Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 04-13-2003, 04:00 PM

"The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself."

I bet you've seen this statement before. But is it true? What qualifications or prerequisites have to be met for the use of this principle? Is it used by historians today? Was it originally formulated by Aristotle, as usually claimed?

I think the quote is fascinating, so I punched it into a search engine. Guess what? I could not find this quote used in the context of any web site discussing secular history, legal evidence, scientific methodology, philology, or other fields. I could only find theological tracts using this dictum in defense of the Bible. Why is that? Is this truly a principle used by historians in general?

What does it mean to give a document the benefit of the doubt? Specifically, what does a document need to qualify for this treatment, and under what circumstances is the benefit of the doubt stretched beyond the breaking point? For example, in order to apply this principle, do we have to know the identity of the author of the document and his or her relationship to the events being narrated? Do we have to take account of the motives and genre of the writing? Could the principle be applied to the Bhagavad Gita, to the Koran, to Homer, to Tolkien, to Moby Dick, to the Book of Mormon, to a modern historian such as Michael Grant, or what--and with what results? And under what circumstances does "the benefit of the doubt" no longer hold? What if there are conflicting reports? What if the story is scientifically improbable?

I am extremely interested in seeing the content and context of the original statement of Aristotle, to whom the dictum is often attributed. Based on what I have seen, the phrasing at the top of the page seems to be a summary of Aristotle by John Warwick Montgomery in History and Christianity, p. 29. Does anyone have this book by Montgomery available? Could they check this page for us, pretty please? One site referred to Aristotle's Art of Poetry, 1460b-61b. I could not find anything resembling Montgomery's dictum in that section of Aristotle, which discusses (among other things) situations in which poetry may narrate the way things ought to be as well as how they are.

Is there anyone who can come to the defense of this dictum? What does it mean and how is it justified? (Or, if you disagree with it, what does it mean and why isn't it justified?)

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 04-13-2003, 06:22 PM

The idea that text should be given the benefit of the doubt is just too convenient for Christian apologetics. It makes no sense as a tool of history. It's like saying that a journalist should always trust her sources unless they are proven wrong.

Aristotle does not appear to be dealing with the question of evaluating the historical accuracy of ancient texts, so it seems like at best his ideas have been taken out of context.

Montgomery's approach is intelligently criticized and deconstructed on The Nonbelievers Pages:

A Critique of John Warwick Montgomorey's apologetics by and copyright Mark Hutchins (warning - orange background.)

also reprinted on the infidels site:

Faith and History

Quote:

A reading of HISTORY AND CHRISTIANITY, a summary of his views, can leave the reader with an impression that Montgomery has a faith in history to accompany his faith in Christ. What pervades his writing is a reverent, almost naive trust in the idea that history always gives us truth. This opinion seems to explain his apologetics.

Montogmery's bio is here. He appears to have been a source for Josh McDowell and other modern apologists. His books seem to be mostly out of print, but you can get a reprint of History and Christianity here or a used copy here.
I don't think I will add it to my library.

Thomas Andrews · 04-23-2003, 06:25 PM

Hi!

I have been confronted by inerrantists with this asinine dictum. They have it backwards. The accused (humankind) has the benefit of the doubt. The Bible accuses us of high treason and declares we are worthy of death. That right there gives *us* the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, the accuser must prove its case, not us. Since the ones who originally brought the accusations are dead, the theologians and apologists have stepped into their shoes to continue to prosecute the claim that we have committed high treason against the king of the Universe and are going to die unless we submit and bend the knee to King Jesus. They have the burden of proof. They must first show that we arew indeed guilty of high treason, and to get off the ground they must first show that the documents making those claims are legitimate and prove their case against us beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lays in the lap of the inerrantist. He is the one coming forth wanting to make a case. He needs to back it up.

Suppose I wrote a document where I stated in Australia pigs had wings and flew. Further, I wrote in New Zealand there were horses with a single horn protruding from their foreheads. Would anyone with a dab of sense give my report the "benefit of the doubt" or would they have a sneaking suspicion that I might have smoked a little hemp? The salesman always has the burden to demonstrate his product is the one you need. You need not try to prove his product is worthless.

Thomas Andrews

Vinnie · 04-23-2003, 09:46 PM

I remember a concise and accurate one paragraph critique of this view of Blomberg by Carrier during his review of Doherty:

Quote:

Evangelical apologist Craig Blomberg argues that one should approach all texts with complete trust unless you have a specific reason to doubt what they say (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 1987, pp. 240-54). No real historian is so naive (see Bibliography ). I am not aware of any ancient work that is regarded as completely reliable. A reason always exists to doubt any historical claim. Historians begin with suspicion no matter what text they are consulting, and adjust that initial degree of doubt according to several factors, including genre, the established laurels of the author, evidence of honest and reliable methodology, bias, the nature of the claim (whether it is a usual or unusual event or detail, etc.), and so on. See for example my discussion of the Rubicon-Resurrection contrast in Geivett's Exercise in Hyperbole (Part 4b of my Review of In Defense of Miracles ). Historians have so much experience in finding texts false, and in knowing all the ways they can be false, they know it would be folly to trust anything handed to them without being able to make a positive case for that trust. This is why few major historical arguments stand on a single source or piece of evidence: the implicit distrust of texts entails that belief in any nontrivial historical claim must be based on a whole array of evidence and argument. So it is no coincidence that this is what you get in serious historical scholarship.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...uspuzzle.shtml

Vinnie

.

trillian · 04-24-2003, 02:50 PM

It is a lame argument to use since first, Aristotle never said that quote; second, Aristotle is talking about literary works NOT historical documents. Aristotle(in Poetics, written 350BC) is stating that it's sometimes OK for an artist (poet or otherwise) to introduce irrational items into their stories if it benefits the work. Aristotle, it seems, is not fond of critics who bash every poetic "license" an artist may take if it serves a purpose to the whole.

I would guess that Aristotle would find the literary piece we call the Bible to be utterly offensive to his artistic sensibilities.

Here's the context (though not full or it might bore you to tears) in which he makes the "alleged" dictum-I bolded the parts Christians refer to:

Quote:

The plea that otherwise the plot would have been ruined, is ridiculous; such a plot should not in the first instance be constructed. But once the irrational has been introduced and an air of likelihood imparted to it, we must accept it in spite of the absurdity. Take even the irrational incidents in the Odyssey, where Odysseus is left upon the shore of Ithaca. How intolerable even these might have been would be apparent [60b] if an inferior poet were to treat the subject. As it is, the absurdity is veiled by the poetic charm with which the poet invests it.

Again, when a word seems to involve some inconsistency of meaning, we should consider how many senses it may bear in the particular passage. For example: 'there was stayed the spear of bronze'-we should ask in how many ways we may take 'being checked there.' The true mode of interpretation is the precise opposite of [61b] what Glaucon mentions. Critics, he says, jump at certain groundless conclusions; they pass adverse judgement and then proceed to reason on it; and, assuming that the poet has said whatever they happen to think, find fault if a thing is inconsistent with their own fancy.

The question about Icarius has been treated in this fashion. The critics imagine he was a Lacedaemonian. They think it strange, therefore, that Telemachus should not have met him when he went to Lacedaemon. But the Cephallenian story may perhaps be the true one. They allege that Odysseus took a wife from among themselves, and that her father was Icadius, not Icarius. It is merely a mistake, then, that gives plausibility to the objection.

11.3 Conclusion: In general, the impossible must be justified by reference to artistic requirements, or to the higher reality, or to received opinion. With respect to the requirements of art, a probable impossibility is to be preferred to a thing improbable and yet possible. Again, it may be impossible that there should be men such as Zeuxis painted. 'Yes,' we say, 'but the impossible is the higher thing; for the ideal type must surpass the realty.' To justify the irrational, we appeal to what is commonly said to be. In addition to which, we urge that the irrational sometimes does not violate reason; just as 'it is probable that a thing may happen contrary to probability.'

Things that sound contradictory should be examined by the same rules as in dialectical refutation - whether the same thing is meant, in the same relation, and in the same sense. We should therefore solve the question by reference to what the poet says himself, or to what is tacitly assumed by a person of intelligence.

The element of the irrational, and, similarly, depravity of character, are justly censured when there is no inner necessity for introducing them. Such is the irrational element in the introduction of Aegeus by Euripides and the badness of Menelaus in the Orestes.

Metacrock · 04-24-2003, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
"The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself."

I bet you've seen this statement before. But is it true? What qualifications or prerequisites have to be met for the use of this principle? Is it used by historians today? Was it originally formulated by Aristotle, as usually claimed?

I think the quote is fascinating, so I punched it into a search engine. Guess what? I could not find this quote used in the context of any web site discussing secular history, legal evidence, scientific methodology, philology, or other fields. I could only find theological tracts using this dictum in defense of the Bible. Why is that? Is this truly a principle used by historians in general?

What does it mean to give a document the benefit of the doubt? Specifically, what does a document need to qualify for this treatment, and under what circumstances is the benefit of the doubt stretched beyond the breaking point? For example, in order to apply this principle, do we have to know the identity of the author of the document and his or her relationship to the events being narrated? Do we have to take account of the motives and genre of the writing? Could the principle be applied to the Bhagavad Gita, to the Koran, to Homer, to Tolkien, to Moby Dick, to the Book of Mormon, to a modern historian such as Michael Grant, or what--and with what results? And under what circumstances does "the benefit of the doubt" no longer hold? What if there are conflicting reports? What if the story is scientifically improbable?

I am extremely interested in seeing the content and context of the original statement of Aristotle, to whom the dictum is often attributed. Based on what I have seen, the phrasing at the top of the page seems to be a summary of Aristotle by John Warwick Montgomery in History and Christianity, p. 29. Does anyone have this book by Montgomery available? Could they check this page for us, pretty please? One site referred to Aristotle's Art of Poetry, 1460b-61b. I could not find anything resembling Montgomery's dictum in that section of Aristotle, which discusses (among other things) situations in which poetry may narrate the way things ought to be as well as how they are.

Is there anyone who can come to the defense of this dictum? What does it mean and how is it justified? (Or, if you disagree with it, what does it mean and why isn't it justified?)

best,
Peter Kirby

I think modern Bible scholars in the liberal tradition just skip the benifit part and give them all the doubt, especially if they are canonical.

All that's saying is that they have presumption because they are the primary text of the tradition. In a way that's used in history, but it wouldn't be said like that. If I went into a grad school today, say University of Texas, and argued that the U.S. constituion which we believe to the legal foundation of our country is not the same document ratified by the contitutional convention, no one would say "O my God there's a constitutional crisis, we better get busy and find the real document." They would laugh at me until I could produce something to make them it seriously. Then they would still insist that it's my burden of proof.

That's basically what that's saying. Theology is a conversation. It has a history, it has a vocabulary, and the text of the Bible sets the tone for the vocabulary. the converation has proceeded along the lines of those documents. We have to assume some kind of theoloigcal validity to them, if not historical, until it can be showen that they don't deserve it.

Having said all that, that is not to say that we have assume any particular statment in them until its disproven. But why should we act as though the believer must always be defending against any doubt and any expression of disbelief that comes along, and cn never assert the validity of the primary text of his/her faith?

I don't know what fundies call that principle. i call it "hermeneutic of confidence." The oppossite, "hermeneutic of suspcion" (that's its real name, I didn't make that up) is far more the norm in theology today, espeicially in the liberal camp. That means you come to the text with the suspicion that it's bull shit, to put it buntly. O they get more sophisticated than that (that the author/redactor is approaching the redaction form this view or that view) but that's what it amounts to.

Haran · 04-26-2003, 07:47 AM

Thanks much for the quote, trillian1. I may try and see if I can find the whole thing online at Perseus or something. Do you know the exact chapter/section/etc.?

Quote:

Originally posted by trillian1 Aristotle(in Poetics, written 350BC) is stating that it's sometimes OK for an artist (poet or otherwise) to introduce irrational items into their stories if it benefits the work.

...and, it seems, that those critical of the poet should not just assume that he made a mistake.

Quote:

Aristotle, it seems, is not fond of critics who bash every poetic "license" an artist may take if it serves a purpose to the whole.

Right. They should not immediately assume, when looking at one of these 'inconsistencies' or 'improbabilities', that it is a mistake. They should, instead, give the poet the benefit of the doubt and try to find another reason for the perceived mistake (e.g. consider other meanings for words, etc.).

Bruce Metzger lists Aristotle in his list of some of the first textual critics. I assume his reason for doing so was this passage and perhaps others.

Finally, if you reject this methodology, then what? If one, instead, presumes that a document purporting to tell a truthful history is 'guilty until proven innocent', how exactly do we go about proving it? This seems like an awfully convenient methodology for those who want to destroy history.

It seems better to me to assume the work, with all its faults, is true until something somewhere else contradicts it (I don't think this means don't be skeptical, but give the document the benefit of the doubt.). Then, before giving up on what claimed to be truthful history, check for other possible reasons that might explain the contradiction. This does not seem unlike what Aristotle was saying. I think this would be good for any ancient work. As a matter of fact, many people quote history that was gleaned from Josephus (or other ancient historians) without even knowing so or doubting what they said. I think we assume truth and give benefit of doubt to sources most of the time (except when it comes to the Bible, it seems).

Family Man · 04-26-2003, 09:31 AM

Haran --

Aristotle was talking about poetics, not history. Poetry need not be truthful in the sense of historical accuracy to get across a valid point. That is what it seems Aristotle was trying to say. To extend it to historical examination is very dangerous, because poetry makes no pretense to being accurate in the factual sense.

The fact of the matter is that history, as practiced today, is a critical field. It is very easy to demonstrate. For example, Michael Grant in his book The Ancient Historians notes that Julius Caesar took credit for his victories, but tended to blame defeat on the mistakes of underlings. He states very clearly that this latter claim can't be accepted as an accurate statement because we have no independent confirmation and it is rather convenient for Caesar to place the blame on others.

Or consider a more modern example. According to General William T. Sherman's memoirs, after the Battle of Bull Run one of his officer's approached Lincoln with a complaint. He wanted to make a business trip to New York, but Sherman not only forbid it, but threatened to shoot him. According to Sherman, Lincoln told the officer: "Well, if I were you, and he threatened to shoot, I would not trust him, for I believe he would do it."

Should we trust that this happened. Not according to historian Lee Kennett, who writes:

Quote:

This anecdote is well-known, having been passed on by most of Sherman's biographers. However, other eyewitness accounts of Lincoln's visit do not corroborate Sherman's story; nor did Sherman relate the affair in a letter to Ellen [Sherman's wife], though it was his custom to pass on such happenings to her, particularly when they showed him in a favorable light. It is quite possible that it did happen as Sherman related it; it is also possible that, writing his memoirs a dozen years afterward, the general substituted it for another, far more unpleasant occurrence that day.

If it is what historians do that is in question here, there really is no question. Claims are always looked at critically. If it is what they should do, those who advocate giving the benefit of the doubt really need to put a coherent argument as to why the benefit of the doubt ought to be given.

lpetrich · 04-26-2003, 09:43 AM

Metacrock and Haran seem to be claiming that EVERY purportedly historical document ought to be presumed 100% true unless shown otherwise, something which is Metacrock's "hermeneutic of confidence".

But do Metacrock and Haran do that with any sacred book other than the Bible? Do they believe that good Muslim men will get to live like sultans in the next world, complete with lots of servant boys and lots of pretty ladies to make love to? That is what the Koran states. Do they believe that the Olympian deities are real, and that they had intervened in the Trojan War? That is what the Iliad states. Do they believe that there are one-eyed giant cannibals, women with impossibly seductive voices, other women who can turn men into pigs (and not simply in a behavioral sense), etc.? That is what the Odyssey states.

According to their own claims, they ought to believe all that. But it would be surprising if they did.

Haran · 04-26-2003, 10:38 AM

Here is the full work if anyone is interested: Aristotle's Poetics

You are right about Aristotle, Family Man, but what I tried to get across in my last post was that it does not matter that this is about poetry as opposed to history.

Check out the paragraph about the "bronze shaft" again. According to note 13 at Perseus, the point was that there was a seeming contradiction and that rather than censure it or change it as some did, they should accept it and look for other possible meanings (i.e. what the author might have actually intended). Here's the note since I know some won't go read it:

Quote:

Hom. Il. 20.272:

"Nay but the weighty shaft of the warlike hero Aeneas Brake not the shield; for the gold, the gift of a god, did withstand it. Through two folds it drave, yet three were beneath, for Hephaestus, Crook-footed god, five folds had hammered; two were of bronze-work, Two underneath were of tin and one was of gold; there the bronzen Shaft of the hero was stayed in the gold."

Problem: "Since the gold was presumably outside for the sake of ornament, how could the spear he stayed in the gold and yet penetrate two folds?"

Bywater suggests as a solution that "the plate of gold sufficed to stop the course of the spear, though the spear-point actually pierced it and indented the underlying plates of brass."

The end of the quote here actually shows a classical historian (i.e. Bywater) applying the principle....

Ok, let's look at it in another way. Suppose a text makes a claim about a particular event in history. Suppose what we know of history seems to contradict this event. We may want to doubt the claim, but what if the information we have is incorrect or we simply don't understand it and our source was actually truthful and correct?

By not giving the benefit of doubt to the claim, we will possibly reject true history. Therein lies the problem and the reason behind the statement Peter quotes.

By all means, be skeptical. However, reserve the possibility that the claim (document, whatever) could be correct.

04-13-2003, 04:00 PM	#1
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Benefit of the Doubt "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself." I bet you've seen this statement before. But is it true? What qualifications or prerequisites have to be met for the use of this principle? Is it used by historians today? Was it originally formulated by Aristotle, as usually claimed? I think the quote is fascinating, so I punched it into a search engine. Guess what? I could not find this quote used in the context of any web site discussing secular history, legal evidence, scientific methodology, philology, or other fields. I could only find theological tracts using this dictum in defense of the Bible. Why is that? Is this truly a principle used by historians in general? What does it mean to give a document the benefit of the doubt? Specifically, what does a document need to qualify for this treatment, and under what circumstances is the benefit of the doubt stretched beyond the breaking point? For example, in order to apply this principle, do we have to know the identity of the author of the document and his or her relationship to the events being narrated? Do we have to take account of the motives and genre of the writing? Could the principle be applied to the Bhagavad Gita, to the Koran, to Homer, to Tolkien, to Moby Dick, to the Book of Mormon, to a modern historian such as Michael Grant, or what--and with what results? And under what circumstances does "the benefit of the doubt" no longer hold? What if there are conflicting reports? What if the story is scientifically improbable? I am extremely interested in seeing the content and context of the original statement of Aristotle, to whom the dictum is often attributed. Based on what I have seen, the phrasing at the top of the page seems to be a summary of Aristotle by John Warwick Montgomery in History and Christianity, p. 29. Does anyone have this book by Montgomery available? Could they check this page for us, pretty please? One site referred to Aristotle's Art of Poetry, 1460b-61b. I could not find anything resembling Montgomery's dictum in that section of Aristotle, which discusses (among other things) situations in which poetry may narrate the way things ought to be as well as how they are. Is there anyone who can come to the defense of this dictum? What does it mean and how is it justified? (Or, if you disagree with it, what does it mean and why isn't it justified?) best, Peter Kirby

04-23-2003, 06:25 PM	#3
Thomas Andrews Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 10	Benefit of the doubt Hi! I have been confronted by inerrantists with this asinine dictum. They have it backwards. The accused (humankind) has the benefit of the doubt. The Bible accuses us of high treason and declares we are worthy of death. That right there gives us the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, the accuser must prove its case, not us. Since the ones who originally brought the accusations are dead, the theologians and apologists have stepped into their shoes to continue to prosecute the claim that we have committed high treason against the king of the Universe and are going to die unless we submit and bend the knee to King Jesus. They have the burden of proof. They must first show that we arew indeed guilty of high treason, and to get off the ground they must first show that the documents making those claims are legitimate and prove their case against us beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lays in the lap of the inerrantist. He is the one coming forth wanting to make a case. He needs to back it up. Suppose I wrote a document where I stated in Australia pigs had wings and flew. Further, I wrote in New Zealand there were horses with a single horn protruding from their foreheads. Would anyone with a dab of sense give my report the "benefit of the doubt" or would they have a sneaking suspicion that I might have smoked a little hemp? The salesman always has the burden to demonstrate his product is the one you need. You need not try to prove his product is worthless. Thomas Andrews

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-26-2003, 09:43 AM	#9
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Metacrock and Haran seem to be claiming that EVERY purportedly historical document ought to be presumed 100% true unless shown otherwise, something which is Metacrock's "hermeneutic of confidence". But do Metacrock and Haran do that with any sacred book other than the Bible? Do they believe that good Muslim men will get to live like sultans in the next world, complete with lots of servant boys and lots of pretty ladies to make love to? That is what the Koran states. Do they believe that the Olympian deities are real, and that they had intervened in the Trojan War? That is what the Iliad states. Do they believe that there are one-eyed giant cannibals, women with impossibly seductive voices, other women who can turn men into pigs (and not simply in a behavioral sense), etc.? That is what the Odyssey states. According to their own claims, they ought to believe all that. But it would be surprising if they did.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.