- 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.
I would say that is a major reason the Gospels were written by minor characters who would have been educated in Greek like Matthew or by scribal segregates like Mark or Luke.
The reason Greek was chosen is because it was the language used by the majority of the folks in the known world at the time. Christianity has always been a missionary religion.
peace
I agree with you both here. Roughly, anyhow. The tests for scientific results, involving R-squares, confidence testing, etc. are a bit more persnickity. But I do think that, generally, the same sorts of standards should be applied.
Why in the world would you conclude they were “late compilations”?
All the evidence we have points to them being written well within the lifetimes of the witnesses.
I never understood the idea that the Gospels contain stories of miracles therefore they are not reliable. It seems to have it all exactly backwards
If the Logos had become flesh as the authors claim “miracles” are exactly what we would expect to find.
peace
R squares and confidence tests are just ways to help us quantify what we are evaluating so that we try to make sure the scales are equal. They are not magic truth insurers
peace
Ok let’s look at a few of these. Glen made the important point about 1. Those who think that a number of assertions in the Bible are very unlikely to be true are not (or at least should not) be saying that our senses are generally not trustworthy. Thus, I don’t think anyone will be able to provide evidence for 1 as you put it above. The thing is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
In the Mahabharata, after an extremely long gestation period a woman gives birth to something like a rock. When it is smashed, 100 sons are born. For all I know, this claim, like many of those in the Bible, may be confirmed by the perceptions of Vyasa (the story-teller). But it conflicts with many trillions of other perceptions regarding how birth works.
The same point is relevant to your 1. One extremely important way we test the accuracy of our perceptions or those of others is to see how they comport with what we know about how the world works, precisely because that knowledge is based on many more perceptions, and perceptions compiled in a careful, painstaking way. When you endorse the oddities, you throw doubt on the accuracy of the others, because those others involve entailments about the kind of perceptions that are highly likely to be inaccurate.
So 1 cuts both ways. If we believe that the evidence of our perceptions deserves prima facie weight (and you and I agree on that), we need to understand that this is partly because of the coherence that evidence has with everything else not just we, but everybody else perceives. When it doesn’t have that, it calls doubt on that original evidence itself.
To sum up, I don’t think you will be or ought to be convinced that the evidence of our perceptions are generally untrustworthy. I think you need to understand that such warrant as ostensible perceptions do have partly arise from their coherence with all the other ostensible perceptions. The observations at issue are questioned because of that lack of coherence with so many things we are extremely confident we know. That confidence may be misplaced, certainly, but the burden is on the oddball apparent perceptions, which in pretty much every case turn out to be wrong.
On this I would disagree. The observations in question do cohere with what I know. Perhaps you and I know different things.
I think when it comes down to it the disagreement will boil down to presuppositions, You and I look at the world through profoundly different lenses. I don’t really think there is a way to bridge that gap. We are sort of stuck with it.
The best we can do is cooperate on areas of overlap and continue to test our own worldviews to see if they are consistent.
peace
Mung quoting DeCruz:
A large body of empirical evidence indicates that memory, perception and testimony are all fragile and fallible sources of information. In fact, it is the malleability and suggestibility of memory and perception that render eyewitness testimony susceptible to error (not to mention deliberate deception). One result: eyewitness identification is responsible for more convictions of innocent people than all other sources of error combined.
See, for example, the review “Eyewitness Evidence – Improving Its Probative Value,” Gary L. Wells, Amina Memon, and Steven D. Penrod, Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
I am not familiar with the details of the scholarly debate on NT authorship, but I see you and Alan trading links. Do either of you know:
1. Are there peer-reviewed journals where all sides to the debate attempt to publish so that their arguments are open to criticisms from all sides? Or are there separate journals which are devoted to presenting only one viewpoint?
2. Do all participants publish in such journals, or do some restrict themselves to books which are less likely to be peer-reviewed by scholars from all sides.
3. Is there a consensus view? If so, how was it developed and what is the size of the consensus?
4. Are there any correlations in the background/religious beliefs of scholars and the view they take?
Until now, I have avoided commenting.
The thesis of the OP is nonsense.
Children actually do question their parents. They don’t accept what their parents say as testimony to be believed without question. So, no matter what one takes knowledge to be, the OP is still nonsense.
I actually read Ferguson’s piece before linking to it. I’m not in the habit of exploring such rabbit trails but some of the previous comments prompted me to have a look what’s out there. Bart Ehrman’s Forged also caught my eye.
No I don’t know – to all of the above. I’m currently mildly curious as to what evidence there is that corroborates the provenance of the gospels other than the texts themselves.
fifthmonarchyman,
What do you mean by “evidence”. Is it something other than reported testimony?
fifthmonarchyman,
You’d need first to establish that the witnesses actually existed.
Devout theists have incentives to support their belief system.
That appears to be the consensus of historians who study that period.
You’d need to provide that long awaited operational definition of your god followed by some objective, empirical evidence that such an entity exists. Until you do that, you are literally talking nonsense.
We have a phyiscal fragment of the Gospel of John (the most theologically developed gospel) that dates to the very early second century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
This is conceivably within the life time of witnesses. This is only a copy, the original autograph would have been much older.
peace
Patrick,
No offense your but selective hyper-skepticism only illustrates the inconsistency of your worldview.
You don’t apply the same standard with other ancient figures so to the rest of us it looks more like you are looking for loopholes than investigating the evidence.
Oh well you are the one who has to deal with the dissonance.
Good luck with it
peace
When evaluating fairy tales, skepticism is in order. The Christian gospel is exactly as believable as the book of Mormon. For heaven’s sake, they had gold plates given directly by an angel.
Your link does not support your statement that it “dates to very early 2nd century”, rather it throws doubt on the ability to accurately date it and says it could just as well be as old as early 3rd century.
Where does he apply this supposed “hyper-skepticism”? It seems to me the people who use this term are always religious people who have a hard time understanding why skeptics don’t instantly believe miraculous stories multiple millenia old.
How the hell do you know, what other hypothetical historical events and persons have you discussed?
Funny because to me, who must therefore not qualify for “the rest of us”, it appears to me entirely reasonable what he’s saying.
fifthmonarchyman,
That’s a rule violation. Here at TSZ we make the working assumption that other participants are arguing in good faith.
In fact, I am arguing in good faith. I’m not asking anything more of you than I ask of anyone else making unfounded claims: Show me your evidence.
I use the same criteria for Jesus that I do for Rama and Moses. It’s Christians and Hindus and Jews who like to make exceptions for their own particular faves.
fifth,
There is indeed a huge gap, but we aren’t stuck with it. I used to be a Christian, but in my early teens I decided that I wanted the truth, whether or not it conformed to my existing beliefs. I decided to look carefully at the evidence. If it supported my Christianity, great — I was already there. If it didn’t, then I was prepared to abandon Christianity and continue looking.
The evidence didn’t support my Christianity, of course, so I set Christianity aside. Over the next few years, and for similar reasons, I became an atheist.
The gap can be bridged, but it requires a willingness to place yourself outside of your belief system and evaluate it dispassionately against the alternatives.
For an atheist, that means asking yourself: “Suppose I hadn’t yet decided that belief in God was irrational, and that I were assessing the totality of the evidence for the first time. How would I reason, and what would my conclusion be?”
For the Christian theist, the question is: “Suppose I hadn’t yet decided that Jesus is my lord and savior, but I was curious about Christianity and willing to examine the evidence pro and con. How would I reason, and what would my conclusion be?”
And in the context of the present discussion: “If I weren’t already assuming the truth of the Bible, would I consider Matthew’s tale of a mass resurrection to be credible?”
The answer, of course, is no.
fifth, to Patrick:
Says fifth, who speaks from experience.
It’s already a premise of his argument that it wasn’t recorded in the other gospels. So if that’s what keiths means by makes more sense then he’s arguing in a circle. I don’t think he is saying that though.
Apparently, if it was recorded in all four gospels, he’d be more inclined to believe it actually happened.
This is where you wind up when you try to decide the credibility of testimony without considering where it fits into our overall experience.
My overall experience is that people make up stories. Sometimes it appears that they believe them, but lack of guile does not spin bullshit into gold.
Take a look at my Trump scenario, Mung.
petrushka,
I think your perspective differs depending whether you are an ex-smoker or non-smoker. Having once believed some particular religious story must give ex-smokers like Keith an insight into religious belief that I cannot comprehend.
fifth,
The greatest resurrection miracle of all time would qualify as more than a “detail”, don’t you think? And Mark is full of events that Peter would not have had firsthand knowledge of.
Likewise, Luke is full of stories that have nothing to do with a “legal defense” of Christianity.
You’ve seen one resurrection, you’ve seen ’em all. No need to keep mentioning them, even if they’re unprecedented in the entire history of earth. Just another “detail” to be omitted.
That’s a good argument for failing to mention what Jesus ate for breakfast each morning, but does it justify the absence of one sentence — one measly sentence — mentioning what would have been the greatest resurrection miracle of all time?
Of course not.
I really meant other accounts from around that time. The Romans would probably have noted it, for example.
So then the question just becomes is testimony a valid source of justification.
If the witness testifies that the DNA found on the victim matches that of the defendant to a certain degree of certainty, do the members of the jury now know this to be the case?
Or at that point do they merely “believe that” it is true.
So?
Did you overlook the following from the OP:
Is that nonsense too?
Your rejection of the OP as nonsense is based on a non-sequitur.
You have a completely different appraisal of this incident than me. I would not call some folks seeing some of their dead friends walking around for a short while in the aftermath of an earthquake the greatest resurrection miracle of all time. It all sounds to me like a minor collaborating detail in a much greater story
To be classified as the greatest resurrection miracle of all time I would want to see lots of witnesses many of them hostile over a long period of time after a death that was beyond reasonable doubt.
It would also be helpful to have some convincing evidence that the experiences involved were not imaginary perhaps the resurrected party could eat with the witnesses and show them some wounds to conclusively identify himself
Sort of like we have in Jesus’s resurrection
peace
Hitchen’s Razor is self-refuting. It can be dismissed without evidence.
OMagain,
Are you aware of any detailed histories of first century pre-war Palestine written by the Romans
or any first hand accounts of the time and place other than the Gospels?
Actually, the entire premise of this site is based upon doubting what others say is true. IOW, it’s the exact opposite of what it claims to be.
And petrushka calling Christian beliefs fairy tales? That’s good faith, yes sir!
Now if only you applied that same rule to everyone who posts here and every claim they make. Do you?
We know a bit about Pompey, including the fact that he was healed by prayer, presumably to Roman gods.
It’s about the content of claims, not about the honesty of the poster.
It is within the rules to say anything you care to say about ideas and claims. The rule is against asserting the poster is being disingenuous.
I am really surprised at how difficult to understand this concept is.
For the record, I don’t know anyone posting here who falsely claims to be a believer. There are lots of claims made that are rubbish.
I’m confused
A quick google check reveals that Pompey died 80 years before the events in question what does he have to do with what was going on in Palestine at this time? he certainly was not in a position to mention them
peace
(not requoting)
I would say that testimony is a minor source of information. The OP gives it too much importance by using that “knowledge” word. If the information is questioned, then the source of knowledge is far more complex than the information alone.
Going a bit further, I do not claim the early Christian writers were frauds. I suspect they sincerely believed what they wrote. But the history of religion is full of rubbish claims that are no more believable than claims of alien abduction and spoon bending.
I do not see that Christianity gets a pass.
Well, that is why we have rules of evidence, cross-examination, judge’s instructions, expert testimony, and all the other processes that try to give the jury the best context to decide on questions like yours.
The jurors may or may not believe that testimony is true. Hopefully, they want to justify their beliefs and they take account of all of the above in making that decision on belief. How they took the evidence etc into account could be used in assessing whether their belief was justified in the circumstances.
Science has different, better processes than jury trials to justify claims and to assess claims of justification since science can access more information, experts, and time; can do experiments; can change its collective mind if circumstances warrant, and so on.
Since you did not speak to them, I assume you are OK with my points about what DeCruz is saying about testimony and cognitive science.
fifthmonarchyman,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_(Roman_province)#List_of_Governors_.28AD_6.E2.80.93135.29
Just for a start, we have evidence that Rome was paying attention to the area. We also have evidence from Roman history that Rome had a quick succession of increasingly bad leaders, before and after Claudius.
Do you have evidence that there are no detailed records of the Roman administration?
No kidding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War
A Companion to Epistemology (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy)
fifthmonarchyman,
No contemporaneous accounts by anyone.
No corroborating accounts by any independent observers.
No objective, empirical evidence that the protagonist of your story even existed.
No objective, empirical evidence that any of the events described, including the crucifixion, actually occurred.
You’ve got nothing.
It’s not skeptics that engage in “selective hyperskepticism”, it’s believers who engage in selective hypergullibility. The primary religion of the surrounding culture you happened to have been brought up in just so happens to be the one true religion with all the best evidence for it. And not only that, your parents just so happened to raise you to believe it too. Lucky you.
Riiiight. What utter horseshit.
Yes, I would want that too. A shame that doesn’t actually exist.
How do you know these events actually took place? I mean, they’re written down in the babble and you believe them. But the claim is extraordinary, so why do you believe it merely on the fact that it’s been written down. What is extraordinary about that? This is extreme gullibility in effect.
If merely having the shit written down is “convincing evidence” to you, congratulations you’re now a muslim, a hindu, a UFO-nut, a mormon etc. etc.
Patrick:
Rumraket:
Nah, you know the same things. Women who give birth have always been physically inseminated. In the 1st century there was no artificial insemination so somebody shot his load into a poor jewish minx. And that’s only assuming the whole thing isn’t made up, or misreported, misremembered, mistranslated, misheard etc. etc. All of which is more likely than the idea that a woman somehow managed to give birth to a healthy human male with no Y-chromosome to pass on.
Water is made of H2O and cannot be turned into wine, because there are no carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, sulphur atoms and so on in it in sufficient concentrations and regardless, we are talking atomic nuclei manipulations which would involve thermonuclear explosions should enough water be turned into wine that the event could even be observed. Everything we know of the world tells us this probably didn’t happen.
What you call presuppositions I call observations of the real world and the understanding we have of it that comes with centuries of scientific investigations. There is simply no basis for believing the magical divine transformations of water, bread and dead people attested in the bible ever takes place.
Patrick,
Who cares if a crucifixion of a rebellious rabbi occurred around that time? What I’d like is better evidence for a resurrection(!) than (the conflicting) claims found in the various gospels–especially since what’s much more likely is that, if the rabbi was really a resilient sort, Joe took him down and nursed him back to health. That explanation is consistent with a few people seeing him a few days later, and makes a ton more sense than somebody, you know, dying and coming back to life.
I was especially interested to hear that mung’s expert on the matter of crucifixions of that day indicates that some people DID live through them. I don’t know why Jesus’s followers don’t give the guy credit for being as tough as those other folks, many of whom probably didn’t have anybody who would have nursed them as devotedly as we might expect Joe to have nursed Jesus. I take it from some of Jesus’s other reported exploits that he was a pretty tough hombre. He was also young, and is said to have had a nice meal not long before that alleged ordeal.
As keiths has asked, why is it that Christians always seem to prefer the dottiest explanation for every single thing? (You’d think they had a vested interest in one particular outcome or something!)