Embedded Files
Prolog
I call myself an evidentialist. In my lifelong search for what’s true and good I’ve chosen to avoid presupposition and evaluate evidence as objectively as I reasonably can.
No one is entirely objective, without bias. We all use presuppositional biases to efficiently make decisions. If we investigated every claim with no presuppositions, we’d spend our lives investigating claims and rarely making decisions.
I have a presupposition against claims of space aliens visiting our planet. This bias is based on evidence, and I use it to avoid spending time examining evidence for every new claim I come across. Since all space alien claims that I’ve investigated in the past have turned out to be hoaxes, hallucinations, misperceptions of natural phenomena, or some other terrestrial event, I presume that all reports of space aliens visiting earth are false.
If I had an undeniable encounter with space aliens myself, that would change my presupposition. If a large number of credible people expressed belief in space alien visits to our planet and they cited credible evidence to support their beliefs, I would soften my bias and consider the possibility more objectively.
The latter condition is where I find myself with God. I’m skeptical of miracle claims because the vast majority of miracle claims that I’ve investigated are better explained as natural events, coincidence, hallucination, hoax, myth, or some other non-supernatural event. When someone tells me about a miraculous healing or that God spoke to them, my automatic response is, “Not likely.” I don’t usually say that out loud, but it’s the thought I hold in my mind.
That response comes from a presuppositional bias against miracle claims. I have found credible miracle claims to be so rare that I usually don’t bother to investigate such claims. I would spend an inordinate amount of time and offend a lot of people if I did investigate them. Instead of investigating the claim and telling people I don’t find credible evidence to support their claim, I usually listen politely without challenging or encouraging them.
But my presupposition against miracles isn’t as strong as my presupposition against space aliens. I do occasionally investigate miracle claims if someone offers credible evidence to back up their claim. The reason I’m more open to miracle claims is because I’ve witnessed a few miracles directly, and many credible people offer compelling accounts of miracles. The proposition of miracles and the possibility of God come with much greater evidence than space alien visits.
My evidential approach for and against the existence of God and possible supernatural events is rather simple. It allows me to weigh the credibility of evidence and reason against uncertainty to determine what appears most likely to be true. I imagine a balance scale where I can mentally place evidence for and against a claim, along with uncertainty associated with the evidences. It’s still a very subjective process as I visualize how much weight to assign various evidences and uncertainties, but the process helps me to reduce my biases and weigh the evidence objectively.
As a critical thinking Christian, I have evaluated my assumptions many times and tried to convince myself that Christianity is false. Occasionally I remove something from the God and Bible side of the scale and put everything I can think of on the opposing side, but the scale refuses to tip the other way. I haven’t been able to convince myself that Christianity is completely bogus.
But I have changed my beliefs quite a bit. Many doctrines that I was taught as a boy don’t stand up to critical evidential evaluation. The most significant doctrine that I’ve abandoned is the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Evidence against taking these stories as literal science and history overwhelmingly tips the scale toward myth or metaphor. There is good reason to believe they are divine allegory.
I am an analytical thinking scientist with faith comparable to the disciple Thomas. Thomas heard testimony from others, and he was familiar with the scriptures, but he refused to believe Jesus had risen from the dead until he saw evidence for himself. Once Jesus gave him the evidence he needed, Thomas was all in, proclaiming, “My Lord and my God!” (John 24:28, NIV 2011). Many Christians believe because they trust in what the Bible says, or they trust the theology of the church, or they trust the testimony of other believers. None of these satisfy my need for evidence. I needed solid empirical evidence to trust in God, so I feel sympathetic with unbelievers who want more reliable empirical evidence.
Evidentialism seeks evidence and reason with minimal presupposition.
Most skeptics are unaware how strong the evidential case is for Christianity. I have spoken with skeptics who claim there is no evidence for God or the Bible. Sometimes when I present them with a long list of evidence they are intrigued, but often they simply raise the bar of skepticism. I frequently meet philosophical dismissals such as, “extreme claims require extreme evidence.” Such philosophies enable skeptics to raise the bar of evidence ever higher, rejecting everything they might encounter. This form of skepticism is thinly veiled presuppositionalism.
You may be asking a lot of questions at this point. That’s good. I hope the chapters of this book will answer many questions and raise additional questions, launching you on your own objective search for truth and goodness based on evidence and reason.
Google Sites
Report abuse