Standards of Good Evidence

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Standards of Good Evidence

Post #1

Post by Jagella »

In the debate between apologists and skeptics, a word that gets bandied about a lot is the word, "evidence." We are told, for example, that the evidence for a historical Jesus is "overwhelming" or "virtually certain."

Question for Debate: But what does it mean to say that evidence is "good"?

I propose the following criteria for good evidence that should convince any sensible person that a claim is true:
  • â–º The evidence is physical. Example, a live specimen of Bigfoot
    â–º The evidence is demonstrable. Example, dropping a pencil and a paperweight from the same height to demonstrate that regardless of weight, objects fall at the same velocity
    â–º The evidence is observable. Example, a fossil of an extinct bird held on display in a museum
    â–º The evidence is unbiased. Example, a double-blind study of racist attitudes among Hispanics using a questionnaire.
    â–º The evidence is accessible to people who have no specialized training. Example, observing the position of the moon
    â–º The evidence is not controversial. Example, the fact that smoking causes illness
    â–º The evidence is unambiguous (there is only one meaning). Example, the length of a bridge
    â–º The evidence is derived from a known source. Example, a document signed by Gerald Ford
Evidence that's not so good is the following:
  • â–º The evidence is nonphysical. Example, a purported ghost haunting a mansion
    â–º The evidence is biased. Example, a Fox editorial crediting President Trump for low unemployment
    â–º The evidence is accessible only to people who have specialized training. Example, dating the Shroud of Turin
    â–º The evidence is controversial. Example, the assassination of JFK instigated by a conspiracy
Note that the evidence offered by apologists falls almost completely into the "not so good" category.

John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Different types of evidence and claims

Post #21

Post by John Human »

Jagella wrote:
John Human wrote:I have repeatedly offered my assessment that Christian doctrine includes three "fundamental" post-Jesus fabrications: (1) Our condemnation to eternal damnation because of our participation in Original Sin; (2) the Virgin Birth establishing the divine nature of Jesus Christ; and (3) Jesus's atonement on the cross for our sins, offering salvation from universal damnation to those who believe in Him. Take away any one of these points (which Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, never said), and the other two fall flat and become meaningless.

What conclusion(s) can reasonably be drawn from the above?
I'm not sure how what you posted here relates to the issue of judging evidence
You seem to be missing the point of analyzing text. In the example I gave, the evidence from the text of the New Testament of the Bible is as follows:

1. There are three interlocking doctrines that are fundamental to the Christian religion.

2. Jesus Christ is not portrayed as asserting any of these three doctrines.

From these two facts (we're talking here about internal evidence from the text) we can draw the following conclusion: Either Jesus never said them (in which case they were later fabrications or perhaps "revelations"), or Jesus did say them but the gospel writers/editors didn't bother to include these fundamental points, but they were sort of remembered and added in later.

p.s. When you start trying to apply rules of empirical methodology to historical questions, you quickly go off-road into a quagmire of "it is impossible to know anything."
"Love is a force in the universe." -- Interstellar

"God don't let me lose my nerve" -- "Put Your Lights On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCBS5EtszYI

"Who shall save the human race?"
-- "Wild Goose Chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L45toPpEv0

"A piece is gonna fall on you..."
-- "All You Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63O_cAclG3A[/i]

John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

"verifiable" evidence?

Post #22

Post by John Human »

Zzyzx wrote: Let’s not bet the farm (or make important life decisions) based on ‘Take my word for it (or his or this book)�
I have no problem with healthy skepticism , but...

I think it is fair to say that there is a commonplace human need to BELIEVE in something that somehow reassures that "everything will be all right" in the long run, and this goes far to explain susceptibility to various religious nostrums. Hence the New Testament references to shepherds and sheep. The sheep get fleeced regularly, but are nourished and preserved if the shepherd is competent. Pushing the metaphor around the bend, can a shepherd be thought of as a parasite?
"Love is a force in the universe." -- Interstellar

"God don't let me lose my nerve" -- "Put Your Lights On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCBS5EtszYI

"Who shall save the human race?"
-- "Wild Goose Chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L45toPpEv0

"A piece is gonna fall on you..."
-- "All You Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63O_cAclG3A[/i]

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: "verifiable" evidence?

Post #23

Post by Bust Nak »

John Human wrote: I have no problem with healthy skepticism , but...

I think it is fair to say that there is a commonplace human need to BELIEVE in something that somehow reassures that "everything will be all right" in the long run...
Why not both? Be skeptical and be reassured that everything will be all right in the long run: I will simply cease to exist, no pain or suffering just endless sleep, and that's all right.

Post Reply