Is eye witness testimony enough?

[Justin108]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

If you willingly accept the claims made by these men, then on what grounds do you reject the claims made by people who believe they were abducted by aliens? On what grounds do you reject the claims of people who hear voices? On what grounds do you reject the claims of Bigfoot sightings?

How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

[Cewakiyelo]

I do not understand what makes a book “ridiculous?�

.

A book is a rediculous alternative for an omnipotent being to use. It's just as well I send a letter to my roommate when all I have to do is talk to him face to face.

Your arguments are quite empty. First off God did not use a book to reveal His message. That message is given directly to the individual whom He chooses. In the bibles case Jesus was given a message. He then shared the message he was given to his friends. They then wrote what Jesus had told them so that others after them could also know what Jesus had told them. Paul received message from God. Paul then records his message so that others might understand what he had been led to believe. That way if similar happens to them they would more easily understand what was happening.

If you were a scientist and walked into a research lab and everyone was laying dead you would not have any idea why they were laying dead. You would have to know what they had been doing. You would have to have the research notes to come to a conclusion as to why they were laying dead.

As far as it being "just as well I send a letter to my roommate when all I have to do is talk to him face to face." That may be true. If you are more articulate and better understood when you write your thoughts out than you are in person speaking than it might be better for you to send a letter instead of speaking to them face to face.

[stubbornone]

Generally speaking, when witnesses give an account, we can rarely verify ALL of it, but if we can verify some of his account, then its generally considered that the remainder is accurate, though issues of humanity give rise to further questions.

So if a shop owner who was robbed says "a man came in with a gun and took all the money from the register then he ran out and climed on his pet dragon and flew away".

Since this is clearly an argument form absurdity and deals with nothing written about how historians and lawyers deal with eye-witness statement, I am simply going to ignore it.

Please answer your own question in light of four otherwise honest witnesses making a claim, as opposed to a criminal, whose integrity is already under question, and how we arrive at high confidence conclusions?

I wonder how, which is odd as I already explained this, historians arrive at conclusions when just anyone can make up anything? The absurd can indeed keep us from figuring things out, its why most people (except a few atheists apparently) reject its use in logical analysis.

SOMEHOW, historians and lawyers can figure it out, J cannot.

So, in addition to rejecting math and science in the thread about that kind of evidence, we have just rejected both historical and legal analysis as well.

Anything to deny.

[SailingCyclops]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

If you willingly accept the claims made by these men, then on what grounds do you reject the claims made by people who believe they were abducted by aliens? On what grounds do you reject the claims of people who hear voices? On what grounds do you reject the claims of Bigfoot sightings?

How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

Eye witness testimony is unreliable evidence. This has been demonstrated in many scientific studies, mainly with regard to the judicial system.

Courts are reconsidering the value of eyewitness testimony, which has put many innocent people in jail

Are eyewitnesses reliable?
They are mistaken far more often than people think. Every year, more than 75,000 eyewitnesses identify criminal suspects in the U.S., and studies suggest that as many as a third of them are wrong. Mistaken eyewitnesses helped convict three quarters of the 273 people who have been freed from U.S. prisons on DNA evidence presented by the Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal organization that challenges dubious prosecutions. After a comprehensive two-year study of eyewitness testimony, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that it often leads to false identifications, and recently ordered new rules on how such testimony is treated in the courtroom. Other states are moving in the same direction, and this week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that may result in the first federal clarification on the use of eyewitnesses in 34 years.

Why are so many eyewitnesses mistaken?
Human memory is fragile and malleable. More than 2,000 studies on eyewitnesses in recent decades have determined that recollections are prone to decay, distortion, and suggestion. Honest, well-meaning people often simply misremember or misreport what they have seen. In one 1974 experiment, for example, more than two thousand people were shown a 13-second video clip of a mugging, followed by a six-man lineup. Just 14 percent of viewers correctly identified the perpetrator — a success rate lower than that of random guessing. In a 1999 study, 150 college students watched videos of a shooting and then of a five-man lineup. Every one of them identified a suspect, even though the culprit was not pictured. Factors such as fear, poor lighting, the presence of a weapon during a crime, and the passage of time have all been shown to cause mistakes in identifications — even when the witness is the victim of the crime. Witnesses are particularly inaccurate, studies show, when asked to remember the facial features of someone of a different race.

Eyewitness Testimony Doesn't Make It True
[...]
The DNA revolution that began in the late 1980s has dramatically demonstrated how utterly unreliable eyewitness identifications are. About 200 people convicted of violent crimes have been exonerated by DNA evidence in the past two decades. About 80 percent have been the victims of eyewitness misidentification. Some of them served even more time in prison than Tillman.

Even more disturbing are the results of the FBI's DNA analysis of biological specimens in 10,000 cases from 1989 to 1996.

These were all cases in which eyewitnesses had identified a suspect who had been arrested for the crime (usually sexual assault) and biological material from the perpetrator was available for comparison with the suspect's. In 20 percent of the cases, no conclusive results could be obtained. In the remaining 8,000 cases, however, the suspect was cleared in 2,000, or 25 percent. Assuming that without DNA evidence half of these defendants would have been convicted, then as many as 12 percent of those convicted in disputed eyewitness cases may be innocent.
[...]

The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony
[...]
Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.
[...]

See also:

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide

As well as many peer-reviewed scholarly articles all dealing with the unreliability of eye-eittness testimony.

When "eye witness evidence" is second, third, and fourth hand. When it is recorded long after the event, one can almost guarantee it is not factual, and filled with major errors. So, the answer to your debate question is ABSOLUTELY NO!

[Justin108]

Your arguments are quite empty. First off God did not use a book to reveal His message. That message is given directly to the individual whom He chooses. In the bibles case Jesus was given a message. He then shared the message he was given to his friends. They then wrote what Jesus had told them so that others after them could also know what Jesus had told them. Paul received message from God. Paul then records his message so that others might understand what he had been led to believe. That way if similar happens to them they would more easily understand what was happening.
.

It comes down to the same damn thing. All your doing is adding a few more links to the chain. Or does God not expect us to read the Bible? Is it just there for the hell of it?

Oh and the Bible disagrees with you.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is breathed out by God"

As far as it being "just as well I send a letter to my roommate when all I have to do is talk to him face to face." That may be true. If you are more articulate and better understood when you write your thoughts out than you are in person speaking than it might be better for you to send a letter instead of speaking to them face to face.

God? Articulate?? Have you read the Bible lately? There is barely a verse in that book that is straight and forward.

And the flaw in this is that even if I would be more articulate in writing, God can be as articulate as he chooses to be. He's God. He has no limits. So this is a poor excuse. Not to mention the fact that you're contradicting yourself as you just said God did not use a book so he had no letter either. Even if I refuted that claim.
The fact remains, direct communication from God to us makes far more sense still.

[stubbornone]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

If you willingly accept the claims made by these men, then on what grounds do you reject the claims made by people who believe they were abducted by aliens? On what grounds do you reject the claims of people who hear voices? On what grounds do you reject the claims of Bigfoot sightings?

How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

Eye witness testimony is unreliable evidence. This has been demonstrated in many scientific studies, mainly with regard to the judicial system.

Courts are reconsidering the value of eyewitness testimony, which has put many innocent people in jail

Are eyewitnesses reliable?
They are mistaken far more often than people think. Every year, more than 75,000 eyewitnesses identify criminal suspects in the U.S., and studies suggest that as many as a third of them are wrong. Mistaken eyewitnesses helped convict three quarters of the 273 people who have been freed from U.S. prisons on DNA evidence presented by the Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal organization that challenges dubious prosecutions. After a comprehensive two-year study of eyewitness testimony, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that it often leads to false identifications, and recently ordered new rules on how such testimony is treated in the courtroom. Other states are moving in the same direction, and this week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that may result in the first federal clarification on the use of eyewitnesses in 34 years.

Why are so many eyewitnesses mistaken?
Human memory is fragile and malleable. More than 2,000 studies on eyewitnesses in recent decades have determined that recollections are prone to decay, distortion, and suggestion. Honest, well-meaning people often simply misremember or misreport what they have seen. In one 1974 experiment, for example, more than two thousand people were shown a 13-second video clip of a mugging, followed by a six-man lineup. Just 14 percent of viewers correctly identified the perpetrator — a success rate lower than that of random guessing. In a 1999 study, 150 college students watched videos of a shooting and then of a five-man lineup. Every one of them identified a suspect, even though the culprit was not pictured. Factors such as fear, poor lighting, the presence of a weapon during a crime, and the passage of time have all been shown to cause mistakes in identifications — even when the witness is the victim of the crime. Witnesses are particularly inaccurate, studies show, when asked to remember the facial features of someone of a different race.

Eyewitness Testimony Doesn't Make It True
[...]
The DNA revolution that began in the late 1980s has dramatically demonstrated how utterly unreliable eyewitness identifications are. About 200 people convicted of violent crimes have been exonerated by DNA evidence in the past two decades. About 80 percent have been the victims of eyewitness misidentification. Some of them served even more time in prison than Tillman.

Even more disturbing are the results of the FBI's DNA analysis of biological specimens in 10,000 cases from 1989 to 1996.

These were all cases in which eyewitnesses had identified a suspect who had been arrested for the crime (usually sexual assault) and biological material from the perpetrator was available for comparison with the suspect's. In 20 percent of the cases, no conclusive results could be obtained. In the remaining 8,000 cases, however, the suspect was cleared in 2,000, or 25 percent. Assuming that without DNA evidence half of these defendants would have been convicted, then as many as 12 percent of those convicted in disputed eyewitness cases may be innocent.
[...]

The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony
[...]
Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.
[...]

See also:

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide

As well as many peer-reviewed scholarly articles all dealing with the unreliability of eye-eittness testimony.

When "eye witness evidence" is second, third, and fourth hand. When it is recorded long after the event, one can almost guarantee it is not factual, and filled with major errors. So, the answer to your debate question is ABSOLUTELY NO!

And there are just as many that deal with the reliability of eye witnesses. Should we have a dueling google contest?

Or should we acknowledge that there are already processes in place that acknowledge and attempt to deal with the potential unreliability of eye witnesses.

Its why ONE eye witnesses is not, and never has been, enough, to put someone in jail. When we start getting MULTIPLE eye-witness accounts, especially when they are familiar with the person in question.

If John has four brothers and ALL of them come forward and say, "Yep, John did it." The scientific studies about the unreliability of eye witness testimony would be ... supercilious would they not?

When we add other corroborative evidence to the eye witnesses statements ... what then? In short, everything that can be verified in the Synoptic gospels testably has proven accurate (around the major details, there, as we would expect, differences of minutia), when we begin to add in the extra-Biblical sources, the archaeological evidence ... it forms compelling picture of historical Jesus.

The question is, is that enough?

The short answer is no, not for believing that Jesus is the Son of God. We have several eye witnesses, who appear to be telling the truth, but we have no, and indeed cannot get, corroborating evidence about the miracles, for example, that Jesus performed.

We are left with the choice, are otherwise honest men lying about this or not? It really comes down to that choice based on the evidence.

But if we believe that these are lies, then we have an obligation to ask why? What does this Jesus guy mean? Why would these guys lie about something like this, even when it would eventually cost them their lives? What makes Jesus so special, as opposed to the Jewish leaders in the Temple? How does a guy that never held political power found a religion that sweeps away the ancient religions and the empires that spawned them?

Interesting questions that eye witness statements of the divinity of Jesus cannot answer.

[SailingCyclops]

What empirical and or/repeatable tests could be done to establish an event in the life of a historical person?

If Jesus claimed divinity and done nothing miraculous (that is, did only things that can be repeated), would you thenbelieve his claim?

I think Jesus himself claimed to spell that out for you:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Raise the dead, heal the sick, turn water into wine ...... All of which would be verifiable, repeatable, and documentable now in the 21st century.

Not seeing such from any of those "that believeth on" him, is a sure sign that even that which was promised as future "evidence" is totally wrong.

[stubbornone]

Your arguments are quite empty. First off God did not use a book to reveal His message. That message is given directly to the individual whom He chooses. In the bibles case Jesus was given a message. He then shared the message he was given to his friends. They then wrote what Jesus had told them so that others after them could also know what Jesus had told them. Paul received message from God. Paul then records his message so that others might understand what he had been led to believe. That way if similar happens to them they would more easily understand what was happening.
.

It comes down to the same damn thing. All your doing is adding a few more links to the chain. Or does God not expect us to read the Bible? Is it just there for the hell of it?

Oh and the Bible disagrees with you.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is breathed out by God"

As far as it being "just as well I send a letter to my roommate when all I have to do is talk to him face to face." That may be true. If you are more articulate and better understood when you write your thoughts out than you are in person speaking than it might be better for you to send a letter instead of speaking to them face to face.

God? Articulate?? Have you read the Bible lately? There is barely a verse in that book that is straight and forward.

And the flaw in this is that even if I would be more articulate in writing, God can be as articulate as he chooses to be. He's God. He has no limits. So this is a poor excuse. Not to mention the fact that you're contradicting yourself as you just said God did not use a book so he had no letter either. Even if I refuted that claim.
The fact remains, direct communication from God to us makes far more sense still.

So the emotional state of atheists should be given ... academic respect? Silliness.

Why use a book? Short answer, because there are no ipads?

There are two ways to record events in ancient times, oral tradition (which is bound to error over time), and writing them down.

An atheists finds the decision to use the later form off putting, for some odd reason, and, worse, fails to understand the evolution of grammar over time.

Well, that is a certain brand of atheism, just find something to nitpick about. Problem solving? Who needs that? Not, apparently, atheists.

Just curious J, and please answer honestly, have you EVER actually read the Bible?

[stubbornone]

What empirical and or/repeatable tests could be done to establish an event in the life of a historical person?

If Jesus claimed divinity and done nothing miraculous (that is, did only things that can be repeated), would you thenbelieve his claim?

I think Jesus himself claimed to spell that out for you:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Raise the dead, heal the sick, turn water into wine ...... All of which would be verifiable, repeatable, and documentable now in the 21st century.

Not seeing such from any of those "that believeth on" him, is a sure sign that even that which was promised as future "evidence" is totally wrong.

Well, you are wrong. There are indeed documented miracles, proveable even today.

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

Now what?

[SailingCyclops]

Its why ONE eye witnesses is not, and never has been, enough, to put someone in jail. When we start getting MULTIPLE eye-witness accounts, especially when they are familiar with the person in question.

The problem is there isn't even ONE eye witness. What we have is hearsay, documented years (at best 60 years) after the events being claimed. Hearsay evidence is not only unreliable, but not allowed in any court of law.

A hearsay witness testifying decades after an event would be laughed out of any court.

To be clear:

HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.
2. As a general rule, hearsay evidence of a fact is not admissible. If any fact is to be substantiated against a person, it ought to be proved in his presence by the testimony of a witness sworn or affirmed to speak the truth.

[stubbornone]

Its why ONE eye witnesses is not, and never has been, enough, to put someone in jail. When we start getting MULTIPLE eye-witness accounts, especially when they are familiar with the person in question.

The problem is there isn't even ONE eye witness. What we have is hearsay, documented years (at best 60 years) after the events being claimed. Hearsay evidence is not only unreliable, but not allowed in any court of law.

A hearsay witness testifying decades after an event would be laughed out of any court.

To be clear:

HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.
2. As a general rule, hearsay evidence of a fact is not admissible. If any fact is to be substantiated against a person, it ought to be proved in his presence by the testimony of a witness sworn or affirmed to speak the truth.

That is simply not true. The earliest gospels occur within 20 years of Jesus's death.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

This is in line with the date of publication of many modern day memoirs. So why is this a problem 2,000 years ago? Again, the evidential consideration begins with the Pauline Epistles (which also make up the Bible), who did not see Jesus, but MOST CERTAINLY DID SEE THE OTHER APOSTLES.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are historical processes in place that have produced the following, near unanimous conclusions:

"Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/p ... e&p=529623

So, rather than start YET ANOTHER Jesus Myth thread, why not take the historical process and their conclusions as a basis for discussion ... unless you happen to have a Ph.D in antiquity? If not, then I believe taking the overwhelming position of academia, including atheists professionals, as a starting point.

the Synoptic Gospels are eye witness statements - how then do we weight them?

And the consensus opinion is that they are accurate because that which is in them that CAN be tested HAS been tested and is accurate.

So what do we do with those parts of an eye-witness account that we cannot corroborate 2,000 years after the fact?

Do we assume that they are lying, and if so why?