major religions, thousands of minor sects, major philosophical positions etc.-- all of whom have members providing "testimony."
Reply
RE: Witness Evidence
(November 23, 2015 at 12:26 am)bennyboy Wrote: And this is the problem which Christianity, as well as with Pascal's wager.  With a global world full of so many ideas, it's not a matter of evidence for God or not-- it's a matter of the weight of evidence of dozens of major religions, thousands of minor sects, major philosophical positions etc.-- all of whom have members providing "testimony."
Although I think there's a case to be made that when you set aside the particulars of mass religion, and look at how the notion of deity has been rationalized or mystically apprehended, there's a universal idea or feeling that extends beyond time and place and of which all of them can be said to more or less agree upon.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Reply
RE: Witness Evidence
(November 23, 2015 at 3:47 am)Nestor Wrote:
(November 23, 2015 at 12:26 am)bennyboy Wrote: And this is the problem which Christianity, as well as with Pascal's wager.  With a global world full of so many ideas, it's not a matter of evidence for God or not-- it's a matter of the weight of evidence of dozens of major religions, thousands of minor sects, major philosophical positions etc.-- all of whom have members providing "testimony."
Although I think there's a case to be made that when you set aside the particulars of mass religion, and look at how the notion of deity has been rationalized or mystically apprehended, there's a universal idea or feeling that extends beyond time and place and of which all of them can be said to more or less agree upon.

Maybe, but the thing is that most of the members of those institutions probably wouldn't see it that way.  I definitely think there are certain core experiences which are called (and are felt to be) "spiritual," qualitatively if not in substance.  I'd also say that the mystical traditions of most religions are similar (and bordering on scientific in a strange way)-- because they are capable of categorizing and repeating those experiences through certain ways of thinking, eating, etc.

I have valued religion as a way to have deep experiences.  However, when you flip it around and use your deep experiences as evidence for a particular mythology, it's an instant fail.
Reply
RE: Witness Evidence
(November 22, 2015 at 2:50 am)bennyboy Wrote:



Where it can reasonably be shown, this may be valid.  However the question occurs to me, how often do you do this?  I also think that if you did this often without reason to your professor he may take it as questioning his integrity; and tell you where you can go fly your kite.  And if there is a valid reason why it cannot be repeated or demonstrated to you personally, then I do think that the collaborating observational testimony of others is sufficient.  In any case, if someone is universally skeptical, it would be largely infeasible to do this for everything.

As said before, I do believe in verifying with others, and a single claim is not very strong.  Similar to in science, where they do not make hasty generalizations based on a single test.  In your example, I would say the response is reason for suspicion (there is no way to falsify the claim).  When I hear a claim that I am skeptical about, one of the first things I do is look to see if others validate (or invalidate) the claims.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Video Neurosurgeon Provides Evidence Against Materialism Guard of Guardians 41 4177 June 17, 2019 at 10:40 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential Edwardo Piet 82 11543 April 29, 2018 at 1:57 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  If God is a witness to all things... Mystic 50 6623 October 18, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Testimony is Evidence RoadRunner79 588 115136 September 13, 2017 at 8:17 pm
Last Post: Astonished
  Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true? Mudhammam 268 30995 February 3, 2017 at 6:44 pm
Last Post: WisdomOfTheTrees
  Anecdotal Evidence RoadRunner79 395 50590 December 14, 2016 at 2:53 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  What philosophical evidence is there against believing in non-physical entities? joseph_ 150 12079 September 3, 2016 at 11:26 am
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  The nature of evidence Wryetui 150 15212 May 6, 2016 at 6:21 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence RoadRunner79 184 29084 November 13, 2015 at 12:17 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Miracles are useless as evidence Pizza 0 1226 March 15, 2015 at 7:37 pm
Last Post: Pizza



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)