EVIDENCE IS TRICKY
Previously I had written about a friend and former Christian brother’s, social media post. It led to a bit of a debate, which neither one of us shy away from, but that debate took a turn and went a little south rather quickly. In my reflection of the conversation broke down primarily over definition of faith, and over the conclusiveness of evidence. Both of which are tricky, and while I talked about the misunderstanding we had about faith in a previous post; evidence, can often be just as tricky to pin down. Just ask any fan of Netflix’s recent “Making a Murderer” series. If you have not seen the series I highly suggest taking a look, not only is it very compelling, but it demonstrates how are perceptions of evidence can be skewed by our own personal narrative, and that evidence all by itself, doesn’t really prove anything, as much as it serves to validate or invalidate a story.
SETTING THE STAGE
By way of reminder, my friend asserted that the definition of faith IS the NON-traditional view of blind faith,or faith without evidence. I say non-traditional because even though the concept is very popular on our current western Christian context, the actual idea is nowhere to be found in the understanding of Christian faith that we see in the scriptures. It is, at best, something that sounds vaguely spiritual enough that people believe it is Christian, like “cleanliness is next to godliness” or “spare the rod spoil the child“, and at worst, a false understanding so detrimental to Christian thought, that it gives good cause to people who wrongfully reject genuine faith, based solely on a false idea of this counterfeit faith. In fact I even told my friend that if genuine Christian faith was in fact “blind” and without evidence as he asserted, then I would have no problem renouncing my faith today. In short I disagreed and asserted that Christian faith does have evidence.
This inevitably raised a question, that question revealed our secondary problem. Once I asserted that his definition of faith was inconsistent with Christian faith; specifically that Christian faith is a faith that not only has evidence, but a faith that demands it, if faith is a faith with evidence, then the obvious question is “What evidence?” The common assumption by internet educated atheist is that there is none. This is simply not true.
WHAT EVIDENCE?
This second part of our argument did not fall apart over the actual substance of the evidence, but over whether or not my friend was willing to receive it as evidence. Spoiler alert, he was not. His common push back was “Even if that’s true, it doesn’t prove anything!” Which is true, and a claim I never made. I never once asserted that any of my evidence proved anything definitively. As such, I could give many reasons and evidences as to why I believe in Christianity, but me merely presenting the evidence cannot change whether or not someone choose to accept that evidence.
Think of it in terms of a court case. If your a fan of “Making a Murderer” like me, you know that sometimes evidence can be sketchy. Everything from how it is accepted and collected, to how it is presented and received. It is a far more complex subject than whether or not it “proves” anything. For instance, a court, before determining anything, first decides which pieces of evidence it will allow into the trial. My friend would not allow any evidence into the court room of his mind, as such, our conversation did not go very far because without first being allowed, we cant further investigate the evidence we have. Furthermore, his requirement that the evidence “prove” something conclusively (100%) is a demand that is not only unreasonable, but unlike anything we see in our judicial systems. It makes me wonder, does he hold everything in his life to that same standard, does he demand 100% proof for everything before he will accept it?
THE CHRISTIAN CRIME SCENE
Let’s build our analogy out a bit. Image you come across a room with a dead body inside. What do you know about the death of that person? Nothing, but maybe you see a gun sitting on the table, and you think, “Maybe this person was shot with this gun, maybe a murder or a suicide?” Is this a reasonable assumption? Yes it is. Is this a piece of evidence? Again, yes. Does this prove anything? No, not at all. A gun is just a gun, it is still a piece of evidence, but it shows us nothing about what happened, all you have proved is that there was a gun in the room with a dead body.
So we take that small piece of inconclusive evidence and we examine it. We notice the gun holds six bullets in its clip, and there are only five left in the gun. Does this prove anything? No, but it suggest that maybe the gun was fired. We go back over to the body and we notice an exit wound from a bullet. Does this prove anything? No. You still don’t know 100% that this gun is the gun that fired the bullet that made the wound. It makes a very good case for your assumption, but does not demonstrate your case with 100% infallibility, nor does it show what really happened. Was the gun shot self-inflicted, or a murder? Do we have a fired bullet to match with this gun? The evidence demands more investigation, and at some point you to make an educated guess based on all the little pieces of evidence you have.
Sadly, if a homicide detective held to the same standard of evidence as my friend, many pieces of evidence would not be allowed to be part of this investigation, much less part of a court case to determine what truly happened. According to my friend, in our imaginary scenario, sense the gun doesn’t “prove” anything 100%, it is NOT evidence. His words, “It’s not evidence, it doesn’t prove anything.”
In reality, it is hardly ever just one piece of evidence, in fact it is normally a collection of many pieces of circumstantial evidence that make or break a case. This is what I tried to convey to my friend. It’s not just one thing, it’s a multitude of things. Together, these things make a pretty compelling case.
WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD WE CONSIDER?
This is a good question, but a question that has no real answer. It really depends on the conversation. In the particular conversation with my friend we started with the validity of the bible. If the validity of the bible is on trial, then there is a very easy string of questions we can ask to begin to build a case. While I wont go over all the evidence, there is simply too much for one blog post. I can tell you how I tried present the evidence to my friend.
First, we can simply start with Jesus, all of the bible’s claims fall flat if there is no Jesus. So, was Jesus an actual person? Yes, he was, some try to claim otherwise, but no serious scholar, even atheist scholars believes this fringe claim. All serious history points to Jesus being an actual person who lived around the time, and in the area, that the bible claims he did. If accepted, then this piece of evidence becomes a positive piece for the case of Christianity. Obviously if there is no Jesus, there is no Christianity. Does this prove that he was God? No, but it is a pretty obvious place to start. Granted, it still does not prove anything 100%, but if our two available options are “valid” versus “invalid”, the fact that Jesus is a real person points us more towards the “valid” category over the “invalid” category. My friendly opponent, would not grant this conclusion.
Secondly we could look to the writings of the bible itself. On the bible, there are a myriad of things we could ask along the lines of credibility, and I think the first and most obvious is simply is “Is our copy of the bible even accurate?” What I don’t mean to say is that all of it’s claims are true, what I do mean to say is “Has the bible been tampered with over time? If we are supposed to accept these documents as true, how do we know if we even have a fair representation of the originals? Which is a good question, but this blog is not about the reliability of the new testament, or the science of textual criticism, so I won’t go down that rabbit whole. You can click the highlighted links for more on that topic. This blog is about evidence, and after presenting to my friend a number of evidences that show that the bible is well preserved, accurate and not tampered with, he still refused to accept my evidence into his consideration. His reasoning still “It doesn’t prove anything!” In my view, it is intellectually dishonest.
WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON?
If this were a court room, and my friend the judge, those of us observing the trial might wander as to why the judge wont allow any of this evidence to be heard. We have demonstrated the evidence’s potential viability, and this evidence is certainly relevant to our case. Maybe we could assume that the judge refuses the evidence based on some personal bias against the story that we are trying to present. If this were an actual case, we would say that this judge, if not completely corrupt, is not impartial or fair enough to hear this case, and we would move for a mistrial. Unfortunately I do not think my friend is able to fairly give the bible and its claims and honest hearing.
However, if the bible is true, you would think that it would have something to about our partiality against it’s claims. In fact it does…
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
-Romans Chapter 1
If the bible is true, then what it says about the human condition is true. If what it says about the human condition is true, then the above verse is true for my friend. He has believed a lie, another story that is counter to the story of the gospel. That story is so ingrained into his mind, that it affects his bias so much, that he is unable to see the evidence in front of him with any sort of fairness. So what are we to do then? Well, if the bible is true, then the Holy Spirit of God regularly opens the eyes of the blind, and gives life to the dead. I will do my best to continue to faithfully present the evidence to any who ask, and I will pray for the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of all who are blind.
Theist the Bearded 