Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Atheist Incredulity and Eyewitness Testimony

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Atheist Incredulity and Eyewitness Testimony

    Are there double-standards when it comes to eyewitnesses?

    Link

    ----

    How should we handle eyewitness testimony? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    Earlier this week I wrote a piece on atheist incredulity. In response, I got asked a question about eyewitness accounts of things like UFOs. Should we believe in those? It’s quite amazing to me that it’s taboo apparently to suggest that skepticism should be held in an unquestioning way.

    This isn’t new. Hume had the same skepticism to eyewitness claims of miracles and sought any chance he could to dismiss them. Today, we do have a sort of doublespeak going on in the atheist community. How does that happen?

    Go to the Gospels and what are you told often? These Gospels were written decades after the event! It means either the story of the original viewers of the event, otherwise known as the eyewitnesses, were changed, or that the writers never got to speak to any eyewitnesses.

    Then, if you go and show that eyewitnesses were involved, well, eyewitness testimony isn’t always reliable. Sometimes you get told that it’s notoriously unreliable. So if the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts, we can’t trust them. If they do contain eyewitness accounts, we can’t trust them.

    So let’s look at the above topic of UFOs as an example. Should we trust them? In some cases, yes. All a UFO is is an Unidentified Flying Object. Do some people see such objects? Yes. Does that mean an extraterrestrial craft was sighted? No.

    Keep in mind also that for those who hold to science, science itself has SETI set up about the question of extraterrestrial intelligence and this is an active question in the scientific community. If we have an active question and we have an eyewitness of an event, should we not at least listen to them?

    Note that this is a fine line to walk on. Should eyewitness testimony be believed blindly? No. Should it be dismissed arbitrarily? No.

    It’s important to realize that many of us will measure what we see in the world against our own worldview and background. If you are an atheist, you will have a natural tendency to question any claim of a miracle. If you are a theist, you will be skeptical of naturalistic explanations of events you deem to be miraculous.

    This is why each of us must rise above our own skepticism. I think atheists, for example, would do a lot better in convincing on evolution if they did not make it be the case that it is to be seen as evolution vs. God. Many theists could be more open to an evolutionary creationism, but if you tell them going the route of what you say is science means abandoning God, they won’t, because God is much more important in their lives.

    On the other hand, those of us who are theists could bear to be more skeptical of some miracle claims and many other claims. When we share claims easily as golden proofs that are easily disproven, then we do ourselves a disservice. We should test all the claims we encounter like that.

    Note also with eyewitness testimony, I have no problem with taking the character of the person into consideration. Many of us would be skeptical of the words of a stranger. What if it’s a close family member that you know to be trustworthy? Do you just dismiss it?

    At this, I want to also answer one other claim about miracles. Would I accept eyewitness testimony for a miracle outside of Christianity? Well, why not? If a miracle happened, then it happened. I can’t give my faith tradition a special exception on the rules of evidence. I think the atheist has more at stake here because if a miracle did happen, well, atheism is in trouble.

    Which brings me to a fun little saying of Chesterton on miracles which I will paraphrase. The theist believes in the miracle, rightly or wrongly, because of the evidence. The skeptic disbelieves in the miracle, rightly or wrongly, because he has a dogma against them. Consider a work like Craig Keener’s Miracles. If just one miracle in that book is a bona fide miracle, naturalism has a lot of explaining to do. If everyone of them is fake, theism can still be true and even Christianity. Who has more at stake?

    The solution is really simple. Don’t believe blindly, but don’t dismiss blindly either. Try to put aside your own biases every time for the investigation. Follow the evidence where it leads.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  • #2
    I find it interesting that those who dismiss eyewitness testimony don't do so with all of history. History is mostly written by eyewitnesses ie the Holocaust, Civil War etc . If we take Hume's radical skepticism to its conclusion we would hardly know anything about history.

    Comment


    • #3
      It is impossible to witness an impossible event, by definition. People are easily fooled, or willing to fool you, and therefore it is relatively common that a person will claim that they witnessed an impossible event. This is simply the nature of our imperfections. God and miracles have to be understood as a product of those imperfections.
      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
      “not all there” - you know who you are

      Comment


      • #4
        ISTM that the testimony of alleged witnesses has a right to be heard and believed, until and unless there are solid reasons to suspect it.

        The question is not whether testimony by past writers is ever reliable - as an historian, Hume, like Gibbon about 20 years after him, had necessarily to rely on such testimonies. Testimony and its use is not the problem. The problem is whether, given the extraordinary character predicated of miracles, their miraculousness as events can be established by human testimony. They are said to be more than ordinary events - so what kind of testimony is adequate to make claims of their occurrence worthy of belief ? And how may that testimony be recognised when offered ?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
          Are there double-standards when it comes to eyewitnesses?

          Link

          ----

          How should we handle eyewitness testimony? LetÂ’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

          Earlier this week I wrote a piece on atheist incredulity. In response, I got asked a question about eyewitness accounts of things like UFOs. Should we believe in those? ItÂ’s quite amazing to me that itÂ’s taboo apparently to suggest that skepticism should be held in an unquestioning way.

          This isnÂ’t new. Hume had the same skepticism to eyewitness claims of miracles and sought any chance he could to dismiss them. Today, we do have a sort of doublespeak going on in the atheist community. How does that happen?

          Go to the Gospels and what are you told often? These Gospels were written decades after the event! It means either the story of the original viewers of the event, otherwise known as the eyewitnesses, were changed, or that the writers never got to speak to any eyewitnesses.

          Then, if you go and show that eyewitnesses were involved, well, eyewitness testimony isnÂ’t always reliable. Sometimes you get told that itÂ’s notoriously unreliable. So if the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts, we canÂ’t trust them. If they do contain eyewitness accounts, we canÂ’t trust them.

          So letÂ’s look at the above topic of UFOs as an example. Should we trust them? In some cases, yes. All a UFO is is an Unidentified Flying Object. Do some people see such objects? Yes. Does that mean an extraterrestrial craft was sighted? No.

          Keep in mind also that for those who hold to science, science itself has SETI set up about the question of extraterrestrial intelligence and this is an active question in the scientific community. If we have an active question and we have an eyewitness of an event, should we not at least listen to them?

          Note that this is a fine line to walk on. Should eyewitness testimony be believed blindly? No. Should it be dismissed arbitrarily? No.

          ItÂ’s important to realize that many of us will measure what we see in the world against our own worldview and background. If you are an atheist, you will have a natural tendency to question any claim of a miracle. If you are a theist, you will be skeptical of naturalistic explanations of events you deem to be miraculous.

          This is why each of us must rise above our own skepticism. I think atheists, for example, would do a lot better in convincing on evolution if they did not make it be the case that it is to be seen as evolution vs. God. Many theists could be more open to an evolutionary creationism, but if you tell them going the route of what you say is science means abandoning God, they wonÂ’t, because God is much more important in their lives.

          On the other hand, those of us who are theists could bear to be more skeptical of some miracle claims and many other claims. When we share claims easily as golden proofs that are easily disproven, then we do ourselves a disservice. We should test all the claims we encounter like that.

          Note also with eyewitness testimony, I have no problem with taking the character of the person into consideration. Many of us would be skeptical of the words of a stranger. What if itÂ’s a close family member that you know to be trustworthy? Do you just dismiss it?

          At this, I want to also answer one other claim about miracles. Would I accept eyewitness testimony for a miracle outside of Christianity? Well, why not? If a miracle happened, then it happened. I canÂ’t give my faith tradition a special exception on the rules of evidence. I think the atheist has more at stake here because if a miracle did happen, well, atheism is in trouble.

          Which brings me to a fun little saying of Chesterton on miracles which I will paraphrase. The theist believes in the miracle, rightly or wrongly, because of the evidence. The skeptic disbelieves in the miracle, rightly or wrongly, because he has a dogma against them. Consider a work like Craig KeenerÂ’s Miracles. If just one miracle in that book is a bona fide miracle, naturalism has a lot of explaining to do. If everyone of them is fake, theism can still be true and even Christianity. Who has more at stake?

          The solution is really simple. DonÂ’t believe blindly, but donÂ’t dismiss blindly either. Try to put aside your own biases every time for the investigation. Follow the evidence where it leads.

          In Christ,
          Nick Peters
          It isn't even known who the actual authors of the gospels were, never mind that the so called eyewitnesses therein even existed. The gospels were written some 40 to 60 years after Jesus death. The authors, whoever they were, nobody knows anything about them other than there first names, Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, weren't eyewitnesses. So, we don't know who these so called historians are, and we don't know if any of the characters in their stories are real people. So, who are the eyewitnesses?

          Comment

          Related Threads

          Collapse

          Topics Statistics Last Post
          Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
          14 responses
          75 views
          1 like
          Last Post rogue06
          by rogue06
           
          Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
          6 responses
          61 views
          0 likes
          Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
          Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
          1 response
          23 views
          0 likes
          Last Post rogue06
          by rogue06
           
          Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
          0 responses
          22 views
          2 likes
          Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
          Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
          7 responses
          55 views
          0 likes
          Last Post whag
          by whag
           
          Working...
          X