j*******7
发帖数: 6300 | 1 Why Do Two People See the Same Evidence Differently?
I’ve been involved in jury trials for the past 25 years; I can’t even
remember how many I’ve testified in as a police officer and detective. More
recently (for the past 15 years or so) I’ve been involved in many high
profile cold-case trials (four of these have been featured on Dateline). We
’ve never suffered a loss in any of these trials. People sometimes ask me
what the secret to our success has been. Has it been the depth and detail of
each investigation? Has it been the meticulous way we assemble each case?
Has it been the multi-media approach we take with each trail at the opening
statement and closing argument? Has it been the determined way in which the
prosecutor puts on the case? All of these things are important, of course,
but I don’t think any of them have been the key to our success. In my
experience, every case is either won or lost at jury selection. You can have
the best possible case and the most articulate prosecutor, but if you don’
t have the right jury (free of biases and presuppositions inhibiting their
ability to see or accept the truth), it’s all for nothing. As it turns out,
every case is dependent on the lack of presuppositional bias. This is what
causes to people to see the same evidence and come to different conclusions.
If you think this is only the case in criminal jury trials, think again. Let
me tell you a story. Two young men (B1 and B2) were raised in the Church as
Christians. Both attended youth groups and pursued their interest in the
Bible in their college years. Both attended a Christian undergraduate school
(B1 at Wheaton College and B2 at Lebanon Valley College) and earned a
degree in Biblical studies of one kind or another. Both eventually found
their way to Princeton. B1 earned a Master’s Degree in Divinity; B2 earned
a Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree in Theology. Both men continued their
Princeton educations and eventually earned PhD’s in Biblical studies and
ancient languages. Both married believing wives and became authorities in
the Bible; examining the exact same set of ancient manuscripts and texts.
Although both men have examined precisely the same set of evidences, one is
a Christian believer today while the other is not. B1 is Bart Ehrman, the
famed agnostic author of many skeptical books challenging the reliability of
scripture and the Deity of Jesus. He presently heads the Bible Department
at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, although he is a committed
non-believer. B2 is Bruce Metzger, the famed Bible authority and longtime
professor at Princeton Theological Seminary who served on the board of the
American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. Why is does one of these
men fight against the reliability of the Biblical scripture while the other
died as a scholar and advocate for the scripture? It’s not about the
evidence, that’s for sure. Both men knew the evidence well and were looking
at the same facts. Like any two jurors, it all comes down to their
presuppositions.
When most people think of bias, they tend to think of it as something evil
and menacing. We also tend to think of it as something obvious and easily
detected. That may be true for prejudice (like the kind of prejudice we
recognize in racism), but it isn’t always the case for the subtle
presuppositions that guide our everyday decisions. These presuppositions are
often hidden and seem rather benign. I have no idea what presuppositions
Bart or Bruce held that caused them to reject or embrace the reliability of
the Bible, but I do know the pervasive presupposition I held for a number of
years as an atheist. I was a philosophical naturalist, and my
presupposition prevented me from taking seriously any claim of a miraculous
event, including the many miracles recorded in scripture. I never examined
my presupposition; in fact I seldom thought about it at all. That’s the way
presuppositions work. They are so subtle and foundational most of us fail
to either recognize or challenge them. But this is where decision-making
truly lies: Not at the point where we first encounter the evidence, but back
at the foundational level of our accepted presuppositions. If you want to
chart a new course or make a foundational transformation in your thinking,
you probably won’t get there by examining the evidence with more vigor.
Instead, you’ll need to examine your presuppositions.
This is why every jury case is won or lost at the point of jury selection.
Attorneys don’t have the luxury of asking jurors to rethink their
presuppositions. That takes time and plenty of introspection. Instead,
prosecutors and defense attorneys simply do their best to uncover the
presuppositions of each juror and then either include or eliminate the juror
based on these presuppositions. Jury selection is all about identifying
presuppositional bias and eliminating it from the panel. Why do two people
see the evidence differently? Now you know. If you’re considering the
evidence for something (even the evidence for God’s existence or the Deity
of Jesus) take the time to examine your own history of hurts and joys,
desires and presuppositions. Sometimes the thing standing between you and
the truth is just you.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/why-do-two-people-see-the- | t*******d
发帖数: 2570 | 2 Presupposition works both ways. When Christians suggest that non-believers
are influenced by their presupposition, do they reflect whether they are
influenced by their own presupposition?
More
We
of
opening
the
【在 j*******7 的大作中提到】
: Why Do Two People See the Same Evidence Differently?
: I’ve been involved in jury trials for the past 25 years; I can’t even
: remember how many I’ve testified in as a police officer and detective. More
: recently (for the past 15 years or so) I’ve been involved in many high
: profile cold-case trials (four of these have been featured on Dateline). We
: ’ve never suffered a loss in any of these trials. People sometimes ask me
: what the secret to our success has been. Has it been the depth and detail of
: each investigation? Has it been the meticulous way we assemble each case?
: Has it been the multi-media approach we take with each trail at the opening
: statement and closing argument? Has it been the determined way in which the
| J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 3 You said it correctly.
This author is not trying to discriminate presupposition of one person to
another.
The author is simply asking us to re-examine our presupposition. If you are
an unbeliever, think about what is your presupposition. Christians also need
to think similarly.
【在 t*******d 的大作中提到】
: Presupposition works both ways. When Christians suggest that non-believers
: are influenced by their presupposition, do they reflect whether they are
: influenced by their own presupposition?
:
: More
: We
: of
: opening
: the
| j*******7
发帖数: 6300 | 4 预设派护教学的一个范例：
艾伦：我是一个无神论及进化论者。请向我证明神的存在。
保罗：因为你的预设的思想，我不认为我能向你证明。
艾伦：为什么？
保罗：因为你的预设前提，让你在接受我向你证明神存在的证据时带有偏见。
艾伦：这就是因为没有证据能证明神的存在。
保罗：你瞧，的确是这样,你刚才证实了我的陈述。
艾伦：怎么会这样?
保罗：你的预设前提就是神不存在，所以，无论我如何向你出示神存在的证据，你肯定
以与你前提一致的原因来解释：即是，根本没有神。如果我有神从天国而来的录像带，
你会说这是一个特殊效果；如果我有一千目击者说他们见到神，你会说这是集体的竭斯
底里, 或是集体的幻觉；如果我说旧约中耶稣的预言都在新约中实现，你会说这是捏造
的，日期不符合，或者不是真实的预言。所以，由于你的前提不允许，我不能向你证明
任何事。它被限制着。
艾伦：这不是限制着啊。
保罗：它是的。即使证据能够提供神存在的事实, 你的先存的观念也不允许你正确的从
证据中认识神的存在, 。你没发现？如果我有无可辩驳的证据，你的前提将会强迫你以
与你前提一致的事实来解释，你就无法接受这些证据。
艾伦：我明白你的观点了，但是如果你能做到，我愿意被说服。
保罗：那么，我问你，哪种证明神存在的证据你能够接受?我需要了解你的先存的思想
是什么，并且决定遵循你的前提或是推翻它。 |
|
