The Tension of Faith

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.

When I said "written word" I meant in regards to the Bible and not written words in general. But I have a question for you---perhaps related to your personal beliefs. You stated this in 2001. Do you still believe that way, or has your belief evolved any?

Because no single data point is self-supporting.

A quick reading of the top of Message 676 reveals that you're wrong about evasion, wrong about changing the topic, wrong about everything pretty much. But you accuse me of saying lots of things I didn't say. It's your MO, as they say, that you find it much easier arguing against things that you make up yourself, because things you make up can be ridiculous and wrong in ways that what people really say often are not. When I trace back I find that you seem to have lost the flow of the discussion. I think you confuse yourself more than anyone else when you write things whose meaning isn't clear. Given how poorly you express yourself, no. So, in other words, you're not interested in finding common ground, you just want a pissing contest. I think you assuming the worst in people is more your problem. How long will you be prattling on about these invented offenses? Sounds good to me, but I've already been down that road with Faith more than once, as have many others, so I tried an alternative approach. You don't like this approach. Neither does Modulous. I'm not sure I do either, I'm sort of trying it on for size, and discussing it with others helps me do that, or would except you keep misstating what I'm saying. It's beginning to seem that casting accusations of evasion is just your way of avoiding having an actual discussion. There was no evasion. You are wrong again. The full quote runs like this: So you turn out to be wrong. Your question was not "whether a written document can be useful as evidence in some ways without." Your question was, "What makes you think that is necessary.'Your error rate is getting way up there, plus you're becoming increasingly accusatory and unpleasant. Well, I can tell it doesn't make sense to you. I think that if you take a break from being outraged and irrational that it will make it easier to find some common ground. When I started this discussion with Faith it was in the context of evidence of events that had taken place in the real world, specifically miracles, and the assertion that the Bible was it's own evidence of its truth and accuracy. I said that John's account of Jesus turning the water in to wine was not evidence of an event in the real world, that the written word could never be evidence of real world events, only descriptions of it. I tried to generalize this to rejecting the written word as evidence at all, instead giving it an alternative classification like information, and saying that just scribbling something on a piece of paper doesn't suddenly turn it in to evidence of events in the real world.But this view is receiving a great deal of push back from you and Modulous, so I'm trying to find some common ground. Maybe it would be better to say that there are some ways in which the written word is evidence. For example, the Gospel of John could be considered evidence of what an early Christian community believed, even if it isn't evidence that Jesus ever turned water into wine. Then maybe you should have explained what you meant at the outset. But that was the basis of my whole proposal, that we should only call things evidence when they're a result of events of the real world, when they're unadulterated by the human perception system. I was proposing different nomenclature. It's legitimate to disagree with the proposal, but your counterargument makes no sense because it confuses my proposed definition with the standard definition. Definitely not. Things are true because they're supported by evidence, not because of an absence of negative evidence. Okay, you were talking about the likelihood of something happening. And if they didn't actually happen then you're inventing explanations for fictional events, which is what I've been saying for a while now. What you're doing seems like building castles in the clouds. You're assigning probabilities you can't be sure of to explanations for events that you don't know what they are and may never have happened. I think you're making up your own questions as you go along. That doesn't change the fact that for all you know you're inventing explanations for events of an unknown nature that never happened. Yes, some people believe weird things for which there is no evidence. If they write descriptions of what they believe, those descriptions don't suddenly become evidence that their beliefs are true. Why is it more plausible that the miracles were actually just natural events misinterpreted as miracles, instead of that the miracles are just made up?--Percy

I said that in 2001? Wow! It reads like something I could have written yesterday.Obviously the answer is no, my beliefs have not changed one iota since 2001.--Percy

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Some idea there should have been independent testimony to these things? Why? I'd expect the Christian community to be very aware of all of it, but even so isn't there only the Book of Acts as written evidence among them? Histories weren't written all the time in those days the way they are now, it was a big project to write things down and then have them copied to be distributed, it would have been enough for the news to be passed word of mouth. In any case the Book of Acts itself is good evidence. It certainly has been for two thousand years for those who became Christians. Looks to me like God wasn't bending over backwards to convert skeptics, but made sure people who could recognize sufficient evidence got the message. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

A quick reading of the top of Message 676 reveals that you're wrong about evasion, wrong about changing the topic, wrong about everything pretty much.

---

I guess your inability to follow the context is acting up again.

quote:

---

But you accuse me of saying lots of things I didn't say. It's your MO, as they say, that you find it much easier arguing against things that you make up yourself, because things you make up can be ridiculous and wrong in ways that what people really say often are not.

---

Funny how you haven’t found a single genuine example then.

quote:

---

When I trace back I find that you seem to have lost the flow of the discussion. I think you confuse yourself more than anyone else when you write things whose meaning isn't clear.

---

Then why are you the one making all the mistakes ? (Here’s a hint it is because I DO look back at the previous messages)

quote:

---

Given how poorly you express yourself, no.

---

I thought it was pretty well known that ancient astronomical records were used in working out chronologies. And i5 obviously is an example of written documents being used as evidence.

quote:

---

So, in other words, you're not interested in finding common ground, you just want a pissing contest

---

Hardly. Objecting to your confused and often - to be generous - error-ridden arguments seems entirely reasonable.

quote:

---

I think you assuming the worst in people is more your problem. How long will you be prattling on about these invented offenses?

---

They certainly aren’t invented.

quote:

---

Sounds good to me, but I've already been down that road with Faith more than once, as have many others, so I tried an alternative approach. You don't like this approach. Neither does Modulous. I'm not sure I do either, I'm sort of trying it on for size, and discussing it with others helps me do that, or would except you keep misstating what I'm saying.

---

Since your view keeps shifting it seems misstatements are inevitable. Are written documents evidence but we mustn’t call it that ? Evidence for some things or not for others ? Not evidence at all ? Is it the case that the mere possibility of error is sufficient to disqualify a putative fact as evidence or is it not ?You’ve argued all of them.

quote:

---

So you turn out to be wrong. Your question was not "whether a written document can be useful as evidence in some ways without." Your question was, "What makes you think that is necessary.'

---

In fact I turn out to be right - if you read in context.The question - with the context filled in was why is it necessary to work which part of a largely false account is true?If the truth of the document doesn’t matter - for that use - then it is obviously not necessary. And that was the point. That is the reason why a largely false account may be useful evidence.

quote:

---

Your error rate is getting way up there, plus you're becoming increasingly accusatory and unpleasant.

---

Says the guy who has made numerous mistakes and many false accusations.

quote:

---

Well, I can tell it doesn't make sense to you. I think that if you take a break from being outraged and irrational that it will make it easier to find some common ground.

---

A funny way to reply to a perfectly rational point. Since this distinction is one you’ve invented and one that goes against normal usage (and where technical usage in philosophy tends to skew the other way) it seems to be just an idiosyncratic personal use that will inevitably cause misunderstandings without actually contributing anything useful

quote:

---

But this view is receiving a great deal of push back from you and Modulous, so I'm trying to find some common ground. Maybe it would be better to say that there are some ways in which the written word is evidence. For example, the Gospel of John could be considered evidence of what an early Christian community believed, even if it isn't evidence that Jesus ever turned water into wine.

---

And that doesn’t really solve the problem. It IS evidence of Jesus turning water into wine - it’s just hopelessly inadequate evidence that can be rightfully disregarded.

quote:

---

But that was the basis of my whole proposal, that we should only call things evidence when they're a result of events of the real world, when they're unadulterated by the human perception system. I was proposing different nomenclature. It's legitimate to disagree with the proposal, but your counterargument makes no sense because it confuses my proposed definition with the standard definition.

---

If you admit that all you are doing is creating a new definition - and you should have said that right up front - then the whole thing is pointless. It achieves nothing. Especially when it isn’t even clear what qualifies and why.

quote:

---

Definitely not. Things are true because they're supported by evidence, not because of an absence of negative evidence.

---

And yet another error. We weren’t talking about things bein* true, we were tslkin* about things being likely and - as I clarified in the next line I was talking about a priori likelihood (which would have been clear if you actually understood the - quite simple - argument in the first place)And it is quite obvious that you still don’t understand it since your criticisms all miss the mark.And still we have no reason why you insist that my explanations are not a priori likely events which adequately explain the account.

quote:

---

Why is it more plausible that the miracles were actually just natural events misinterpreted as miracles, instead of that the miracles are just made up?

---

It is certainly plausible because the supposed miracles can be adequately explained by natural events that were (mostly, anyway) likely to occur anyway. As I keep pointing out. If you want to argue for the plausibility of complete invention that is your job.

OK. Scientific evidence and historical evidence are not always the same. Historical evidence includes partial written documents, usually written by biased parties about political or social phenomena. As I said in Message 655, and reiterated in Message 690. Plato writing about his teacher Socrates supports the existence, teachings and biographical details of Socrates. My position is that written documents are evidence. It supports the claim. Not necessarily sufficiently, but it still supports the claim.When a jury is considering two conflicting witness statements, they weigh the credibility of each witness, and their story in deciding the facts of a case for a legal perspective. Regardless of the juries decision, both witness statements (say the victim's and the alleged perpetrator's) are evidence.When considering Socrates' biographical details we can look at the writings of Xenophon, Plato and Aristophanes.You may not think details of Jesus' biography are sufficient to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt the truth of those details - or even sufficient to accept their truth on a preponderance of the evidence. But it's still evidence.

quote:

---

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
-- wikipedia

---

You are welcome to use 'evidence' colloquially - to mean 'that which supports something above a certain threshold of confidence based on a certain epistemology' or something. But even weak sauce sources are evidence.If I said "There was a man called Heliophanes in 30AD who bought wine for a whole village" you might well ask 'Where's your evidence of this?'. I'd reply 'I have none'.However, if I said "There was a man called Jesus who was called Christ around the same time period as Heliophanes" and you said "Where's your evidence of this?" I could cite the Gospels, the Epistles and Josephus. You might say "That isn't sufficient" but you'd hopefully also agree I have more evidence for the Jesus claim than for the Heliophanes claim. When you say 'provides evidence for', I'm reading that as 'provides sufficient evidence to justify belief'. And you are right if so, in my opinion. The Bible does not provide sufficient evidence to justify belief in the fantastical claims. But it is evidence regarding those alleged fantastic events. I'd say it was close to zero. It doesn't make it 'not evidence', it makes it 'crap evidence'. If a suspect's best friend provides an alibi, we might argue this evidence is not very persuasive compared to say, being seen and recorded on live TV during the events. They are both still evidence.One gathers all the evidence, even that evidence which alone does not support the claim particularly well, and understand what the totality of the evidence is suggesting. It doesn't mean the weak, or even very weak, evidence is not evidence.

How easy it is to impute such stupidity to people two thousand years ago that they would mistake a natural occurrence for a miracle, on the one hand, or such lying deceit that they would make up a miracle that didn't exist -- to impress the reader or what?I'm so glad that normal intelligent people know that's ridiculous and simply believe there were miracles because it would have been normal intelligent people who saw them and reported them and wrote them down.Sheesh.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Again Faith, even if they did happen the author of John claims that they were only done to impress the audience.And even if they did happen how would those miracles be evidence of divinity rather than demonic?

SO remarkable that millions of normal intelligent people, and even some very very educated intelligent people as well, have regarded the Bible's evidence as sufficient to utterly commit their lives to Jesus Christ over the last two thousand years, and in so doing made the world a better place. Truly remarkable that silly people today judge their forbears so cynically and arrogantly.

Raising the dead and healing blindness are not within the powers of demons -- and you need to remember that imputing demonic powers to Jesus Christ is the unforgivable sin. And no, John did not say he gave the evidence to "impress" anyone, he gave it so that people would recognize that Jesus is the Son of God with the power and authority to give them eternal life.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think Tangle and I share a similar perspective on this. Calling religious works like the Gospel of John evidence of what an early Christian community believed seems fine, or calling it evidence that Jerusalem existed at the time seems fine, but calling it evidence that miracles are real or evidence that the events described actually happened does not seem fine. We can cast serious doubt on the veracity of religious works because we're familiar with the nature of religious claims, and we're familiar with human nature. Evidence is about support for what is true, and when John says that Jesus turned the water into wine we know that isn't true, and that therefore John could not be evidence that he did, however weak.Is John evidence that Jesus even asked the servants to fill the jars with water? That's unverifiable, and I don't think that should be considered evidence either. To me it feels like something else, a mere story that may or may not be true, we'll never know. The above paragraphs already covered this. I'm as unfamiliar with the Code of Hammurabi as the next guy (except I can spell it). Does it really contain "a variety of supernatural claims?" If so, I don't see why anyone would ever want to accept something known to be false as evidence, no matter how weak. Similar to science, our confidence in what we know of history depends upon how tightly interwoven is the supporting information. But concerning some of the miracles John isn't alone. Jesus walked on water in Matthew, Mark and John. If John is evidence of Jesus walking on water then so are Matthew and Mark. Isn't this, for you, evidential corroboration? If not why not? We probably answer this in different ways, but for me the answer is that just the fact that something is written down doesn't make it evidence. Sorry to repeat myself, but if the written word is evidence, and if other accounts of the same thing add corroboration, then it seems to me that you're forced to accept the obviously false. Clearly you're not going to accept the miracles corroborated by multiple accounts in the Bible as real, but then what is you're justification for rejecting their reality? I see problems with accepting anything written as evidence. Yes. I think I've described the Bible a number of times as a combination of the true, the false, the unverifiable, the internal and external contradictions, and the impossible. Conflicting evidence is one reason I took the avenue I did. The real world can not contradict itself. If you have real world evidence then it is genuine evidence. The gathering of that evidence might represent a considerable effort combined with evidence not readily available, such as verifying Einstein's general theory by observing the effects of the sun's gravity on starlight, or verifying the existence of the Higgs Boson statistically by observing particle interactions. But it *is* genuine evidence directly derived with the help of instrumentation from the real world. The written word does not often have that quality and in many circumstances seems inappropriate to consider as evidence. I'm using the religious definition of faith. I went through the same thing earlier with someone else. You're using the definition of faith that goes something like, "confidence or trust in a person or thing." When speaking about religion it's a different definition of faith that goes something like, "belief that is not based on proof." And in my previous post I gave a definition that went, "Faith is acceptance of what we cannot see but feel deep within our hearts." I didn't quote the next sentence from here, it was a bit too specific so I left it out, but here it is in case there's any doubt this is speaking from a religious perspective: "Faith is a belief that one-day we will stand before our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." Right, I already understand the point and Faith's position. I just don't agree with it. Someone writing that "a lot of other people saw it too" is horrible evidence, and in my view not even evidence at all. I don't believe a lot of people saw this impossible event, or that it even happened, so how could there be evidence of it, however weak? Looking back on what you said, I think I must have misinterpreted what you meant by "engineered". You must have been referring to the "engineering" of the journey itself, not the "engineering" of the story about the journey. I understand now.--Percy

quote:

---

How easy it is to impute such stupidity to people two thousand years ago that they would mistake a natural occurrence for a miracle, on the one hand, or such lying deceit that they would make up a miracle that didn't exist -- to impress the reader or what?

---

If you had bothered to find out what we were talking about (which, you know you could do by reading a couple of Bible verses) you would know that the only miracle is people thinking that they have seen Jesus. In some sense. There’s not even a claim that the sightings were miraculous in those verses.But I guess your normal intelligent people aren’t bright enough to manage that.

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.