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.

[downbeatplumb]

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"

[robvalue]

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.

[bennyboy]

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.

[robvalue]

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

---

Are there reasons for interest yes.  However this motivation has nothing to do with the discussion.  I will say that I have not, and still do not have any intention in changing the thread into a history of the Christian Faith post.   There would have needed to be more success here and in the "extraordinary claims" thread for me to even consider it (by success I don't necessarily mean agreement with me, but at least rational discussion)

Earlier in this thread someone said that I need to do some self reflection, and consider that I may be wrong.  That is the intention here.  To critically look at testimony, what makes it strong evidence and what is weak about it.  However I am then criticized for it, and many assumptions and accusations made about my integrity.  

There are three ways to gain knowledge. Through logic/reason, personal experience, and testimony from others. I wished to discuss the latter.  I have had a number of people of conversations where people outright deny testimony in certain situations.  In others they lean towards scientism. I believe both are incorrect.  This is not to say that every testimony is good, or that science is not profitable for knowledge.  To just deny testimony or automatically label them as fables is to remove a key portion of our path to knowledge.

---

Do you ever offer anything except hooey?

[bennyboy]

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."

[Mudhammam]

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.

[bennyboy]

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.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Okay, let's say I learn about physics from the "testimony" of a professor.  I may believe what he says or I may not.  Let's say I do not-- now what?  Either he will have to demonstrate the truth of his testimony, or I will have to decide whether it's worth listening to him anymore.  The implication, and it's an important one, is that I COULD choose, at any time, to question him, and to demand a means by which to attain the knowledge through personal experience.  

Let's say a professor claims to have produced cold fusion.  I get excited and say "Show me, show me!" and he starts talking about how only he can understand the readouts on the computer, how only he has the right stuff to intepret the data, and that it is very important that I "just believe" him.  How should I respond?

The kind of testimony you are talking about lacks this important criterion: that if I don't believe, someone will be able to bring to my personal experience whatever they are testifying about.  So if I don't believe John Smith murdered Jane Doe, and have only your word for it, then I will disregard your testimony.  If I don't believe Jesus died and was resurrected three days later, then your testimony to that effect is unlikely to change my mind.

Now, in neither case does my disbelief have anything to do with the truth.  It may be that John Smith DID murder Jane Doe.  It may be that Jesus DID die and get resurrected.  However, I've met enough liars and fools in my life, and heard enough obviously false testimony, that I'm unlikely to spend much time considering hearsay.  There's just nothing in it for me.

---

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.