The Tension of Faith

Well yes, obviously the bible contains stories about a real time and a place. No one doubts that, say, Jerusalem existed. Having it mentioned in the stories isn't remarkable and adds nothing.Philip Pullman writes his fantasy stories based around Oxford. Oxford exists roughly as he speaks of it but the fantastical stories he creates there do not. Jesus may well have gone to Jerusalem, no one would care, but as soon as he does it in triumph - the people laid down their cloaks and branches in front of his donkey singing to him and all the city was moved - this is a claim of a prophecy being fulfilled and a great leader returning. For this we real evidence, not a story in a book.In 2,000 years time scholars will read Pullman's book and note that it mentions the Bodleian library, is that evidence that Oxford existed? I suppose it is, but it's trivial evidence and it wholly unnecessary as there are mountains of other sources that can corroborate it beyond all doubt. But the remarkable claim that people there had daemons needs more than his story to support it. In of itself, is it evidence of the existence of daemons in Oxford? I didn't dismiss it, foolishly or otherwise. I accepted your point that the flood story may refer to an actual flood. But like a mention of Jerusalem or Oxford, so what?The point of the flood story in the bible is not that there were floods - that's utterly unremarkable - but that there was a global flood caused by a god that killed all life on earth, save that in Noah's boat. This is a critical part of a religious belief for which there needs to be real evidence, the story of it is not evidence.The point I'm making is that sure, the bible contains stuff that is historical, but that's of no consequence because the evidence we need is that which supports the major claims - that god was at work there causing genocide, raising the dead and turning water into wine and so on. But all we have are unsupported stories.What is it that distinguishes the Bible stories from Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' stories such that we can call one evidential and the other not?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

It's none of the above, or all of them. What we name the discipline is irrelevant, what matters are the facts and whether they're supported by anything credible. The discussion about whether something is evidence or not is spurious, we could claim almost anything to be evidence of something. The issue is whether the stories about specific key events amount to anything more than just stories about them?To evaluate that we would normally apply evidential standards that we trust and the fact that we can't apply those standards tells us that the claims can not be supported. Finding something written down is evidence that someone wrote something down. If that's your point, well ok, I agree. But it's a trivial declaration; at most it's a start of a process to look for real evidence.

Um, yes. That's part of my point. I'm not concerned with what you call the evidence - scientific, forensic, witness, historic, archeological, scientific, whatever. The only issue is its quality and credibility and whether it's supported by any other objective source. A story in a book is not that. And as I said, it's evidence that someone - we don't know who - wrote a story. That is not evidence as we normally understand it. We normally require evidence to support a substantive claim. What we have in the bible is a series of allegations requiring evidence.

No, sadly we don't. As I've said, I don't care what discipline is invoked, I only care about the quality of what is being called evidence. I think that the quality of evidence matters to the extent that something stops being evidence if it doesn't add support to or rebutts a claim.Your position is that almost anything can be considered evidence - that's not something worth arguing about; of course it can if semantics matter to you.The bible is evidence that someone wrote something at a particular time and place but it is not evidence that what was written is true. When we talk about the bible here we are normally arguing about the fantastical claims made within it, not whether it provides evidence for, say, the existence of Nazareth or not. It's evidential worth in the first case is zero, but for the second it has some value.If you wish to make the point that evidence need not be true again, fine, I fully understand your argument, I just think it spurious.

I've just plucked two quotes out of your post as they seem get to the point. And so is mine.Of course some written documents are evidence, a policeman's note book can be read in court, a handwritten contract is still a contract, a bill of sale is evidence someone sold a pig, the Dead Sea Scrolls are evidence of time date and place and so on. The issue is evidence of what? Are Philip Pullman's written documents evidence of Oxford, or daemons, both or neither? I say they're evidence that he wrote a book and not much else. When a jury hears evidence - written or oral - the quality of the evidence has already been assessed, 'evidence', that is known to be unreliable - such as hearsay, or that the defendant has a known but old or unrelated criminal past - is disallowed ie it's not evidence, it's something else - quite what I don't have a name for, 'random stuff people say or write' covers it. The jury can not hear it.This is my point, quality matters. There is a point when the stuff you call evidence, or historians call evidence, is just Philip Pullman writing about daemons. Fantasy is not evidence.

My entire point is that that statement is erroneous. It is, at best, an allegation. Evidence is what supports or denies the claim.Otherwise Philip Pullman writing that people have personal daemons is evidence of personal daemons. It is not. It is not assessed by the jury, it is dismissed by the court as inadmissable (because it is not safe, ie not evidence.) Well it was your analogy and I'm pointing out why some form of 'evidence' should not have the accreditation that the word holds. Worthless is the word that springs to mind. Right so we DO have methods of working out what is real evidence and what is not. Good.

We agree then, Pullman's written words only become evidence if he personally testifies to them and there are other witness reports. His written words alone are not evidence of daemons.I rest my case.

Ok, so now we have written words combined with personal testimony make it evidence so we still agree it takes more than something being written down to make it evidence. Good.But surely you are beginning to see how bizarre and essentially useless this insistence that evidence can be anything at all is? You've reduced it to an undifferentiated pile of words.Do you really think that if Pullman tells us that all people have personal daemons and then writes it down it becomes evidence that people have personal daemons? I hate argument by dictionary but it does seem to be an indefensible position

quote:

---

1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

---

In short, to be worthy of the epithet 'evidence' the words need to be properly capable of supporting or denying a claim or allegation. Merely saying or writing something is not evidence of anything other than something has been said or written.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Yes, I read yours, for the first thousand words at least :-) Yup, we're saying the same thing, but you have more patience......

Right, so only written testimony is evidence. Good, we agree that it takes more than something being written down to make it evidence. I think they're doing just fine, they all - including yours - say the same thing; that evidence is something that supports a position. None of them tell us that it's pretty much anything written down or said. And as for tesimony.....

quote:

---

a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
b :firsthand authentication of a fact :evidence

---

Yes, we create evidential standards. In law the facts can not be entered if they don't meet that standard, even weak evidence such as the personal testimony you mention is reinforced by requiring the witness to swear under oath that it is true with severe penalties for lying. In science, evidence has to reach a standard before it is publishable and so on.In real life we understand that not all statements are equal and some are so obviously not evidence of anything, those we dismiss immediately, like the idea that because Pullman wrote about daemons that it become evidence of daemons. As you've demonstrated several time by having to qualify my simple statement that writing something down doesn't make it evidence with additions to strengthen the claim - such as if it becomes testimony or if it's a written statement of an eye witness account of seeing a daemon etc.

It's only evidence because we know that Babylon is a real place and we know the history of the area and we can carbon date the tablet and so on. We have multiple sources and levels of corroborating evidence into which this clay tablet information comfortably fits. That's all fine and dandy.Now if Ea-Nasir instead of writing about a perfectly normal event, he'd written that he routinely walks around with a personal daemon, is that evidence of daemons?

Well no, Ea-Nazir might simply be writing a story. A fantasy. Or he might be a charlaton that found he could gain political power or money by claining he had a daemon to protect him. But the question I asked was not whether it was evidence of someone writing something - but whether it was evidence of the daemons he was writing about. Well there you go.Writing something down - like Pullman's daemon - does not provide evidence of the daemon. Now apply that to our orignal argument about biblical events. In the marriage feast at Cana - or any of the miracles in the bible - does the fact that an unknown author wrote a story about water being changed into wine provide evidence that water was changed into wine?Of course it doesn't, at best, all it does is make a claim which evidence has to be provided to support it if we are to take it in anyway seriously.

Right.......got it

Oh, good grief. I thought we'd finally killed that one, but no, it bounces right back like the last hundred posts never happened.The fact that something is written down does not mean that that something actually happened nor does it provide evidence that it happened. All it means is that someone wrote a story. The evidence supporting the something written down is external to the claim. It supports the claim, it doesn't create its own evidence otherwise a claim would be - god forgive me - self evident.AaarrrrrrrghhEdited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Is that supposed to make some kind of difference?If I wroteI have a colony of minature orange ostriches living in a matchbox under my stairsIs the claim helped or hindered by the addition of me saying that god instructed me to keep them there?And in any case it's hearsay - totally inadmissable as evidence even if it was a real, tangible human source that was the source of the inspiration.