Is it wrong to demand evidence?

[TillICollapse]

Yes this is interesting TillICollapse and aslo problematic because I think many Christian witness accounts are dubious, and therefor detrimental to the Christian model. imo.

I can see where someone's dubiousness in the name of Christianity may reflect back on Christianity. But not everyone invested in what is true or not about reality has validating Christianity's image or systems as their main focus (in the name of "Christianity" that is).

 

[keith99]

OK ... how about "Is it reasonable for an individual to require personally verifiable evidence for a faith system before believing"

What is personally verifiable mean?

I cannot go back in time and see Christ Crucified, let alone verify a resurrection. If for some reason everything is shifted 2000 years and Christ were alive today and just a teenager I in 4015 still could not go back and I would know videos can be faked and it would be strange indeed If I were allowed to test some pieces of the True Cross for age. (Very strange as if others before me were given the chance it should have long ago been used up).

So does personally verifiable evidence mean God appearing specifically to me? I'd rather not as almost all who are said to be granted such a boon end up suffering a painful death.

Now if we are talking about claims made by some who claim to speak for the Christian God, yes I'd want to verify those. So far those making the most remarkable claims seem to produce the least evidence.

The problem is that some people are NOT making wild claims for their God. I'm not promised riches, safety or health. Nothing for today that is testable.

So is it reasonable to expect personally verifiable evidence for the creeds that do not make wild claims? I don't think so. But I do think expecting more evidence from sources outside the Church that support the historical claims before believing to be quite reasonable.

 

[agua]

I can see where someone's dubiousness in the name of Christianity may reflect back on Christianity. But not everyone invested in what is true or not about reality has validating Christianity's image or systems as their main focus (in the name of "Christianity" that is).

I don't get what you mean here can you rephrase please ?

Part of the duty of the Christian is to learn how to discern truth from lie ( this is partly a spirit gift ) etc. and it isn't wise to become involved in show and tell, which we see in modern "witness" accounts. There is a correct time to present personal witness/testimony, which combined with Jesus' method of distinguishing truth from lies/liars increases the veracity of the accounts. Solomon also spoke a bit about when to speak and when to remain silent.

ETA Ah TillICollapse maybe I just understood what you mean. are you saying that outside of the Christian model we can choose any way we like to reveal or discern truth ?

 

[keith99]

Do you have an example of that?

I'll give a pairing outside of Scripture and entirely fictional. Lets say thsi is 100 years ago.

If a man who owns a home bordering on a forest claims to have seen a unicorn in running with his horses I would expect no evidence. Oh a slim chance, but at best a somewhat different hoof print that could belong to a wild (and we assume striking) horse.

If a man from the village claims a herd of unicorns came through town, impaling many causing their deaths and that several virgins rode off on their backs I'd expect a lot of direct and indirect evidence. Blood on the ground, dead men and missing missing young girls, presumed to be virgins.

Going back to Scripture. I'd expect little chance of verifiable evidence that Mary was a Virgin. If she had been the daughter of a King I'd expect a lot of records and attestations to her being virgo intacta.

The other direction is the events recorded in The Gospel of John regarding MANY being raised from the dead and other striking events that one would think should be in many records and seem to not be.

 

[TillICollapse]

I don't get what you mean here can you rephrase please ?

Part of the duty of the Christian is to learn how to discern truth from lie ( this is partly a spirit gift ) etc. and it isn't wise to become involved in show and tell, which we see in modern "witness" accounts. There is a correct time to present personal witness/testimony, which combined with Jesus' method of distinguishing truth from lies/liars increases the veracity of the accounts. Solomon also spoke a bit about when to speak and when to remain silent.

ETA Ah TillICollapse maybe I just understood what you mean. are you saying that outside of the Christian model we can choose any way we like to reveal or discern truth ?

Basically what I was saying is that the truth of the subject matter is a separate issue from Christianity itself, and that some people may be more concerned with what that truth is as it stands on it's own, rather then focusing on validating Christianity's claim on it or not, or it's image concerning it.

For example: if I claim my neighbor is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and start to run a fan club concerning them, encourage the public to view them in a certain light as well as marketing them for public service, etc .... these are all separate issues from the realities of my neighbor themselves. Who they are or aren't, what they endorse or not, whether or not they even exist ... all separate issues. Just because I view them one way, or formulate some model in order to promote certain things about them ... doesn't mean any of it's true. Someone seeking to understand the truth is one thing ... someone seeking to verify MY claims about them is another. What I say may reflect poorly on my own reliability and credibility, but the truth of everything is still separate. If someone is deterred one way or another concerning my neighbors based solely on what my claims about them are ... that is a lack of critical thinking on their part.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes this is interesting TillICollapse and aslo problematic because I think many Christian witness accounts are dubious, and therefor detrimental to the Christian model.

A lot of pastors try to make every member an evangelist even when scripture plainly says otherwise.

In the New Testament model, an evangelist is called to that role and gifted specifically for it by the Holy Spirit, is thorougly trained in theology by the church, is commissioned to a specific mission by the church, and is then held accountable to the church for his missionary activity.

Everyone is not an evangelist, but everyone is called to be a witness to what he or she has personally experienced.

Then they [the Sanhedrin] called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” -- Acts 4

Peter and John challenged the Sanhedrin to make their own judgment over whether Peter and John should testify to what they had seen and heard. The Sanhedrin were the judges of Israel, and the basis of their judgments was the Mosaic Law. In Leviticus 5, the Mosaic law declares that failure to testify to what one has seen and heard is a sin.

Testifying to what you have experienced requires no training in theology--the Samaritan woman wasn't even sure Jesus was the Messiah, yet she was a hugely effective witness. The blind man healed by Jesus was another example:

So they again called the man who was blind, and said to him, “Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner.”

He answered and said, “Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see.”

Then they said to him again, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?”

He answered them, “I told you already, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?” -- Mark 8

Notice again that the witness doesn't know theology--he does not know what Jesus is about. But he has his testimony. Not everyone is going to accept the testimony of the witness. Oh, well. But his testimony is still his testimony.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes good stuff thank you RDKirk. So a person is evangelised usually by accounts from someone else, and then develops personal faith ( I call this exerential faith ) over time imo. To me this is a solid way to progress and leads to strong faith, because it requires interest/searching/effort.

I'm making the distinction that the Samaritan woman did not evangelize, she witnessed. She did not preach the gospel message, she barely even knew who Jesus was. She "merely" recounted her personal experience with Jesus.

But the personal witness of one's experience with Jesus is powerful.

 

[RDKirk]

Going back to Scripture. I'd expect little chance of verifiable evidence that Mary was a Virgin. If she had been the daughter of a King I'd expect a lot of records and attestations to her being virgo intacta.

The other direction is the events recorded in The Gospel of John regarding MANY being raised from the dead and other striking events that one would think should be in many records and seem to not be.

The problem with that conjecture is that in reality there is so little record of anything in ancient Judea, even the events of kings that one would expect to have been studiously recorded daily. So lack of record--especially of events that were far from the desire of the royal scribes to record--is not evidence that an event didn't occur.

 

[TillICollapse]

A lot of pastors try to make every member an evangelist even when scripture plainly says otherwise.

In the New Testament model, an evangelist is called to that role and gifted specifically for it by the Holy Spirit, is thorougly trained in theology by the church, is commissioned to a specific mission by the church, and is then held accountable to the church for his missionary activity.

Everyone is not an evangelist, but everyone is called to be a witness to what he or she has personally experienced.

Then they [the Sanhedrin] called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” -- Acts 4

Peter and John challenged the Sanhedrin to make their own judgment over whether Peter and John should testify to what they had seen and heard. The Sanhedrin were the judges of Israel, and the basis of their judgments was the Mosaic Law. In Leviticus 5, the Mosaic law declares that failure to testify to what one has seen and heard is a sin.

Testifying to what you have experienced requires no training in theology--the Samaritan woman wasn't even sure Jesus was the Messiah, yet she was a hugely effective witness. The blind man healed by Jesus was another example:

So they again called the man who was blind, and said to him, “Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner.”

He answered and said, “Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see.”

Then they said to him again, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?”

He answered them, “I told you already, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?” -- Mark 8

Notice again that the witness doesn't know theology--he does not know what Jesus is about. But he has his testimony. Not everyone is going to accept the testimony of the witness. Oh, well. But his testimony is still his testimony.

I was actually going to bring up that very scripture as a reference to an example of someone who is merely stating the facts about what they saw and didn't see, leaving others to draw their own conclusions, without any investment in pushing an agenda. "This is what happened, this is what I think about it, this is what I know and don't know," etc. Since aqua applauded your post and it's ramifications (which references scripture) but saw the issues mine raised as problematic, I chose to leave the scripture reference out of my own further posts.

 

[variant]

Nobody applies the rule of the burden of proof being on the person making the claim to the the burden of proof. What's the justification for this?

Because shifting the burden of proof and requiring people to disprove what you say is an argument from ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Did you really think there isn't a justification for the philosophic burden of proof?

 

[Received]

Because shifting the burden of proof and requiring people to disprove what you say is an argument from ignorance.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you really think there isn't a justification for the philosophic burden of proof?

No. I'm just saying "nobody" (i.e., the vast majority of people) seems to use such reasoning. They accept the burden of proof on authority, i.e., irrationally, in the attempt to bring the other person to a reasonable standard.

 

[agua]

I'm making the distinction that the Samaritan woman did not evangelize, she witnessed. She did not preach the gospel message, she barely even knew who Jesus was. She "merely" recounted her personal experience with Jesus.

But the personal witness of one's experience with Jesus is powerful.

Yes ideed this is good, and I agree.

 

[agua]

Basically what I was saying is that the truth of the subject matter is a separate issue from Christianity itself, and that some people may be more concerned with what that truth is as it stands on it's own, rather then focusing on validating Christianity's claim on it or not, or it's image concerning it.

For example: if I claim my neighbor is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and start to run a fan club concerning them, encourage the public to view them in a certain light as well as marketing them for public service, etc .... these are all separate issues from the realities of my neighbor themselves. Who they are or aren't, what they endorse or not, whether or not they even exist ... all separate issues. Just because I view them one way, or formulate some model in order to promote certain things about them ... doesn't mean any of it's true. Someone seeking to understand the truth is one thing ... someone seeking to verify MY claims about them is another. What I say may reflect poorly on my own reliability and credibility, but the truth of everything is still separate. If someone is deterred one way or another concerning my neighbors based solely on what my claims about them are ... that is a lack of critical thinking on their part.

Yes of course. If we aren't presenting a Christian based methodology then we must use other means to determine veracity of evidence/truth. eg. If a person says they have an experience that's from Yahweh, we only have one option of accurate( verifiable ) interrogation, and that's using Yahweh's attributes and instructions as base line.

ETA ( verifiable )

 

[agua]

Since aqua applauded your post and it's ramifications (which references scripture) but saw the issues mine raised as problematic, I chose to leave the scripture reference out of my own further posts.

I'm curious TillICollapse. Do you accept the Samaritan Woman's account as veracious, and if so why ?

 

[variant]

No. I'm just saying "nobody" (i.e., the vast majority of people) seems to use such reasoning. They accept the burden of proof on authority, i.e., irrationally, in the attempt to bring the other person to a reasonable standard.

The burden of proof isn't unreasonable or irrational though, and I consider your proposition that people don't know why it works this way to be unsupported.

 

[Received]

The burden of proof isn't unreasonable or irrational though, and I consider your proposition that people don't know why it works this way to be unsupported.

It doesn't matter if it's reasonable; it matters if a person throws it down without justification, which is a fallacy. This is no different than if a person were to say, "no, the New York Times says it isn't true," even if the NYT is correct. This would be appealing to authority, analogous to how people generally "appeal to the burden" without justification.

How many people do you know on this forum who have appealed to the burden of proof with justification for why the burden of proof is logical?

 

[variant]

It doesn't matter if it's reasonable; it matters if a person throws it down without justification, which is a fallacy. This is no different than if a person were to say, "no, the New York Times says it isn't true," even if the NYT is correct. This would be appealing to authority, analogous to how people generally "appeal to the burden" without justification.

How many people do you know on this forum who have appealed to the burden of proof with justification for why the burden of proof is logical?

The reasoning behind the burden of proof is evident enough that I think most people grasp it.

Specifically I often see when people question the burden a direct and frank explanation of why it is reasonable, not an appeal to authority.

Can it be done as an appeal to authority? Yes, but it is also an appeal to a proper authority.

 

[agua]

It doesn't matter if it's reasonable; it matters if a person throws it down without justification, which is a fallacy. This is no different than if a person were to say, "no, the New York Times says it isn't true," even if the NYT is correct. This would be appealing to authority, analogous to how people generally "appeal to the burden" without justification.

How many people do you know on this forum who have appealed to the burden of proof with justification for why the burden of proof is logical?

How will you determine if an individual's burden upon evidence is reasonable ie. by your terms justified ?

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm curious TillICollapse. Do you accept the Samaritan Woman's account as veracious, and if so why ?

If you're asking me if it actually historically occurred ? Idk. I'm not all or nothing when it comes to the scriptures, and I don't tend to dwell on validating the historicity of one book or scripture over another in general, though I will at times.

Yes of course. If we aren't presenting a Christian based methodology then we must use other means to determine veracity of evidence/truth. eg. If a person says they have an experience that's from Yahweh, we only have one option of accurate( verifiable ) interrogation, and that's using Yahweh's attributes and instructions as base line.

ETA ( verifiable )

This doesn't match with my own example of the neighbors.

If a being showed up and said, "I'm Yahweh. Nothing said about me in those books and accounts is accurate," this being could still be Yahweh, and it's the accounts that got everything wrong. The truth about Yahweh is one thing, what the accounts say or don't say is another. They could match, they could be off, they could match in parts but be off in others, etc.

 

[Aldebaran]

If someone wishes for another to believe that his/her religion/faith is based on objective evidence, then yes. But, faith is not based on that...otherwise, it wouldn't be called 'faith.' I can't prove that a God exists, and I no longer try to prove that. I was an atheist, so I know that there will never be enough 'proof' to cause an atheist to change his/her stance. Again, if that were the case, then it wouldn't be called faith. I have 'faith' or hope that there exists One, True God.

I think that's about all anyone can ask for.