- 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’m agnostic 😉
peace
Fifth, it seems we both experience the universe. And then You create God.
fifth:
It’s quite the opposite. You are arguing that the Bible doesn’t mean what it plainly says.
I understand your embarrassment. A straightforward reading of Genesis shows that it is not the word of God — that is, unless God is dim, dishonest, or both. Yet you need it to be the word of God, so you resort to twisting and distorting the text in a vain attempt to mitigate its ridiculousness.
But if you’re going to twist the Flood account, why are you sticking to Matthew’s ridiculous mass resurrection story? Just take the same interpretive license with Matthew that you take with Genesis. You can make it mean whatever you want to, in true Christian fashion.
keiths,
Link back to your Samson posts…
It’s not about embarrassment at all. If there was an embarrassment issue you’d see me avoiding the Jewish Zombie apocalypse conversation. I’m more than happy to talk about all the various atheistic hobby horses if you like. We can tackle them all one by one. That is the apposite of embarrassment.
Its obvious that you have a different understanding than I do on some things but you are not even remotely an authority on these issues. You can’t even answer basic questions about them.
The fact is I’ve actually done the exegesis. I came to my understanding by struggling with the text. It’s exactly the same way I came to believe what I do about the sabbath and credobaptism and the millennium.
It’s what we fundies do.
What I find to be odd is your endless fascination with something you believe to be false It’s almost as if you are trying to convince yourself of something.
peace
fifth,
Every English translation on the Bible Gateway site supports my interpretation and contradicts yours. Below are the first ten translations of Genesis 6:17. You can check the others if you wish:
KJ21:
And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life from under heaven; and every thing that is on the earth shall die.
ASV:
And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon this earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is in the earth shall die.
AMP:
For behold, I, even I, will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy and make putrid all flesh under the heavens in which are the breath and spirit of life; everything that is on the land shall die.
BRG:
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
CEB:
“I am now bringing the floodwaters over the earth to destroy everything under the sky that breathes. Everything on earth is about to take its last breath.
CJB:
Then I myself will bring the flood of water over the earth to destroy from under heaven every living thing that breathes; everything on earth will be destroyed.
CEV:
I’m going to send a flood that will destroy everything that breathes! Nothing will be left alive.
DARBY:
For I, behold, I bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy all flesh under the heavens in which is the breath of life: everything that is on the earth shall expire.
DRA:
Behold I will bring the waters of a great flood upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, under heaven. All things that are in the earth shall be consumed.
ERV:
Understand what I am telling you. I will bring a great flood of water on the earth. I will destroy all living things that live under heaven. Everything on the earth will die.
fifth,
What I find odd are your repeated attempts to paper over the obvious flaws of the Bible. It’s almost as if you are trying to convince yourself of something.
not at all
It’s just that you chose not recognize consciousness behind the universe. It’s the same tact that many atheists use when they claim that consciousness is an illusion. I can’t convince you that it exists and I wouldn’t bother trying to
I can only point out the blaring inconsistencies in your actions when you say it does not but act as if it does.
peace
geez
Bible gateway can you not do any research for yourself at all?
The word earth is not the problem it’s your primary school level of understanding of the definition
quote:
‘erets
eh’-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): – X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.
end quote:
from Strongs
and
common (1), countries (15), countries and their lands (1), country (44), countryside (1), distance* (3), dust (1), earth (655), earth the ground (1), earth’s (1), fail* (1), floor (1), ground (119), land (1581), lands (57), lands have their land (2), open (1), other* (2), piece (1), plateau* (1), region (1), territories (1), wild (1), world (3).
from the NAS Exhaustive Concordance
peace
fifth,
Fixed that for you.
Genesis 6:17 is unambiguous — it says that all living, breathing things under the heavens will die in the flood:
As we both know, the global flood did not happen. The Bible is wrong about that.
Rather than admit that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God, you are trying to twist the straightforward meaning of that Bible verse in order to make it more reasonable.
Do you really think that all of those 30+ translations are wrong, but that you got it right? On what basis?
ETA: bolded words
Ah, its my fault. I see. behind, not in. Unfortunately I can’t see things behind things. I can create conjectures about what might be…
Yeah, you’re probably thinking free will. We get conscious / unconscious / etc.
Or anyone else, it seems.
Such as? Have at it!
Are we still hiding from this: Conflicting testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oli0DTmPmGU
Rich:
We aren’t, but they are.
Rich:
Here’s the whole series:
Questions for Christians and other theists, part 1: the Garden of Eden
Questions for Christians and other theists, part 2: Samson
Questions for Christians and other theists, part 3: The Atonement
Questions for Christians and other theists, part 4: Divine Communication (from Rich)
Questions for Christians and other theists, part 5: Satan
It’s not just that this is wrong, it is nonsensical. Do you walk around on a floor made of god, open a fridge made of god to get cold god-ale and eat god-bread? Do you peer through a god-telescope and see god-stars? Do you take showers in god-water that comes out the god-showerhead? Is that what you mean?
If this is not what you mean, that god is not to you your physical surroundings that we can all independently verify actually exist, then you can’t say “ditto for me and god”.
I’m also open to new evidence, should it present itself. For example you say you are directly experiencing god. I maintain that, if that were to happen to me, I’d start believing too.
So have I, but they’ve all been rather mundane. For example, I was so sure I put the milk back in the fridge. I didn’t. I was so sure I left my train ticket on my computer desk, I didn’t.
I’ve yet to be proven wrong about any supernatural stuff through. I’m genuinely open to it happening, it just needs to actually happen.
Of course it isn’t. You can easily imagine there being no god, it would just leave you not having answers for things you believe god answers. Where does the universe, consciousness and so on come from? I suspect these are things you believe god is necessary to explain.
But suppose god doesn’t actually exist, where would that leave you? Still in the universe, still being friends with the same people you know, still having posted on this discussion forum etc. etc. Nothing would have changed, because god is actually not logically nor physically necessary for you existence and understanding of your surroundings.
You can still do logic and math, you can still do science, you can still love your family and friends. You can still appreciate everything you find worth appreciating in life. Heck, you can even still love and appreciate the idea of god even if he doesn’t actually exist, just like you can have emotions and opinions towards characters you know are fictional, such as Darth Vader, Lord Voldemort, Hannibal Lecter and so on.
Given that your knowledge of your own existence is logically antecedent to your reasoning used to discover god, god cannot logically occupy the same basic position in your understanding of yourself or the reality that surrounds you. It has to come later. For example you cannot say “I think, therefore god is”. It doesn’t follow. The only thing that follows is that YOU am, because YOU think.
fifthmonarchyman,
The literal meaning of the text is global.
” I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.”.
That seems pretty unambiguous to me. As does
“They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. ”
Your own text has it covered. The ‘picture book’ version is right there; it’s no good sneering at us for it.
Is it the sophisticated position that one must read the text in its original language, and understand that language as it was understood 2000 years ago, in order to get the truth out of the words? You’d think an inspired text would keep on being inspired through multiple translations and language evolution. Otherwise people could find themselves wasting a lot of energy barking up the wrong tree.
no they are not translated wrong you have imported your modern understanding of the words into an ancient text. It’s like you read the word gay in a 19th century novel and think it must mean homosexual.
My understanding is based on the context of the passage. That is how we do it in normal life we decide what a word means by looking at context. In the context of the Pentateuch “‘erets ” has a pretty definite meaning it is central to the plot of the overall story.
peace
Do you actually think ancient Hebrews would share your understanding of what global means?
I think the Bible is plain and the gist of the message can be understood by a third grader. I also think that there is an element of divine revelation that takes place when God communicates his message to us through the text. He can use any translation to do that no matter how poor.
However if we want to go deeper and understand the nuance of the text or if we are basing some belief on what we read we need to be sure we are understanding the words correctly. There are lots of ways to do that one is to look at the original languages.
quote:
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
end quote:
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
peace
This is not true at all in the slightest. I have no way to imagine there is no God. Could you imagine there is no law of non contradiction? When you try to do so you are left with nonsense. A world with out God would be like that for me.
I don’t think you understand.
God….. is…….. Logic and Math and Love. You just choose to think of these things as non-personal. I can’t convince you otherwise any more than I can convince you that I am not a animatron meat puppet.
All I can do is point out your inconsistency when you act as if there is a consciousness behind these things while at the same time claiming there is not.
peace
You are getting close. Logic and Math are both human constructs.
So an intelligent extraterrestrial species would not have logic or math? The SETI folks are going to be disappointed to hear that
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Probly not. They would not understand geology or biology from my perspective either. Nonetheless, the words say what they say. If they mistook a local Flood for a bigger one, what were they doing making stuff up about the highest mountains being covered? You have a contained Flood which covers the highest ground within the container. The lip of the container itself must be still higher. And outside the container, life goes on pretty much unperturbed.
They purportedly report the actual words of God. Maybe he doesn’t know what ‘global’ means either.
I’m never sure why God uses such dubious communication techniques. The gist of the message is that the entire earth was covered. That’s what any third grader would say, and what many sincere people continue to say to this day, based on an unsophisticated reading of the words as translated, and a knowledge of some basic properties of water. I don’t see any reason to go against that simple reading other than a realisation that the ‘global’ position is a bit silly, to say the least. But so is the ‘local’ one, if one accounts for the mountains and the stated intent of God to destroy everything.
That is because you don’t have a grasp of the universal importance of a particular piece of earth to the text .
You need to understand how important the land was to these folks to be exiled from the land was a fate far worse than death. It was a big deal
quote:
Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
(Gen 4:13-14)
end quote:
peace
They could construct their own. But what they construct might look very different from what we construct.
What do you say to those Christians who believe the flood was worldwide?
I take it that in that passage you’ve got Cain expelled from the local area (erets) but wandering “the earth’ (presumably elsewhere) unhappily. What’s the term used for “the earth” (the rest of the world) in that passage?
FWIW, I think this local flood theory is clever: it makes the ark not need to be so big, makes it easier to comport with modern geological findings, makes the slaughter of all the species (in the area) not such a big deal, etc. But the interpretation does this at great cost to the religion as a whole, it seems to me.
Because It also seems to make Yahweh a local God (who made only the erets and whats on IT). An awful lot of torturing of other texts will now be required to make this local big shot into THE WORD, the creator of math, love and logic, someone who Bengalis as well as the successors of a few Israeli tribes should care about.
Be careful what you dream.
Does the fact that language is a human construct mean that aliens would not also have language?
Glen Davidson
fifth,
Okay, so let’s look at the context:
The last sentence refers to earth/erets. Fifthmonarchyman gets his hopes up. The flood might be local, after all — it depends on what the author meant by “erets”! Keep pounding that word “erets”.
So we look at the second sentence:
Oh dear… “all flesh under the heavens which breathes the breath of life”? That ain’t local. So fifth panics: “Erets erets erets! It’s like you’re reading the word ‘gay’ in a nineteenth century novel and think it means ‘homosexual’!”
Um, no — the word “earth/erets” does not appear in the phrase “all flesh under the heavens which breathes the breath of life.”
Do you want to argue that only certain parts of the earth are “under the heavens”? Good luck with that. Do you want to argue that “all flesh under the heavens” doesn’t mean “all flesh under the heavens”? Ditto.
Do you want to argue that 30+ translators got it wrong, and that you, fifthmonarchyman, know better? You have trouble enough with English, never mind biblical Hebrew and Greek, so my money is on the translators.
The Bible doesn’t say what you want it to, fifth. You can either:
1) accept the truth, and deal with the fact that the Bible got the flood wrong, and that it isn’t the infallible Word of God; or
2) ignore the evidence, making a mockery of your earlier claim:
Which will you choose?
3) Go missing and hope this blows over whilst
4) Not watching that video showing show the accounts of Jesus’ birth are fictional.
fifthmonarchyman,
Not really the point. If the Flood was an historical event it was either global or local, whatever the goatherds thought. But neither reading holds water (ahem!) in terms of what is actually described – a flood overtopping the highest mountains, and predicted by a pissed-off deity for a very specific and wide-ranging reason.
If you don’t regard it as an historical event, I have no quarrel, because I don’t either. Nonetheless, many, many non-sophisticated theologians regard it as such, because the Bible says it was. The ‘sunday school’ version we critique was not invented by us. It is not a strawman. It is how people really think. Nothing, but nothing, seems able to shift that notion once lodged.
Fifth, when you witie things like this, it makes me sad. I think to myself that if you were my child, I’d consider having you kidnapped and deprogrammed.
Now, I get that you feel much the same about the non-theists on this board. You say repeatedly that you know you can’t convince us to give up our errors and see things as you do.
So we have this Mexican stand-off. Neither will be able to convince the other of their mistake, but neither really wants to resort to force (say,.shock therapy or something). Seems hopeless, like all the argumentation is a waste of a lot of breath.
Is there anything we CAN agree on? I’d say there is. One thing is that we can’t both be correct. We could both be wrong (say if the earth was created yesterday by a giant boomerang-shaped being who did it to impress a wise-ass walrus on Neptune), but we cant both be right. That’s not a lot, but it’s SOMETHING.
I think there’s more, though. While you believe you can’t convince us, we are not quite in the same condition that you are. We give events that take place that would convince us. You have provided a generous list of events too, but above you indicate that you couldn’t really be convinced that any of those events had occurred (or claims were true). You now say, in effect, that the world would be (literally) meaningless for you. That is what I earlier surmised and you denied. There really isn’t any manner in which you could be (not convinced) even SHOWN that your faith was incorrect.
So there’s that difference between us. A number of posters here have indicated that they could come to terms with evidence that something like your God exists, but you could not come to terms with His non-existence, list or no list.
That’s a psychological difference, I guess. I’m not sure what, if anything follows from it. Maybe others here will have a sense. (You could even argue that your psychological dependence is evidence of the greater deepness of your own view–but, as you know, nobody would believe that. 🙂 )
walto,
I have recurring themes with my interactions with (sincere) theists: They are amazed that I can’t see / experience God. But when I press them on how they experience him / her – I get wishful thinking. It must be strange trying to perpetually affirm a thing that isn’t there.
I doubt that very much. If you became convinced, somehow, that God was real, it would rock you to your very core. It would not be a matter of changing the truth-value assigned to a proposition but a matter of becoming a different sort of person.
I also do not believe that reason and evidence can take one from faith to non-faith, or from non-faith to faith. The transitions are gestalt switches in overall existential orientation. To think that reason and evidence have much to do with them is to have far too exalted a conception of either.
What you get is phenomenology that you’re unable to translate into the vocabulary you use to describe your own phenomenology. It’s neither more nor less than that.
I don’t agree with that. Or, at least, it depends on a particular conception of God. As I said, if I found that Christians were much better at getting their wishes to come true than non-Christians I would consider conversion. I might not be a God-obsessed individual, but I take it most theists are not. If you pick a conception of God that it is impossible to for someone to both have and believe without being God-obsessed in that way, you’re right that you won’t get any converts, but it’s not a conception that will be shared by very many theists, I don’t think.
I find this hard to believe given the sorts of things people who ostensibly claim a belief in God get up to.
I don’t doubt that, since it would involve major brain damage.
But seriously, I entertain all possibilities all the time. I would not be rocked to the core if a UFO landed in my back yard. I would be surprised and probably frightened, but it wouldn’t affect my world view.
Neither would a talking bush. It would take time to evaluate the possibilities, such as a hoax or an aneurism, but it would not rock my view of reality, because I have no iron clad opinions about the limitations of reality. I have an active fantasy life.
I wouldn’t be forced to reevaluate my morality, because I am a congenitally nice person. I can be gruff on thee internet, but I’m the kind of person who catches spiders and releases them outside. I leave big tips.
Why?
What do we know about God that would make any difference at all?
I think it might make a good deal of difference, or basically none at all. It might just be a fact (God set off the universe, but we still don’t know anything about said God), or it might somehow change what we think of matter/energy. I really don’t know.
I do think that the question of what would convince one of the existence of God really is vexed, mainly because we don’t know what a god in fact is. It’s much easier to come up with observations that would call into question our present physics, and possibly make mind to be involved in the world outside of its recognized physiologic interactions. Real spoon bending via mind, something that simple.
God, though, I just don’t know what it’s supposed to be, outside of various and contrary religious descriptions.
Glen Davidson
Hm, wondering what’s nice about letting spiders live.
I do release flu viruses into the wild, however. Well, not really advertently.
Glen Davidson
The real problem is not in the translation, but in the meaning.
A local flood would imply a rather trivial event in the history of the world, a local spat. More to the point, local floods, even ones like the flooding of the Black sea plain, do not require a miraculous explanation.
Apparently people in other regions were okay in god’s eyes and not deserving of annihilation.
But having been spared, we might expect them to comment on their neighbor’s plight.
Right. I don’t personally know how to go from no faith to a even wishy-washy faith like most christians have — it seems to be an on/off switch rather than a slope that can be traversed gradually — but I’m pretty sure that having that wishy-washy faith would not actually make me a “different sort” of person. Unless one is trying to claim a ridiculous essentialism: that the mere existence of any kind of belief makes the believer essentially different than the non-believer.
That can’t possibly be true, because we all have unexamined beliefs of some kind or other, and we have all passed through various stages where prior beliefs fell away without “rock[ing] us to very core”.
Now, it may be true that for some people having the whole come-to-Jesus experience as an adult feels different than an “ordinary” exchange of beliefs (“changing the truth value assigned to a proposition”). When it does feel different, we won’t be surprised that people will act differently as a result, at least for awhile following their conversion. But not necessarily more “rocked to the core” than another sudden, emotionally fraught, experience: surviving a car wreck (without believing in miraculous intercession), falling in love, falling out of love, taking theogenic drugs, summiting a 4000+ meter mountain, having a twenty-first birthday …
And like the personal transformation which can accompany falling in love or falling out of love, falling into belief in god might be transforming but not to the point KN says, not to the point where one is “a different person”. We know this isn’t true, we walk among the god believers all day every day, and we know they aren’t “different”. That’s actually what’s so frustrating about talking to them: we know they’re the same as us, not really any better or worse, just with a veil of belief tucked around them.
In the real world, not KN’s current philosophical world, god belief is performative. People perform belief. They aren’t literally (or even figuratively) born again when they say they are “born again”. “Born again” is the term they’ve been taught to use when they combine sets of feelings with certain prescribed public actions regarding one’s faith.
GlenDavidson,
I guess that was worth repeating.
I have a nephew (in-law) who underwent some kind of a conversion experience during a long and life-threatening experience. Unfortunately his to-the-core change involved becoming so obnoxious that he alienated his wife and destroyed his marriage.
I cannot say that he is a bad person, but he has allowed his belief system to become more important than his family. He and his family were active churchgoers before, during and after his illness, but he has simply become obsessed. There is nothing else to his life.
Kantian Naturalist,
No, I don’t buy this, and it smacks of the same kind of presumption upon others’ thought processes we are used to from WJM or the “they-are-afraid” brigade.
I would simply absorb it as another fact about the universe. I didn’t run screaming the first time voices came out of the radio. There are many kinds of possible God – a hands-off Creator, one who is powerless over death, one who created us in order to subject our souls to eternal torture or reward according to behaviour. Not all of them would instil any substantial change in me. In fact, I can’t think of any that would. I am anti-authoritarian to the core.
My video wasn’t very popular. 🙁