Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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]
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.
Am I able to do this without knowing Jesus personally?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Could be, compelling can be something you like and serves a need.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?