- 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.
Mung,
All the parts pertaining to Jesus.
Mung,
LOL. Then you won’t hesitate to answer my question.
hi petrushka,
I actually respect this comment. It does not seem that it could have been your memory (1) that you trusted, nor does it seem that you were trusting your perception (2). And since you reject testimony (3), that narrows it down to intuition or inference. And since it would seem that inference is ruled out by rejection of 1, 2, and 3, that leaves intuition.
What say you?
Do tell:
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html
Mung,
Yes. I’m familiar with that. Are you unfamiliar with his account of Jesus, his historical and geographical contemporary?
I did answer your questions. You didn’t like the answers. I’m still waiting for you to articulate an actual criticism. You know, an actual argument. A series of propositions which if true it would be irrational to deny the conclusion. Do try.
Mung, to petrushka:
Your view is absurdly all-or-nothing. No intelligent person would say “I trust all testimony” or “I trust no testimony”, or “I trust my memory absolutely in all cases” or “I never trust my memory”. Ditto for perception, intuition, and inference.
Mung,
Why not be NewMung and just say, “You’re right, I don’t have a good reason for accepting Matthew’s testimony but rejecting Meshuga’s. Let me go think about it.”?
Conflicting testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oli0DTmPmGU
fifth,
Mung is afraid of my question, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t give it a shot. Why should we believe the Matthew story if we don’t believe Meshuga’s account of the Trumpian amputee healing?
Earlier, in support of Matthew, you mentioned that he had gotten some other verifiable details right, and that that was reason to trust his testimony regarding the mass resurrection. Well, let’s suppose that Meshuga also got some details right. In fact, let’s suppose that unlike Matthew’s account, Meshuga’s account was corroborated in all its details except for the story of the amputee healing. Would you argue that we should therefore accept his testimony wholesale?
Obviously not. So why accept Matthew’s ridiculous account?
FFS.
That’s not calling my bluff. That’s posting drivel from someone I’ve never met who I have no reason to believe, about some pastor whom I’ve never met, about whom some other people I’ve never seen and have no reason to believe claim had been declared dead and then some other people who I’ve never seen and have no reason to believe claim he had been put in a room at the undertakers and he might not have been able to be really embalmed because of witchcraft — which certainly does wonders for the credibility of the whole community, doesn’t it — and you sincerely expect that this fabrication some pastor made to bring converts to Jesus is the same as the evidence I said would convince me? I said “someone whom I knew”; and I said “whom I had seen“. So you’re the one who is bluffing, hoping I can’t tell the difference between what I asked for and the slop you served up.
If god wants people to believe, there’s no point in god resurrecting some random villager in a 3rd world nation where – conveniently for the tall tale – they have a hospital but not a modern one, and where – conveniently – no one happens to have a cell phone to take photos of the before-and-after supposed corpse and where – conveniently – his friends and family supposedly abandon him overnight in the mortuary so no one could testify to what happened, and where – conveniently – a European evangelist just happened to be looking for a way to add to his list of German fans who give him money for his “work” in Africa.
You’re not convincing anyone with your equivocation, that’s for sure.
Guano, Mung.
Stop it.
Exactly.
Because I don’t find stories convincing. If I found stories convincing, I would already be a christian – I’ve certainly read their stories often enough over the decades.
Fifthmonarchyman should be embarrassed to repeat that he thinks I said anything about wanting “a convincing story” so I would believe. It’s the same as admitting he can’t comprehend plain English if it’s written by a “skeptic” like me.
But scientific theories are stories too. This is not so exclusively on postmodernism, but also on your ordinary Wittgensteinian “language game” stuff.
Scientific theories are stories with certain characteristics. Mythology is stories with certain (other) characteristics. So, it’s not that we shouldn’t believe stories, but how to determine the characteristics that make it worth believing.
I think you’re right. Even supposing he was actually crucified, and if we take their word for it that he was seen alive several days later, then it immediately follows that he most probably didn’t die anyway.
If I was sitting in a bus on my way to work and I saw you run over by a truck going at what appeared to me, to be high velocity and you lying unmoving on the pavement before my bus left, I might naturally conclude you were killed.
If I then happen to see you up and about buying groceries, seemingly unharmed, a few days later in the supermarket, I will naturally alter my conclusion and think you probably survived it.
What is not very likely, and in fact rather absurd, is to think you were somehow supernaturally resurrected. And frankly, even if you told me this is what happened, I would not believe it and I claim justifiably so.
And even if (for reasons I can’t in my current state of mind, explain) I somehow believed you were divinely resurrected on your mere say-so, it would still not follow you were in fact a god.
Now let’s make it all even more absurd. Suppose instead of me personally witnessing you being run over by a truck and then seeing you alive a few days later, you come to me with the same story, but written down in a book, with sources you can’t independently verify, claiming this all happened several millenia ago. If that was the case, I’d simply be demonstrably irrational and hyper-gullible to the point of being delusional, if I believed it.
That’s simply incorrect I’m afraid.
According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there is nothing that physically prevents your mutilated and dead body from taking up one of it’s previously alive microstates in the process of decomposing, it’s just unfathomably improbable. But it is not, strictly speaking, physically impossible.
He was seen alive 3 days later. Sounds to me like he didn’t actually die.
You misunderstand what is meant by an extraordinary claim. It doesn’t matter how many times someone claims something, it is not the frequency with which the claim is made that makes it ordinary or not. It is whether the claim has a basis in demonstrable fact.
If every person on the planet claimed they could fly with the mere power of their thoughts, that wouldn’t make it an ordinary claim, because the observational fact is that they can’t.
I’m happy to take Ehrman’s word for it here, him being a well known historian and all. Problem is, he was presumably seen alive later, so that throws him dying on the cross (if it was a cross) into serious doubt.
Mung, the first scriptural story I rejected was not anything connected with Jesus. It was Abraham and Isaac. Then Joshua and Jerico. I found them morally repugnant. No one told me to think this. In fact I was taught they were glorious events to be celebrated.
Ok.
I had a very similar experience. Once you start to pull on the “none of this makes sense” thread it all unravels quickly.
fifthmonarchyman,
And yet, there are respected scholars who hold that view and there is no physical evidence or contemporary reports that refute it. The consensus may be that he existed, but there are no details available. I still find it fascinating that the mythicist position is consistent with all available evidence.
A forged ossuary is not evidence.
You could admit that your belief is not based on evidence. You could admit you have no way of proving your claim that “Jesus is lord”. That would at least be intellectually honest.
fifthmonarchyman,
I’m just catching up here over my morning coffee, so this might already have been asked. Just to be clear, though, fifthmonarchyman — are you claiming that the worldwide flood described in Genesis actually happened?
1)Yes it’s very possible.
2) Because it’s not about saving the animals (God could easily do that with out an Ark even in a global flood) it’s about Noah’s place as the appointed steward of the land.
The whole story is about God seeking to preserve and renew the original connection between God’s steward and “the land” that was established at the very beginning. In fact that is a major theme of the entire scripture.
I’m often amazed that Skeptics are stuck at the primary school level when it comes to these texts. That is exactly what I mean when I say you have rejected a straw-man
peace
I haven’t looked at your question very closely. Once I realized that you did not take into account any background information that I might have I pretty much skipped the rest.
It seemed to be one of those “when did you stop beating your wife?” questions so I thought my limited time would be better spent elsewhere
peace
Apparently you need to do a little more catching up 😉
peace
Richardthughes,
Especially ducks.
Just to emphasize, it is not me saying this (I have zero authority in physics), but I and others who have advanced this argument about physical impossibility, have been corrected on this point by Sean Carroll (the cosmologist). 🙂
Geez
not you as well Brutus.
Come on guys use your heads
… hereby declares fifthmonarchyman. Problem is, there is zero consensus on that point even among christians. To most YEC christians, the purpose of the Ark was to save extant biodiversity, not to preserve some weird metaphorical “connection” with the land. In fact I would go so far as to argue that is what most christians believe if you go ask them what the purpose of Noah’s Ark was.
It is only through the process of questioning and debate we’ve gone through, or other such similar discussions, that you have come up with this strange apologetic rationalization after the fact.
You believers are so extremely good at doing that and forgetting that this is what you do, even when you do it.
fifthmonarchyman,
Use your heads? What do you mean? I haven’t followed the thread in detail. But if (reading between the lines) you think that the Noachian Flood was local – or, for that matter, global – then I’d suggest it’s your cranium that needs exercising. It accords with absolutely nothing in physics, biogeography or geology. All Flood apologetics I have ever read has been laughably naive.
“Build a boat and fill it with (local) fauna ‘cos I’m going to destroy the lot and I can only do it with rain. It’s going to rain (locally) at 3-6 inches a minute for 40 days. And leave no trace”.
Not a promising start for an endeavor (religion) a key function of which is to help people cope with the reality of life and death.
Let me guess: A god is using his supernatural and divine omnipotent will to keep the flooding local? People came walking by and saw a several kilometer high, still-standing vertical wall of water fully submerging a local mountian?
fifthmonarchyman,
Are you so surprised? It’s a story for primary-age children. The text is prettty unequivocal.
That’s not local.
I think I was less disturbed by the miracle aspect than by the idea that people wanted to worship a god that would do this. It wasn’t so much whether it happened as it was, do I want to associate with people who think this was a good thing.
He sent a rainbow. So it was a bit of a one-off, a bit out of character. “Sorry peeps, lost the plot a bit there”.
So the flood was not world-wide then?
That seems to contradict the quoted text: all the high mountains *everywhere* under the heavens were covered
I never understood the god of the old testament. When I asked about, I was assured that it was all fixed in the new testament, but I never saw that either. As I have said, my problem wasn’t so much with the miracles as it was moral revulsion. I spent most of my childhood thinking I must be the wrong species or something, trapped in bizarro world.
Forget it. He’s rolling.
From an old thread:
Richardthughes:
Some of my other favorites come from the Flood story, wherein
1. God regrets having made humans, having failed completely to anticipate what was going to happen after he created them.
2. God indiscriminately wipes out all of them except for Noah’s family.
3. God wipes out all of the animals, except for the ones that Noah puts on the Ark, despite the fact that it is the humans, not the animals, who are evil.
4. After the slaughter, God changes his mind and decides that he can tolerate evil humans after all, and that they don’t need to be wiped out in the future:
5. God is afraid he’s going to forget his promise, so he places the rainbow in the sky. It’s apparently like tying a string around the Divine Finger:
The God of Genesis is a dim, volatile, unjust deity who regrets his actions, changes his mind, and has memory problems. Is this the God you worship, StephenB and HeKS?
And this one, from the same thread:
Stephen,
You’re obviously unhappy with the idea that God is unfair to Adam and Eve in the Genesis story, but why? The God described in Genesis is clearly not the God that you and your fellow Catholics worship today.
Try reading the story afresh, as if you had never encountered it before. You will learn the following about God:
1. He plants a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil smack in the middle of the Garden of Eden, despite the fact that he doesn’t want Adam and Eve to eat its fruit.
2. He puts a clever and untrustworthy snake in the Garden and gives him the abiilty to talk to Adam and Eve.
3. He lies to Adam about what will happen if Adam eats from the Tree.
4. He walks around in the Garden, making noise as he goes.
5. He looks for Adam, but can’t find him, and has to call out to him.
6. Only after Adam tells him why he’s hiding does God figure out that Adam ate from the Tree.
7. God punishes the serpent for speaking the truth to Eve.
8. God punishes Adam and Eve for something they didn’t know was wrong.
9. God says to himself, “Wow. Adam is like us now, knowing good from evil. We’d better banish him before he eats the fruit of the Tree of Life and lives forever.”
10. God stations cherubim with flaming swords to prevent anyone from approaching the Tree of Life.
Is this the description of an all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent God who is perfectly loving and just? The idea is laughable.
The God of this story
a) has no foresight,
b) isn’t very bright,
c) lies to people,
d) physically walks around in the Garden, making noise,
e) has trouble finding people who are hiding from him,
f) doesn’t know what has happened in his absence,
g) punishes the serpent for telling the truth,
h) punishes A&E for something they didn’t know was evil,
i) panics when he realizes that Adam “has become like one of us, knowing good and evil”,
j) is afraid that Adam will eat from the magic Tree of Life of become immortal even though God doesn’t want that,
k) banishes Adam from the Garden before he can eat from the Tree,
l) has limited powers and must assign cherubim to guard the Tree because God himself can’t do it — he can’t be in two places at once, after all.
The God of Genesis is not the God that you and your fellow Catholics worship.
fifth,
Not at all. It’s a straightforward question about when we should — and shouldn’t — accept testimony regarding miracles. Give it a shot.
Here’s a link to the Trump scenario.
My question for you:
I don’t see why it would be questionable — I see nothing amiss in talking about perceptual knowledge. One can know that one is looking at a cardinal because one is able to recognize cardinals when one sees one, and that involves both conceptual abilities (possessing the concept cardinal) and sensory abilities, and also of course the meta-cognitive abilities of being able to tell that one is the right viewing conditions (the light is good, one’s eyesight is good, one is in the environment where cardinals are generally found, etc.) and of being able to tell that one is the right epistemic conditions (one knows that one is able to tell what a cardinal looks like, one has been able to reliably identify cardinals in the past, etc.).
I think that much the same considerations apply to memory and to testimony as well.
The question here is, presumably, whether testimony of miracles conforms to the general guidelines under which testimony is usually reliable. My position, which is also Hume’s, is that it does not.
This is what Dogmatism looks like. Should we expect to see accounts of this miraculously contained Flood from those outside of it?
I’m endlessly amused by how no one here is even interested in interpreting the Flood story as an allegory or metaphor.
I have stated that I didn’t care whether the story was true or not, and Keiths has stated something similar about what the flood story says about god’s intelligence and moral character.
Metaphor? Bring it on.
It’s presented as explanatory of the genealogies–which they took quite seriously.
Glen Davidson
Why not just kill Noah and his family in the flood, then resurrect them at the end?
Something of the sort purportedly happened around Jesus’ death.
Glen Davidson
They needed an aquarium/colosseum, where they could watch bad people suffer and die while marveling at whales and jellyfish, don’t you know.
Glen Davidson