Reliance on Testimony to Miracles

Posted on by
  • 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.

595 thoughts on “Reliance on Testimony to Miracles”

  1. The wise and beneficent Author of Nature, who intended that we should be social creatures, and that we should receive the greatest and most important part of our knowledge by the information of others, hath, for these purposes, implanted in our natures two principles that tally with each other.

    The first of these principles is, a propensity to speak truth, and to use the signs of language so as to convey our real sentiments. . . Another original principle implanted in us by the Supreme Being, is a disposition to confide in the veracity of others, and to believe what they tell us. This is the counterpart to the former; and as that may be called the principle of veracity, we shall, for want of a more proper name, call this the principle of credulity. . .

    It is evident that, in the matter of testimony, the balance of human judgment is by nature inclined to the side of belief; and turns to that side of itself, when there is nothing put into the opposite scale. If it was not so, no proposition that is uttered in discourse would be believed, until it was examined and tried by reason; and most men would be unable to find reasons for believing the thousandth part of what is told them.

    – Thomas Reid

    And Elizabeth, God bless her, tries to capture this in the good faith rule:

    Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.

    Unfortunately, naming the site “The Skeptical Zone” and then calling for a good faith rule are somewhat at odds.

    In any event, who disagrees with the points made by Thomas Reid, and why?

    Are we inveterate liars and do we assume everyone else is lying and act accordingly?

  2. fifthmonarchyman: 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.

    Nope. That’s obviously an untruth. You may genuinely believe that, Fifthmonarchyman, but like all the rest of your beliefs, your sincerity about it says nothing about its truth.

    If I saw a man whom I knew had been pronounced dead by doctors, whom I had seen in a coffin being lain into a mausoleum, and whom I met two days later walking around town with his wounds still visible (and touchable!) that would certainly be an amount of evidence which would convince me.

    The problem is, you don’t have any such evidence. What you have is only your faith, and as a corollary to your faith, you have an idea that all the skeptics or non-believers are merely being stubborn or stupid about accepting it (because “atheist worldview” or some such that you think we have). That’s not a charitable view of us whatsoever and it’s completely untrue.

  3. fifthmonarchyman,

    Are we honestly saying that the best skeptical opinions we can muster here are from swoon theory advocates and jesus mythers??

    I see you jumping up and down, waving your hands, and doing your best to distract from the core issue, but I don’t see you actually addressing it.

    Show us the evidence.

  4. Mung,

    I’m a Reidian. You take out that stuff about “the beneficent author of nature” and “the supreme being” and replace them with “nature,” and I’d sign on to that.

  7. Neil Rickert:

    [fifthmonarchyman sez:] 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.

    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.

    Well, yeah. Or agnostic. At worst, a Unitarian.

  10. hotshoe_: 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.

    Hey, that’s like a genuine skeptic post, hotshoe! I don’t think you’re allowed to post stuff like that here. Haven’t you got anything, like, stupid to say?! X>{

  11. hotshoe_ You raise some interesting points about beliefs about resurrection in first century Judaism. I obviously disagree with you about what they were like and also with your interpretation of Paul. But what are your sources?

    Your beliefs about what first century Jews believed about bodily resurrection come from where? And please don’t tell me from the testimony of others. 😉

    [Actually, I am fine with that, as should be evidence from my postings in this thread.]

    Why did Christianity begin, and why did it take the shape it did? To answer this question – which any historian must face – renowned New Testament scholar N.T. Wright focuses on the key points: what precisely happened at Easter? What did the early Christians mean when they said that Jesus of Nazareth had been raised from the dead? What can be said today about his belief?

    This book, third is Wright’s series Christian Origins and the Question of God, sketches a map of ancient beliefs about life after death, in both the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds. It then highlights the fact that the early Christians’ belief about the afterlife belonged firmly on the Jewish spectrum, while introducing several new mutations and sharper definitions. This, together with other features of early Christianity, forces the historian to read the Easter narratives in the gospels, not simply as late rationalizations of early Christian spirituality, but as accounts of two actual events: the empty tomb of Jesus and his “appearances.”

    How do we explain these phenomena? The early Christians’ answer was that Jesus had indeed been bodily raised from the dead; that was why they hailed him as the messianic “son of God.” No modern historian has come up with a more convincing explanation. Facing this question, we are confronted to this day with the most central issues of the Christian worldview and theology.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0800626796

    In this volume, N. T. Wright takes us on a fascinating journey through ancient beliefs about life after death, from the shadowy figures who inhabit Homer’s Hades, through Plato’s hope for a blessed immortality, to the first century, where the Greek and Roman world (apart from the Jews) consistently denied any possibility of resurrection. We then examine ancient Jewish beliefs on the same subject, from the Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls and beyond.

    This sets the scene for a full-scale examination of early Christian beliefs about resurrection in general and that of Jesus in particular, beginning with Paul and working through to the start of the third century. Wright looks at all the evidence, and asks: Why did Christians agree with Jewish resurrection belief while introducing into it—across the board—significant modifications?

    https://www.logos.com/product/8780/the-resurrection-of-the-son-of-god

  12. Mung,

    The analogy should be obvious, even to OldMung.

    I’ll spell it out anyway:

    Meshuga <–> the author of the book of Matthew

    Meshuga’s description of the healing <–> Matthew’s description of the mass resurrection

    other news outlets <–> the other gospel writers plus other contemporary sources

    The obvious question for you is this: Why should we believe the Matthew story if we don’t believe Meshuga?

    After all, your “logic” applies to both cases:

    Matthew’s/Meshuga’s account is not contradicted by any of the other authors/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.”

    Why do you accept Matthew’s testimony but not Meshuga’s? Please be specific.

  14. keiths: Why do you accept Matthew’s testimony but not Meshuga’s? Please be specific.

    I don’t find the two cases analogous. What part of that don’t you understand?

    Is Donald Trump supposed to be God? Jesus?

    Are you supposed to be Mortimer?

    Who is the mysterious woman?

    In what sense are the writers of the gospels analogous to modern “news outlets”?

    Who is “Matthew” supposed to be a rabid supporter of?

    Your analogy is admittedly contrived and you know this and admit it, so of course I disbelieve it. I have your word on it. Where’s the analogy?

    Why don’t you give me a link to the Onion where I can check it out for myself?

  15. Mung: hotshoe_ You raise some interesting points about beliefs about resurrection in first century Judaism. I obviously disagree with you about what they were like and also with your interpretation of Paul. But what are your sources?

    My sources are your bible. I see what Paul wrote. Don’t you see it?

    Why do you disagree with Paul that the old body was discarded like old clothes?

  16. Richardthughes: ‘Not contradicted’ seems a very low bar.

    Perhaps your irony meter is in need of recalibration.

    Some event, E, was worthy of note, and as such should have been recorded by X, Y, Z, and countless others. Anyone who witnessed the event should have recorded it on any available recording device, that’s how remarkable the event was. Any governmental authority would surely have heard and taken interest and ensured the events were recorded and passed up the chain. These recorded accounts which ought to exist should have survived in order that we can compare them with all the other recorded accounts that ought to exist. [You know, what with us being all skeptical and such.] But alas, we have only the account of M.

    Therefore, M was making it all up.

    QED

  17. hotshoe_,

    You wrote:

    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.

    You got this from reading Paul?

    The earliest Christians were in fact Jews. It’s reasonable to believe that they believed like other Jews when it came to beliefs about resurrection.

    Do you have some source [other than Paul] that you can cite in support of your claim that:

    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’s Belief in a Bodily Resurrection

  18. hotshoe_: If I saw a man whom I knew had been pronounced dead by doctors, whom I had seen in a coffin being lain into a mausoleum, and whom I met two days later walking around town with his wounds still visible (and touchable!) that would certainly be an amount of evidence which would convince me.

    Now you’ve done it you have forced me to call your bluff 😉

    http://www.bibleprobe.com/ekechukwu.htm

    peace

    that was fun

  19. Hey Mung,

    NT Wright’s volume is a great resource It should be required reading for anyone that finds this stuff at all interesting.

    hotshoe said,

    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.

    hotshoe is obviously completely unaware of NT Wright’s thesis. I find that lack of knowelege to be astounding.

    Is there any one here aware of any modern scholarship in these matters? How in the world can you claim to have done due diligence when you are relying on stuff that has been discredited for decades?

    peace

  20. hotshoe_: 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).

    And yet:

    In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus appears to the disciples and eats with them, demonstrating that he is flesh and bones, not a ghost.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_appearances_of_Jesus

    Another addition “after Paul’s time”? Is eating food somehow a less than physical act? Less physical than “passing through walls”?

    What I am trying to understand is where you come up with this line of reasoning.

    The account of doubting Thomas just is the account where Jesus appears in the midst of the disciples who are gathered in a locked room.

    Even Wikipedia claims that Jesus “moves through a closed door” and not the walls. You atheists can’t even get your stories straight.

    Also, according to John, Jesus appeared twice to the disciples in the midst of a locked room. Are both these accounts supposed to have been added after Paul died? What is your source?

  21. Patrick: I see you jumping up and down, waving your hands, and doing your best to distract from the core issue, but I don’t see you actually addressing it.

    Show us the evidence.

    Evidence for what? I’ve already presented evidence of what mainstream scholarship thinks of your Jesus myth conspiracy theory in the other thread. There is no controversy on that front.

    I’ve even presented the sort of archeological evidence that you claimed you would accept only to have you quickly punt it away.

    I’m not sure what else I could do. When you believe a conspiracy theory every piece of evidence can be easily calked up to forgery and such.

    I know a fellow who is convinced that the US government brought down the World Trade Center. Like you he claims that he would change his mind if only I would show him the evidence and that I’m avoiding his core issue .It’s something about thermite if I recall.

    Most of the time folks like that just get ignored when they get on a roll. I can see no other way.

    peace

  22. Fifth,

    Just exposing the hypocrisy. The use of Paul in an attempt to discredit the gospel writers is just a case in point. They will believe what they want to believe when and if it suits their agenda. Otherwise they are “skeptics.”

    And testimony? Utterly unreliable, unless and until they agree with it.

    The belief that the atheists here stand on some moral or epistemic high ground is less believable than a fairy tale.

  23. I’m not clear as to the difference between a closed door and a wall, physics wise.

  24. Fifth, I have some correspondence from Nigeria that is far more compelling than yours, not to mention lucrative.

  25. petrushka: I’m not clear as to the difference between a closed door and a wall,physics wise.

    Indeed. May as well claim that Jesus came up through the floor or down through the ceiling. The claims are psychological. And extraneous. Maybe Jesus few in through the window!

    What do the gospel writers say?

  26. Mung,

    Supporting accounts not contradicted.

    I’ve often wondered about the historicity of certain claims. Obviously society, media, technology and memorialisation of this was very different then, so I tried to think of a similar, contemporaneous event. I picked the eruption of Vesuvius at Pompeii and found there was precious little testimonial evidence (although plenty of physical evidence). Of course one could argue that the vast majority of witnesses were killed….

  27. petrushka: Fifth, I have some correspondence from Nigeria that is far more compelling than yours, not to mention lucrative.

    I thought folks here would find that story to be unconvincing. That is dispute it’s having all the elements that Hotshoe said would render it to be convincing evidence of a resurrection.

    The consistent backpedaling here is both predictable and comical.

    peace

  28. Richardthughes: I picked the eruption of Vesuvius at Pompeii and found there was precious little testimonial evidence (although plenty of physical evidence). Of course one could argue that the vast majority of witnesses were killed….

    If I was looking for analogous events to compare the crossing of the Rubicon would be a good one to start with. It’s not exactly the same but no event is.

    peace

  29. fifthmonarchyman: I thought you’d find story that to be unconvincing. That is dispute it’s having all the elements that Hotshoe said would render it to be convincing evidence of a resurrection.

    I don’t think hotshoe said anything about a story being convincing.

  30. Neil Rickert: I don’t think hotshoe said anything about a story being convincing.

    quote:

    that would certainly be an amount of evidence which would convince me.

    end quote:

    I guess Hotshoe’s comment might be seen as demanding first hand sensory evidence instead of a report of the same.

    The cool thing is that all of this is readily verifiable so he can check it out in person if he likes.

    I won’t hold my breath.

    In the mean time I’d expect him to concede that the eyewitnesses to the event are justified in believing in resurrection assuming they are honestly reporting what they saw.

    Peace

  31. fifthmonarchyman,

    That seems another good example. Obviously I like the Vesuvius example because it is corroborated by physical evidence.

    Side note – lots of biblical things, like the census that made Joseph return to Bethlehem, the killing of the newborns thereafter and TEH_FLUD clearly didn’t happen.

  32. Mung,

    Here we are in a thread entitled “Reliance on Testimony to Miracles” — your thread — and you are unable to answer my simple question:

    The obvious question for you is this: Why should we believe the Matthew story if we don’t believe Meshuga?

    After all, your “logic” applies to both cases:

    Matthew’s/Meshuga’s account is not contradicted by any of the other authors/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.”

    Why do you accept Matthew’s testimony but not Meshuga’s? Please be specific.

    Matthew has offered testimony regarding a miracle, and so has Meshuga. Their accounts are not contradicted by anyone else’s.

    Assuming that you are intelligent enough to reject Meshuga’s testimony, why don’t you reject Matthew’s?

  33. Richardthughes:
    fifthmonarchyman,

    Side note – lots of biblical things, like the census that made Joseph return to Bethlehem, the killing of the newborns thereafter and TEH_FLUD clearly didn’t happen.

    clearly? really? Have you researched these events? If not I could point you in a good direction

    peace

  34. fifthmonarchyman: clearly? really? Have you researched these events? If not I could point you in a good direction

    peace

    Yes I have,from the most complete surviving contemporary source: Philo of Alexandria Moreover, I’ve considered the logistic implications in that society. Have you?

    But let’s start with the most easily dismissed – Global Flood, Yay or Nay?

  35. We are told that our knowledge can derive from memory, perception, and testimony. Each of these might be justified by appeal to the others, but none can be justified fully without such appeal. One thing seems clear. To support reflective knowledge, one’s raft of beliefs needs central planks detailing one’s ways of knowing. The requirement of an epistemic perspective seems an indispensable prerequisite for an apt system of beliefs. This epistemic perspective would be constituted by beliefs about one’s basic sources of knowledge, none of which can be accepted justifiably as a source, except by appeal to other sources unquestioned for the sake of support in favour of the one. In this sense testimony seems as basic a source of knowledge as the traditional perception, memory, introspection, and inference.

    A Companion to Epistemology (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy)

  37. Richardthughes: Yes I have,from the most complete surviving contemporary source: Philo of Alexandria Moreover, I’ve considered the logistic implications in that society.

    How many infants do you think would have been subject to the slaughter? Do you know what the population of Bethlehem at this time was?

    Would you expect every Census to be recorded in Philo no matter how small?

    Do you find Philo to be an infallible and completely comprehensive historian in all maters related to the time frame in question?

    Richardthughes: But let’s start with the most easily dismissed – Global Flood, Yay or Nay?

    Not sure why it’s relevant but my understanding of the story does not demand a Global event. In fact I think the Scriptural evidence seems to suggest a regional event with the Garden/promised land as it’s focus. In my opinion a global event would be theologically out of place with the overall flow of the text.

    So from a purely scriptural perspective I’m agnostic to skeptical of a global flood.

    peace

  39. Richardthughes: Have you actually read the bible?

    yes

    I have in fact I’ve spent a lot of time looking at Genesis in particular. I find that “skeptics” in general have not, Instead they tend to remember what they saw on the walls of their Sunday school class rooms and in picture books

    check it out if you are interested

    peace

  40. keiths: ere we are in a thread entitled “Reliance on Testimony to Miracles” — your thread — and you are unable to answer my simple question:

    Asked and answered. Did you read the OP? Or did you merely read the title and take that as your cue? btw, you fail as a mind-reader.

    1. I answered your original question(s).
    2. I answered your “analogy.”

    What you ought to be saying is that you just didn’t find my answers to be to your satisfaction. Which earns you a great big so what. Time for you to move on keiths.

    You who, at the ripe old age of “in my early teens” had so much knowledge and wisdom in your grasp that it enabled you to reject Christianity. Who did you trust, at that young age, to lead you to the truth?

  41. ” Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters were on the earth”
    “Of clean animals, of animals that are unclean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on the earth”
    “And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered”
    “So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive.”

  42. Kantian Naturalist:
    Mung,
    Be careful not to confuse a source of knowledge with a kind of knowledge!

    ok. I think that warrants investigation. 🙂

    So lets say that perception is a source of knowledge. Shall we then say that all knowledge which has perception as a source is a specific kind of knowledge, call it perceptual knowledge? I find that highly questionable, but it’s an interesting question.

    Any links to SEP or IEP or anything else online that might be relevant?

    Thanks

  43. Talking about reading from the most shallow of levels.

    The “earth” is not a word that means globe or “third planet from the sun” but a Hebrew word for land. It is most commonly used in the OT to refer to a very specific piece of land

  44. Mung,

    You haven’t answered this question:

    The obvious question for you is this: Why should we believe the Matthew story if we don’t believe Meshuga?

    After all, your “logic” applies to both cases:

    Matthew’s/Meshuga’s account is not contradicted by any of the other authors/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.

    Why do you accept Matthew’s testimony but not Meshuga’s? Please be specific.

  45. Mung: Asked and answered. Did you read the OP?
    You who, at the ripe old age of “in my early teens” had so much knowledge and wisdom in your grasp that it enabled you to reject Christianity. Who did you trust, at that young age, to lead you to the truth?

    Question not addressed to me, but I will answer. I trusted myself. It took a number of years to become confident, but I was not led by anyone.

  46. fifthmonarchyman,

    Do you believe it is possible to locally contain a mountain covering flood for 40 days and nights? Why build an ark when the area would simply be repopulated from neighboring regions?

  47. fifth, not only have we read the bible, we seem to have read a great deal more about the bible, and Christianity, and criticisms of Christianity, than all these “skeptics” combined.

    What I think is that people like you and I are quite willing to read books (etc) that might challenge our beliefs. We don’t avoid criticism. We take our “faith” seriously.

    Unlike the atheists. They just lack belief, after all. Easy to be an atheist, even if you don’t feel comfortable shouting out your disbelief in the public square of your home town. Don’t want to risk being burned at the stake and all.

Leave a Reply