- Humans acquire a vast amount of factual information through testimony, arguably more than they learn through experience.
- The extensive reliance on testimony is remarkable given that one often cannot verify testimonial information.
- What makes testimony distinct from storytelling is that it has an implicit or explicit assertion that the telling is true. The literary format and style of the Gospels is that of the ancient biography, a historiographic genre that was widely practiced in the ancient word. Thus, one can regard these accounts as a form of testimony.
A Natural History of Natural Philosophy (pp. 165-172)
A more plausible explanation is that young children are psychologically disposed to acquire knowledge through testimony and perception: the information received in this way is basic, in the sense that it is unreflective and not based on other beliefs. This leads them to the impression that they have always known these facts. Also, and perhaps more crucially, children do not make a distinction between knowledge acquired through testimony and knowledge acquired through direct experience.
…children treat testimony to scientific and religious beliefs in a similar way.
…children do not find religious testimony intrinsically more doubtful than scientific testimony.
The current empirical evidence indicates that testimony is a fundamental source of knowledge, similar to memory and perception (in line with antireductionism), but that children and adults are sensitive to cues for the reliability of informants (in line with reductionsim).
Books such as the recent Faith vs. Fact by Jerry Coyne rely on this to be the case [that testimony is a fundamental source of knowledge], while at the same time denying that such knowledge counts as knowledge. Sadly, some commenters here at TSZ believe that Coyne’s “way to knowledge” is “the only way to knowledge.” Taking Coyne’s word for it is hardly convincing.
Nope that is not it at all. Try again.
peace
What great learning you have grandmother!
The better to mock you with!
😉
I think it is you who needs to try again. What is translated as “Earth” at the beginning of Genesis is “ha-erets.” There, you happen to want “erets” to mean something else than you claim it means in the Flood story.
Eternal life among the likes of UD denizens. One day is like a thousand years.
petrushka,
I think it’s interesting, myself. It’s like a case study in how far people will go to insist that this or that text must be literally true. Result-orientation in a little vial. There is no fact, no translation, no nothing that could ever convince a person like Fifth that he is mistaken in his beliefs. He’s said so himself: nothing would mean anything. Logic itself would be lost to him.
It’s weird that we argue with him, I’ll definitely grant that. I guess it’s kind of like squeezing a balloon in a bunch of different places to see where the puff-outs in other places will occur. Hard to resist.
Mung is also going for a courtier’s response. We’ll talk about talking about it, no actual examination of the thing itself is required.
Video for you Mung:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oli0DTmPmGU
Also your views on the historicity and scale of the flood would be greatly enjoyed.
For example:
The words speak quite well for themselves.
Latch on to something, anything really, that just isn’t quite believable enough, turn it into a caricature. mock it, then invite the Christian to defend against your mocking interpretation. That’s just so grown up and so rational and all. That’s just so in the spirit of “The Skeptical Zone.”
Some of you at least act as if some parts of the bible are just totally believable. If not, what’s the reason you’re not busy denying them and mocking them? Do you deny that many statements in the bible have been found to be historically accurate? Why not mock them or reject them as fairy tales?
Yes, that’s exactly what the atheists are doing. Read the text in the most literal manner imaginable, just like a good YEC. You’re all in good company and I for sure would not want to rob you of that.
Mung, have you considered that dogma is making you take something fantastically implausible and twist and contort to try and make in remotely reasonable?
If the flood starred Allah and Mohammed, would you be like, “yeah, totally reasonable probably happened”?
Nope.
Why don’t you share with us your knowledge of the Koran and the Hadith. Why don’t you mock Jewish beliefs too while you’re at it? Ever read Rashi, for example?
I’m happy to mock any and all that are impossible / implausible / at odds with science and history Mung.
But I understand why you want to change the subject from your favoured brand batshit dumbfuckery. Anything but talk specifics, eh Mung?
“More Skeptical”
PLEASE DON’T MOCK MUH_FEELS. PS YOU’RE GOING TO HELL UNBELIEVERS!
Nuh-uh.
I disagree. As I said, I think the local flood theory is clever. The thing is, y’all want to have your cake too. By that I mean you’ll have words mean one thing here, another there. That’s being result-oriented. The atheists don’t do that, because they simply don’t have too. They take a literal translation, as you say, and point out that it is false. And if you want to take a non-literal translation, they simply point out that it’s non-literal. But if you take a translation that’s literal here, non-literal there, play games to make everything (kind of) cohere, they simply point out that you’re weaseling. They don’t weasel, because they don’t have to weasel.
In a word, this steady drum-beat of “Atheists do the same thing–only WORSE!” is simply not true. It’s just one more thing that you would LIKE to be true.
Well there you have it. We’re basically honest. Sam said it. I believe it. That settles it. Not sure why the Word of Sam isn’t good enough for the rest of you.
Still hiding from specifics, “more skeptical” Mung?
Those aren’t enough, I don’t think. Also needed is the willingness/courage to follow the inquiry wherever it may lead.
Atheists aren’t afraid of a world with God in/behind it. Most think that addition would be lovely. But the idea of a Godless world produces fear and loathing in the devout theist. Basic honesty isn’t enough to overcome that.
FFS. That’s what you think is a worthwhile example of something Fifth said that’s “worth reading”?
Nonsense. His opinion (which you apparently agree with) on a subject about which he is immovably ignorant — what reasons we have for our supposed “vested interest” in disclosing the visible incoherencies in the christian bible — is worthless.
He has to go to the level of attacking us for not trying to “make sense” of the text, because he fails at the basic level of explaining why those whateveryoucallems appeared in Matthew’s tale in the first place. They don’t make sense; 2000 years and 30000+ sects of christians haven’t been able to come up with an explanation that they can all agree on, so it’s no shame that Fifthmonarchyman doesn’t even attempt to make the whateveryoucallems make sense. It’s a shame, though, that he chooses to just take ignorant pokes at us instead.
It’s obviously NOT our fault for not trying hard enough to make sense of something you christians can’t settle on a sensible interpretation of.
His opinion isn’t worth the electrons it took to convey it.
You disappoint me, Mung.
Mung,
Low-hanging fruit. Mean-spiritedness. An ungenerous nature. Or … discussing the subjects that come up, rather than the ones that don’t.
Not at all, The universal nature of the creation in Genesis 1:1 has nothing to do with the specific definition of “ha-erets.”.
Please take a look at the concept of merism to see what I mean.
A good example of a merism is the compound word “blackboard”.
Are all “blackboards” black?
Suppose I say
“The entire room was black except for the dull grayness of the blackboard.”
Am I claiming a different definition for black in the first part of the sentence than in the second part?
or
suppose I say
“I bought up the whole estate lock stock and barrel”
Do I mean that I just bought up a shipment of firearms?
peace
here is one from the Bible
quote
You know when I sit down and when I rise up
(Psa 139:2a)
end quote:
Is the Psalmist claiming that God doesn’t know when he goes for a walk?
peace
What I find instructive are the irreconcilable disagreements evident among Christians regarding the locality/univerality of Noah’s flood.
A quick perusal of the web funds sites like AIG that elaborately dispute FMM’s view, as well as others that support it. The argument is conducted by careful, but contrary parsings of the Biblical “testimony,” with no dispositive resolution and no method to attain one.
Which goes to the long forgotten topic of the OP, illustrating the weakness of testimony as a means to knowledge.
Coyne recently quoted a former fundamentalist as saying “Revelation without observation is bullshit.” I would revise that to be, testimony without consilient evidence is bullshit.
Testimony isn’t necessarily bullshit (e.g. mistaken). Even Coyne counts “authentic testimony” as a possible source of information. I’d add that it an be a valid basis for the formation of hypotheses.
It’s the assertion that the content of testimony counts as knowledge, apart from observational confirmation, that is bullshit.
I think that’s what I said. It’s what I intended to say.
Testimony is fine as long as it is consilient with observation.
But the thread is about miracles, which are — almost by definition — outside the realm of experience and observational confirmation.
Not because they are rare, but because they seem to elude hostile witness. There’s a reason why, in the courtroom, witness against one’s self interest is taken as especially believable.
Which is why in the Christian Bible, claims of how the Jews will poo poo the stories of Jesus are particularly lame. I’m not aware that the Jews ever tried to discredit the stories about Jesus. They didn’t record anything at all.
Most notably, they failed to record the slaughter of the innocents.
fifthmonarchyman,
FWIW, exactly the same sort of exegesis could be performed with the heavens and earth references in the Flood story. You don’t do that because it’s not convenient, i.e., it makes your story contradictory. So you could call your reading “charitable” — but it’s not charitable to a religious story of the times, it’s charitable only in the sense that it helps you try to produce something that’s consistent with modern geological (etc) findings.
That’s just weaseling.
That is because you have a different worldview that me.
Miracles are not outside the realm of experience and observational confirmation for folks like me and Forrest.
check it out
peace
I actually prefer Cecil B. DeMille. Much more believable.
Is Hollywood your source of confirming evidence?
I’m being serious.
No that is incorrect, Genesis 1:1 is completely different than the flood story.
for example
1) It is the introduction to the entire Pentateuch
a) section headings are always viewed differently than narrative
2) It is in the form of poetry instead of prose
3) It uses the special word “created” rather than common one “made” as in most of the rest of the story
4) This action takes place in over an indefinite period of “in the beginning”
5) The text uses the merism “heavens and earth” rather than the terms individually
6) There is no equivalent Hebrew term for universe that could have been used in this passage instead.
7) The term “universe” is itself a compound of two contrasting terms “unity and diversity”.
There are many other reasons that Genesis 1:1 should be considered differently than the the rest of the book but these should be plenty to get you started. To use “exactly the same exegesis” as the flood story would be both inconsistent and incorrect.
In the end you might not be convinced. I’m not even sure what convincing you would look like since you obviously don’t believe any of this anyway.
But I am convinced not by “modern geological (etc) findings” but by the text itself
I hold out the possibility that I may be wrong and I am very open to new information. It will just take more than “That’s just weaseling.” to get me to change my mind
peace
And that is the very definition of dogma. You and Mung are “the most Skeptical”, according to him.
*cough cough* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oli0DTmPmGU
Actually, that’s not true. From Wikipedia:
No it’s not, When you are studying a text the undogmatic thing is to get your understanding from the text.
On the other hand to get your understanding of geology from a text would be dogmatic
Do you understand the difference?
Kantian Naturalist,
KN that is interesting I had never heard that before.
I was going from memory. Something I heard long ago while discussing the problem of the one and the many
anyway
I now officially take back number 7
peace
Rejecting the geology on the basis of a text does exactly that.
On that we are in perfect agreement. I would never intentionally do such a thing
peace
So, you’re down with a 4.5 billion year old earth, the worldwide geological column and the geographical/temporal distribution of fossils therein, etc.?
I have no reason to doubt those things. Though I’m always open to new information should it present itself
peace
Common ancestry of human beings and chimpanzees?
If no one minds, I’ll predict an answer here. To the extent that those are known (to a moral certainty) they are consistent with the Bible which, since it is literally true must be interpreted in such a way that it is consistent with every known fact (and it’s ok if these interpretations are extremely creative). If there’s doubt about them it might make sense tio take a less creative interpretation of the Bible with respect to them and as they conflict with such an interpretation (and we know the Bible is literally true in every respect, since it’s the word of God), those propositions are false (but only conditionally so–since new interpretations are always available when they become necessary–see how the interpretaion of the Flood and Creation stories have changed since Mencken’s time) .
That is the form that the New Literalism apparently takes. What we know for sure is that the Bible is literally true; what it means is pretty much up for grabs.
walto,
Actually we know that the God is true by definition. Therefore we know that there can be no genuine disagreement between Science and Scripture. If there appears that there is a disagreement it is because either our science is incomplete or our interpretation of scripture is incorrect.
Pretty much all us fundamentalists agree on this point
Note that does not mean that we should give veto power to either science or our interpretation scripture over the other.
It just means that in the end when all the facts are in they will agree
peace
You are going to have to be much more specific before I could answer that one. You would need to define your terms explicitly
I’m quite sure that you and I would have different understandings of almost every word in that sentence. And I would not want to mislead you by agreeing or disagreeing with something you did not intend to say
peace
FFM:
Scientific confidence in the common ancestry of human beings and chimpanzees is comparable to confidence in the 4.5 billion year age of the earth, the worldwide geological column and the distribution of fossils geographically/temporally.
Are you down with the common ancestry of human beings and chimpanzees?
Like I said you will need to define what you mean by your terms.
As it is I could say yes or no with equal confidence and conviction depending on your definitions
peace
Our posts crossed in the bitstream…
FFM:
It’s not that complicated. The current scientific consensus is that there was a species ancestral to Homo sapiens that was also ancestral to Pan on the order of five to ten million years ago.
Are you down with that?
Perhaps it would be more efficient for you to describe the sense in which you affirm the common ancestry of human beings and chimpanzees with confidence and conviction, and the sense in which you deny it with the same conviction.
I think George Orwell would have been good at apologetics.
ETA: Not to mention Humpty Dumpty.
But since the flood story is Babylonian, we really should be discussing what the words meant to them.
ETATE:
Perhaps that should be Mesopotamian rather than Babylonian.
At any rate, the text is much older that anything written down by the Jews. Even older than the usual date of the flood given by the likes of AIG.
Thank you for putting that so clearly. It is, I think you will agree, precisely what I predicted.
As you rightly say, your God exists by definition. I think that should be enough for atheists.
Again, thanks for your candor, FithMM.
I suppose, but it all depends upon what “precisely” means, and “predicted” could just mean that you said it beforehand, not that it was a part of God as ground of being, which is what true prognostication may very well require. Then there’s the issue of what “I” might mean, especially to a materialist whose limits are so much greater than those of the more enlightened.
I mean, seriously, all that you’ve done is raise a myriad of questions.
Glen Davidson
fifth,
Even if “the God” were “true by definition”, it wouldn’t follow that the Bible is his infallible Word.
That’s the elephant in the room. You commit yourself to the belief that the Bible is God’s Word, and then you twist the evidence to match this assumed truth. By contrast, we look at the evidence first, and then conclude that the Bible — full of errors and contradictions — cannot be the infallible Word of God.
To those of us who are looking for truth, the evidence comes first. To those like you who place dogma above truth, the evidence must be twisted, mangled, and squeezed into conformity with dogma.