Testimony as a Source of Knowledge

Conversation Side Conversation
, ,
104

I won’t go as far as saying Moon’s experience was false or counterfeit, but I will say that it isn’t compelling enough to make me believe in his claims. I’m not asking for scientific evidence per se, but extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, at least in my book.

Maybe you think I am denial, but I suspect that I approach these matters like most people do, and probably similar to how you approach these issues. It may be that you have had very real experiences that I have not, but hopefully you can look at this one example and perhaps understand why I find your testimony and the testimony of others less than compelling.

1 Like
105

Yes, it is not difficult to understand that you find much testimonial evidence less than compelling. How could you possibly, for instance, be compelled by my accounts of God’s providential timing and placing, and also in biblical accounts, in geographic extent or physical magnitude, since your belief system or worldview automatically precludes the possibility of God’s immanence and interventionism.

I could only hope that some situations would occur in your life where the events are physically discrete with no material causal connection, but their timing and placing in conjunction with your presence and circumstances would infuse them with meaning. That is a fair description of the effects of God’s working in providence, I think. (It is not a description of ‘how’ he does it, the ‘technology’ that he uses to accomplish them – that is far beyond our ken, since he is timeless, or ‘time-ful’.)

But if you could for a moment suspend disbelief, as they say with respect to movies, and consider the possible reality of God, it makes perfect sense that he should interact differently with his beloved adopted children (since he is a, or rather the, Father) than with those outside his family.

So, no, I don’t expect you to be able identify with providential events, miraculous in their timing, but perfectly natural according to the physical laws that he has put in place, and therefore immune to scientific discovery as to his involvement.

1 Like
106

The possibility of God is not precluded in my worldview. I am open to evidence for God.

The hurdle for me is not finding value in a belief that requires me to throw out skepticism. I have no idea where life will lead in the future, and perhaps your hopes for me will pan out . . . who knows. :slight_smile:

4 Likes
107

Part of the problem is that the type of evidence for God that atheists and skeptics want, or in most cases demand, is the kind of evidence that God gives only to his children or those who will become his children. I’m not sure, but I think he also may give it to some skeptics but they deny that it has anything to with God and disallow it.

He does, however, hold us responsible for the evidence, the testimony, of the cosmos – here and here – and it does not lie.

108

This is offensive. I am flagging it as such. It is divisive.

2 Likes
109

There are those who are God’s children and those who aren’t. Basic Christian theology.

110

My emphasis:

So according to you, your god knows what evidence would convince me, and hasn’t given it to me, because knows I won’t become one of his children, even though the reason I won’t become one of his children is because he hasn’t given me the evidence that would convince me.

Move over catch-22, there’s a new game in town.

3 Likes
111

I appreciate this discussion and the way that you all are engaging. As a moderator, thank you all for that.

As a skeptic, I would suggest that there is no expectation that you would or should throw yours out, if that can even be done (I doubt from personal experience that it can.) Thomas was the doubter among the disciples. He was told that Jesus had risen from the dead and replied:

“Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

A week later, Thomas encountered the risen Christ in the upper room. Jesus challenged him to see the nail holes and to touch his side. “My Lord and my God,” he proclaimed. Jesus then said something that has always stuck with me, and I find it appropriate and significant for this conversation:

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (John 20, NIV)

There is plenty of room for skeptics, but those who are not burdened with such thoughts (like my wife, for instance) are not burdened with what if considerations. As such, she and others like her have a greater connection to God through relationship. This, I believe, is the blessing to which Jesus referred above. They are freer to simply enjoy the relationship while we skeptics continue to rationalize and rehash his existence again and again.

So, @Roy, I am sympathetic to your challenge regarding the Catch-22. There is truth to what you say. I don’t believe, specifically, in how Dale has phrased it (that the evidence is only given to his children), but rather the way that I see it is that some hear his voice more readily than others. Beyond that, and I think you would all agree to this, some are more open to listening for it, too.

I don’t want to push too hard in that direction, because I’ve read your words (Roy) in the past about your own personal experiences. I don’t want to minimize your experiences at all, so I’ll pause on this for now.

4 Likes
112

It’s more complex and mysterious than that. He is not restricted to our linear sequential time, and we are. His relationship to us is dynamic, and he works with our choices and affections. So yes he is sovereign and omniscient and yes we are responsible for our choices. As I suspect you’ve seen before, “You have to believe in free will, you have no choice.” I.B. Singer

1 Like
113

That’s where skepticism is a hurdle for me. If you have to believe something first in order to believe it then that doesn’t seem like a belief worth having. Skeptics have to be convinced by evidence. Asking them to throw out doubt just so they can believe is not going to work.

4 Likes
114

In my journey, I was convinced by a human’s response to Jesus that made it seem to me that it was worthwhile to look into the veracity of the story. Her interactions (patience, especially) were other-worldly and that evidence of her faith inspired me to dig more deeply. I never gave up my skepticism and it remains today. So, while the process was more onerous than for some, for me, doubt was never thrown out.

1 Like
115

I’ve never asked you to throw out all doubt. I’ve pointed you to the evidence for the Ressurection. Someday I hope you will look into it with an open mind.

1 Like
116

I don’t think you have to believe something first. I was convinced by the evidence.

I look at it as reasoned decision between several different models for the world, or more specifically for me between the “model” described in the Bible, and the model that there is no God (or at least non that has made himself known to us).

Each of them has facts and implications about the world that can be evaluated but not prooven. I was convinced that model in the Bible, better describes the world around me than the “atheisic” model.

Having made that decision, there are a number of untestable axioms in the Bible, that I choose to believed based on my decision that the model described in the Bible best describes the world around me. Some of those axioms make a lot of sense to me, some I have questions about but I choose to believe them as I believe they are given by a perfect God, and this for me is really where my faith comes it.

That being said, I must admit that I believe God interacts with us in ways we don’t fully understand and can’t necessarily explain. How God played a part in my decision is something I can’t even begin say I understand.

Therefore my knowledge and faith are ultimately based on axioms that provided in the Bible, which I believe describes a model that best models the world around me, and it does that because that model is true, and described by the God who created everything.

1 Like
117

I think we have had different paths through life, but I thank you for offering your thoughts. If you would like to discuss the biblical model in another thread I would encourage you to do so in another thread, but I would understand if you don’t want to be part of what would probably be a contentious debate.

Also, atheism is just disbelief in one specific claim. It isn’t a model or a worldview, and atheists can and do have wildly different worldviews. The best way I can describe it is trying to summarize the shared worldview of people who don’t play golf.

2 Likes
118

If you are talking about scripture and the actions of the apostles, then I am well aware of what you are talking about. I grew up in the church and did assess all of this with an open mind at one point in my life.

2 Likes
119

I am willing to retract or at least temper that, but we all really do have enough evidence to at least get us started (as indicated here and here, as I’ve mentioned before).

I think it is our own proclivities that make us lean away and turn from God and reject him, and once we’ve started it becomes easier and more entrenched. This is an amazing confession by a famous atheist, not that it is indicative of all. We want to do what we want to do.

I think that is in part why Jesus loves little children, for their innocence and teachability, and rebuked his disciples for turning them away.
“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

1 Like
120

For that story, we don’t even have testimony as evidence.

2 Likes
121

We have the testimony of scripture and testimony of the consequent reality of Christians’ changed lives as reported by the likes of Josephus and Julian and more, over two centuries’ worth.

Julian, Letter to Arsacius:

…the impious Galileans [the name given by Julian to Christians] support our poor in addition to their own…

122

So now you’re changing the definition of “testimony” to mean “not testimony.” Hmm.

1 Like
123

From my studies of scripture, they weren’t written by first hand observers. The synoptic gospels appear to borrow heavily from one another, so they appear to be much more of a retelling of stories that were present in the early christian church. That doesn’t even get us to the question of whether these testimonies are even true. With the example of Sun Myung Moon we have a first person account of what he experienced, and yet you don’t accept his testimony. It really isn’t that different from Paul’s description of his interactions with Jesus.

If you want to discuss people whose lives were turned around, then I don’t think you would be surprised by examples from other religions that you reject. We can find many cases of Mormons doing great charity work in their communities, yet you probably don’t accept the testimony given by Joseph Smith.

My advice is to take a step back and ask yourself if you would be convinced by this same type of evidence if it came from a religion you currently don’t believe in.

2 Likes