Testimony is Evidence

[Amarok]

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

How about we don't . How about we declare it useless and continue using something better. Whittling down our use of it till it's reduced to the most mundane of claims . And declare your appeals to how and what people thought in the past irrelevant .

[Astonished]

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

What factors might those be?

*Yawn* Don't suppose they could be real evidence, could they?

[bennyboy]

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

What factors might those be?

They've already been listed, I believe, earlier in the thread.

[Minimalist]

I guess they weren't very impressive.

[John V]

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

What factors might those be?

There are a number of factors. I gave one example earlier - personal gain. For example, most people would tend to lower the value of testimony from a scientist that smoking isn't harmful if they discovered that the scientist was paid by a tobacco company. Why are you commenting on my posts without reading them?

---

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

No, I don't think so.  I believe it is your bias that makes you think your religious testimonial is more valid or valuable than the religious testimonials of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and so on.  I'm pretty sure that a devout Hindu will value his own texts, history, word-of-mouth, and personal experiences as more valid and valuable than yours.  His respected community members will confirm his beliefs.  His excited temple members will talk of visions or of powerful feelings.  Whatever you say, he will mirror in kind.  He will be certain that his testimonial represents truth, whereas yours represents a misunderstanding of truth.

And I believe it is your bias that leads you to argue that religious testimony is all completely and equally worthless.

Since there is no physical evidence, then you will have to establish to my satisfaction not only that testimonial might be useful in establishing the truth of religious claims.

Your satisfaction? I've noted that people assess evidence differently and I'm OK with that, as I'm not the final arbiter of what constitutes evidence. What makes you think I'm trying to change your mind personally? I'm writing for the theoretical reasonable person. If you see your error that's great, but it's not my main intent.

You'll have to demonstrate that one faith's testimonial evidence due to "multiple factors" is in fact weaker or stronger.

I've already given one factor - a person who stands to gain from testimony is given less weight than someone who doesn't stand to gain, or may even suffer loss from their testimony. I've noted with the smoking example that this is a common criterion, and I've given the example in religion of Mohammed v. Paul.

Since the particular God ideas that all these people have held have been so varied, there are three ways of looking at this state:
1)  There's some underlying, non-mythological real God, humans sometimes have contact with this God, and the different religions are the struggle of minds in describing the indescribable.
2)  There's something about people that leads us to anthropomorphize that which is mysterious, so we have a genetic predisposition to put a human-like face to inhuman things.
3)  There really is a God, but we have no contact with such-- our God ideas are as (2) above: an artifact of the human brain's predispositions toward seeing things a certain way.

I believe these three options cover all the bases.  Note that none of these options allows you to put forward the Jesus man-as-God idea as viable if you consider the testimonials of non-Christian theists as credible.

I've already noted that I don't find Mohammed as credible as Paul and given one basis for that position, yet you continue to push this false dichotomy.

[bennyboy]

And I believe it is your bias that leads you to argue that religious testimony is all completely and equally worthless.

It's worthless because it is contradictory among faiths, and there's no clear metric by which to evaluate the testimony of various traditions.

Your satisfaction? I've noted that people assess evidence differently and I'm OK with that, as I'm not the final arbiter of what constitutes evidence. What makes you think I'm trying to change your mind personally? I'm writing for the theoretical reasonable person. If you see your error that's great, but it's not my main intent.

When I say "my satisfaction," I speak as an unconvinced non-Christian, under the assumption that your testimony has as its goal convincing non-Christians that the Christian represents existential truth.

I've already given one factor - a person who stands to gain from testimony is given less weight than someone who doesn't stand to gain, or may even suffer loss from their testimony. I've noted with the smoking example that this is a common criterion, and I've given the example in religion of Mohammed v. Paul.

Any growing religion stands to benefit by increasing its membership-- the benefits of increased community, increased income, increased credibility by appeal to numbers, and so on. This should be obvious, I would think.

Since the particular God ideas that all these people have held have been so varied, there are three ways of looking at this state:
1)  There's some underlying, non-mythological real God, humans sometimes have contact with this God, and the different religions are the struggle of minds in describing the indescribable.
2)  There's something about people that leads us to anthropomorphize that which is mysterious, so we have a genetic predisposition to put a human-like face to inhuman things.
3)  There really is a God, but we have no contact with such-- our God ideas are as (2) above: an artifact of the human brain's predispositions toward seeing things a certain way.

I believe these three options cover all the bases.  Note that none of these options allows you to put forward the Jesus man-as-God idea as viable if you consider the testimonials of non-Christian theists as credible.

I've already noted that I don't find Mohammed as credible as Paul and given one basis for that position, yet you continue to push this false dichotomy.

And then a Muslim will come in and say the exact same thing. You need a lot more than a relative weight of suspected motivations to establish credibility.

[Astonished]

Completely. Fucking. Oblivious. Like looking in the Mirror of Erised when really, you've just woken up and haven't showered or changed your drawers for a week.

[Minimalist]

There are a number of factors. I gave one example earlier - personal gain. For example, most people would tend to lower the value of testimony from a scientist that smoking isn't harmful if they discovered that the scientist was paid by a tobacco company.

So a xtian propagandist trying to spread his delusions would or would not qualify as having something to gain in your scenario?






Why are you commenting on my posts without reading them?


I missed one.  I hope you don't think I sit here hanging on your every word?  That would be the sin of "pride" on your part.

[John V]

It's worthless because it is contradictory among faiths, and there's no clear metric by which to evaluate the testimony of various traditions.

We make decisions all the time without a clear metric to evaluate evidence.

When I say "my satisfaction," I speak as an unconvinced non-Christian, under the assumption that your testimony has as its goal convincing non-Christians that the Christian represents existential truth.

No, I'm not trying to convince you of that..

Any growing religion stands to benefit by increasing its membership-- the benefits of increased community, increased income, increased credibility by appeal to numbers, and so on.  This should be obvious, I would think.

Go read Acts and the epistles. Growth tended to cause Paul serious trouble - yet he persisted. Mohammed by contrast used an army for growth and benefited personally from it.

And then a Muslim will come in and say the exact same thing.

On what basis will they claim that Mohammed suffered as Jesus or Paul did?

You need a lot more than a relative weight of suspected motivations to establish credibility.

First, that's just one factor.

Second...who are you to decide what I need to find credibility? A big part of your argument is basically, I personally don't find such testimony convincing in the slightest - so no one should. I'm kind of surprised by that as you're generally one of the more reasonable posters here.

---

So a xtian propagandist trying to spread his delusions would or would not qualify as having something to gain in your scenario?

Some do, some don't. I'm don't get why you guys have such difficulty working outside a black/white framework.

Jesus ended up crucified. Paul rotted away in prison. Muhammed ended up powerful and possibly wealthy. That doesn't prove that any of them were correct, but it's a factor for consideration.

The pastors of my church had outside jobs all their lives as we're a very small congregation. I trust them more than a televangelist asking people to send him large checks.

I don't see the difficulty in this concept. I've given the secular example of a scientist funded by a tobacco company. I would think everyone understands that.

[bennyboy]

It's worthless because it is contradictory among faiths, and there's no clear metric by which to evaluate the testimony of various traditions.

We make decisions all the time without a clear metric to evaluate evidence.

Not decisions that require major changes to our world views, we don't. You are arguing testimony is evidence. The testimony of people of different backgrounds is at odds. Therefore, you must either discard the whole ball of yarn, or demonstrate a good metric by which to establish that the Christian dogma consists of testimony superior to the other religious traditions.

You can speculate about your Biblical characters all you want, but that's not going to get you very far with non-Christians.

When I say "my satisfaction," I speak as an unconvinced non-Christian, under the assumption that your testimony has as its goal convincing non-Christians that the Christian represents existential truth.

No, I'm not trying to convince you of that..

Sure. So. . . giving testimony and arguing for its validity is a hobby, something to do just for hoots, I suppose?

Any growing religion stands to benefit by increasing its membership-- the benefits of increased community, increased income, increased credibility by appeal to numbers, and so on.  This should be obvious, I would think.

Go read Acts and the epistles. Growth tended to cause Paul serious trouble - yet he persisted. Mohammed by contrast used an army for growth and benefited personally from it.

Paul (a) was motivated to tell the world about Jesus; (b) wasn't motivated to tell the world about Jesus. If he was motivated, there was a reason for his motivation. The satisfaction of a motivation is seen as a benefit by a motivated part.

And then a Muslim will come in and say the exact same thing.

On what basis will they claim that Mohammed suffered as Jesus or Paul did?

On what basis will you claim that Jesus suffered as Cinderella did? Or the Buddha? Or my beagle? I mean, if there's ANYONE I know who isn't going to try to persuade me to change my world view, it's him.

Although, on second thought. . . he does wag his tail in pretty meaningful ways when I say the word "cheese." Can I take this as testimonial evidence for God?

You need a lot more than a relative weight of suspected motivations to establish credibility.

First, that's just one factor.

Second...who are you to decide what I need to find credibility? A big part of your argument is basically, I personally don't find such testimony convincing in the slightest - so no one should. I'm kind of surprised by that as you're generally one of the more reasonable posters here.

The point of evidence is to add weight to a statement about truth. I don't much care how YOU form your own beliefs, but if you want any non-Christians to change their ideas about the world, you'll have to have something compelling enough to motivate them to do so.