The Nature Of Evidence

[oddbird1963]

I do look forward to you making your points.

 

I'm glad someone does; I'm finding each of these fundies more tiresome than the last.

 

 

I just felt I should say something cordial. And yes, the same approach yet again is getting a bit wearisome.

[Ouroboros]

I do look forward to you making your points.

 

I'm glad someone does; I'm finding each of these fundies more tiresome than the last.

Agree.

 

Each one more convince and certain about his or her own knowledge and infallibility. They know the Truth™, don't you know?

[agnosticator]

multiple attestations.

 

oh, god, another one of these...

 

Isn't he LNC's first cousin?

[Shyone]

Before we get into the "multiple attestations" and such debate, a few observations about testimonial evidence may be useful.

 

In order to determine the reliability of testimony, several factors must be taken into account:

 

1. Is it eye-witness testimony or hearsay?

For important cases in our judicial system, hearsay evidence is not allowed. There is a good reason for that. Hearsay evidence is little more than gossip, and people tend to add or subtract from the content which may change the entire context or meaning. Even eye-witness testimony is suspect however, and (as pointed out elsewhere) most wrongful convictions result because of faulty eye-witness testimony. Eye-witnesses may misinterpret what they have seen, who they saw doing it or why something happened.

2. Is the witness reliable?

In our court system, we swear our witnesses in before they testify. The reason for this is so that there are consequences for lying; jail time for perjury. The credentials of the witness are also carefully scrutinized. What do we know about the witness? Is he a reputable person with good standing in the community, or perhaps a scoundrel?

3. Is the testimony consistent with previous statements and the statements of others?

When there are multiple witnesses, we may review their testimony for inconsistencies. This can indicate the degree to which a witness is mistaken, but we can't truly know which of several witnesses (or all of them) are mistaken about details that are contradictory. Testimony given to different people may also differ in details or context, and this too is reason for questioning the accuracy of the witness' testimony.

4. What are the motives of the witness? Is the source of the testimony unbiased?

If a witness has declared that he has a stake in the outcome of his testimony, he/she is biased by definition. Bias alone does not mean that testimony is untruthful, but the probability of untruthful testimony is increased when the witness is biased.

5. Does the testimony contradict other evidence? Is it supported by other evidence?

When testimony is contradicted by physical evidence, the reliability of the testimony is greatly reduced in significance and the credibility of the witness is reduced to zero. This may include evidence that exists and evidence that should exist. The absence of evidence when there should be evidence goes against the reliability of the witness.

6. Is the testimony logically possible?

Testimony that violates the laws of logic, such as the law of identity, is either mistaken or untruthful, and the witness' testimony can be completely disregarded.

7. Does the testimony regard feats that are physically possible?

Claims that someone saw a man flying unaided, dead men come back to life, or virgins getting pregnant without contact with semen leave the witness' testimony absurd and untrustworthy.

8. What is the length of time between the events in question and the testimony?

The closer to an event the witness' statements are, the more reliable they are unless there is consistent testimony from the same person or other people contemporary with the events that corroborates the witness' testimony. (Note: This addresses the time element rather than the corroboration as in #3). Part of the reason for Statutes of Limitation is that it has been observed that the longer the length of time since events were witnessed, the more likely you will encounter "failing memory of witnesses".

 

There is no testimony that is "above question." Even famous Christians such as Jim Bakker or Ted Haggard. Or even the president of the United States.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

So OC

You are going to make a case for a miracle.

Based off of testimonial evidence that is in no way multiply attested. Matthew Mark Luke and John all rely on either each other or Oral Tradition. Which correct me if I am wrong is not independent.

And also make a case for one (miracle/supernatural/or at any rate strange event) above all better documented ones from a purely historical, temporal, and psychological standpoint.

 

Hey do you grant alien abductions or visitations from dead relatives and things like the Book of Mormon. Joesph Smith died for his beliefs. And people have had hallucinatory experienced like Paul did. And Paul made no differentiation between his experiences and the apostles.

[OrdinaryClay]

This thread is building upon my thread on How Certain are You.

 

So what types of evidence are there?

 

There is inevitably confusion regarding this question. There are basically four forms of evidence.

1) Empirical

2) Probabilistic

3) Logical

4) Testimonial.

 

The level of plausibility provided by evidence is not based on our subjective whim. It is based on we as a species agreeing through the ages on what constitutes evidence. We still have that agreement because it works. This does not mean that there are not areas of disagreement. There are, and there always will be, but the agreement is not whim based. We have built science on the idea that empirical, probabilistic and logical evidence is valid. We have entire legal doctrines and the foundations of Historiography based on the concept of testimonial evidence as a form of valid evidence. To be honest it is simply a trivialization of reasoning to think that empirical evidence is the only game in town.

 

I'm finding you to be more and more condescending.

I don't intend to be, but sometimes when people are told point blank they are wrong they feel resentment. I'm certainly not saying I have all the answers, but I consider the question of whether there is a God as the most important question to be asked - right or wrong. It is most definitely the most important question what can be asked by any human being. I believe there is. I don't sugar coat my answers. I say what I feel. No one here is under any obligation to accept what I say as truth. We all have a free will and are free to decide on our own.

[OrdinaryClay]

We as a species do indeed agree. Exceptions do not break the rule. There are sociopaths in our species as well, but we don't pretend to believe that what they do is morally okay.

 

You just restated your argument ad populum. OC, I don't know what issues you have had in the past, but you in no way get to speak for an entire species. You overstate your case, almost to the point of absurdity. But that is really a minor point. It is enough that many Western scientists, philosophers and historians look to these types of evidence.

Testimonial evidence has been used in tribal councils long before Western Civilization. Don't confuse the trappings or the culture with the principal underlying many the institutions.

 

 

Sorry, pointing out that not all testimony is the same is a strawman. It does not matter. People are convicted and we build sound history on testimonial evidence. Testimonial evidence can be very, very strong if reliably corroborated by multiple attestations.

 

Let's look back at your post:

 

We have entire legal doctrines and the foundations of Historiography based on the concept of testimonial evidence as a form of valid evidence.

 

What exactly am I building a straw man of? I didn't contradict what you were saying. You stated the obvious. Our legal system and historiography is based on the notion that testimonial evidence is valid. My words serve as a caution and a qualifier: the practitioners of both disciplines view eye witness testimony as the least reliable type of evidence. A case built solely on eyewitness testimony is a weak case. Historical conclusions based on hearsay and written testimony are typically the most fragile.

Your strawman was the emphasis on unreliable testimony, you said "you must realize that eye witness testimony is considered the LEAST reliable of legal evidence". I clearly stated that I agreed there were levels of strength in testimonial evidence.

[OrdinaryClay]

So OC

You are going to make a case for a miracle.

Based off of testimonial evidence that is in no way multiply attested. Matthew Mark Luke and John all rely on either each other or Oral Tradition. Which correct me if I am wrong is not independent.

And also make a case for one (miracle/supernatural/or at any rate strange event) above all better documented ones from a purely historical, temporal, and psychological standpoint.

Actually right now the discussion is basically surrounding a supernatural event of any kind. My being a worshiper of Christ I believe the most important supernatural events are miracles caused by the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

So OC

You are going to make a case for a miracle.

Based off of testimonial evidence that is in no way multiply attested. Matthew Mark Luke and John all rely on either each other or Oral Tradition. Which correct me if I am wrong is not independent.

And also make a case for one (miracle/supernatural/or at any rate strange event) above all better documented ones from a purely historical, temporal, and psychological standpoint.

Actually right now the discussion is basically surrounding a supernatural event of any kind. My being a worshiper of Christ I believe the most important supernatural events are miracles caused by the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

Way I see it that is the most important one. If you prove the resurrection the rest are irrelevant.

[OrdinaryClay]

So OC

You are going to make a case for a miracle.

Based off of testimonial evidence that is in no way multiply attested. Matthew Mark Luke and John all rely on either each other or Oral Tradition. Which correct me if I am wrong is not independent.

And also make a case for one (miracle/supernatural/or at any rate strange event) above all better documented ones from a purely historical, temporal, and psychological standpoint.

Actually right now the discussion is basically surrounding a supernatural event of any kind. My being a worshiper of Christ I believe the most important supernatural events are miracles caused by the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

Way I see it that is the most important one. If you prove the resurrection the rest are irrelevant.

Good point.

 

1Co 15:14

(14) And if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is worthless, and your faith is also worthless.

 

The reason I start with the supernatural in general is because of the reasoning used in Hume's Abject Failure. I believe that if any supernatural exists then the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob follows inevitably. I realize many disagree, but I believe a very rational case can be made for such a position.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

So OC

You are going to make a case for a miracle.

Based off of testimonial evidence that is in no way multiply attested. Matthew Mark Luke and John all rely on either each other or Oral Tradition. Which correct me if I am wrong is not independent.

And also make a case for one (miracle/supernatural/or at any rate strange event) above all better documented ones from a purely historical, temporal, and psychological standpoint.

Actually right now the discussion is basically surrounding a supernatural event of any kind. My being a worshiper of Christ I believe the most important supernatural events are miracles caused by the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

Way I see it that is the most important one. If you prove the resurrection the rest are irrelevant.

Good point.

 

1Co 15:14

(14) And if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is worthless, and your faith is also worthless.

 

The reason I start with the supernatural in general is because of the reasoning used in Hume's Abject Failure. I believe that if any supernatural exists then the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob follows inevitably. I realize many disagree, but I believe a very rational case can be made for such a position.

 

On that. If you are dealing with solely supernatural ideas. How can one prove anything.

Debating the resurrection for example, if hypothetically naturalist explanations have all failed. That then leaves only supernatural explanations remaining. All a Muslim has to say is there version of the devil tricked the apostles. You then can't disprove that. Hope you see the difficulty.

[Shyone]

On that. If you are dealing with solely supernatural ideas. How can one prove anything.

Debating the resurrection for example, if hypothetically naturalist explanations have all failed. That then leaves only supernatural explanations remaining. All a Muslim has to say is there version of the devil tricked the apostles. You then can't disprove that. Hope you see the difficulty.

Naturalist explanations cannot "fail" because there are many possible ways to fake or even mistake a resurrection, and many ways that people can and have lied.

 

Even the wildest naturalist explanation is better than a physically impossible explanation.

[Franko47]

 

 

I believe that if any supernatural exists then the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob follows inevitably. I realize many disagree, but I believe a very rational case can be made for such a position.

 

 

Well, then let's hear it. We've enjoyed the foreplay, man, so how about getting to the main event ?

 

 

Let's hear the intellectual, seasoned, well-thought out, "strawman free" rationales for why you believe in all this stuff. And why we should adopt a similar mode of thinking.

 

C'mon. We're all grown adults here.

[oddbird1963]

 

 

I believe that if any supernatural exists then the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob follows inevitably. I realize many disagree, but I believe a very rational case can be made for such a position.

 

 

Well, then let's hear it. We've enjoyed the foreplay, man, so how about getting to the main event ?

 

 

Let's hear the intellectual, seasoned, well-thought out, "strawman free" rationales for why you believe in all this stuff. And why we should adopt a similar mode of thinking.

 

C'mon. We're all grown adults here.

 

Franko47,

 

You've already hear OC's "intellectual, seasoned, well-thought out, "strawman free" rationales."

 

The guy is obsessed with testimonial evidence. So much so he doesn't even think to mention Empirical, probabilistic and logical evidence after his first couple of posts.

 

When I called Testimonial evidence the least reliable type of evidence , he countered by saying he had already pointed out varying levels of testimonial evidence. He didn't even recall that the other types of evidence he listed were Empirical, Probabilistic and Logical. Even though I was pointing out that Testimonial evidence at it's best is weaker than the other three types of evidence, OC was still obsessed and thinking about Testimonial evidence.

 

All he wants to think about is testimonial evidence. Testimony man! That's where it's at!

 

And WHY are we to accept testimonial evidence?

 

Testimonial evidence has been used in tribal councils long before Western Civilization.

 

Because it was good enough for tribal councils! Hundreds of centuries of human development and the standards for testimonial evidence are the same today as they were millennia ago when tribal councils were chasing down witches and burning them based on the testimony of one or two villagers!

 

BOY! That's some rock solid thinking if I ever encountered any! We don't need judges with black robes, or CSI or fingerprint analysis! Just a few tribal chiefs and shamans with rattles and feather head dresses - - and some TESTIMONIAL evidence!!

[bdp]

I believe that if any supernatural exists then the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob follows inevitably.

 

That's asinine.

[OrdinaryClay]

Good point.

 

1Co 15:14

(14) And if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is worthless, and your faith is also worthless.

 

The reason I start with the supernatural in general is because of the reasoning used in Hume's Abject Failure. I believe that if any supernatural exists then the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob follows inevitably. I realize many disagree, but I believe a very rational case can be made for such a position.

 

On that. If you are dealing with solely supernatural ideas. How can one prove anything.

Debating the resurrection for example, if hypothetically naturalist explanations have all failed. That then leaves only supernatural explanations remaining. All a Muslim has to say is there version of the devil tricked the apostles. You then can't disprove that. Hope you see the difficulty.

Take a look at how I allow for distinguishing the supernatural from the natural. The supernatural is detectable but not predictable. If it is detectable then I can make evaluations about what is happening.

 

Even if you don't believe in the supernatural, in order to answer your question directly assume for a moment that the supernatural did exist. If it did I could use what I detect to distinguish the type of supernatural events. Assuming every event is some how the same only follows if you assume a priori no supernatural exists (which is begging the question). In your example, suppose someone came to the conclusion the resurrection existed because all the natural explanations failed as you state. This clearly means you evaluated facts about the resurrection to come to this conclusion (given your questions I suspect you have dug into this some). In order to deal with any Muslim claim you need to apply the same rigor to their claim as you did the Christian claim. What facts would allow you to believe the Muslim claim.

 

If you studied the resurrection then you know that no one is just making a bald claim of the resurrection. The claim is based on historical evidence. The historical evidence is the surrounding evidence, i.e. what we can detect about the event - the circumstances.

[Ouroboros]

I believe that if any supernatural exists then the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob follows inevitably. I realize many disagree, but I believe a very rational case can be made for such a position.

Wow. Just wow.

 

That's the argument I've heard Muslims use. They believe they can make a very rational case for Islam.

 

You guys battle it out first, and we'll talk to whoever wins the "rational case" war.

[bdp]

The claim is based on historical evidence.

 

There isn't any.

[Shyone]

If you studied the resurrection then you know that no one is just making a bald claim of the resurrection. The claim is based on historical evidence. The historical evidence is the surrounding evidence, i.e. what we can detect about the event - the circumstances.

We have studied the conflicting resurrection tales and found them lacking. There is no evidence other than the hearsay evidence from people that are anonymous who wrote many years after the fact and, in the process, used fraud to give the impression of authority.

 

With the same kinds of evidence, you should also believe that Hera sprung from the head of Zeus.

 

Did you know that Alexander the Great was the product of a sexual union of a God and a woman? You must be greatly impressed. His conquests confirm his godly status. In fact, his conquests are vastly more impressive than those of the Hebrews who never could seem to defeat the Assyrians, Hittites, Babylonians or Egyptians.

 

"It is written."

 

Or, perhaps you don't believe everythng you read...

[mwc]

We have studied the conflicting resurrection tales and found them lacking.

...

With the same kinds of evidence, you should also believe that Hera sprung from the head of Zeus.

...

Or, perhaps you don't believe everythng you read...

Oh, he believes everything he reads. He just has the ability to separate the "absurd" (the former example) from the *absurd* (the latter).

 

mwc

[OrdinaryClay]

With the same kinds of evidence, you should also believe that Hera sprung from the head of Zeus.

What evidence is this?

[Shyone]

With the same kinds of evidence, you should also believe that Hera Athena sprung from the head of Zeus.

What evidence is this?

To refresh your memory, you wrote:

 

If you studied the resurrection then you know that no one is just making a bald claim of the resurrection. The claim is based on historical evidence. The historical evidence is the surrounding evidence, i.e. what we can detect about the event - the circumstances.

 

The particular historical evidence is actually nothing more than the writings of people who were not witnesses, who wrote many years after the events, and who were presenting the stories in a way that would be most acceptable to their audiences.

 

They were repeating what everyone believed, although they added details to suit their own agendas.

 

By the same token, the sacred texts of the Greeks document the birth of Athena (not Hera - sorry about that).

[chefranden]

This thread is building upon my thread on How Certain are You.

 

So what types of evidence are there?

 

There is inevitably confusion regarding this question. There are basically four forms of evidence.

1) Empirical

2) Probabilistic

3) Logical

4) Testimonial.

 

The level of plausibility provided by evidence is not based on our subjective whim. It is based on we as a species agreeing through the ages on what constitutes evidence. We still have that agreement because it works. This does not mean that there are not areas of disagreement. There are, and there always will be, but the agreement is not whim based. We have built science on the idea that empirical, probabilistic and logical evidence is valid. We have entire legal doctrines and the foundations of Historiography based on the concept of testimonial evidence as a form of valid evidence. To be honest it is simply a trivialization of reasoning to think that empirical evidence is the only game in town.

 

Testimonial is the weakest bit of evidence and is often given in the form of hearsay, like Paul referring to 500 witnesses. Paul says that 500 people of whom we don't even have a list of names of these 500 who witnessed Jesus resurrected. This is hearsay and as evidence is very iffy. Evidence produced by the other three would conclude that people just don't rise from the dead.

 

To be honest it is simply a trivialization of reasoning to suppose that testimony trumps the other three even if the witness is myself. And to be honest testimony is all you have about Jesus and anything he may have done. You don't even have anything written by the man himself, or by his companions making what you do have hearsay.

 

The one leg you have to stand on is patched and shaky.

[centauri]

OrdinaryClay:

We all have a free will and are free to decide on our own.

Not according to the Bible.

[chefranden]

I don't intend to be, but sometimes when people are told point blank they are wrong they feel resentment. I'm certainly not saying I have all the answers, but I consider the question of whether there is a God as the most important question to be asked - right or wrong. It is most definitely the most important question what can be asked by any human being. I believe there is. I don't sugar coat my answers. I say what I feel. No one here is under any obligation to accept what I say as truth. We all have a free will and are free to decide on our own.

 

The most important question asked by a human is, "What's for supper?" Any chef knows that for pete sake.

 

If you actually had free will you wouldn't need a savior. You would simply choose not to sin. What's that you say? "You can't choose not to sin!" Then you don't have free will.