Testimony is Evidence

[John V]

And protest all you want, your wish to equate claims that are at least based in reality (and which can be corroborated by evidence) with claims that not only have nothing to do with reality, but have less than zero ability to be corroborated by any evidence whatsoever, is the pinnacle of dishonesty and you should be ashamed of yourself.

If you haven't actually corroborated a claim with other evidence, you don't know that it can be corroborated. If you make this your standard, you have to dump a lot of what you think you know.

[Amarok]

Still blathering nonsense Beta

[bennyboy]

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.

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.

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.

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.)

So yeah, testimony can be evidence, depending on your semantics for those words.  But in terms of being evidence with the power to persuade, it's of pretty poor quality.  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?

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).

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.

[Amarok]

Most of what we think we know we learned through testimony.

Nope through evidence . Stop confusing the two moron

Of course it's understandable you would believe this . As a gullible clown

[Cyberman]

There's basically two types of testimony in this context.

-"Don't touch that, it's hot."
-"Really?" sss "Ow - son of a bitch!"

-"Don't touch that, a monster will eat you."
-"Really?" touch "Okay, now what?"

I wonder which our theist friends are advocating..?

[RoadRunner79]

Do you think that was based on good testimony?

Ummm...do you think your beliefs are based on good testimony?

Also...what's your methodology for parsing out good testimony from bad?

To you first question, I'm assuming, that you are referring to my religious beliefs.  It's going to depend on what you are talking about.  Some yes and some no.

For the second question I don't know that there is a formula or a checklist.  I think that much of it lies in the details and context of the testimony.  What I think of as witness testimony only include what they describe as seeing or experiencing.  If the testimony only includes the conclusion, I don't consider that very good evidence or testimony.  Many have included the possibility of lying or mistaken in their objections.  Corroborating evidence (either other testimony or physical evidence left behind)  goes a long way towards reducing these issues, and makes  for stronger testimony.  If they are independent of the circumstances (not benefiting), or there is reason for them not to give their testimony and they do anyway, then I think this makes their testimony better.  I ask questions, like if they are including details non relevant to the conclusion or are they editing large parts out?  Is there reasons to question it?

But generally, I give them the benefit of the doubt until I have reason to dismiss them (principle of charity). 

How do you decide what testimony to believe and what not to?

---

It looks like RR has bailed on his own thread, again.

Eventually, a topic exhausts itself when on possible points have been made. There is no shame in letting others have the last word.

I think that there is more to discuss; but generally as I said, mostly busy and tired, and grew weary of fighting.   I'm still curious, if one dismisses personal experience and testimony from others, what evidence do they really have, in which to base any belief?  It doesn't seem like the possibility of a mistake is that big of a deal in other areas, why so much with testimony?

---

Also...what's your methodology for parsing out good testimony from bad?

When it tells him what he wants to hear, that's "good" testimony.  Anything else is bad.

That's exactly what I am arguing against.  And oddly enough what I think that many's position is, as I don't believe that they would allow me to dismiss their evidence quite so easily.  I've tried before with the story of evolution.

[Minimalist]

Do you think that the pauline bullshit of 500 "witnesses" is valid?

Yes or No.

[Cyberman]

Well, it's fifty hours of testimony, so...

[Whateverist]

I'm pretty sure testimony, along with any other form of evidence, whether weak or strong, is irrelevant to the great majority of believers. Those beliefs are inculcated by parents who are already members of the cult which is force fed to the kids.

Later, looking to be accepted as rational adults for their cult memberships, some adults feel the need to justify what they would believe anyhow. Not impressed.

[bennyboy]

I don't believe that they would allow me to dismiss their evidence quite so easily.  I've tried before with the story of evolution.

I'm with you on this point. Much of the science of evolution seems to be the telling of an evolutionary narrative: what pressures the scientists suspected leading to particular phenotypes showing up, and so on. If they can make a narrative that seems to work, this seems to be taken as sufficiently strong. A common example Christians use is the evolution of the eye. I don't think we have a lot of fossils of evolving eyeballs, and yet the narrative of photo-sensitive cells evolving through various contexts into workable eyes seems compelling enough.


That being said, though, fossils are real things, and evolution provides a robust view on how that observable information should be interpreted. The God idea doesn't really tie things together in a very compelling way in my opinion. Fossils are for sure evidence of things that existed, and the only interpretation is about why they existed or how they are related. Religious experiences are not good evidence of things existing, because while I can look at the fossil you've dug up, I cannot examine your moment of religious inspiration or whatever.