Prominent Scientists and their religiosity

[Interbane]

If Dr. Robert Smith, Professor Erin Flieslots and yourself give up your jobs and highly promising art careers to stand behind your 300 page document, it would add weight to your contention.

If your contention does not lead to material gain, but rather ostracism, persecution and no stars in kindergarten, that too would weigh.

If hundreds of people who are not in your employ also stand behind your testimony, that too would add to the weight of your evidence.

If you and those others who witnessed it accepted death and torture for no apparent gain, merely to stand behind the truth of what you saw, that too would add to the strength of your witness.

Each of those items are only items showing personal conviction. If you think they support Johnson's claim, they don't. They are all non-sequitur(fallacious) support of his claim. If they are not in themselves items of evidence, but instead weight, I'd ask how much they each weigh? How much do the beliefs of others influence your beliefs? Each of the items you mentioned were secondary, with none of them tied to the actual claim directly. They are all reactions to the claim. What we need before these things add weight to anything, is the actual evidence. Fire up that ion drive!

Have I demonstrated low levels of proof? Are you accusing me of having no understanding of proof vs evidence?

You're quite bright, and you have plenty of understanding. But I think you're with the majority of humanity in your misunderstanding of how difficult it is to justify support for a belief or claim.

Most people rely on fallacious reasoning because they have no idea it's fallacious. It seems reasonable that since a million people believe something, that should lend support to that belief, right? But you truly need to dig deeper. It doesn't support the belief. It is secondary to the belief, unless the belief is about the million people.

It defies modern standards of evidence (in a technological CNN world).

Are you wanting to use the ancient standards of evidence?

[johnson1010]

First, i've enjoyed reading your posts, Doulos.
Glad to have you on board.

Doulos:
It defies modern standards of evidence

Not quite. It doesn’t beat modern standards, or sidestep modern standards, or ascend above modern standards, or defy them like a righteous peasant before a tyrant king. It fails to meet modern standards.

What you're talking about is whether the evidence is accepted, which is a different question.

This is the thing. What you posted, and what I posted are not evidence, but the claims for which we need evidence.
The bible claims a man died and was resurrected. There needs to be evidence for this. If it says this on page 3, then on page 6 it says, “Yeah, what happened on page 3 is totally true.” That is not corroborating evidence.

If Dr. Robert Smith, Professor Erin Flieslots and yourself give up your jobs and highly promising art careers to stand behind your 300 page document, it would add weight to your contention.

If your contention does not lead to material gain, but rather ostracism, persecution and no stars in kindergarten, that too would weigh.

This would only speak to our conviction, or alternatively how far we are willing to go to perpetuate a hoax. In the case of religion, I have no doubt at all that people sincerely believe the things they say about Jesus and the afterlife. But really, really, REALLY believing a thing is not the same as that belief being true. And that wouldn’t change if you lost your job, moved to the return address listed for anti-ion-thrust industries, divorced your wife for not trusting in the document, or started murdering hobos so you could make a launch pad out of their tanned and stretched hides.

All of that is evidence that you BELIEVE what you say you believe. Not that what you believe is TRUE.

If hundreds of people who are not in your employ also stand behind your testimony, that too would add to the weight of your evidence.

If you and those others who witnessed it accepted death and torture for no apparent gain, merely to stand behind the truth of what you saw, that too would add to the strength of your witness.

People are convinced of things all the time without evidence. A persuasive argument is not evidence. Indoctrination is not evidence. An a-priori bias is not evidence. The people who might join on and donate money to the anti-ion thrust project will have done so on the basis of the 300 page document comprised of nothing but unfamiliar, vaguely-credible sounding jargon, and page after page of unsubstantiated assertions.

They might in turn write their own documents extolling the virtues of the anti-ion thrust drive without my supervision. They might envision new arrangements of hardware, or even more efficient versions of the device. They might say that they have “proven conclusively” that the system is better than the internal combustion engine. They might start to teach classes on my invention, all on the basis of this one document.

All that additional content, not generated by me or my employees, is still nothing but unfounded assertion. It would not matter if the whole planet believed or was convinced by this persuasive argument, it still does not equate to evidence.

Part of the extraordinaryness of the evidence lies in the reliability of the people who espouse it. We live in a world where few people demonstrate real strength of chracter, and I include many of our popular religious leaders in this failure. Strength of conviction does not equal truth, but especially when it stands firm till the end, it does deserve a careful look.

This again only speaks to the PRESENCE of the belief. Not the VERACITY of the belief. Having an outstanding brand of loyalty to your friends, caring for animals, looking after the weak, sick, old and young, none of this automatically equips a person with a great bull-shit detector. They are different skills, and good people can be as wrong in their tightly held beliefs as bad people.

Interbane:
In my experience, people who support the bible want extremely low standards of support for their belief to be accepted.

Doulos:
I am within your experience Interbane.

Have I demonstrated low levels of proof?

This is exactly what we are discussing. You are asserting that the claims are evidence of the things which they are claiming. This is a very substantial misunderstanding of evidence.

You're confusing the concept of proof and evidence with whether that proof and evidence has universal application. You're essentially saying that IF it is sufficient proof and evidence for you, it must also be sufficient proof and evidence for me.

Which is why the best evidence is that which cannot be spun. Which is why evidence should be factual, verifiable, and can be discovered independent of someone’s a-priori biases. Which means that whether you want to believe in it or not, if you look where others have indicated there will be evidence, there it will be!

Facts are just data, until they can collectively indicate one hypothesis over another at which point they can become evidence. This is the evidence you need to convince someone of an incredible claim. Evidence is evidence regardless of someone’s acceptance of it. Evidence is a thing which exists independent of our discovery.

Proof is appropriate for mathematics and in the court of law, but a scientist will not use the word proven when speaking accurately, and in that vein, I also am not thinking of proof in these discussions, but evidence which indicates one thing over another.

You are pointing at evidence OF the belief and calling it evidence FOR the belief, which it simply is not.

Interbane:
Fire up that ion drive!

AHEM….. ANTI-ion drive.

Interbane:
You're quite bright, and you have plenty of understanding. But I think you're with the majority of humanity in your misunderstanding of how difficult it is to justify support for a belief or claim.

Most people rely on fallacious reasoning because they have no idea it's fallacious. It seems reasonable that since a million people believe something, that should lend support to that belief, right? But you truly need to dig deeper. It doesn't support the belief. It is secondary to the belief, unless the belief is about the million people.

I agree with interbane on this 100%.

I also agree that you seem to be a very intelligent person. But like being a good person (which I’m sure you are that as well) being intelligent is likewise no foil against an uncontested bias.

You have demonstrated a misunderstanding of what your evidence indicates. You have presented evidence OF belief and called it evidence FOR belief. You need to get that straightened out to see this clearly.

[Doulos]

Each of those items are only items showing personal conviction. If you think they support Johnson's claim, they don't. They are all non-sequitur(fallacious) support of his claim. If they are not in themselves items of evidence, but instead weight, I'd ask how much they each weigh? How much do the beliefs of others influence your beliefs? Each of the items you mentioned were secondary, with none of them tied to the actual claim directly. They are all reactions to the claim. What we need before these things add weight to anything, is the actual evidence. Fire up that ion drive!

The strong convictions of direct witnesses and experts as to the truthfulness of events do constitute evidence. This is true in a court of law, and in any situation where we are talking about assessing the veracity of an event. We're talking about events here, not an experiment in a lab that can be verified.

So for events 2000 years ago, what exactly would you consider the 'actual evidence?' I'm afraid the very problem is that you're looking for something that cannot exist. Kinda like an Ion Drive in 30 AD...

[Doulos]

You're quite bright, and you have plenty of understanding. But I think you're with the majority of humanity in your misunderstanding of how difficult it is to justify support for a belief or claim.

Most people rely on fallacious reasoning because they have no idea it's fallacious. It seems reasonable that since a million people believe something, that should lend support to that belief, right? But you truly need to dig deeper. It doesn't support the belief. It is secondary to the belief, unless the belief is about the million people.

Thank you. I think you're quite smart too, and I would definitely accept you as a member of Homo Sapiens Sapiens as well.

Merely because the reasoning may be fallacious does not mean the claim is false. Some things simply cannot be proven by this means.

Yes, a fallacy is neutral. Many use it as if it were evidence of a false claim. A claim isn't false because of a fallacy, but the fallacy does not support it.

A fairly bright guy named Interbane wrote that

In most criminal cases, there is not sufficient evidence to say with certainty what occurred. The weight of evidence is thus considered, whether this be eye witness accounts, expert testimony or other. Based upon the evidence we have available, we expect justice to be served.

Much of this would constitute what we could term fallacious evidence, which in turn would make the reasoning technically fallacious. This does not mean the conclusion is necessarily false, as you yourself correctly note.

Quite simply, we have the evidence we have, and that is all that exists. You are correct that it is not sufficient to prove the event to 100% certainty. In such cases, as in a court of law, we cannot demand evidence that does not exist, but must make a judgement based on what is available.

[Doulos]

Are you wanting to use the ancient standards of evidence?

There is nothing wrong with the intelligence or reasoning ability of ancient peoples.

In assessing any ancient claim, we should look at it using period knowledge and an understanding of the norms of communication of the time. Anything less, and we run into problems of anachronism.

[Doulos]

A pleasure to 'meet' you as well Johnson

It doesn’t beat modern standards, or sidestep modern standards, or ascend above modern standards, or defy them like a righteous peasant before a tyrant king. It fails to meet modern standards.

That's part of the problem though. Ancient texts were written to conform with the conventions of the time. When we apply modern criteria for evidence, we are applying anachronistic standards. Quite simply, we are asking for something that doesn't exist, like a righteous peasant calling his king a tyrant for failing to give him an Anti-Ion Harvester-Toaster-Home Entertainment Centre.

The bible claims a man died and was resurrected. There needs to be evidence for this. If it says this on page 3, then on page 6 it says, “Yeah, what happened on page 3 is totally true.” That is not corroborating evidence.

And what evidence is possible from 30 AD? The Babylonion mule powered camcorder was still in product development, so I'm afraid all I can think of is someone writing, "Yeah, what happened on page 3 is totally true."

This would only speak to our conviction, or alternatively how far we are willing to go to perpetuate a hoax. In the case of religion, I have no doubt at all that people sincerely believe the things they say about Jesus and the afterlife. But really, really, REALLY believing a thing is not the same as that belief being true. And that wouldn’t change if you lost your job, moved to the return address listed for anti-ion-thrust industries, divorced your wife for not trusting in the document, or started murdering hobos so you could make a launch pad out of their tanned and stretched hides.

You're forgetting the parts where they say that the Holy Spirit descended on them, empowering them and allowing them heal the blind (Acts 9:17-18), the paralysed (Acts 9:33-34) and the sick (Acts 28:8-9).

They were not speaking here of a conviction of whet they believed, but testifying about what they themselves saw and did. The New Testament not only embodies the writing of people of strong convictions, but demonstrates why they held those convictions as well. Incredible things were not just being witnessed by them, but being performed through them.

This is exactly what we are discussing. You are asserting that the claims are evidence of the things which they are claiming. This is a very substantial misunderstanding of evidence.

evidence- ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood

A personal witness can be 'data on which to base proof.' Might I suggest the error is on your part in using a misplaced or incorrect definition of evidence.

I agree with interbane on this 100%.

I'm afraid yor agreement does not make him correct however

I also agree that you seem to be a very intelligent person. But like being a good person (which I’m sure you are that as well) being intelligent is likewise no foil against an uncontested bias.

Thanks, and I'm framing this for next time my wife calls me names. As a nice and intelligent person yourself (I'm assuming that your internet demeaner does not mask an itch to molest or deface public officials), I merely ask you to consider whether your own "being intelligent is likewise no foil against an uncontested bias."

You have demonstrated a misunderstanding of what your evidence indicates. You have presented evidence OF belief and called it evidence FOR belief. You need to get that straightened out to see this clearly.

Actually if you scroll back further, you'll see that my point was that people have been reading a bit out of context. The events listed were not meant to stand as wonders on their own, but were written as evidence for a greater claim.

They were recorded to prove that Jesus was the promised Christ, and that we might "know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles." (Acts 28:28)

We can certainly discuss the items presented as evidence in the gospels themselves, but we should also keep in mind the big picture. These items were not written to be the focus of interest, but to point towards somethings greater.

I might also comment that evidence OF belief (depending upon the nature of that evidence) can also be evidence FOR belief.

[Interbane]

The strong convictions of direct witnesses and experts as to the truthfulness of events do constitute evidence. This is true in a court of law, and in any situation where we are talking about assessing the veracity of an event. We're talking about events here, not an experiment in a lab that can be verified.

The convictions are evidence? The testimony can be considered evidence, but not the conviction the person has regarding the testimony. This is what we're trying to say. It's a critical distinction. What's more, the testimony must be from the witness, and not in any form that could be altered by a third party. Or alternatively, the chain of possession needs to be clearly shown, and also needs to show that there is no room for alteration during the chain of possession.

There is nothing wrong with the intelligence or reasoning ability of ancient peoples.

I don't doubt many were far more intelligent than myself. I'm not questioning their intelligence. I'm questioning the methods they used at the time. Their methods are inferior, and they would agree if they could jump forward in time. If they were giants, we can see further only because we're standing on their shoulders. It isn't an insult to them. It's an insult to the idea that we've not only made no progress, but have gone retrograde in our understanding.

In assessing any ancient claim, we should look at it using period knowledge and an understanding of the norms of communication of the time. Anything less, and we run into problems of anachronism.

That remains true at the same time that we must use the modern filters for determining veracity. The context of the claim is important information, I agree. But unless you're claiming there is a hiccup in the uniformity of nature, the methods we use to determine what's true today will apply equally as well to the past. The types and quantities of evidence are going to be different, by nature of the time different, but the methods apply universally.

If you think otherwise, you'll need to be very specific and point out how it's even possible that ancient methods would work better.

I merely ask you to consider whether your own "being intelligent is likewise no foil against an uncontested bias."

If anyone here thinks otherwise they are being a fool. However, most people here have good understanding of critical analysis, and such knowledge is a weapon against bias.

Quite simply, we have the evidence we have, and that is all that exists. You are correct that it is not sufficient to prove the event to 100% certainty. In such cases, as in a court of law, we cannot demand evidence that does not exist, but must make a judgement based on what is available.

I never said it wasn't sufficient to prove the event to 100% certainty. I wouldn't use those words, because they indicate a gross misunderstanding. Not even the things we are most certain of have been proven with 100% certainty, the phrase is nonsensical. If you want to indicate confidence levels, speaking of 'proof with 100% certainty" is not an achievable ideal. It is the furthest point of a spectrum where we are only justified in inhabiting the middle(on a sort of bell curve), with varying levels of agnosticism taking up the majority. I'm speaking of any claim or belief, not merely the scientific or philosophical or theological.

What I'm saying is that you have a small amount of evidence for any claim within the bible. You have no valid evidence for any of the more extraordinary claims.

In such cases, as in a court of law, we cannot demand evidence that does not exist, but must make a judgement based on what is available.

Where we land when the evidence is assessed is toward the "false" end of the spectrum, but still in agnostic territory. This is in reference to the mundane claims. For the extraordinary claims, when all the evidence is considered, we are justified in saying that such claims are false.

So for events 2000 years ago, what exactly would you consider the 'actual evidence?' I'm afraid the very problem is that you're looking for something that cannot exist. Kinda like an Ion Drive in 30 AD...

That's exactly the point, Doulos. If the evidence doesn't exist, why do you think your belief is justified? I'm sorry that the supposed events happened so long ago, I truly am. This is part of the reason the word "faith" is so popular, as I've said before. Many extremely intelligent men throughout history have gone down the same painstaking road in realizing the belief isn't justified. You have only faith. Their solution has been to tout faith as a prime virtue. In that way, perhaps they hoped their belief could be justified.

[Interbane]

The events listed were not meant to stand as wonders on their own, but were written as evidence for a greater claim.

The claimed events need to be supported before they can support anything else. Why you skipping?

[Doulos]

The convictions are evidence? The testimony can be considered evidence, but not the conviction the person has regarding the testimony. This is what we're trying to say. It's a critical distinction. What's more, the testimony must be from the witness, and not in any form that could be altered by a third party. Or alternatively, the chain of possession needs to be clearly shown, and also needs to show that there is no room for alteration during the chain of possession.

What I wrote was "The strong convictions of direct witnesses and experts as to the truthfulness of events do constitute evidence." I can't be held accountable for your inaccurate rendition of what I wrote.

[Interbane]

What I wrote was "The strong convictions of direct witnesses and experts as to the truthfulness of events do constitute evidence." I can't be held accountable for your inaccurate rendition of what I wrote.

The clarification doesn't help. The subject is the "strong convictions". The subject is not "the content of the testimony". How strongly someone believes the truthfulness of events is not valid evidence. The reason they believe the truthfulness of events is valid evidence.