Topic: Is death or willingness to die evidence of truth? (Read 8746 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** March 11, 2006, 10:41:47 AM »

In another post, Cogito says:

"No one knows why the 11 men that you write about died "grisly" deaths or in fact whether they died grisly deaths. We do know that few of them (Did any of them? Maybe one of them?) claimed to be an eyewitness to the resurrection. Beyond that, even if they did die for their beliefs, that in no way is evidence that their beliefs are true. People have died for false beliefs for as long as history has been written. There is all the difference in the world in a person's sincerely believing (even to the point of sacrificing their life for that belief) that a proposition is true and in that proposition's actually being true."

In some respects I agree with this. However, at least one statement is categorically false:

"Beyond that, even if they did die for their beliefs, that in no way is evidence that their beliefs are true."

NO WAY? I submit that it is self-evident that a person who is not willing to die for their beliefs is less credible than the one who is willing to die for their beliefs.

For example, if a man is giving testimony on the witness stand about, say, witnessing the theft of candy at a store, if the defense says to the man,

"Unless you renounce your testimony, I will shoot you dead on the spot"

If the witness changes his testimony, it may not be known whether or not the candy was stolen or not. Is it worth dying for?

If the witness says, "No, I'd rather die than lie about this" and the defense pulls out a gun, gives him one more chance to reject his testimony, and the man still does not, and the defense shoots him dead, I'd say that whatever else is true, its probably pretty darn likely that he really did see the person steal candy from the store.

Testimony is evidence. Credibility of the one giving testimony is increased if a person is willing to die for that testimony. Increased credibility of the witness is better evidence.

Now, the disciples went out, as CNM said, not arguing about a belief, but something that they thought was a fact. They had made certain observations- they were not sharing their faith, they were sharing what they had seen, and what they had seen could not be denied.

Many, if not most, of these folks were eventually killed rather than deny what they had seen. At the very least, this increases their credibility.

However, we must account for and explain what would prompt A. the disciples to do this in the first place and B. so many thousands to be moved by them, their message, and in some cases their deaths, in order for them too to risk death.

The best alternative is that they made it up. Right? If they were deceived, that admits some compelling set of events to deceive them. If you are willing to go that far, you may as well admit that the compelling set of events did not deceive them, but convinced them. Different things. Our only alternative that can escape any foundation in any underlying set of events is that their message was made up whole cloth.

Now, why would they die? What did they hope to gain? If they made it up, they'd know it was a lie. Does anyone die for a belief that THEY KNOW IS A LIE? That is entirely different from what you said, Cogito. You said:

"There is all the difference in the world in a person's sincerely believing (even to the point of sacrificing their life for that belief) that a proposition is true and in that proposition's actually being true."

But the disciples would have KNOWN that their proposition is NOT true, and yet still died. Ok, perhaps we might imagine a warped person or two doing such a thing... and yet convince thousands and hundreds of thousands of the same thing? Even such that these too will face and embrace death?

Nothing else in history comes close.

Now, by way of comparison, I'd like to submit to you the recent story in Iraq of the four Christians that were captured by folks in Iraq.

Click here

In contrast, I submit this link:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/139298.php

Quote:

Quote

The 4 "taken" are not praying for the Marines. They, like the Italian "activist", know they will not be hurt. It is all a ploy to help the MSM/DNC in their war against the War on Terror.
If we send any warriors to help them they will be denounced as war criminals just as they were in the Italian "activist's" case.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at November 29, 2005 03:11 PM

They hate us all, and we should save them for that. People are allowed to talk out of their asses in this country and that's why we are the best. WE should not wish for others deaths even though it would be sweet irony.
Posted by: Kilroy at November 29, 2005 03:12 PM

what's the harm in hoping things go bad? in the end, the terrorists will get randsom money, and the reds will get another narrative to advance their story with.

I submit to you that this was indeed a fake kidnapping. Knowing that people would not believe it was fake, this man of the four volunteered to be tortured and executed, sacrificed, if you will, for the 'good of the cause.'

I propose that the whole thing was a farce, and this gentleman was killed by his friends in order to make the 'kidnapping' look real.

What do you think?

Copernicus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 11, 2006, 04:35:36 PM »

Sntjohnny, even you must realize that there is a difference between sincere belief and being right. In my thread on the "dangerous idea of life after death", I pointed out the very potent effect that belief in the afterlife can have on one's willingness to die and even to commit egregious atrocities. I do not doubt the sincere conviction of suicide bombers that they will be rewarded in heaven for killing infidels in the name of God. This should in no way influence us to believe that their sincere conviction has any grounding in reality. You do understand the difference between being sincere and being right, don't you?

Cogito · « **Reply #2 on:** March 11, 2006, 04:43:39 PM »

Quote

If the witness says, "No, I'd rather die than lie about this" and the defense pulls out a gun, gives him one more chance to reject his testimony, and the man still does not, and the defense shoots him dead, I'd say that whatever else is true, its probably pretty darn likely that he really did see the person steal candy from the store.

IMO, such is evidence for two things. First, it is evidence that the witness is decidedly irrationally in at least one respect; i.e., in making the decision not to change his story over such a trivial event even with a gun to his head.

And second, it is evidence that the witness sincerely believed that his story was true.

But what if, shortly before being shot in the head, the witness testifies that the person he saw stealing the candy on 3/1/06 was David Koresh former Branch Davidian head cleric? Not only that but what if he adds that after Koresh stole the candy, Koresh made his escape by flying through the air like a bird?

Now, does the fact that the man refused to change his story even in the face of death mean that he "really did see" David Koresh steal the candy and fly through the air like a bird?

Or does it mean, as I point out, that he only sincerely believed that he had seen that?

BTW, how many of those eleven men are even alleged to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection? That is, how many of them are alleged to have seen both Jesus' dead body and Jesus alive again at a later time?

One of them, perhaps?

Where is your extrabiblical evidence that they died "grisly" deaths? Where is the extrabiblical evidence that they died because they refused to recant a story about a resurrection that the vast majority of them didn't witness in the first place?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #3 on:** March 11, 2006, 04:45:40 PM »

"Sntjohnny, even you must realize that there is a difference between sincere belief and being right."

Obviously. You have a sincere belief, but I don't think you're right. :) But my post was not about belief, it was about testimony and the credibility of a person who claims to be a witness.

Copernicus · « **Reply #4 on:** March 11, 2006, 04:47:42 PM »

I understood that, but "credibility" in this case only refers to strength of conviction, not the truth. We should not confuse the two.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #5 on:** March 11, 2006, 04:53:04 PM »

"in making the decision not to change his story over such a trivial event even with a gun to his head."

Sure, only if you go the other way and allow the rationality and credibility to increase in the other direction in proportion to the seriousness of the event.

"And second, it is evidence that the witness sincerely believed that his story was true."

Surely that is the first pre-requisite for any witness? Or, do you think a witness is more credible if it seems that the witness does not believe his story (account) ?

"Now, does the fact that the man refused to change his story even in the face of death mean that he "really did see" David Koresh steal the candy and fly through the air like a bird?"

There is no harm in allowing that the man's credibility increases. It was not my point to lay out all the tests for credibility that may exist. Preferably, we'd want ones that are objective, right?

"Or does it mean, as I point out, that he only sincerely believed that he had seen that?"

Like I said, that is at least a pre-requisite for believing a witness. You said it was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. There is NO WAY that assertion of yours can be justified. You must moderate it.

"BTW, how many of those eleven men are even alleged to be eyewitnesses to the resurrection?"

All of them are alleged to be eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, and Paul says that there are 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus at the same time.

"That is, how many of them are alleged to have seen both Jesus' dead body and Jesus alive again at a later time?"

Peter and John saw them dead, the others were in Bethany. That's ok, we've got a lot of other people who saw Jesus dead and buried besides, and those were his enemies.

Neither of you answered my question about the faked abduction in Iraq.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** March 11, 2006, 04:54:49 PM »

"I understood that, but "credibility" in this case only refers to strength of conviction, not the truth. We should not confuse the two"

But we should not be dismissive of one or the other, either. Your alternative is to suggest to me that on matters of testimony, it makes no difference at all whether the witness believes what he says he saw in ascertaining his credibility.

As I just said to Cog, it surely makes a differnence in a witness's credibility if the witness himself does not believe his own account.

Cogito · « **Reply #7 on:** March 11, 2006, 04:59:16 PM »

"All of them are alleged to be eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, and Paul says that there are 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus at the same time." -- sntjohnny

That's not what I asked. I asked how many of those 11 men were alleged to be eyewitnesses to a resurrection.

To be an eyewitness at a resurrection two things are necessary: First, one must witness a dead body. Second, one must witness that same dead body alive again at a later point in time.

Merely hearing rumors about a person's death and then seeing that person alive again later is not to witness a resurrection.

This means that ten(?) out of the eleven who allegedly died grisly deaths NEVER were even alleged to have witnessed a resurrection in the first place, doesn't it?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** March 11, 2006, 05:10:27 PM »

"That's not what I asked. I asked how many of those 11 men were alleged to be eyewitnesses to a resurrection."

"To be an eyewitness at a resurrection two things are necessary: First, one must witness a dead body. Second, one must witness that same dead body alive again at a later point in time."

Merely hearing rumors about a person's death and then seeing that person alive again later is not to witness a resurrection."

That's pretty strained. There were a pretty few that saw Jesus dead. Uh, like the people that killed them.

"This means that ten(?) out of the eleven who allegedly died grisly deaths NEVER were even alleged to have witnessed a resurrection in the first place, doesn't it?"

Sure, but this isn't reasonable. Also, this doesn't include Mary and the other chicks, but I don't know how she died.

The reason why your argument is strained is because technically speaking, your criteria fails. Even I could produce something more skeptical than that. NO disciple was there to watch Jesus jump up from the dead, right? The guards are not reported to have seen Jesus jump up from the dead. So, in this line, there were NO witnesses of a resurrection.

What did that get us? Pretty much nowhere.

You do not need to actually see him dead in order to be a credible witness to the resurrection.

I suppose you'd be worse than Thomas? Thomas wouldn't believe until he put his fingers in the holes- but you'd insist that Jesus transport you back into time so you could be sure he actually died and then bring you back into the present to feel the holes again? The whole msyteriously appearing in their presence despite the room being locked and the apparently transfigured body that made them think it was a ghost... yea.... ok...

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** March 11, 2006, 05:12:30 PM »

Cogito will only believe in a resurrection performed under scientifically controlled conditions!

The resurrection is a claim about a historical event...

Will he also deny any other claim about a historical event unless it too is conducted under scientifically controlled conditions?!?

Where is our control experiment?!?!?!?

Copernicus · « **Reply #10 on:** March 11, 2006, 05:13:31 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"I understood that, but "credibility" in this case only refers to strength of conviction, not the truth. We should not confuse the two"

But we should not be dismissive of one or the other, either. Your alternative is to suggest to me that on matters of testimony, it makes no difference at all whether the witness believes what he says he saw in ascertaining his credibility.

I didn't say that one should dismiss testimony out of hand. However, in the case which you really wish to discuss, we only have allegations of testimony, and the things testified to sound fairly preposterous to begin with. So there are other reasons for being dismissive of that case. An actual witness on the stand is another matter, but juries often do decide to dismiss testimony--even apparently sincere testimony--when it appears to conflict with what is credible.

Quote

As I just said to Cog, it surely makes a differnence in a witness's credibility if the witness himself does not believe his own account.

It also makes a difference if the witness makes grandiose claims. Cog made that point quite effectively with his reference to the testimony about David Koresh. All your singing and dancing doesn't diminish the fact that people can sincerely believe falsehoods.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** March 11, 2006, 05:27:56 PM »

"I didn't say that one should dismiss testimony out of hand."

Cog said it was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. Unless either of you can agree that it does at the very least increase their credibility, you are in fact dismissing it out of hand.

"when it appears to conflict with what is credible."

Ah, there's the rub, right? The problem is in your notion of what makes something credible or not. Are you not the ones who argue 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? Shouldn't it follow that an extraordinary testimony requires extraordinary conviction of the account? What degree of conviction supersedes a willingness to die for AN ACCOUNT?

""As I just said to Cog, it surely makes a differnence in a witness's credibility if the witness himself does not believe his own account.""

"It also makes a difference if the witness makes grandiose claims."

So, you concede that its important that the witness does in fact believe his own account?

"All your singing and dancing doesn't diminish the fact that people can sincerely believe falsehoods."

I have not yet begun to sing and dance.

The only people singing and dancing here so far is you guys. Cog said it is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. I wish to see that defended.

Still nothing about the faked abduction in Iraq?

Cogito · « **Reply #12 on:** March 11, 2006, 05:37:37 PM »

We have now gone from eleven people who allegedly died grisly deaths because of their eyewitnessed-based belief in a resurrection to, what, ONE who is even alleged to have been at eyewitness at a resurrection?

This means that the others died allegedly for a sincere belief that a supernatural event occurred that they did not even witness with their own eyes???

Quote

The reason why your argument is strained is because technically speaking, your criteria fails. Even I could produce something more skeptical than that. NO disciple was there to watch Jesus jump up from the dead, right? The guards are not reported to have seen Jesus jump up from the dead. So, in this line, there were NO witnesses of a resurrection.

I don't believe that's quite correct. A resurrection is only to die and then later to live again. I believe all that is necessary to witness a resurrection is that a dead body be seen and preferably examined to some degree and that life in that same body be witnessed at some later point in time.

But this is not the case in the alleged resurrection of Jesus, is it? At most we have one, maybe two people who qualify even as alledged eyewitnesses to a resurrection.

The rest died allegedly for a belief based on hearsay; although even that much is far from certain. All we really know about the eleven apostles is that they died. We know this because we know that every human dies. And we also know that when humans die, they stay dead a very, very, very long time. They don't die for 36 hours and then pop back to life.

Especially should we never believe such fantastic tales when they are received in a book written for propagandistic purposes such as those of the Bible are. Especially should we never believe such fantastic tales when they are second-hand accounts from people writing about the fantastic event decades after its alleged occurrence.

People can choose to believe whatever they want, but they can only believe rationally when their beliefs are justified. A belief that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead is not even close to being a rational belief. A belief in a literal, physical resurrection of Jesus can be accepted only by faith and only by faith alone.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** March 11, 2006, 05:45:59 PM »

"We have now gone from eleven people who allegedly died grisly deaths because of their eyewitnessed-based belief in a resurrection to, what, ONE who is even alleged to have been at eyewitness at a resurrection?"

Don't be daft. I boiled it down to ZERO before your very eyes.

"This means that the others died allegedly for a sincere belief that a supernatural event occurred that they did not even witness with their own eyes???"

That only follows from your extremely strained and pedantic view of what constitutes witnessing a resurrection. Reasonable people can definately disagree with that view.

In order to be witnesses to a resurrection, I submit that in fact, all you need is:

1. Solid assurance that the person was really dead.
2. Actual observation of the man alive again.

Bonus is seeing the man alive in a 'new body.'

"I don't believe that's quite correct."

Actually, it has little to do with being correct. Its just your own personal faith statement about what would be required. Unless you are aware of some scientific standard on what constitutes being an eyewitness to a resurrection...

"At most we have one, maybe two people who qualify even as alledged eyewitnesses to a resurrection."

According to YOUR standards. As I pointed out, even your standards are not skeptical enough.

"The rest died allegedly for a belief based on hearsay;"

Uh, what's the hearsay part? The hearsay that he was dead? Its not hearsay that they SAW HIM ALIVE AND ALLEGEDLY WITH A NEW BODY. Your only way to reduce anything to hearsay is the part where Jesus died.

Prior to this post, Jesus' death was by far the least contentious of all the claims of Christians. :) More importantly, you're just a little nuts if you think that they had any reason to doubt Jesus died.

Positively insane, even. :)

gtg to work

Cogito · « **Reply #14 on:** March 11, 2006, 06:07:17 PM »

"Don't be daft. I boiled it down to ZERO before your very eyes."

No, you did not. You merely misunderstand what it means to say that a resurrection has taken place. I pointed out to you that a resurrection is only being dead and then later being alive. Do you have reading difficulties? What's difficult to understand about that? There is absolutely no need to be present at the precise moment that a dead person pops back into life. Even if it were necessary, how might that precise point be determined?

All that is necessary to witness a resurrection is to observe a dead body at one point in time and at a later point to observe that same body alive again.

Pay attention, please. It's tiresome to repeat points that I've already made.

"In order to be witnesses to a resurrection, I submit that in fact, all you need is:

1. Solid assurance that the person was really dead.
2. Actual observation of the man alive again."

So what constitutes "solid assurance" that a person who you see walking down the street was, 36 hours ago, actually, sincerely, undoubtedly dead?

Whose testimony is so unimpeachable that is counts as evidence to substantiate that?

If your mother tells you that your aunt is dead and if you see your aunt alive the next day, the first thought that will pop into your head will NOT be, Resurrection! (At least, I sincerely hope it's not.

)

No, sir. The first thought that will pop into your head is that your mother was mistaken. No one's testimony, not even your mother's, is powerful enough to overcome the bias that billions of people's testimony over the course of thousands of years has established. You may believe your mother actually saw your aunt dead and you may believe that you saw your aunt alive 36 hours later, but you may not believe both things rationally at the same time.

"Uh, what's the hearsay part? The hearsay that he was dead? Its not hearsay that they SAW HIM ALIVE AND ALLEGEDLY WITH A NEW BODY. Your only way to reduce anything to hearsay is the part where Jesus died."

Of course!

If I tell you that John is dead and you see John alive later, you have NOT witnessed a resurrection. What's wrong with you? Are you so blinded by your faith that you are entirely incapable of rational thought about this alleged event?

The "NEW BODY" claim just makes the whole event even more incredulous. Who would claim that John died last week and that someone walking down the street who looks nothing like John was in fact the resurrected John? Worse, who on earth might believe such a tale second- or third-hand?

cimics · « **Reply #15 on:** March 11, 2006, 06:14:37 PM »

Quote

We have now gone from eleven people who allegedly died grisly deaths because of their eyewitnessed-based belief in a resurrection to, what, ONE who is even alleged to have been at eyewitness at a resurrection?

You ARE being daft. Or do you also doubt newspaper accounts of a capital murder convict being executed? The apostles had only to look to the Jewish and Roman governments for solid evidence that Jesus was dead. And then there was the tomb.

Are you sure you aren't deluding yourself? You seem to be going to great lengths to strain to deny the resurrection. Now, there may be more reasonable positions than the one you have taken, that can still deny the resurrection. But the irrationality of your particular denial suggests, at the very least, bias on your part.

Cogito · « **Reply #16 on:** March 11, 2006, 06:16:29 PM »

Quote

Prior to this post, Jesus' death was by far the least contentious of all the claims of Christians. :) More importantly, you're just a little nuts if you think that they had any reason to doubt Jesus died.

Why do you argue dishonestly like this? I can understand misunderstanding other points-of-view, that happens all the time with all of us. But often you seem to take the most outrageous interpretation of someone's words and argue against that. It's as if you care nothing about the truth of the matter and simply care about winning an argument even if it means intentionally distorting someone else's words.

Argue against my actual claim, if you can; not against what you wish my claim to be.

I never claimed that Jesus didn't die. In fact, I said or strongly implied, that Jesus, like every other human who lived two thousand years ago, died. What I am arguing is that of the handful of people who witnessed Jesus' death, only one of them even allegedly claims to have witnessed Jesus alive later. Only that person meets the most lenient interpretation of what it is to "witness a resurrection."

Cogito · « **Reply #17 on:** March 11, 2006, 06:20:26 PM »

Quote

The apostles had only to look to the Jewish and Roman governments for solid evidence that Jesus was dead.

What did the apostles while they were scattered around the countryside see in the way of "solid" evidence from the Jewish and Roman governments that Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph, brother of James, had been executed and was in fact dead?

[Seems as if I've touched a nerve here.

Good. Maybe you will awaken from your dogmatic slumber.]

cimics · « **Reply #18 on:** March 11, 2006, 06:37:52 PM »

Quote

What did the apostles while they were scattered around the countryside see in the way of "solid" evidence from the Jewish and Roman governments that Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph, brother of James, had been executed and was in fact dead?

They weren't all that scattered for long. Is that the best you can do?

Quote

[Seems as if I've touched a nerve here. Good. Maybe you will awaken from your dogmatic slumber.]

Actually, I'm trying to shake YOU out of your dogmatic slumber. The fact that you would cling to such irrational arguments in support of your atheism suggests to me you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Copernicus · « **Reply #19 on:** March 11, 2006, 06:54:23 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Cog said it was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. Unless either of you can agree that it does at the very least increase their credibility, you are in fact dismissing it out of hand.

I have not interpreted him to be saying anything of the sort. He has actually asked some rather pointed questions about your eyewitness testimony that you have had trouble answering.

Quote

"when it appears to conflict with what is credible."

Ah, there's the rub, right? The problem is in your notion of what makes something credible or not. Are you not the ones who argue 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? Shouldn't it follow that an extraordinary testimony requires extraordinary conviction of the account? What degree of conviction supersedes a willingness to die for AN ACCOUNT?

That is the rub. We do disagree on what counts as credible evidence. I agree with you that people who are willing to die for their beliefs exhibit an extraordinary amount of conviction. That in no way means that their conviction is worth spit, however.

Quote

So, you concede that its important that the witness does in fact believe his own account?

Never disputed it. I've only said that we should not confuse sincere belief with truth. Unevidenced claims are not very strong evidence. Usually there is more to go on in a trial than the testimony of eyewitnesses, BTW. Everyone understands that eyewitnesses can be mistaken, lying, or have a hidden agenda.

Quote

Still nothing about the faked abduction in Iraq?

What would you like me to say? I don't see that it is really relevant to your point. We all agree that people who are willing to die for their beliefs are likely to be sincere about them. I doubt that you would consider Hindu and Muslim claims of miraculous events to be any more credible than I consider Christian claims. You've just got a special thing for your religious claims. In that respect, you are no different from other people who sincerely believe their religious claims. What I would really find interesting is your ability to distinguish your religious claims from the false ones made by other religions. To me, they all seem to carry equal weight, which is to say very little at all.

Author Topic: Is death or willingness to die evidence of truth? (Read 8746 times)