RE: Anecdotal Evidence
November 4, 2016 at 8:06 pm
(This post was last modified: November 4, 2016 at 8:07 pm by bennyboy.)
(November 4, 2016 at 3:59 pm)alpha male Wrote:(November 3, 2016 at 9:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay let's not use that meaning. Let's use "anecdote" as equivalent to "personal testimonial." Do you believe that the testimonials of Christians, including historical early Christians, can be used as evidence for God?
Considering that just about every believer in the Christian God came to believe based largely on testimony of other Christians and/or the Bible, the answer is obviously yes, personal testimony can be used as evidence for God.
I don't think that's true, actually. I think most people who believe in the Christian God believe for one of three reasons:
1) They are raised in Christian families, and kids believe what they are told is true, with little or no ability to discern truth.
2) Some people are shocked (for example by the death of a loved one), such that their world view is damaged, putting them in an "open" state in which they aren't sure what's true, and therefore rely on the truth judgments of others.
3) Some people consciously choose to suspend disbelief in a kind of spiritual suicide-- "I hate myself and my life, and I want to be part of something that is good." Examples would be prison convicts.
In my opinion, (1) is quite natural, (3) is very likely beneficial. If an inmate finds solace in Jesus, and changes from a thug to a community leader, I couldn't care less if the Jesus and God he believes in are real. (2) is fairly natural but a bit predatory. Lonely old ladies are led to church by well-meaning churchgoers in the hope of comfort, and too many end up giving all their money to Creflo Dollar.
My point is that I don't think there's really anyone who is persuaded by the particular quality of evidence of either the Bible or its believers. I think the individual arrives at a state in which they suspend their disbelief. Now, be careful to note that I'm not saying the Bible is necessarily wrong, or that the religion is necessarily wrong-- I'm just saying that it is not through the acceptance of the weight of evidence by which ANY Christian becomes so.
My primary evidence for this is simple-- that in other geographic regions, children, grieving widows, or reformed criminals end up believing in Islam, or Hinduism or whatever. So it's not the religion itself which reaches out to sensible listeners, but rather eager listeners who absorb the religion that first appeals to them.