Testimony is Evidence

[John V]

Of course testimony, as defined in the OP, is evidence. It isn't conclusive evidence. There are many factors we use to assess the strength of testimony as evidence. But to say it isn't evidence at all is ridiculous. Most of what we think we know we learned through testimony.

I think, as often happens in these threads, that we're down to semantics.  What you are talking about is the communication of ideas.  Technically, you guys (by which I mean the Christians arguing in favor of testimony as evidence) are right: almost everything we "know" is testimony-- a scientific journal with all its data is in some sense just some guy saying he saw some stuff, took some measurements, and got particular results.

Yep.

I think almost everyone here would take a collection of scientific papers as evidence.  In fact, if I were trying to prove a scientific point, I'd like half a dozen papers and just link them here, especially where I wouldn't have the resources to perform certain experiments on my own.  So if papers are testimony, then I'm relying almost exclusively on testimony.

Yep. Then, depending on the findings, you might need to assess further. For instance, back in the day, there were scientists who said smoking was harmful, and those who said it was safe. Those who said it was safe were generally paid by tobacco companies. People tend to discount such studies because there's obviously a financial incentive involved.

Nevertheless, I'd say that for most of us, there's a belief that testimony is shorthand.  I believe that I at least COULD corroborate almost all science with my own direct observations.  I could study enough about electronics and physics to make my own detectors.  I could go get degrees in math and physics.  I could worm my way into scientific communities such that I might have access to things like the LHC, or at least ask for guest status.

Yes, you believe you could, and there's nothing wrong with that. The error is in trying to claim that testimony becomes something more than testimony because you believe you COULD verify it yourself.

What you should be saying is that, as I said above, there are many factors we can use to evaluate testimonial evidence, and other evidence for that matter. In this case, if the findings are not controversial, several people testify to having found the same thing, and there's no apparent incentive for any of them to lie about it, it's strong evidence, albeit still testimonial from your own point of view.

With religious testimonial, things are different.  I do not expect God to speak to me in the form of a burning bush, no matter what I do-- I can only, ever, take somebody's word for it that 1) that happened; and 2) the person isn't misinterpreting a different experience (lysergic mold on his rye bread causing him to hallucinate, light or chemical effects which being uneducated he might not understand, etc.)

Yes, most people would agree that testimonial evidence for supernatural claims is weaker than that for mundane claims. But, instead of recognizing degrees of strength, you're pushing a false dichotomy.

So yeah, testimony can be evidence, depending on your semantics for those words.

I'm using the OP definition - the transfer of knowledge from one person to another with the assertion that this information is true (this may be written or spoken).

But in terms of being evidence with the power to persuade, it's of pretty poor quality.

As most people who have existed have been theists based largely on testimonial evidence, I have to disagree. It can be very persuasive.

I'm perfectly capable of believing that the 3 billion or so Christians throughout history were ALL deluded, ALL misinterpreting their experiences, and that NONE could have got direct corroboration of observations that I would value enough to decide to accept the God idea in general, or the Christian Jesus-as-God idea in specific.  And that's just if I'm going Jesus-vs-not-Jesus.  What if I take the "testimony" of a billion hindus and as many muslims?

You can personally weight testimony of the miraculous that low if you like. The problem is when you argue that you are necessarily right, and so other people with different weighting are therefore wrong. 

The latter, in science, would be the nail in the coffin-- it would be obvious that scientific conclusions would be invalidated by so much contrary evidence.  And so is the Christian position-- just the fact that there are so many religious views which contradict Christianity is a sufficient challenge to demonstrate that testimonial evidence alone cannot be considered sufficient (or even, in my opinion, of any value at all).

First, you have the false dichotomy, i.e. you assume that all religious testimony is equal. I disagree. For instance, I see different possible motivations between Paul and Mohammed and weight Mohammed's testimony lower, as I would weight testimony on the safety of cigarettes from a scientist employed by a tobacco company lower.

Second, the fact that people believe indicates that the evidence is sufficient to them. Again, it may be of no value in your opinion - so what? You're entitled to that opinion, but it doesn't make it right.

In short, there are two views we can take, neither of which helps us with the God idea:
1)  Testimony is NOT taken as evidence.  Christians, having no other kind of evidence, therefore have no basis on which to base their beliefs (or to transmit them)
2)  Testimony IS taken as evidence.  The Christian narrative, being in conflict with billions of other people's "evidence," has in this sense as much evidence against it as for it, and the Christian case simply isn't compelling enough for anyone to bother with it.

Again, false dichotomy. There is a third option - we each weight testimonial evidence according to multiple factors and find some weaker, some stronger.