- 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.
“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 am not a philosopher, nor a scientist, but it seems to me that the quotes above should be amended to make a distinction between opinion and knowledge. I would have said that testimony, memory and perception are fundamental sources of opinion, but that opinion, to be counted as knowledge must be supported by solid evidence and sound reasoning. Books such as Faith vs. Fact by Jerry Coyne may rely on the idea that testimony if a fundamental source of opinion, yet reasonably deny that that opinion necessarily counts as knowledge. Does Coyne ask us to take his word for anything? Or does he, perhaps, ask us to examine the evidence and apply sound reasoning?
If I am all wet and some philosopher wishes to take a crack at what I have written, please, a gentle kick on the shins will do, do not stomp on me with both feet!
Really do you think a fellow who somehow survived crucifixion and was then nursed back to health convince skeptics like Thomas and James and Paul that he was God? Talk about gullible.
The swoon theory was rejected by scholars long ago
check it out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_hypothesis
peace
Convince? I don’t think you’d need to “convince” anybody that you were God if you seemed to come back from the dead. I mean, that’s what’s convinced you, isn’t it? And you claim to be a skeptic. You see somebody you think has died walking around, that’s kind of a big deal. Especially before anaesthesia.
And the scholars I trust DO believe the swoon theory. It makes SOME–even if not a ton of– sense. OTOH, coming back from being actually dead makes NO sense whatever–that’s almost part of what “dead” means–finito.
And I don’t really buy the mass hysteria theory. Too skeptical for me. I’m trying to be charitable and am looking for a way to agree with you that not everybody telling this story was nuts or lying, or hysterical, or embellishing, or farting around for the hell of it, etc. You won’t do better than the Joseph-was-an-awesome-nurse theory among the non-theist community, I don’t think, unless you’d prefer a bunch of strange words used by Continental philosophers that nobody precisely understands and which only get stories and facts to cohere if you stand on your head and put your right index finger in your left ear while you chant them, deeply and sonorously.
But you’d better act fast: this offer may not be on the table long!
BTW, Fifth, did you notice this remark above the Wiki “swoon” article to which you linked:
That is what it always seems to boil down to. Folks will cling to any possible straw no matter how flimsy to avoid the possibility that Jesus is actually what he claims to be. It’s like there is an active effort to maintain your presuppositions no matter what the cost.
I’m not so constrained so such shackles are different for me to understand. It’s like you can’t even imagine a world beyond your current understanding of physical law.
peace
Supposing for the sake of argument that Jesus really existed, I simply see no good reason to believe he survived crucifixion.
Coming back from being dead does not entail you are an omnipotent god, supposing that even happened. You still have all your work ahead of you.
I can imagine quite a heck of a lot. That’s why I enjoy things like The Lord of the Rings, Star-Wars, Startrek, all of Norse mythology, Greek mythology, Marvel and DC comics and the movies about superheroes, X-men, Warhammer 40.000 role playing games, fantasy computer games with gods, wizards, witches and all that stuff. The people who come up with this stuff have lots of creative talent and it is amazingly entertaining and I feel consumed by it quite often.
I just don’t believe it’s real. The fact that I can imagine something doesn’t mean it has a basis in fact.
I completely agree.
On the other hand not coming back from the dead pretty much guarantees that you are not God.
peace
I actually want there to be a just god. I would really love it if it was true. I also have dead family members I would like to meet again and tell them about my life, who I really miss and who’s company I would love to experience again. Mostly my grandfather, so much has happened in astronomy since he died, there are so many things I would love to discuss with him.
There are god-concepts I would like to be true. I would love the opportunity for a god to create an afterlife where I could get a chance to meet some people again. I don’t even have to live forever, just the chance for another conversation would make me extremely happy.
Another point, there are also some truly horribly people in this world who get away with it. The late Kim Jong Il was such a person. I would like for there to be a just god that could assure he still receives punishment for his crimes against the Korean people. Not eternal torture, but punishment nevertheless. I could get behind such a god, a truly just god that made sure nobody really got away with it.
As it happens, I just don’t believe a god exists because I have seen no persuasive evidence for it. But there are, in fact, god-concepts I would like to be true.
Unfortunately the idea that these things might happen sounds to me like nothing but fairytales. They’re not true just because I would like them to be true. And there’s no good evidence for believing it I’m truly sorry to say.
Why would it? Why could god as a human not get killed on the cross and just stop existing in human form altogether? So his human body dies and stays dead, and he goes back to being an omnipotent but immaterial mind beyond space and time, without anyone knowing (because he doesn’t elect to resurrect himself and tell anyone). That’s another possibility I can imagine. Not that I believe this is what actually happened, but I’m just pointing this out to show that your conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow.
You seem to be making a number of non-sequiturs.
You’re close, Fifth. But here’s how that actually SHOULD read:
Now it’s about right.
And, btw, can you believe how terrible that swoon article you linked is? It’s missing almost every important source on the subject. That’s the kind of thing only an ardent wisher would put on the internet, somebody who didn’t care what good evidence or scholarship was so long as the result was consistent with his religious prejudices. It makes me kind of sad.
peace
Again I completely agree,
But if you can’t bring yourself to see a way that resurrection is even possible no amount of evidence is going to convince you that such a thing actually happened.
For those so constrained accounts of resurrection are like accounts of square circles. They must be false by definition
peace
Possible? Of course I can bring my self to see a way that it is possible.
But is it likely that it actually happened and should we believe it on the rather flimsy evidence of unverifiable, millenia-old attestations? This is where the chain unhinges.
Possible therefore probable is a well-known logical fallacy.
I don’t see the resurrection as a logical impossibility, I just see it as an extraordinary claim. I don’t claim resurrections to be impossible, I claim they should not be believed to happen merely on the basis of unverifiable, millenia-old stories.
I think that comment is not a “BTW” – I think that is a central point in every argument with a christian such as Fifthmonarchyman: observable fact about them is that they provide “evidence” or “sources” to supposedly support their arguments, and even the most-incompetent reader can see that the sources do not in fact support their argument, often directly contradict what the theist claims, and are by any rational standard mostly junk..
But but but they sputter: You asked for evidence, I gave you evidence! Now quit moving the goalposts!
It’s not their only tactic, but it sure is a common one.
Just watch.
You’re absolutely right that there isn’t much there. But if you’re really charitable and want to give the benefit of the doubt to the story-tellers, you can take their word that the very guy they thought had died on the cross was walking around a couple of days later. We know that some people did survive crucifixion, so this person might have too. Otherwise, you have to either assume the story-tellers were all wrong, lying, not there, crazy, etc. Or you have to throw everything you know about life and death and science out of the window.
Now, many people who were taught this story in their early youth, choose the last alternative, because it makes them feel good and special, and alleviates the greatest fears that they have. But those with a little more courage and sense can see that that particular alternative is entirely ridiculous, something no educated adult should believe or would believe unless both very frightened and instructed poorly.
So that leaves the others. And I’m charitable and want to give the benefit of the doubt, even to this story that I have very little sympathy for. That’s why I like the swoon theory. But, again, you’re absolutely right that there’s not much going for it.
It’s not that the claims are extraordinarily, but that they are ordinary and commonplace. Virgin birth and resurrection religions are a dime a dozen. Which one is the true one.?
It’s not a logical impossibility, it’s a physical impossibility.
Or (see the McKinnon) death isn’t really final, it’s more like a sickness you can get over.
Yes, keep convincing yourself of that. For if you ever stop trying to convince yourself, and actually look at the evidence, you too could become an atheist.
You’re right, the claims aren’t extraordinary. But what is claimed certainly is. And the answer to your question is: None of them. Not a single one of them is true.
Jesus didn’t survive crucifixion. He died.
Jesus DID survive crucifixion. He didn’t die.
hey walto
I did not read the swoon article before I linked to it. It’s been so long since Ive heard anyone who takes the swoon theory seriously I did not take the trouble to preview a quick throwaway informational link.
I truly am surprised that anyone would take this theory seriously in this day and age
I went looking for any recent scholarly take that advocated the the swoon theory and could not find any.
Can you point me to a serious scholar who is still willing to defend this view?
peace
walto,
I don’t much care either way. I just find it fascinating how little actual evidence there is for Christians to hang their hats on.
There were probably a number of rebellious rabbis around in 1st century Palestine. Some subset of them may even have preached some subset of what Jesus is claimed to have preached. No one can support that claim, though.
I see demonstration of existence as being prior to testing claims about what actually happened to the putative rabbi, but, as my teenagers say, you do you.
If you mean by “serious scholar” someone who agrees with you, NO.
I’m both nicer and more gullible than you! 🙂
No I mean someone who is credentialed works in an actual institution and has a presence beyond the internet.
Ah yes. The good faith rule again! Always good to see it in full flower.
And the OP? The cited source is mostly junk? And A Companion to Epistemology is what, more junk?
If it comes down to what scholars think, the cause is already lost.
walto,
Hey! We agree on something!
Here’s a summary of views on the matter that I just found. http://reviewofreligions.org/1440/the-changing-views-of-the-crucifixion/
But, as I’ve said, to my knowledge, the most thorough discussion of the issue is in Butler’s The Fair Haven, which has the benefit of being funny as well as detailed and scholarly. This isn’t one of my big interests, so I admit I haven’t been following the recent research on the matter. That’s why I was interested to hear what mung’s expert on the issue of survival-of-Roman-crucifixions had to say.
fifthmonarchyman,
Now you know how freethinkers respond to your theistic beliefs.
The atheists can’t agree among themselves and have taken to contradicting each other.
petrushka v Rumraket
Neil v Patrick
I find it amusing. And instructive.
Nice that all the theists agree on everything, anyhow.
quote:
“The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life.”
end quote:
Bart Ehrman
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
You’ll recall that I haven’t denied the crucifixion either.
It’s “resurrection” that doesn’t do anything for me.
fifth:
fifth,
Those two squiggles at the beginning of the quotation, and those two squiggles at the end? Those are called “quotation marks”. When you use them, you don’t need to tell us that you are quoting.
Well that speaks volumes.
Nails or ropes? Cross or T? Otherwise unnoticed earthquake?
Show your work.
fifthmonarchyman,
That may be true, since there are no known facts about his life from contemporary sources, nor from non-biblical sources.
Kind of a “highest mountain in Florida” distinction.
Really,
An article on Jesus’ travels in India with quotes from Muslim apologists and James Tabor. Is this the sort of place you get your information on the historical Jesus?
peace
Mung,
I still await your response to this:
Mung,
Consider the following scenario:
Let’s suppose that Mortimer missed the Republican debate on Thursday. The next morning, he reads an account by I. M. Meshuga — a rabid Donald Trump supporter — which includes the following tidbit:
This is clearly big news, so Mortimer immediately checks some other news sources. None of them mention the remarkable healing.
Mortimer concludes that the story was embellished.
Later that day, he mentions this to his friend Earl, an enthusiastic Trump supporter. Earl says “Meshuga’s account is not contradicted by any of the other news outlets. At best you have an argument from silence. And you have given me no good reason to believe that your “embellishment theory” makes more sense.”
Most people would consider Earl’s argument to be ridiculous. Wouldn’t you?
I prefer reading about Jesus’ travels in the Americas.
I notice you don’t criticize the credentials of anybody quoted there who agrees with your own view of this matter. It’s a smorgasbord, and, as I said (and I guess you missed) I just found that site when trying to answer your question about whether anybody nowadays thinks Jesus did not die on the cross. The answer to that is Yes.
BTW, why is Muslim apologetics automatically worse than Christian apologetics? To me they’re about the same.
You forgot the rest! And he lives in your heart today. 🙂
No, it doesn’t.
It might indicate that you’re not Yahweh’s special snowflake boy, half human/half god crossbreed — but it might not. That story might have ended differently, without the alleged physical-body resurrection, if the later (Markian) christians weren’t so eager to reassure believers with their special-god-isn’t-dead miracle.
Most of the early christians did not believe in a physical resurrection; they thought that Jesus’s body died and stayed dead just like everybody else’s. Paul wrote that what was resurrected was a “spiritual body” (whatever that means, but definitely in contrast to a physical body) and Paul also said “flesh and blood can never possess the kingdom of god” 1 Cor. 15:50
If christians in the communities to whom Paul wrote had been speculating about a bodily resurrection, then Paul would have denounced that as heresy, for it would have contradicted the spiritual revelation he had received from god (and the spiritual message he had confirmed with those of the original twelve apostles when he met them).
The tale of Doubting Thomas (with Jesus supposedly having a solid physical body which Thomas’ fingers wouldn’t pass through) was added to the last gospel — after Paul’s time — and directly contradicts other tales of Jesus passing through walls (as a spirit or with a “spiritual body” which didn’t interact with walls the way a physical body does).
So, whether “not coming back from the dead” means you’re not god after all, turns out to depend on how you define “back from the dead”.
Surprise, surprise, yet another arena in which christians can practice their powers of equivocation.
Are we honestly saying that the best skeptical opinions we can muster here are from swoon theory advocates and jesus mythers??
Wow
No offense but this sort of thing is comical in it’s shallowness.It’s the kind of thing that genuine skeptics laugh at. No one takes it seriously.
It’s like taking YEC to be cutting edge mainstream scholarship
peace
Well, I admire his whacking the money-changers, anyhow.
I have nothing against the guy, it’s just that the Buddha was also a religious reformer, and was a better philosopher to boot. I don’t feel like I learn much when I read the New Testament, but some of the Sutras are, I don’t know, complicated, confusing, cleverly argued and….deep. I think I’d enjoy reading about Jesus more if he or his early followers got into stuff like personal identity the way Buddhist texts do.
I will admit that John is kind of spacy though. That Word stuff is cool for sure.
Those damnable genuine skeptics win again. I hate those goddam guys. X>{
I’d like to provide Fifth’s ranking for those just joining us.
1. Christians
2. Genuine Skeptics
3. Muslim Apologists
4. The (laughable) posters at TSZ