Testimony is Evidence

[Chad32]

Evidence means literally "bringing something into view," not "things that will make others believe what you believe."  One example of possibly useful testimony is expert testimony (though this often fails in court due to unscrupulous application of credentials).  Let's say, for example, you have a coin and you want to know if it's a real Roman coin.  We could observe it in broad daylight as much as we want, but we'd never know how to interpret that visual and chemical information.  We will for sure want to consult an expert; and if there's a legal case involved, we will be forced to rely on expert testimonial.  But even then, the expert will be expected to explain in unambiguous terms WHY he knows the coin is Roman, and there must be the sense that we could follow up: buy the same equipment he uses, read books about how certain metals are affected by time and environmental conditions, and so on.  In other words, this kind of testimonial must be taken as a time-saving device, not an appeal to authority for its own sake.

Unbiased testimony about things which do not need interpretation is also reasonably useful.  For example, if someone robbed me while wearing a ski mask, and I could report his tattoos to the police, then they'd be VERY likely indeed to pick the guy up and charge him, unless there was some reason to believe that we had social connections.  The idea that some Canadian tourist just showed up in New York and started describing tattoos to the police just for something to do will be taken as much less likely than that a guy with the described tattoo mugged me.

I don't think that I understand where you disagree, with the etymology literal meaning of "bringing something into view"  or perhaps you are not disagreeing.   The modern dictionary definitions I gave, I would think match up with this (I believe) more figurative sourcing of the word.  Or are you saying to be evidence, that you need to literally bring it into the view of a person?  I would think from your examples, this is not the case.  In your example of a believed roman coin, I would agree, that a non-expert, can tell you what they seen, and why they think it is a roman coin.  An expert may be able to tell you more, or even be able to give information from the witness description if it is good enough.  

I would also agree, that the testimony is about what was seen, heard or otherwise experienced and not the interpretation of those things.  I do think that people are free to think for themselves (or perhaps not think if that be the case).

But we all know that you want to establish testimony as evidence in general because there's no physical evidence for God which isn't better interpreted in non religious terms: either as lies, or as misunderstandings of the physical world, or whatever.

But the particular kind of testimonial you want to have accepted is that of anecdote-- if enough people claim to have had certain religious experiences, then that lessens the probability that the religious claims are false, or may even support the idea that the religious claims are true.

The problem is that pretty much 100% of this testimonial is either biased or requires interpretation of experiences, or involves unqualified people making attributions about things based on their own world views.

In short, I believe you are equivocating on the many kinds of testimonials that people might offer, so that our refusal to throw out the baby with the bath water will allow you a foot in the door to present an argument which does NOT in fact meet any sensible standard of evidence that non-Christians would (or should) accept.  (Please understand that I do not mean this in an insulting way, like you are using a dirty trick.  However, I think that is the practical function of this kind of argument-- you are doing the work of getting evidence that works for you to be accepted as credible or at least acceptable by others)

I'm a little disappointed with you here.  My image of you, is of someone who thinks through things, and I would have thought that you might have given me the benefit of the doubt in doing the same, rather than jumped to imagined motivations, and where you think I'm trying to go with this.  I'm only looking to discuss testimony, as I find that many atheist seem to make strong objections, I find are unique to the group.  I may start thinking, that as much as they bring up God in the discussion, and avoid discussion, that it is more of an issue for them, then for me.   But also, I think that you are thinking of a different sense of the word testimony, sometimes used in the sense of a religious personal (not shared by others) experience.  I am not;  I'm talking about witness testimony as described above.  If testimony is evidence, it value as evidence, and the reasoning behind these views.

---

I actually don't have any major objections to anything presented in the OP as long as he's willing to acknowledge that context matters in all scenarios involving eyewitness testimony.  I'm just not sure what his point is.

I would agree, that context matters.  For one example, I think that there is a difference, between what someone see's a distance away across a dimly lit parking lot.  Verses a few feet away, in a well lit room. The time and how well they seen whatever it was, also makes a difference. I also don't disagree, with a number of the flaws that are brought up concerning witness testimony, and the studies preformed about it.   I just don't agree, that this makes it not evidence, or makes it so unreliable as to outweigh it's strengths.

---

Testimony has to be backed up with other evidence....

You can't believe everything people tell you, unless they can back it up with something else. People lie. That's the problem with testimony.

I would agree.  I often look for corroborating evidence.  Which could include other independent witnesses.

I also think that people lying is a problem with all testimony, which may include expert testimony, or pretty much anything anyone else tells you.  Physical evidence can also lie.  Either indirectly by giving a false impression of the truth (more a problem with interpretation or hasty conclusions, than the evidence itself lying).  Or someone can place physical evidence in order to deceive.

Indeed they can. Which is why it's usually best to get as many pieces as possible. It's just that testimony alone is never enough.