Christian Faith

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A testimonial claim is not evidence for itself, but it's evidence in support of something else.

I recently swore out a statement in front of a judge and was asked to provide evidence, which I did in the form of texts and phone messages.

When you think about how a courtroom works, there is a lot of information being discussed. And that is precisely what everything is, information. Yes, we call all that information evidence but it is not all actually evidence, which is why the judge asked me to substantiate my claim with supporting evidence.

In an earlier and separate episode the defendant claimed that his email had been hacked and that someone else had been sending these statements in his name. But he could not substantiate his claim with any supporting evidence so the judge found against him, based partly on the testimony of other witnesses about his behavior towards them.

Testimony is best thought of as claims, as you said. We evaluate witness testimony based on other information that exists. In the case of gods we have lots of information but zero actual evidence. Some claimants even go so far as to say that their gods are beyond human comprehension and scientific knowledge, and that therefore nothing beyond a claim is even possible.

 

[Underseer]

In science, eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable form of evidence possible. If the only evidence you have is eyewitness testimony, no scientist is going to take your claim seriously.

 

[fast]

In science, eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable form of evidence possible. If the only evidence you have is eyewitness testimony, no scientist is going to take your claim seriously.

Thank you. I think that makes you the third participant that agrees with me.

 

[DBT]

In other words, the testimonies of faith based believers cannot be considered to be evidence that supports the extraordinary claims they make about supernatural things.

 

[Politesse]

In other words, the testimonies of faith based believers cannot be considered to be evidence that supports the extraordinary claims they make about supernatural things.

Ah, if we were just going to end up on blatant special pleading, we should have started there and skipped all the logical justification and so forth. Be proud of your prejudices! They are what separate you from all the other other factions.

 

[DBT]

In other words, the testimonies of faith based believers cannot be considered to be evidence that supports the extraordinary claims they make about supernatural things.

Ah, if we were just going to end up on blatant special pleading, we should have started there and skipped all the logical justification and so forth. Be proud of your prejudices! They are what separate you from all the other other factions.

There was no special pleading. It's nothing more than a matter of presenting evidence that supports the claims being made. A testimony alone (personal experience) does not qualify as evidence because it may just represent the word of the claimant.

 

[fast]

In other words, the testimonies of faith based believers cannot be considered to be [the most reliable] evidence that supports the extraordinary claims they make about supernatural things.

I don't normally do the ole "fixed it" thing, but you're trying to reword what he said and messed up on two fronts.

 

[DBT]

In other words, the testimonies of faith based believers cannot be considered to be [the most reliable] evidence that supports the extraordinary claims they make about supernatural things.

I don't normally do the ole "fixed it" thing, but you're trying to reword what he said and messed up on two fronts.

You can do the 'ole fixed thing' if you like. Even if it has superficial differences to the remark I responded to, I can't see any errors in what I said.

 

[fast]

In other words, the testimonies of faith based believers cannot be considered to be [the most reliable] evidence that supports the extraordinary claims they make about supernatural things.

I don't normally do the ole "fixed it" thing, but you're trying to reword what he said and messed up on two fronts.

You can do the 'ole fixed thing' if you like. Even if it has superficial differences to the remark I responded to, I can't see any errors in what I said.

What you're doing is reminiscent of the no true Scotsman fallacy. In your view, every Scotsman is reliable, yet when a Scotsman of less than desirable reliability is pointed out, you deny that he's a Scotsman at all.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You can do the 'ole fixed thing' if you like. Even if it has superficial differences to the remark I responded to, I can't see any errors in what I said.

What you're doing is reminiscent of the no true Scotsman fallacy. In your view, every Scotsman is reliable, yet when a Scotsman of less than desirable reliability is pointed out, you deny that he's a Scotsman at all.

I don't think that is what he is doing.

I used the word "information" in an earlier post because I think it works in this discussion. It is only academic formality to call all the information we encounter as "evidence" when it comes to demonstrating the veracity of a specific claim.

What works for me is to separate the two when it comes to demonstrating fact claims, particularly those that are sensational or extraordinary. It seems to me that all evidence is ultimately information but that not all information is ultimately evidence in this regard. This is certainly how we live our daily lives, acting on information that we have learned is evidence based, not emotionally based. That is why the judge asked me for evidence to support my claims. She clearly had the information she needed in order to grant my request, but what she wanted was evidence that supported that new information she had just received.

Information can be as mundane as my wife informing me that I need to pay the electric bill because it is due. The documents and transaction records I retain are not the same kind of information as her statement. These records are evidence that the bill has or has not been paid, making her claim true or false.

 

[fast]

You can do the 'ole fixed thing' if you like. Even if it has superficial differences to the remark I responded to, I can't see any errors in what I said.

What you're doing is reminiscent of the no true Scotsman fallacy. In your view, every Scotsman is reliable, yet when a Scotsman of less than desirable reliability is pointed out, you deny that he's a Scotsman at all.

I don't think that is what he is doing.

I used the word "information" in an earlier post because I think it works in this discussion. It is only academic formality to call all the information we encounter as "evidence" when it comes to demonstrating the veracity of a specific claim.

What works for me is to separate the two when it comes to demonstrating fact claims, particularly those that are sensational or extraordinary. It seems to me that all evidence is ultimately information but that not all information is ultimately evidence in this regard. This is certainly how we live our daily lives, acting on information that we have learned is evidence based, not emotionally based. That is why the judge asked me for evidence to support my claims. She clearly had the information she needed in order to grant my request, but what she wanted was evidence that supported that new information she had just received.

Information can be as mundane as my wife informing me that I need to pay the electric bill because it is due. The documents and transaction records I retain are not the same kind of information as her statement. These records are evidence that the bill has or has not been paid, making her claim true or false.

I hear you. I really do.

Maybe I'm not being clear. It's not my contention that a claim is self-evidentiary; rather, certain claims (not all of them but some) can themselves be evidence--not evidence for the claim (no, not that) but evidence for some other purported fact--or, if you will, another claim.

If it's my contention that Bigfoot exists and I make the claim that Bigfoot exists, then that claim is not evidence that Bigfoot exists. If you ask for evidence to support my claim, what I can bring forward to try and convince you is not limited to nonclaims. For instance, someone else's claim that he too saw Bigfoot is yet another claim, but in this instance, it collaborating evidence. Evidence!

When you say, no, no, no, that's just another claim, I say "wrong." It is yet another claim, yes, but in this instance, it's more than just a claim but rather collaborative -- that does go to support my claim--doesn't inject incoherence for example. The problem, of course, is that his claim is still a claim, be it evidence or not, and given that it's widely regarded that even such evidence (collaborative or not and still testimonial in nature) is highly unreliable. It's here that we find the evidence wanting. We seek additional evidence to support not only my claim (which isn't evidence) but also collaborative testimonial evidence.

Remember, when I say that Bigfoot exists, that claim is not evidence, but anything I use and bring forward for the purpose of supporting that claim, then successful or not, and reliable as it might or might not be, it is still evidence.

And by the way, I paid your light bill. That's my claim. That claim is not evidence, and if you have doubt that my claim is true, I'd be happy to provide evidence. My girlfriend will confirm that she was with me when I paid it. Her claim is consistent with my claim and therefore worthy of being regarded as evidence. Yes, it's just as questionable as a bogus receipt my uncle made up that shows that it's your lightbill I paid, but both (one a claim and one a document) is in fact evidence, not because they're reliable in any way but because they support MY original claim that I paid your light bill.

Evidence need not hold up under scrutiny to in fact be evidence. Like information, much can be misleading or outright bogus. Even the original claim is information, but not even I regard the original claim as evidence. It's the other things I gather that I bring forward to support that original claim is what I regard as evidence, and I don't hold evidence in such high regard that it cannot be evidence when it fails in some way.

 

[DBT]

You can do the 'ole fixed thing' if you like. Even if it has superficial differences to the remark I responded to, I can't see any errors in what I said.

What you're doing is reminiscent of the no true Scotsman fallacy. In your view, every Scotsman is reliable, yet when a Scotsman of less than desirable reliability is pointed out, you deny that he's a Scotsman at all.

I don't think I am doing that. This is only about justification through evidence, evidence being a body of information that supports the claim being made, simply making the claim - testifying - is not evidence, it is merely a description, a claim. The person may be lying, mistaken, deluded, trying to evade, consequences, with the only way to determine the truth being corroboration, physical evidence, independent eyewitnesses, etc.

 

[fast]

You can do the 'ole fixed thing' if you like. Even if it has superficial differences to the remark I responded to, I can't see any errors in what I said.

What you're doing is reminiscent of the no true Scotsman fallacy. In your view, every Scotsman is reliable, yet when a Scotsman of less than desirable reliability is pointed out, you deny that he's a Scotsman at all.

I don't think I am doing that. This is only about justification through evidence, evidence being a body of information that supports the claim being made, simply making the claim - testifying - is not evidence, it is merely a description, a claim. The person may be lying, mistaken, deluded, trying to evade, consequences, with the only way to determine the truth being corroboration, physical evidence, independent eyewitnesses, etc.

No, that's what I'm saying. What you're saying isn't "the" but rather "any."

And correct, simply making THE claim - testifying - is not evidence, but there's absolutely no reason why making a claim cannot be used to support THE claim, and when it is, it's evidence (not for merely any claim) but for the claim in question. If a judge wants supporting evidence for that subordinate claim (what's been referred to as 'a' claim), then it becomes a completely new "the" claim which although remains as being EVIDENCE for the original 'the' claim, it's not evidence for itself, the new 'the' claim.

Oh, and even then, I'm giving-a-little. Why, because even testifying on one's own behalf does not make the claim itself non-evidence. There is a clear and sharp distinction between saying something and saying something to support. Merely saying something is never evidence, even (and this'll blow your mind) it so happens to support something. The word "to" to include motivation is important. If you purposefully intend TO support something (else) with a claim (as opposed to merely assert something with no intent to support something else), it's evidence.

Evidence in this manner is more than a claim but one with a very specific agenda. A tool with a special gadget attached. There's layers of complexity. It's not as simple as we might want it to be. If different people give a slightly different account of something that has happened on a bus, we will look for supporting evidence for the individual claims. Those claims (at this juncture) aren't evidence at all. They're merely claims that in no way resemble evidence.

If we're zoomed in on their individual claims, we oughtn't consider the claims as evidence for the claims being made. Why? Because those claims are not evidence for anything. It takes someone to come along and want to say something else (oh like), "the guy wearing the blue jacket punched the girl wearing pink." Those earlier claims can be used to demonstrate (or at the very least support) the new assertion or claim that "he hit her." If those previous claims are used for that purpose, then abracadabra, those claims are now also being used as and thus is ... evidence.

And even still the 'evidence' might very well be as weak as a two-year who hasn't had his wheeties. It's so important that we don't confuse the issues: issue A (whether a particular claim can itself be evidence in support of another claim) and issue B (how weak the evidence is, if it is evidence).

 

[DBT]

I don't think I am doing that. This is only about justification through evidence, evidence being a body of information that supports the claim being made, simply making the claim - testifying - is not evidence, it is merely a description, a claim. The person may be lying, mistaken, deluded, trying to evade, consequences, with the only way to determine the truth being corroboration, physical evidence, independent eyewitnesses, etc.

No, that's what I'm saying. What you're saying isn't "the" but rather "any."

I meant any given claim on its degree of importance. Any given claim that requires substantiation. There may be claims that nobody cares about....a drunk lad in a pub bragging about his numerous girlfriends, or the size of the fish he caught, it's not important, nobody cares.

But if a claim in the form of a testimony is to be taken seriously, should it not be substantiated? Are we to take claims of miracles at face value, because someone gave a description?

Is someone to be found guilty and sentenced purely on the strength of someones word?

Are we to believe in the existence of this or that god, Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, because believers are able give their testimonies?

And correct, simply making THE claim - testifying - is not evidence, but there's absolutely no reason why making a claim cannot be used to support THE claim, and when it is, it's evidence (not for merely any claim) but for the claim in question. If a judge wants supporting evidence for that subordinate claim (what's been referred to as 'a' claim), then it becomes a completely new "the" claim which although remains as being EVIDENCE for the original 'the' claim, it's not evidence for itself, the new 'the' claim.

Surely it depends on the nature of claim and it's likelihood based on the character of the person testifying? Which involves additional information about both the witness and the event being described.

 

[fast]

If you were to say that X is not good evidence to support Y, you are not saying that the evidence is not good to support Y. The former neither asserts nor denies that X is even evidence whereas the latter asserts that X is evidence while also denying that it's good.

But, from the rest of your comments, I am able discern that you deny X is evidence; however, your argument is lacking. I'm willing to entertain an analysis for the necessary and sufficient conditions.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Remember, when I say that Bigfoot exists, that claim is not evidence, but anything I use and bring forward for the purpose of supporting that claim, then successful or not, and reliable as it might or might not be, it is still evidence.

The only real disagreement we have anymore is whether additional testimony counts as supporting evidence. To me it does not. Look at the thousands of people who said the sun did all kinds of weird things at Fatima, thousands of corroborating testimonials. So did the sun do as claimed? Obviously it did not.

Velikovsky came up with some pretty clever scenarios to support his biblical interpretations. Who cares if he gains a following?

How true does it become that an angel named Moroni revealed golden tablets to Joseph Smith if millions profess their belief and testify to same? It does not change anything about the facts of the story but rather illuminates the human condition is all.

 

[fast]

The only real disagreement we have anymore is whether additional testimony counts as supporting evidence. To me it does not.

We can both agree that additional testimony that Bigfoot exists is not strong evidence that Bigfoot exists, but that is not the issue i'm arguing.

We both agree that is not good evidence. Where our views diverge is my proclamation that the evidence is not good--to which DBT disagrees.

 

[steve_bank]

I read about a clever cam.

A man put together a list of people unknown to each other who liked to gamble on horses. He approached each one saying he had a system for betting and guaranteed it works. He picked races for win, place, and show distubuting the horses among the group.

Adder the first round he reputed the exercise with those who ended up being given winning horses.

Alter a series of trials he started asking for money for the next race.

It worked.

I watched the guy with the Christian show who has the big globe on stage, don't ember his name. He would say things like 'Raise your hand and say you believe in Jesus and something good will happen to you'. His TV venue is large, looks like a coliseum. I expect out of all the people in the audience many will interpret some events in the coming days as unwexpected good coming from divine providence.

To those the unelected good becomes evidence god exists. It becomes spread by word of mouth, so and so asked god and was rewarded. The reinforcement of faith.

I knew an Evangelical who beloved in faith healing. I got invited to his group that met weekly at a private residence. Singing, reading and interpreting scripture, having visions. And laying of hands.

The guy traveled to a church in North Ca that is a center for faith healing. There are a set of faith healing stories that circulate in the faith healing community but no one ever saw one. All hearsay.

One person in te group said an ultrasound showed thin heart walls. They opened him up and it wasn't as bad as it seemed in the test. He attributed that to faith healing. Subjective interpretation seen as objective evidence.

 

[DBT]

If you were to say that X is not good evidence to support Y, you are not saying that the evidence is not good to support Y. The former neither asserts nor denies that X is even evidence whereas the latter asserts that X is evidence while also denying that it's good.

But, from the rest of your comments, I am able discern that you deny X is evidence; however, your argument is lacking. I'm willing to entertain an analysis for the necessary and sufficient conditions.

I am saying that, if required (not something frivolous and unimportant, size of the fish caught, nobody cares,etc), the available evidence should relate to the claim being made. That the body of information - evidence - used to support or establish the truth of a claim being made (testimony), must necessarily relate to the claim and be sufficient to determine whether the claim is true or false.

 

[fast]

If you were to say that X is not good evidence to support Y, you are not saying that the evidence is not good to support Y. The former neither asserts nor denies that X is even evidence whereas the latter asserts that X is evidence while also denying that it's good.

But, from the rest of your comments, I am able discern that you deny X is evidence; however, your argument is lacking. I'm willing to entertain an analysis for the necessary and sufficient conditions.

I am saying that, if required (not something frivolous and unimportant, size of the fish caught, nobody cares,etc), the available evidence should relate to the claim being made. That the body of information - evidence - used to support or establish the truth of a claim being made (testimony), must necessarily relate to the claim and be sufficient to determine whether the claim is true or false.

Do you think it's true, or do you think it's false that one can have evidence that supports something you once did even though it's something you never did?

Illustration: you're 15 and have never smoked. Those are the facts. Your friends do, but you don't. Just yesterday, you were standing outside with your friends (whom were smoking) and one of them needed to free her hands and asked you to momentarily hold her cigarette. So, there you are, standing there, holding a lit cigarette. Your neighbor takes a picture of you holding that cigarette. Nice picture too! Catches the smoke coming out the cig and all. Quite vivid pic actually.

Young people. Sometimes a smart bunch, but unwary of the ways of incredulous deceit. I knew digression was immenent, but back on track, that picture (ooh, that picture). There's something I need to tell you about that picture.

But first, your neighbor (a sweet yet sometimes ornary ole woman) told on you and those bunch of friends of yours. She said she caught you all smoking. Your mother was shocked and didn't think you smoked. Surprised by the news, she turns to you and inquires to see if what the neighbor has just claimed is true. Of course, it not being true, you deny the accusation. You admit that others were smoking but maintain that you never even once smoked. And, what you say is true; after all, you know the facts. But, you've lied in the past and so your integrity is in question.

Your neighbor (truly a sweet woman in heart of hearts) looks at you dead in the eye and says "but hun, I saw you. I was outside like I always am taking pictures of the humming birds. I even have a picture of you smoking. I think it's in here somewhere." <she flips through her digital camera and bright as day, there you are>

The picture shows the facts. You were there holding a lit cigarette. Your mom was furious! Not only did this woman out you for smoking but provided support for her accusation. That's how your mom saw it anyway.

Dad gets home (incredibly analytical fellow) whom he loves and cherishes you dearly asks you point blank, did you smoke a cigarette. You said "no" and he believes you. He takes one look at the picture, turns to your mom and says: THIS ISN'T EVIDENCE OF OUR CHILD SMOKING A CIGARETTE. IT'S EVIDENCE OF OUR CHILD HOLDING A CIGARETTE."

And I fast, am telling you that the dad is wrong!