Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 811 of 1540 (823974)
11-20-2017 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 807 by Phat
11-20-2017 1:04 PM


Re: Marketing A Divine Character
phat writes:
jar writes:
The author of John has been very honest in claiming that the agenda was to market Jesus as a divine character.
Interesting line of thought. Could you elaborate on it and give me a scripture or two to further your point?
In Message 797 Faith herself makes that connection so let me simply quote Faith and we can go from there.
Faith writes:
The argument about evidence goes back to my pointing out that the apostle John said at the end of his gospel that he had described many things Jesus had done so that people could believe in Him and have eternal life through Him. He described many miracles, suspensions of the natural law, as his evidence. This of course IS evidence. He witnessed miracles and reported on them.
The reason the author of John recorded the things as written was to market a belief of salvation through Jesus as opposed to the message Jesus taught. If you read the accounts of the miracles often Jesus does not take any credit for the miracles OR connect the miracles with everlasting life or salvation.
That is a product the disciples created and marketed not Jesus.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 807 by Phat, posted 11-20-2017 1:04 PM Phat has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 812 of 1540 (823975)
11-20-2017 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 794 by Percy
11-20-2017 10:58 AM


Re: the nature of evidence
And with all that doubt you still want to call it evidence?
Yes. Evidence is not 'that which removes all doubt universally and without any question'.
Then concerning rigor we may only differ on when it gets applied. You want to consider everything evidence and then apply rigor to discover the quality/credibility of the evidence, and even if it fails those tests you still want to consider it evidence, even though it is, in effect, evidence of nothing
Well kind of, except it isn't, in effect, evidence of nothing. It is evidence of something, it's just not sufficient to support that something enough to elicit my belief.
's a trivial sense in which it is true that "everything is evidence," for example anything is evidence of it's existence, but that's is definitely not what people normally have in mind when they use the word evidence.
But my position is not 'everything is evidence' unless you want to get to that trivial level. My point is that written testimony is historical evidence.
What you said that I was concluding a response to was, "Nevertheless I happen to think a testimony is evidence, as do most other people - professional historians included," so if you were actually "talking about reliability of the evidence" then that definitely didn't come across.
I've been talking about the reliability of evidence ad nauseam haven't I?
Lots of written works mention people and events of history (A Tale of Two Cities, Julius Caesar), that doesn't turn them into history books.
Testimony. I'm talking about testimony. People writing a history of events as an eyewitness, or reporting the words of people that claimed to be eyewitnesses etc.
Anyway, are we still talking about John or the Gospels? If so then you seem to saying that want to consider them history or geography or biography or whatever else they might contain trivial elements of.
The gospels are clearly biographies. There's no trivial element there. They are about the notable times of a guy called Jesus.
If you're talking about the entire Bible, especially the Old Testament, then there's a lot of history there with a fair amount of corroboration, and in some cases excellent corroboration. If you want to call some books of the Old Testament history then while I'd prefer calling them religious books that happen to include some history, it doesn't seem worth arguing over.
It's not that they are 'history'. It's that they are historical evidence. Specifically they are written sources.
Yeah, but this is reminiscent of the old joke about looking for the earring under the streetlight because that's where the light is, not because that's where the earring was lost. In other words, bad or false testimony can be worse than none at all.
Welcome to history. It's written, so they say, by the victors.
Would you really call the testimony of these bad cops evidence? Is it really information that supports or proves anything that really happened, which is what evidence is?
Yes, their testimony clearly was grounds for belief.
That there is other evidence that defeats this doesn't stop the original evidence being evidence.
One's conclusions should be based on the totality of evidence available. The evidence for, and the evidence against, a proposition.
So would I be correct in saying that in your mind there's evidence, bad evidence but evidence nonetheless, that a secret group controls the world, that Obama is a Muslim who is not a citizen of the US, that the Bush administration blew up the World Trade Center, that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't work alone, that aliens are being held in Area 51, and so forth? If so, that's very interesting.
Yes.
In my mind these conspiracy theories have no evidence, only unsubstantiated allegations.
I'd go over some of the evidence if you'd like, seems a little off topic to me, though. Some of it is covered in other threads.
I'm surprised to hear you say this. This isn't that different from the dictionary definition that you objected to earlier.
My objections to dictionary definitions is only in their vague generalness.
Hey, we agree! But you think it's evidence because "everything is evidence," while I think it's evidence because it's "that which tends to prove or disprove something."
Not because 'everything is evidence' but because I have a written witness testimony.
I've heard of Churchill and Montgomery, too.
Cool. Do you regard them as significantly unreliable witnesses?
But today, do you still consider Goering's self-serving lies evidence of anything?
And if not, as the veracity of Goering's statements was assessed, how does evidence become no longer evidence, and what is it that it becomes?
It's always evidence. Historians will presumably be looking at that evidence for decades, possibly centuries to come - trying to understand what that evidence means. Determining based on Goering's testimony, and others, what they believe the historical truth of the matter to be.
It is not sufficient. I even went on to say 'and the evidence of a shared source of the synoptics means using them to corroborate one another is questionable.'
That was from when I first broached the topic, asking you to consider the miracle in Matthew, Mark and John about Jesus walking on water. You demurred because John was so at odds with the other Gospels, so I asked you consider a miracle common to the Synoptics.
And as I said - we can't consider miracles common to the synoptics corroborative because of evidence of a shared source. It's not like John (whoever he really was) was likely to be ignorant of them so the synoptics and John can't be considered independent.
So we agree that miracles are made up?
I certainly believe so, yes.
If I'm interpreting you correctly and you do believe miracles are made up, how could there ever be any evidence of miracles, no matter how many independent or interdependent corroborations there are?
My beliefs aren't what define what evidence is. I might think a person found guilty of a crime is not guilty - but that isn't necessarily because I think there is no evidence for this, only that the evidence is not sufficient to conclude guilt - or that the evidence supporting innocence is stronger.
Someone writing about miracles isn't evidence of miracles, no matter how many other people write about the same miracles.
A witness testimony to an event is evidence, even if I think the event is unlikely to have actually happened.
That sounds fine, but how is a Gospel account of a miracle, something that is impossible and made up, evidence?
Because my opinion about the (im)possibility or made-upness of a thing is not relevant to whether something is evidence.
Sorry to put you through all this.
So everything is evidence always.
If something is evidence for a position, it doesn't stop being evidence for a position because contrary evidence exists.
I referenced the Stanford Philosophy encyclopedia with Tangle earlier using an uncontroversial topic. Let me summarize here:
"My name is Mod', says Mod.
This is evidence that I am Mod.
"That guy who calls himself Mod is a pathological liar. His real name is Tony", says Mod's wife.
This is evidence that I am not Mod.
"My wife and I have recently had an acrimonious break up and she is determined to discredit my reputation"
This is evidence that calls into question the pathological liar claim.
The existence of defeating evidence doesn't render the defeated evidence as 'not evidence'.
If my wife produced documents to support her case, and I produced documents to prove that my wife is in a position to forge documents, and my wife produced evidence to show this is untrue....it's all evidence. It will need to be weighed, analysed until an opinion about the truth of the matter is arrived at. That opinion may change if further analysis is made later, or if additional evidence comes to light.... but the evidence doesn't cease being evidence.
Anything that's been vetted as evidence, which involves context, and which means it provides support or invalidation or proof or disproof in that context.
But what does it mean to 'provide support'?
How do you reconcile "I don't think it [evidence] can apply to literally anything" with "anything that can be observed can be evidence for something"? They seem to be saying opposite things.
I'll quote you:
quote:
For example, John is not evidence of Boyle's Law... It is evidence for the existence of several people of that period.
John doesn't apply to Boyle's law, so it doesn't apply to literally anything. It is evidence for something (the existence of the existence of some people).
Right, mostly. But I would vet the item first before calling it evidence. For example, you can't take the evidence box for one trial, take it into a different trial, and call it evidence for that trial. It's out of context. For that trial it is not evidence.
Exactly. The propositions of trial A are supported by evidence A. The propositions of trial B are not necessarily supported by evidence A.
That's what I mean by
quote:
The interesting question isn't 'is this evidence'. But what propositions are supported by this evidence, and how much support does it give.
But the child's report wasn't evidence. It was a claim requiring vetting. Discovering actual water on the floor of the basement is evidence of a wet basement.
It was evidence, it required corroboration. The physical evidence of a wet basement would have corroborated it.
Let's say the probability of your basement being wet at any given moment is 0.0001%
You don't typically check constantly what the basement's status is because 'its probably dry' is good enough to not waste your time on such an endeavour.
When a child says 'the basement is wet' let's say the probability went to 20% (let's say 4 out 5 times its a perceptual error or a prank or something) It's may well be worth checking the basement out at this time.
The probability of the basement being wet when no child's report exists is 0.0001%
The probability of the basement being wet with the child's report is 20%
The child's report has increased the probability of the hypothesis 'the basement is wet'. Not to the level where you'd call a plumber, but certainly to the point you'd go and check it out. Thus, since evidence is some empirical data that increases the probability of a hypothesis, and you experienced the child's report (thus it is empirical), it is evidence.
You, yourself, sensing water in the basement (without the child's report) may increase your confidence of wet basement to 90% (low maybe, but an easy number to work with)
Combined with the child's report the chance that the basement is NOT wet is
0.8 * 0.1 = 0.08 = 8% - thus the two pieces of evidence in totality result in 92% confidence the basement is wet.
It's still evidence? Evidence of what?
A good question. But the point is that if it was evidence of X, there is no proving it is not evidence of X, there's just reducing the probabilities by introducing further evidence
You might argue that it never was evidence of X - and it was due to a misinterpretation that we thought it was (we thought it changed the probabilities but actually further analysis shows it doesn't - say we thought John was evidence for Boyle's law or something) but if it was evidence of X it remains evidence of X regardless of what defeating evidence comes about.
I'm using the religious definition of faith.... 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
Not really. You are using a definition of faith that means 'without evidence'. That is: 'blind faith'.
When she was talking to me (as opposed to berating me) in this thread she kept describing a process whereby faith developed from evidence, and from that faith developed a faith in things unseen.
So you have evidence (the Bible). If you decide it is credible, you can use that trust - that faith - to believe the things which you might have decided without that trust, shouldn't be believed.
Yes, this is what I understood Faith to be saying. It's an evangelical approach, not a historical one.
That's what we were discussing - the evangelical approach.
Well, let's not confuse things. The evangelical approach may be where we started, but it's not where most of the discussion has been spent.
This exchange was about the religious perspective, as you said in Message 718
I'm surprised to hear you say this. I thought this was something we agreed about, the horrible unreliability of eyewitness testimony.
Something can be evidence, even if it is unreliable. Reliability and evidence are not the same thing. That has been my point all this time - I hope you saying it is surprising was a rhetorical piece of hyperbole.
And there are many instances of eyewitness testimony in trial records where....
I had a friend go to prison for two years based only on a single eye witness, no corroboration of any kind (and even multiple pieces of evidence to show the eye witness was unreliable). I have no idea how it even got to court. I sat through through the trial - I'm painfully aware I assure you.
I gave you the dictionary definition of evidence: "that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof." I think that's the definition people generally have in mind when they use the word evidence. They definitely don't think "everything is evidence."
What people think proves something, or is grounds for belief will vary. People obviously think eyewitness testimony is grounds for belief. And what about the case where there are grounds for belief AND grounds for disbelief. Do the grounds for belief stop being grounds for belief or do they remain grounds for belief but not sufficient grounds given the existence of the grounds for disbelief?
In history, there are often seemingly contradictory pieces of information. Both sources are evidence for their position, and it may be that we can't say anything about the truth of the matter as a result. But they are both evidence for either position. They are not sufficient for consensus belief (some historians might say source A is more reliable because the author is respected and educated, others might say source B is more reliable because they were more closely tied to the events (a direct witness say)) - are the sources not evidence? Surely they will be presented 'as evidence' for position A or position B accordingly in a historical debate. I think the natural response then is that they are both evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 794 by Percy, posted 11-20-2017 10:58 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 830 by Percy, posted 11-21-2017 9:57 AM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 813 of 1540 (823976)
11-20-2017 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 798 by Phat
11-20-2017 12:25 PM


Re: Beware Censorship
There is never only one correct point of view
That's ridiculous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 798 by Phat, posted 11-20-2017 12:25 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 814 of 1540 (823977)
11-20-2017 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 802 by Tangle
11-20-2017 12:43 PM


Blithering nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 802 by Tangle, posted 11-20-2017 12:43 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 819 by Tangle, posted 11-20-2017 4:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 815 of 1540 (823978)
11-20-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 804 by Percy
11-20-2017 12:53 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Sheer craziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by Percy, posted 11-20-2017 12:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 831 by Percy, posted 11-21-2017 10:02 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 816 of 1540 (823980)
11-20-2017 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 806 by Phat
11-20-2017 12:58 PM


Re: Beware Censorship
You're the perfect moderator for EvC Phat, I give you that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 806 by Phat, posted 11-20-2017 12:58 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 817 of 1540 (823981)
11-20-2017 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 808 by Phat
11-20-2017 1:08 PM


Re: the nature of evidence
Careful about claiming integrity Phat, when you so easily give in to the idiotic lies of so many here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 808 by Phat, posted 11-20-2017 1:08 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 818 of 1540 (823982)
11-20-2017 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 809 by PaulK
11-20-2017 1:21 PM


The gospels, all of them, and in fact the whole bible, are clearly the work of honest people. This arrogant attempt to discredit these honest people is deplorable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 809 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2017 1:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 821 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2017 4:58 PM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 819 of 1540 (823983)
11-20-2017 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 814 by Faith
11-20-2017 4:33 PM


Faith writes:
Blithering nonsense.
I understand that you don't like the information, but either ignore it or provide a rational response.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by Faith, posted 11-20-2017 4:33 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 820 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-20-2017 4:55 PM Tangle has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 820 of 1540 (823984)
11-20-2017 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 819 by Tangle
11-20-2017 4:54 PM


Faith writes:
Blithering nonsense.
I understand that you don't like the information, but either ignore it or provide a rational response.
I read that as a description of their own post and not yours

This message is a reply to:
 Message 819 by Tangle, posted 11-20-2017 4:54 PM Tangle has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 821 of 1540 (823985)
11-20-2017 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 818 by Faith
11-20-2017 4:40 PM


I didn’t accuse the writer of John of any dishonesty beyond - likely - slanting his account. He probably made up many of the words attributed to Jesus, but equally likely (but wrongly) thought they were things Jesus would have said. But that was normal practice even for historians, and hardly surprising when memory was the only record - and that second-hand at best.
Although I do note that the Bible includes pseudonymous documents and outright propaganda (again normal for the period) and fictions.
Even if you choose to take some things I do say as small dishonesties you don’t even touch on other and more important points, making your reply my a diversion based on faux outrage than a genuine rebuttal or even an attempt at one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 818 by Faith, posted 11-20-2017 4:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 822 by Faith, posted 11-20-2017 11:04 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 822 of 1540 (823993)
11-20-2017 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 821 by PaulK
11-20-2017 4:58 PM


I didn’t accuse the writer of John of any dishonesty beyond - likely - slanting his account.
Sounds like an accusation of dishonesty to me.
He probably made up many of the words attributed to Jesus, but equally likely (but wrongly) thought they were things Jesus would have said.
Whatever words he imputed to Jesus were words acceptable by God Himself. If he wrongly thought they represented Jesus' thought, that sounds like dishonesty to me, or error, which of course cannot occur in God's word
.
But that was normal practice even for historians, and hardly surprising when memory was the only record - and that second-hand at best.
The Bible is God's own revelation to us, and not subject to the kinds of errors you are talking about. You are speculating anyway, this is all made-up junk to discredit the Bible. .
Although I do note that the Bible includes pseudonymous documents and outright propaganda (again normal for the period) and fictions.
Whqtever the Bible includes is the truth. Period.
Even if you choose to take some things I do say as small dishonesties you don’t even touch on other and more important points, making your reply my a diversion based on faux outrage than a genuine rebuttal or even an attempt at one.
Oh dear, sounds serious, but it's undecipherable anyway, and it can only be seriously wrong.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 821 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2017 4:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 823 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-21-2017 12:11 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 824 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2017 12:25 AM Faith has replied
 Message 832 by Percy, posted 11-21-2017 11:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 823 of 1540 (823996)
11-21-2017 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 822 by Faith
11-20-2017 11:04 PM


"Whqtever the Bible includes is the truth. Period." Which "Bible?"
Amazingly, Faith takes a European work (that existed not at all in the 1st century) and worships it.
"Gospel According to John" wasn't named until the post 170 A.D. time ( Muratorian Fragment and Irenaeus)
It wasn't quoted until circa 150 A.D. by the European Justin Martyr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 822 by Faith, posted 11-20-2017 11:04 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 848 by kbertsche, posted 11-22-2017 12:03 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 824 of 1540 (823998)
11-21-2017 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 822 by Faith
11-20-2017 11:04 PM


quote:
Sounds like an accusation of dishonesty to me.
Perhaps, but it’s a low level of dishonesty, common in anyone who seeks to persuade over simply relating the truth. I’ve seen far worse from Christian apologists - professionals and amateurs.
quote:
Whatever words he imputed to Jesus were words acceptable by God Himself. If he wrongly thought they represented Jesus' thought, that sounds like dishonesty to me, or error, which of course cannot occur in God's word
Error rather than dishonesty. And there certainly are many errors in the Bible. Are you being dishonest in making such an obviously false claim ?
quote:
The Bible is God's own revelation to us, and not subject to the kinds of errors you are talking about. You are speculating anyway, this is all made-up junk to discredit the Bible.
And more falsehoods. Really I must thank you for demonstrating the gross errors that can be produced by bias. Which is one of the reasons why the Gospels can’t be greatly trusted.
quote:
Whqtever the Bible includes is the truth. Period.
According to the false dogma of your cult. Which is hardly persuasive. Maybe you should repeat your claim that debate is futile because your opponents don’t uncritically believe your every word.
quote:
Oh dear, sounds serious, but it's undecipherable anyway, and it can only be seriously wrong
Let’s reword it then. You failed to address the major points in my post. Therefore they stand without any rebuttal. Fake outrage over a minor issue - which is all you offer - is just an attempt to hide that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 822 by Faith, posted 11-20-2017 11:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 825 by Faith, posted 11-21-2017 12:44 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 825 of 1540 (823999)
11-21-2017 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 824 by PaulK
11-21-2017 12:25 AM


The gospel of John seeks to persuade to the truth, for the sake of the immortal souls of human beings. The distinction you are making about persuasion versus truth is spurious. John simply and truthfully said he wrote much of his gospel so that people could be persuaded to the truth of the supernatural abilities of Christ. All anyone has done since I pointed that out is twist it into a lie. Such lies don't deserve respectful debate but simple condemnation.
You and others here impute my views to me as some odd idiosyncratic invention of my own, but every day i hear sermons that share my point of view, I own hundreds of books that share it, my entire Christian life has revolved around the traditional understanding of the Bible, traditional theology. My view of the Bible is as traditional and orthodox as you can get. There are over a million sermons on the site Sermon Audio by preachers who share the point of view I try to represent faithfully here. I believe I represent it honestly.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 824 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2017 12:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 826 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-21-2017 12:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 827 by PaulK, posted 11-21-2017 1:14 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 829 by Phat, posted 11-21-2017 7:53 AM Faith has replied
 Message 833 by Percy, posted 11-21-2017 11:22 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024