Anecdotal Evidence

[bennyboy]

I apologize, I kind of got away from this thread.  I've been working 12 hour days, and working on the house, on the weekends.  With that, I'm not gong to quote anyone, because I realize that people may no longer have interest; but, I had a couple of closing thoughts on the conversation.

As to testimony being the weakest form of evidence, or that it was not preferred in historical and legal matters.  I would ask for those saying this, to support their statements.  Looking at historical method, it deals quite a bit with testimony and how to test one's witnesses.  J. Warner Wallace, who was a quite successful homicide and cold case detective in Los Angeles, states that he has won cases with nothing but testimony evidence, or with no forensic evidence.  Personally; I don't think that any category of evidence is stronger or weaker a priori.   That the strength of the evidence, is based on how well it accounts for what happens, which in many cases, testimony can tell you a lot more than any other single piece of indirect evidence. 

So this week, I was envisioning a scenario, where many of the arguments seemingly presented here come into play.   I am at a casino, playing texas hold'em.  I am slow playing my royal flush (which I have never seen dealt before).  My opponent plays right to it, and I am able to build up quite a large pot.  As the cards are turned over however,  I am astonished when the dealer tells me, that I lost the hand.   He goes on to talk about Bayes theorem and the odds against getting a royal flush.   How about how we cannot trust what we perceive to see, and that it is far more likely, that I had a high card or maybe a pair.  Multiple people affirm that I did indeed get a royal flush, but the dealer insist that we cannot know that without the casino scientist verifying that it did in fact take place.  As he collects the cards, he explains that their resident scientist called in sick that day, and that I would have to come back tomorrow, so get a decision.  When I return the next day,  we are unable to repeat the hand, and they decide that a much more mundane explanation is more plausible.  At the end of this imagined account, I am escorted out of building (likely in cuffs) and asked that I not return with such nonsense (and the abusive transactions which likely transpired after). 

So, in this account, would I be wrong in believing what I saw, and what others testified to, and should I apologize to the dealer and casino?

You speak respectfully for the most part, so forgive me if I don't seem to respond in kind this post.


I think you are attempting to establish a kind of slippery slope argument-- "Well, SOME kinds of anecdotal evidence is found useful, so anecdotal evidence should always be considered. . . including anecdotes about Jesus."

However, you are dealing in absolutes, when there's no requirement that the standards we hold for evidence must be absolute.  It's not true that anecdotes either should or should not be accepted.  It IS true that if you want to persuade people, you will have to meet THEIR bar for evidence.

If a Christian says to another Christian, "I felt the presence of the Lord in the room," then this assertion will almost for sure be unchallenged.  That's not because your assertion is intrinsically valuable, but because another Christian is unlikely to challenge this kind of assertion.

If you say the same thing to me, I'm likely to demand that you describe in very specific terms what the Lord is and why you would attribute your feelings to His presence.


For the most part, we will defend our own world views, since this is the most mentally efficient approach to getting through life.  I'm not going to spend a lot of time pondering whether Hephaestus is real, and how on Earth it was that he gets to be married to Aphrodite.  Because why?  Why would I spend the time on something I consider a fairy tale?

Your case is extremely obvious-- you have no real objective evidence for the existence of God, but you would still like to argue that God exists.  Therefore you must rely on anecdotal evidence.  However, stories BY Christians ABOUT Christ have absolutely no value to non-Christians.  The motivations of Christians in believing and transmitting their beliefs are so apparent that they are unlikely to be taken seriously.

Let me say this, though-- a God which is all-powerful, and supposed to be willing to reveal Himself through a contract with Mankind, and to have prophets, and so on-- a God like this who is not willing to reveal Himself to me has no value or interest to me. If He wants me to believe, let him reveal himself to me, instead of expecting me to listen to whatever nutjob wants to knock on my door Saturday morning.