Is it good to believe on hear say?

[marco]

Jesus is reported to have said: " Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

In what way is believing without seeing commendable? One can certainly accept accounts of things we have not seen but why would this be a virtue.

We could accept the man at the door is an official without seeing his badge. Or we could just accept something is scientifically true without proof.

So what, if anything, did Jesus mean when he felt there was something blessed about accepting what we have heard without seeing it? Was it wise to suggest this?

[bjs]

[Replying to marco]

I would consider either extreme unwise.

Someone who says that she almost never believes anything on hearsay is either being dishonest or is not a functioning member of society. 95% of our knowledge comes from hearsay. Nearly all our decision, both big and small, are built on at least some knowledge that we have not verified.

On the other hand, to accept statements on blind faith " that is, to believe without considering the available evidence, even if that evidence includes hearsay, and recognizing our own worldview " is equally foolish.

There are things we cannot know for certain, but to function in life we have to make a reasoned choice and go from there.

[marco]

The people the author is writing this to would not have seen Jesus' resurrected body. This fact alone would not be a good enough reason, by itself, to doubt Jesus' resurrection.

You are approaching the question from the negative side. Doubt is removed by proof or evidence, such as Thomas asked for. It is wise to ask for proof and foolish to accept something without proof, as life constantly tells us.

For someone living in Rome hearing of a resurrection in Jerusalem, there is no reason at all for the Roman to believe this nor is there anything blessed about someone who simply accepts the story.

There is no mention or necessary implication that these people believe (or should believe) the resurrection occurred blindly. To disbelieve simply because one did not see Jesus' raised body would not be a virtue.

I assume your adverb modifies the verb "believe" rather that "occurred"; in which case believing without seeing is surely blind, but not necessarily foolish. To disbelieve in a resurrection without having strong proof is wise - virtue doesn't enter into it. One of course may smile and mutter: "Typical of Jesus - getting up when he's down," and wholeheartedly believe. I'm not sure there is virtue or wisdom in this.

[marco]

Someone who says that she almost never believes anything on hearsay is either being dishonest or is not a functioning member of society. 95% of our knowledge comes from hearsay. Nearly all our decision, both big and small, are built on at least some knowledge that we have not verified.

You are entering a different field, on the nature of knowledge. Thomas did not accept something incredible on the basis of a report. He was right. Christ said it would have been commendable to accept without proof. He was wrong. The vast sum of things that we accept without seeing come with some sort of evidence or proof. Blind acceptance is not there. At the root of knowledge and progress is a quest for proof: Einstein was mocked at first for his incredible thesis, a valid reaction to someone who invites folk to accept a theory that would overturn accepted, proven science. Though Einstein was right, it would not have been right simply to accept because Eistein was of genius material. Nor should we accept the Resurrection simply because we are told Christ was a good miracle worker ...... albeit careless in his generalisations.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to marco]

I would consider either extreme unwise.

Someone who says that she almost never believes anything on hearsay is either being dishonest or is not a functioning member of society. 95% of our knowledge comes from hearsay. Nearly all our decision, both big and small, are built on at least some knowledge that we have not verified.

On the other hand, to accept statements on blind faith " that is, to believe without considering the available evidence, even if that evidence includes hearsay, and recognizing our own worldview " is equally foolish.

There are things we cannot know for certain, but to function in life we have to make a reasoned choice and go from there.

How does your response refute the claim that Thomas was wise rather than foolish for requiring evidence to support the extraordinary resurrection claim? Obviously, accepting the resurrection claim based on blind faith alone as Jesus would have him do would have been foolish according to your own perspective cited above. The hearsay evidence available to Thomas would have been insufficient to demonstrate a resurrection occurred since such an extraordinary event has no implicit empirical basis.

If I claimed to have seen a dog, it would be reasonable to believe my claim since there is implicit empirical evidence for the existence of dogs. If I claimed to have seen a fire breathing dragon, it would not be reasonable to believe my claim since there is no implicit empirical evidence for fire breathing dragons. The validity of such an extraordinary claim should be questioned no matter how trustworthy I was known to be. Even the most reliable eyewitnesses can misperceive something.

What we need is a reliable and objective method that will help us distinguish between what exists in the external world and what exists in our imaginations for claims that lack an implicit empirical basis. How would you suggest this be best accomplished?

[The Tanager]

The people the author is writing this to would not have seen Jesus' resurrected body. This fact alone would not be a good enough reason, by itself, to doubt Jesus' resurrection. There is no mention or necessary implication that these people believe (or should believe) the resurrection occurred blindly. To disbelieve simply because one did not see Jesus' raised body would not be a virtue.

Is this to suggest that belief in the resurrection is justified until the claim can be disproven?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if one has other reasons to believe the resurrection is justified, then the fact that they did not physically see and touch Jesus' body is not enough to defeat those other reasons.

[The Tanager]

You are approaching the question from the negative side. Doubt is removed by proof or evidence, such as Thomas asked for. It is wise to ask for proof and foolish to accept something without proof, as life constantly tells us.

For someone living in Rome hearing of a resurrection in Jerusalem, there is no reason at all for the Roman to believe this nor is there anything blessed about someone who simply accepts the story.

I think it wise to not go beyond what the text says (at least when offering a critique off of what the text says), for then we end up reading into it something that is not directly there. To say one is blessed in spite of not seeing and touching Jesus' body is not the same thing as saying it is wise to accept something without proof. There are other ways to justified beliefs.

To disbelieve in a resurrection without having strong proof is wise - virtue doesn't enter into it. One of course may smile and mutter: "Typical of Jesus - getting up when he's down," and wholeheartedly believe. I'm not sure there is virtue or wisdom in this.

I think it is wise as well. That is different than saying "to disbelieve in a resurrection without having seen or touched Jesus' resurrected body," which I think unwise.

[The Tanager]

I think it is wise as well. That is different than saying "to disbelieve in a resurrection without having seen or touched Jesus' resurrected body," which I think unwise.

That probably should have read something like "to disbelieve in a resurrection only because one has not seen or touched Jesus' resurrected body."

[bluegreenearth]

The people the author is writing this to would not have seen Jesus' resurrected body. This fact alone would not be a good enough reason, by itself, to doubt Jesus' resurrection. There is no mention or necessary implication that these people believe (or should believe) the resurrection occurred blindly. To disbelieve simply because one did not see Jesus' raised body would not be a virtue.

Is this to suggest that belief in the resurrection is justified until the claim can be disproven?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if one has other reasons to believe the resurrection is justified, then the fact that they did not physically see and touch Jesus' body is not enough to defeat those other reasons.

What other reasons existed to justify belief in the resurrection claim that the author of the text felt it necessary to make an example of Thomas for requiring physical evidence?

[Zzyzx]

.

I'm saying that if one has other reasons to believe the resurrection is justified, then the fact that they did not physically see and touch Jesus' body is not enough to defeat those other reasons.

Is there ANY legitimate reason for people to believe that a long dead body came back to life that does not involve taking someone's word for it?

[The Tanager]

What other reasons existed to justify belief in the resurrection claim that the author of the text felt it necessary to make an example of Thomas for requiring physical evidence?

To me, Jesus saying "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" reads like a quick add-on to the story. (I don't necessarily mean an add-on by the author and that it didn't historically occur, although I'm also not saying such a thing would be logically impossible). Thomas wasn't around when Jesus came earlier. He was the next time. Jesus was happy to put Thomas' doubts aside. Thomas isn't necessarily being scolded here. That would be reading into the text. But Jesus knew (or the author later added) this last remark because much of the audience that would read about this would have never seen or touched Jesus' body and may have doubts because of that. Jesus or the author of John uses this moment to address it.

I think a principle like: the lack of seeing and touching Jesus' body should not be enough to dissuade someone from believing in Jesus as the resurrected Messiah is much more in line with a reading of this text in light of the rest of Scripture than claiming that Jesus is saying people should blindly accept his resurrection.

As for other reasons to justify one's personal belief in the resurrection, that seems off-topic here. It would fit in the other thread we are discussing, but it would have to wait until after our discussion of the Kalam.

Is there ANY legitimate reason for people to believe that a long dead body came back to life that does not involve taking someone's word for it?

I would say there are legitimate reasons that go beyond simply taking someone's word for it. But that is for another thread. In regards to this thread, my contribution has simply been to argue that the doubting Thomas passage in John 20 does not claim it is good to believe on hear say alone.