How to prove Christianity for those who never heard of it?

[bhsmte]

It is hearsay because what I heard from the alleged witness is "information that I have heard but do not know to be true". There is nothing in that definition about hearing from someone who directly experienced something, or hearing from someone who heard from someone else.

What????????????

A primary source is a first hand account of giving their perception of an event, it is not hearsay and it isn't hearsay in a court of law.

Whether that primary source is accurate with their account or not, is irrelevant, to whether it is hearsay or not, which it isn't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Agree.

When a lot is at stake (legal proceedings, taking away one's freedom), it makes logical sense to have a very controlled environment.

When it comes to hearing personal testimony of people in regards to any topic, I tend to ramp up what I require to give credibility to their claim, depending on how extraordinary their claim is.

Of course, then there's the issue of whether or not what "you require" is really incisive, insightful, prudent, or even fair. Sometimes, the ol' atheistic standby that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" turns out to be the expression of an extraordinary level of cynicism and demandingness.

 

[ananda]

And if they personally knew someone who had gone to war, they would not only know about it through hearsay. Even the radio here is not necessarily hearsay if they're offering firsthand accounts.

What????????????

A primary source is a first hand account of giving their perception of an event, it is not hearsay and it isn't hearsay in a court of law.

Whether that primary source is accurate with their account or not, is irrelevant, to whether it is hearsay or not, which it isn't.

Let's just agree to disagree. I am using the conventional definition(s) as clearly defined in the Cambridge English Dictionary & in Random House's Dictionary, and you two are using a different, legal definition.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course, then there's the issue of whether or not what "you require" is really incisive, insightful, prudent, or even fair. Sometimes, the ol' atheistic standby that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" turns out to be the expression of an extraordinary level of cynicism and demandingness.

Or, it could be just needing a certain level of credible evidence to reconcile a claim as legit. Doesn't have to have a negative connotation to it.

I'm quite certain, you would require significant justification from someone of another religion, that claimed you were wrong to be a Christian.

 

[HitchSlap]

You start looking at things from as many educated angles as possible...which means learning and implementing Hermeneutics in your evaluation of what Christians say and do with their Bibles.

Am I able to do this without knowing Jesus personally?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is hearsay because what I heard from the alleged witness is "information that I have heard but do not know to be true". There is nothing in that definition about hearing from someone who directly experienced something vs. hearing from someone who heard from someone else.

Ananda, while I can understand your concern that the status of "hearsay" may defrock us of any seeming authority when any of us tries to share and impart our religious views, based as they are often on religions writings from the past, we may also want to keep in mind not only the legal meanings about "hearsay," but also bring in additional considerations about the status and nature of "Second-Hand Knowledge," such as is shared by scholars like Elizabeth Fricker and Jennifer Lackey.

References [

Fricker, E. (2006). Second‐Hand Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(3), 592-618. [nice, full article]

Lackey, J. (2008). Learning from words: Testimony as a source of knowledge. Oxford University Press on Demand. [article abstract]

 

[bhsmte]

Let's just agree to disagree. I am using the conventional definition(s) as clearly defined in the Cambridge English Dictionary & in Random House's Dictionary, and you two are using a different, legal definition.

Good idea.

 

[ananda]

Ananda, while I can understand your concern that the status of "hearsay" may defrock us of any seeming authority when any of us tries to share and impart our religious views, based as they are often on religions writings form the past, we may also want to keep in mind not only the legal meanings about "hearsay," but also bring in additional considerations about the status and nature of "Second-Hand Knowledge," such as is shared by scholars such as Elizabeth Fricker and Jennifer Lackey.

References [

Fricker, E. (2006). Second‐Hand Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(3), 592-618. [nice, full article]

Lackey, J. (2008). Learning from words: Testimony as a source of knowledge. Oxford University Press on Demand. [article abstract]

I understand, 2PhiloVoid ... I think the essential issue is that everyone requires a different level of evidence, and even then, the level of evidence required may vary depending on subject.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Or, it could be just needing a certain level of credible evidence to reconcile a claim as legit. Doesn't have to have a negative connotation to it.

I'm quite certain, you would require significant justification from someone of another religion, that claimed you were wrong to be a Christian.

Ah, ah, ah! You're Positivist slip is showing. Better get that all tucked in nice and neat before things get out of control, bhsmte.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Am I able to do this without knowing Jesus personally?

Yes, sir! You definitely can! No Christianity required.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, ah, ah! You're Positivist slip is showing. Better get that all tucked in nice and neat before things get out of control, bhsmte.

I love it, when you throw around terms, to avoid the discussion.

 

[HitchSlap]

I agree with you, the best way to understand another's point of view, is through relationships.

Maybe you’re looking for a more specific answer than I was thinking of - by common ground I mean the kind of things that naturally arise when you are talking with someone about belief - my brother in law for example is an agnostic, we sometimes talk about faith. A lot of his ideas are inherited from what I’d call ‘religious’ notions about Jesus, the sort of woolly notions people can get e.g from vague classes in school about religion. As I work with my brother in law in work that can be physically exhausting, the natural common ground is the everyday reality of life as Jesus lived it, e.g why did he live what was essentially a humble and in some respects humiliating life that was difficult and challenging in a lot of ways. That’s a way of separating the real Jesus from the religious Jesus based on a common experience, providing an opportunity for a rethink.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I love it, when you throw around terms, to avoid the discussion.

Is it that the terms are going around, or that really you're going around the terms ... ? Hmmmm?

 

[bhsmte]

Is it that the terms are going around, or that really you're going around the terms ... ? Hmmmm?

What terms am I going around?

Read my words and you can label them however you desire.

You didn't answer my question, as to what justification you would require, if someone of another religion told you Christianity was all wrong and you should switch to their religion?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What terms am I going around?

Read my words and you can label them however you desire.

You didn't answer my question, as to what justification you would require, if someone of another religion told you Christianity was all wrong and you should switch to their religion?

I don't really approach the whole social interaction of religious interlocution in this way. Sure, I could ask some tough questions. However, when it comes to religion, which is quite a different situation from an epistemic state, say, at the auto repair shop where I'll want to know if the mechanic actually did all of the repairs I asked for and for which I'll be paying, I'm going ask the other person why and how they arrived at their present form of belief. It may very well turn out that not only is their reasoning different than mine, but their whole notion as to just what justification is in the first place may be different than mine, along with the method to demonstrate it (if possible). They may also have different ideas as to what constitutes truth, evidence, proof, and/or the demonstration of these things.

Furthermore, if they want me to believe what they believe, I'm positive there will be other social and psychological issues involved in the interactions in addition to the problem of whether or not I think their position is valid, such as whether or not they have a sword to my throat or if they have me strapped down on a red gurney and plan to connect me to live voltage ... There's also the issue of whether they are motivated to listen to anything I might have to say.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't really approach the whole social interaction of religious interlocution in this way. Sure, I could ask some tough questions. However, when it comes to religion, which is quite a different situation from an epistemic state, say, at the auto repair shop where I'll want to know if the mechanic actually did all of the repairs I asked for and for which I'll be paying, I'm going ask the other person why and how they arrived at their present form of belief. It may very well turn out that not only is their reasoning different than mine, but their whole notion as to just what justification is in the first place may be different than mine, along with the method to demonstrate it (if possible). They may also have different ideas as to what constitutes truth, evidence, proof, and/or the demonstration of these things.

Furthermore, if they want me to believe what they believe, I'm positive there will be other social and psychological issues involved in the interactions in addition to the problem of whether or not I think their position is valid, such as whether or not they have a sword to my throat or if they have me strapped down on a red gurney and plan to connect me to live voltage ... There's also the issue of whether they are motivated to listen to anything I might have to say.

Well, you currently have a religious position, correct? If someone told you you were wrong and their religious positiin was the correct one, you would likely need compelling reasons to change your positionnand agree with them, correct?

A yes or no will do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, you currently have a religious position, correct? If someone told you you were wrong and their religious positiin was the correct one, you would likely need compelling reasons to change your positionnand agree with them, correct?

A yes or no will do.

Maybe; but what should a compelling reason actually be? One merely of my liking?

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe; but what should a compelling reason actually be? One merely of my liking?

Could be, compelling can be something you like and serves a need.

 

[HitchSlap]

Maybe; but what should a compelling reason actually be? One merely of my liking?

Well, to be fair, it does seem to be how people choose their particular flavor of religion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Could be, compelling can be something you like and serves a need.

I don't know that simply claiming that I need something or that it feels good to me is, or should be, a compelling reason to accept a religion. If you want to go that route, I could just say that I have a need not to have to be reincarnated and come back in this life as a gopher, over and over again until I "get it right."

The problem with this is that as long as everyone has their own "taste" in what are felt needs for certain criteria, then for the other person [the apologist] it's always going to be like trying to hit a target with a machete while blind-folded, or being a baker for someone who has Crohn's disease. It's just not going to work very well, and this is part of what I'm referring to in the previous posts in saying that there are more factors involved in what I personally consider for "believing" in Christ as a Risen Savior and Lord. There's also that messy epistmological stuff in the Bible that comes into play, too.

But, if one wants to take something like John Loftus' "Outsider Test for Faith," that can be done. However, even that test has its shortcomings and faults and doesn't guarantee that a person's religious beliefs will be more objectively derived and be based on "compelling reasons," even reasons that might gain the consideration of others.