tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7480174219288157295..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: TestimonyRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89707530364798703042011-04-26T23:00:57.876-04:002011-04-26T23:00:57.876-04:00Apologies, I've been attending to several scho...Apologies, I've been attending to several school related items. But it looks like Jonathan has already responded well. <br /><br />I'd just tack onto Jonathan's fine response the following:<br /><br /><b>And religious experience falls into this category: most people who have religious experiences are either charlatans (Joseph Smith, Todd Bentley, Benny Hinn, L. Ron Hubbard, etc.) or kooks (Gail Riplinger, Harold Camping, etc.), and we'd say that the vast majority of their followers (who accept based on testimony) are gullible.</b><br /><br />Although this takes us somewhat afield of Leftow's direct argument, presuming the theist possesses properly functioning cognitive faculties and so forth, it's rational for the <i>theist</i> himself to believe his religious experience is veridical.<br /><br /><b>Another reason such testimony is unreliable is because of the nature of the thing it points to: religious experience seems to be biologically based, and can be induced by electrodes or drugs. It does not point to something solid that could ever be verified in principle, such as a claim that such and so is President or that a particular math equation is true.</b><br /><br />Let's agree for the sake of argument there is indeed a neurophysiological process which produces a religious experience and presumably belief as a result. The fact that there is a neurophysiological process doesn't in itself necessarily discredit the veridicality of the religious experience and subsequent belief. It could be God created us in such a way that we would come to have knowledge of him via these neurophysiological processes.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77102089313303426642011-04-26T18:03:34.607-04:002011-04-26T18:03:34.607-04:00Perhaps that's why they call them "profes...Perhaps that's why they call them "professors".Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70200523247606988662011-04-25T20:38:40.058-04:002011-04-25T20:38:40.058-04:00Correction:
This: "Yet this prima facie doub...Correction:<br /><br />This: "Yet this prima facie doubt would carry over to my car-salesman father."<br /><br />Should read: "...would *not* carry over..."Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34728473828938725272011-04-25T20:35:34.046-04:002011-04-25T20:35:34.046-04:00So while you find Leftow to be too simplistic (bec...So while you find Leftow to be too simplistic (because I think you haven't read him carefully enough), I find your objection to be too simplistic.<br /><br />You offer a second reason in that "<i>religious experience seems to be biologically based, and can be induced by electrodes or drugs.</i>" I'm not sure this is the case, but even if we can induce religious experiences through natural means (drugs or electrodes) it doesn't follow that all religious experiences have natural origins. But this gets into causal closedness and other issues I don't feel like diving into. <br /><br /><i>So in the first instance, religious testimony is analogous to an individual who has shown himself to be unreliable in the past (because he has lied, misinterprets what he perceived, etc.) in which case it would be folly *not* to doubt his testimony if that's all the support there was for a particular proposition.</i><br /><br />But this is only true of particular persons. I don't see how you can generalize it unless you first demonstrate that the experience is a symptom of some disorder. <br /><br /><i>In the second, religious testimony is like an "invisible gardener" claim. It can never in principle be verified empirically like other testimonies can, and I think it's obvious that unverifiable claims (about which the claimant might be mistaken) have less merit when it comes to the question of whether we should believe testimonies of them.</i><br /><br />From what you said, I don't see how it follows that religious testimony *in principle* cannot be verified empirically. In some sense, in principle, you cannot empirically verify any historical event (including this morning's historical events). (I assume we don't have in mind the naive, relic of positivism in mind when we talk about "verify.")Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-8486771505431608542011-04-25T20:35:04.682-04:002011-04-25T20:35:04.682-04:00Although there is nothing wrong with the principle...<i>Although there is nothing wrong with the principle per se that it is rational to believe on the basis of testimony alone, there is more to the equation here than that.</i><br /><br />Did you read the article? Brian Leftow himself indicates this when he says we should give testimony "<i>a prima facie pass.... There are things that should lead you immediately to doubt a story.... There are also things that should lead you to doubt a story's teller</i>" (emphasis on "prima facie" removed).<br /><br />So, I don't see you adding anything to Leftow's basic proposal. You want to say all religious testimony should not get a prima facie pass. All religious testimony should lead you to doubt. Your claim is that "<i>Certain kinds of testimony</i>" should be met with prima facie doubt. But Leftow even hints at the possibility of this route when he says: "<i>It might seem that testimony to experience of God, or to miracles, should not get prima facie acceptance b/c it runs up against some of the barriers I mentioned earlier. It is rational to doubt testimony if the teller seems crazy- and perhaps Dawkins thinks that anyone who claims to have heard God's voice shows himself to be crazy.</i>"<br /><br />So, really, the only thing you add to the discussion here is that this prima facie doubt should arise from the fact that persons giving this kind of testimony in the past have been found untrustworthy: if enough persons giving said kind have "<i>shown themselves in the past to be so unreliable that it would irrational to believe them just on the basis of the testimony alone</i>."<br /><br />Now, this may be a reasonable proposal if we could show that the kinds of persons giving the kind of testimony have a tendency to be crazy or not functioning properly cognitively. But all you give us is a handful of names out of millions of people who have religious experiences. Leftow also said we take the testimony "<i>on trust if the teller seems trustworthy.</i>" Well, we have reasons to think people like Joseph Smith are not trustworthy, but we don't have reasons to think religious persons per se are untrustworthy. Or at least you haven't given us anything that would lead us to say religious persons per se are untrustworthy. Leftow never said testimony was indefeasible. Furthermore, we may even have reasons to distrust the majority of testimony in a certain field, but it doesn't follow that this gives us reason to prima facie doubt *every* testimony in that field. For instance, I may have prima facie reasons to doubt whatever a car salesman tells me. Yet this prima facie doubt would carry over to my car-salesman father. I may have good reason to think my father will not be untrustworthy with me when telling me about the value of a car on his lot.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24196166225276251562011-04-25T20:16:59.332-04:002011-04-25T20:16:59.332-04:00See? Now that was certainly more interesting and p...See? Now that was certainly more interesting and productive.Mr. Fosihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17652392944938128012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83297650468414340192011-04-25T18:54:00.941-04:002011-04-25T18:54:00.941-04:00Although there is nothing wrong with the principle...Although there is nothing wrong with the principle per se that it is rational to believe on the basis of testimony alone, there is more to the equation here than that.<br /><br />Certain kinds of testimony can have shown themselves in the past to be so unreliable that it would irrational to believe them just on the basis of the testimony alone.<br /><br />And religious experience falls into this category: most people who have religious experiences are either charlatans (Joseph Smith, Todd Bentley, Benny Hinn, L. Ron Hubbard, etc.) or kooks (Gail Riplinger, Harold Camping, etc.), and we'd say that the vast majority of their followers (who accept based on testimony) are gullible. <br /><br />Another reason such testimony is unreliable is because of the nature of the thing it points to: religious experience seems to be biologically based, and can be induced by electrodes or drugs. It does not point to something solid that could ever be verified in principle, such as a claim that such and so is President or that a particular math equation is true.<br /><br />So in the first instance, religious testimony is analogous to an individual who has shown himself to be unreliable in the past (because he has lied, misinterprets what he perceived, etc.) in which case it would be folly *not* to doubt his testimony if that's all the support there was for a particular proposition.<br /><br />In the second, religious testimony is like an "invisible gardener" claim. It can never in principle be verified empirically like other testimonies can, and I think it's obvious that unverifiable claims (about which the claimant might be mistaken) have less merit when it comes to the question of whether we should believe testimonies of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77620071123786231232011-04-25T13:25:24.840-04:002011-04-25T13:25:24.840-04:00Lol! :-)Lol! :-)Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39432994930804214792011-04-25T12:29:12.612-04:002011-04-25T12:29:12.612-04:00Let me see if I get this,
Brian Leftow: You can b...Let me see if I get this,<br /><br />Brian Leftow: <i>You can be rational in believing a proposition based on testimonial evidence, without checking all the facts.</i><br /><br />Paul Baird: <i>But you can check a lot of facts.</i><br /><br />Patrick Chan: <i>But Leftow's point was you can rationally believe something from testimony alone.</i><br /><br />Paul Baird: <i>But you can check a lot of facts.</i><br /><br />Patrick Chan: <i>But you're still relying on testimony.</i><br /><br />Paul Baird: <i>Ha ha!</i>Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05690738239872948496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38453442720702082162011-04-25T12:18:10.455-04:002011-04-25T12:18:10.455-04:00True dat, Mr. Fosi. For whatever reason(s) Paul Ba...True dat, Mr. Fosi. For whatever reason(s) Paul Baird missed the argument. I think it's either because he didn't read it in the first place (or maybe he just quickly skimmed it) or because he didn't understand what he read if he did read it. I think it's the latter.<br /><br />And, of course, one must understand an argument before one can reasonably criticize it. But since Baird doesn't grasp what Leftow is arguing in the first place, his "criticisms" (such as they are) fall flat.<br /><br />I agree it'd be more interesting to tackle Leftow's argument though. It's not necessarily without its flaws.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73184465649379129832011-04-25T11:41:55.714-04:002011-04-25T11:41:55.714-04:00The argument wasn't that hard to catch, was it...The argument wasn't <i>that</i> hard to catch, was it?<br /><br />Wouldn't it be more interesting and productive to actually deal with the argument present in the post?Mr. Fosihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17652392944938128012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67367794889982372452011-04-25T11:10:31.797-04:002011-04-25T11:10:31.797-04:00Comedic stuff, Patrick, comedic.
I'll just co...Comedic stuff, Patrick, comedic.<br /><br />I'll just copy your responses into my blog and let them speak for themselves Prat-rick, sorry Patrick (yeah it's a bit juvenile but it's the sort of nonsense that seems to float your boat). <br /><br />:-)Paul Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269660700687899683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30716576813448003412011-04-25T10:57:35.377-04:002011-04-25T10:57:35.377-04:00No it isn't. The argument falls down because i...<b>No it isn't. The argument falls down because it's indiscrimate - Which God ? Whose testimony?</b><br /><br />Whoa! Stop the presses! I did not know that Leftow's argument could be so easily defeated simply because it's "indiscriminate"! Surely you've stumbled upon something large, very large, Paul. I mean, yes, it's true Leftow framed the argument in terms of theism and not a particular version of theism like Judaism or Christianity or Islam. Hence it is, I suppose, "indiscriminate" as you say. But who knew the fact that Leftow framed his argument to apply "indiscriminately" to theism generally rather than a particular version was indeed a defeater for his entire argument? Certainly no one with reason would've expected that, but I suppose that's why it takes someone deficient in reason like Paul to point it out! :-)<br /><br /><b>You still don't get it - I can travel to New York and see that bridge and even walk across it. I don't have to accept your word for it's existence.</b><br /><br />You still don't get it - given that you haven't traveled to NYC before (at least you've not said so), you haven't seen the bridge. So how do you currently know it exists?<br /><br /><b>What Leftow seems to be advocating is that evidence for God should be acceptable at a much lower level than Atheists are demanding, yet that's on a par with the xamples he's supplied us with.</b><br /><br />Alas! It appears the spirit of deficient reading comprehension haunts you, Paul! 'Tis a dark and abiding specter, methinks. I'm not sure whether you'll be able to ever shake it. But do try, please! I fear the worst but hope the best for you, Paul.<br /><br />But, no, you're quite wrong. What Leftow is arguing is that it's rational for a theist to believe in God based on testimonial evidence. Or to look at it another way, Leftow is providing a counterargument to the argument that someone needs a persuasive argument for God's existence in order to rationally believe in God. <br /><br /><b>Perhaps he should use different examples.</b><br /><br />Perhaps you should re-read what Leftow wrote since it's utterly obvious to everyone but you that you don't understand his argument.<br /><br /><b>Nice use of sarcasm in your reply (all five attempts) by the way.</b><br /><br />No problem, Paul. Sarcasm is the best thing ever! :-)Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3052123865876995012011-04-25T10:57:25.983-04:002011-04-25T10:57:25.983-04:00Paul Baird said:
Sorry Patrick, but I can go and ...Paul Baird said:<br /><br /><b>Sorry Patrick, but I can go and 'see' David Cameron - the live version, in full technicolor, every Wednesday at 12.30 during PMQs (when the House is sitting) from the Strangers Gallery in House of Commons</b><br /><br />Gee whiz, Paul - I guess that means you must be "accepting the testimony of...reporters" like Leftow pointed out! :-)<br /><br /><b>or I can wait for him to visit MK again (he's been here several times already).</b><br /><br />Sure, and like I asked you, have you actually met him in person? Or is this just something you plan to do in the future? If you haven't actually met him in person, then how would you know whether he is or is not? Does he exist or not exist? Is he PM or is he not? That is the question! Ay, there's the rub, dear bard - er, I mean, Baird! :-)<br /><br /><b>The Magna Carta...There are two 'copies' extant in that location. The train fare is £20 off-peak so I might go and have a look over the holidays.</b><br /><br />So would this include a time machine to the 13th century since that's the example Leftow gave (and I already pointed out) when he talked about the <i>signing</i> of the Magna Carta? :-)<br /><br /><b>The key point is - you DON'T have to take my word for it. You can check the facts yourself. . . . Anyway, onto the gist of Leftow's argument now that I've shown his examples to be plain silly.</b><br /><br />Well now, Paul! Such a perspicacious, deeply incisive analysis of the flaws in Leftow's argument honing in on "check[ing] the facts for yourself" (since this was evidently part and parcel of Leftow's core argument) ought surely to give Leftow pause for the endeavor if not outright bring him to hang his head in shame!Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37315225588823814492011-04-25T09:40:38.603-04:002011-04-25T09:40:38.603-04:00Swing and a miss.Swing and a miss.Mr. Fosihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17652392944938128012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59922335445870066692011-04-25T08:55:27.387-04:002011-04-25T08:55:27.387-04:00Sorry Patrick, but I can go and 'see' Davi...Sorry Patrick, but I can go and 'see' David Cameron - the live version, in full technicolor, every Wednesday at 12.30 during PMQs (when the House is sitting) from the Strangers Gallery in House of Commons or I can wait for him to visit MK again (he's been here several times already).<br /><br />You can do the same too. :-)<br /><br />The key point is - you DON'T have to take my word for it. You can check the facts yourself.<br /><br />The Magna Carta - see http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/basics/basics.html<br /><br />There are two 'copies' extant in that location. The train fare is £20 off-peak so I might go and have a look over the holidays.<br /><br />The key point is - you DON'T have to take my word for it. You can check the facts yourself.<br /><br />You amended your comment and removed the bit about the University grades - good. They are very checkable in the UK.<br /><br />Anyway, onto the gist of Leftow's argument now that I've shown his examples to be plain silly.<br /><br />"Namely that it's rational to believe in God ultimately based on testimonial evidence."<br /><br />No it isn't. The argument falls down because it's indiscrimate - Which God ? Whose testimony ?<br /><br />"Well, if we apply your own criterion here, I suppose I might believe it if I could see you jump off it with my very own eyes! :-)"<br /><br />You still don't get it - I can travel to New York and see that bridge and even walk across it. I don't have to accept your word for it's existence.<br /><br />What Leftow seems to be advocating is that evidence for God should be acceptable at a much lower level than Atheists are demanding, yet that's on a par with the xamples he's supplied us with.<br /><br />Perhaps he should use different examples.<br /><br />Nice use of sarcasm in your reply (all five attempts) by the way.<br /><br />:-)Paul Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269660700687899683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60134134267115916602011-04-25T07:03:15.525-04:002011-04-25T07:03:15.525-04:00Paul Baird said:
You can go and read a copy of th...Paul Baird said:<br /><br /><b>You can go and read a copy of the Magna Carta.</b><br /><br />Your reading comprehension is deficient. Leftow didn't say you can't go and read a copy of the Magna Carta. Rather he argued it's rational to believe the Magna Carta was signed in England based on testimonial evidence.<br /><br />It would be impossible to see this occur unless you plan to supply us with a time machine that'll take us back to the 13th century so that we can verify with our very own eyes that the Magna Carta was indeed signed in England (although technically it was sealed, not signed, but that doesn't detract from Leftow's argument).<br /><br />On a lesser note, you're also trying to sneak in the word "copy."<br /><br /><b>You can go and meet David Cameron.</b><br /><br />Once again, you have deficient reading comprehension skills. Have you personally met David Cameron? If not, then how do you know he's the PM? Or what about the person who has never met Cameron? How would he know Cameron is PM? That's the point.<br /><br /><b>The fact that you choose not to does not invalidate the existance of your ability to do so.</b><br /><br />This wasn't part of Leftow's argument. He didn't make either "the existance [sic] of your ability" to choose or your exercising or not exercising it part of his argument. You're just trying to divert attention from his actual argument.<br /><br />Leftow is using the signing of the Magna Carta, meeting David Cameron, and so forth as illustrations of a larger argument. Namely that it's rational to believe in God ultimately based on testimonial evidence. So even if you could defeat these examples, which you haven't done, it's possible for someone to pick other examples which wouldn't change Leftow's essential argument.<br /><br /><b>A large part of any sort of research is not accepting the account of someone else at face value.</b><br /><br />Sad to say yet again but your reading comprehension is deficient. Or I suppose it's possible you didn't even bother to read what Leftow wrote in the first place, which would mean you're trying to criticize something you haven't read, which in turn would mean you're behaving unreasonably and unfairly. Take your pick!<br /><br />At any rate, Leftow didn't say we should accept testimonial evidence "at face value." He didn't say we should never doubt testimonial credibility. Try re-reading what he wrote. Of course, if you do have deficiencies in your reading comprehension, then I'd suggest you let someone know so they can spell it out for you in simpler terms which you can hopefully better grasp.<br /><br /><b>Has anyone tried to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge? . . . By the way, I have the really nice bridge in New York you might be interested in buying.</b><br /><br />Well, if we apply your own criterion here, I suppose I might believe it if I could see you jump off it with my very own eyes! :-)Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77946593688126748182011-04-25T03:38:57.990-04:002011-04-25T03:38:57.990-04:00"I was not required to look up my history tea..."I was not required to look up my history teacher's university marks, or travel to England, to believe rationally. I still believe that the Magna Carta was signed in England for no better reason than that I was told it, others still tell me it, and I haven't come across anything that made me doubt it, or ought to have done so."<br /><br />Has anyone tried to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge ?<br /><br />You can go and read a copy of the Magna Carta.<br /><br />You can go and meet David Cameron.<br /><br />You could even check your teachers University marks.<br /><br />The fact that you choose not to does not invalidate the existance of your ability to do so.<br /><br />A large part of any sort of research is not accepting the account of someone else at face value.<br /><br />By the way, I have the really nice bridge in New York you might be interested in buying.Paul Bairdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269660700687899683noreply@blogger.com