Evidentialism relies on evidence and reason while avoiding presuppositions. Taken to an extreme, evidentialism isn’t very useful. I know my mind exists because I’m thinking, but I can’t conclude much beyond that without some presuppositions. I accept that the physical universe we observe exists—it’s not just a computer simulation, dream, or some other massive illusion. With that assumption, I examine evidence rationally to consider what’s most likely real, true, and good, avoiding other presuppositions.
There are many types of evidence. Empirical evidence holds the most weight in my analysis, but philosophical evidence is also important. When philosophical reasoning related to a hypothesis leads to logical contradiction, there’s something wrong with the hypothesis or the assumptions related to it. Philosophy is a useful tool in the search for truth, but I try to focus on empirical evidence first.
Many people mistakenly believe empirical evidence, mostly from modern science, proves Christianity false. Some skeptics who admit evidence fails to prove Christianity false, erroneously claim there is little or no empirical evidence favoring Christianity.
The claim that little or no empirical evidence favors the Christian faith usually comes from simple ignorance. People are unaware of the evidence and presumptuously assume there is none. Sometimes people make up their own strict definition of “empirical” to exclude evidence I present for my faith. They sometimes define empirical evidence on a level that actually constitutes scientific proof.
When some people claim empirical evidence proves Christianity false, they have in mind fundamentalist theology holding to the strictest application of scripture. Scientific evidence so overwhelming contradicts the fundamentalist view of scripture that I agree with the skeptics who reject it.
However, claiming empirical evidence proves all Christianity false grossly distorts reality. There are many views within the Christian umbrella besides the fundamentalist view. Many scientists like myself subscribe to Christian beliefs solidly in line with empirical evidence. I will demonstrate that my Christian views align with empirical evidence much more truly than the views of those who reject Christianity.
Empirical Evidence. I found two helpful definitions of empirical:[9]
originating in or based on observation or experience
capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
I favor the first definition because the second definition provides a loophole for abuse. In life, most of what we believe is not based on direct observation or experimentation. We usually trust in testimonial evidence of things other people observe and experiments they conducted. In court, we cannot directly observe whether a person is guilty or innocent. We cannot test it by experiment. We must include credible testimony of the observations of others to determine the most likely truth.
There are times when the second definition is useful. Before I take medication, I want to know that the drug has been verified by scientific experiments and observations. Initially, I must trust others that this has been done. When I start taking the medication, I monitor myself carefully for effectiveness and side effects. Since God cannot be verified through direct observation and experimentation, I trust my past experience and credible testimonies and monitor my current spiritual life for additional evidence.
Skeptics can use the second definition above to dismiss all testimonial evidence because they cannot observe it or prove it by experiment themselves. That is an unreasonable standard of evidence that allows skeptics to dismiss anything they disagree with. No one applies such a high standard to all the things they believe. Such extremes serve as an excuse to reject things presuppositionally that they prefer not to believe.
Richard Dawkins supplies an example of this skepticism. He defends atheist ideas such as the multiverse and materialistic evolution, while viciously criticizing Christianity and other theistic systems. In videos, I heard him confidently defend wildly presumptuous ideas that lack evidence, such as the multiverse (the only supporting evidence being our one astronomically improbable universe), vision evolving from a patch of pigment to a complex eye (without fossils or living evidence to bridge the gaps), and the inevitability of life existing in almost any environment (although not a single bit of evidence has been found for life beyond our own planet). While confidently pushing these extremely speculative ideas, Dawkins dismisses all evidence for God regardless of its credibility.
Such zealous opposition masquerades under the umbrella of factual doubt (doubt based on contrary facts), but this extreme opposition exhibits both emotional and volitional doubt. (Emotional doubt springs from triggering of negative feelings. An idea makes you uncomfortable causing feelings of uncertainty or rejection. Volitional doubt comes from a chosen bias. These doubts lead to consciously opposing an idea, rejecting it along with evidence and reasoning supporting it.) Emotional doubt shows in the anger expressed against belief in God. Dawkins and many other hostile atheists have strong feelings driving their opposition to faith. Their irrationality and gross bias reveal a strong volitional foundation for their beliefs. They are determined to oppose belief in the supernatural as forcefully as possible, regardless of the facts.[10]
The message of empirical evidence is strong. In the next 2 chapters I will summarize empirical evidence indicating that:
The creator-God very likely exists.
The Bible likely contains a message from God, but completeness and infallible perfection are questionable.
Jesus Christ most assuredly rose from the dead.
We should not fear the message of empirical evidence. God speaks to us through nature and he is shouting an essential truth. For those who doubt God’s existence the message is believe. For those who believe in God, the message is seek and trust what evidence reveals. Seeking truth and goodness with integrity leads to salvation
I will be presenting empirical evidence as “originating in or based on observation or experience.”[11] This is a very high standard of evidence distinct from philosophical reasoning, subjective opinions, and blind trust in ancient writings, church tradition, etc. I will not claim to prove anything, but I will use empirical evidence to discover the most likely truth. In some cases, that evidence is overwhelming. I also consider philosophical evidence in a separate chapter. The accounts I shared in Chapter 1 qualify as empirical evidence because they are based on observations and experiences. Confidence comes from the credibility of the testimony.
[9] Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Merriam-Webster, 2022), empirical. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
[10] Gary R. Habermas, Dealing with Doubt (Moody Press, 1990), Chapter 2, paragraph 2.
[11] Merriam-Webster, empirical.
Questioning Presuppositions. As a teenager I noticed widespread presuppositionalism among my fellow Christians. Many of them proclaimed the Bible very literally as the “Word of God” without offering any evidence or reason for that belief. My experiences with miracles gave me solid confidence that a personal God existed who heard prayers and worked in our lives, but I occasionally discovered things in the Bible that didn’t match what I had been taught in church. I also learned that Christians disagree about a lot of things. I entered a stage of questioning everything.
My high school world history teacher began the semester with an essay assignment explaining where we think human beings came from. This forced me to come to terms with contradictions between the Garden of Eden story and what I’d been taught in biology class. Faced with strong evidence that humans had been on the earth for tens of thousands of years (perhaps hundreds of thousands), along with many other details that didn’t fit the creation narrative I’d learned at church, I made a rational, analytical decision. I wrote in my essay that the creation story in the Bible could be full of metaphor and should not be taken too literally. The dust that God created Adam from could represent the cells our bodies are made of because they are small like dust and the ancient Hebrew language wouldn’t have had a word for cells.
That marked a monumental milestone in my mental development. Up to that point I employed presuppositional thinking. I had embraced everything I learned in church and school as true. The growing number of contradictions I had discovered in what I’d been taught in church and school and what I was reading in the Bible myself pushed me to abandon presuppositional thinking for rational, evidence-based analysis.
I soon recognized that presuppositional bias exerts a powerful force in our thinking. Human nature gives us excessive confidence in what we’ve decided to believe. I began a new life habit of not only questioning my beliefs, but intentionally trying to convince myself that I could be wrong.
Evidentialism requires that we intentionally oppose presuppositions.
Uncertainty: Everyone’s Wrong. Understanding that we humans are all wrong about many things aids in this process.
Humans seem to have an inherent need to be right. I don’t know how many times in my life people have made statements of confident fact to me on subjects that are wrought with uncertainty. Most of the time I’ll politely respond, “You could be right,” and the confident speaker will usually shoot back, “I know I’m right.”
The reality I’ve seen is that these people who “know” they are right often disagree with each other. For millennia people have argued, fought, even killed over complex issues that are very uncertain. In most cases, both sides of the argument were wrong despite their absolute certainty that they were right.
Politicians are constantly arguing that if the government does some specific thing it will have some certain result in the future. They make this claim with confidence and urgency, harshly criticizing anyone who disagrees with them. The reality is that no one knows how the things we do now will impact the future. We can guess at most likely outcomes, but the future is hugely uncertain.
I could call this the Roger Deemer Uncertainty Principle (RDUP), but I can’t really take credit for it. Many people recognize how uncertain everything is. Ancient philosophers, including the great wisdom teacher of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, recognized it.
“Whatever exists is far off and most profound—who can discover it?”[12]
“No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it.”[13]
“As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things. Sow your seed in the morning, and at evening let your hands not be idle, for you do not know which will succeed, whether this or that, or whether both will do equally well.”[14]
Imagine that we could survey people around the world on diverse, uncertain, but important subjects like the existence and nature of God, life after death, human rights, the best forms of government, morality, etc. People disagree and argue over these topics all the time. The results of this survey would reveal an enormous body of contradictory opinion. I think the survey would show that the average person in the world must be wrong in at least 80 or 90% of their beliefs in these areas simply because we believe so many contradictory things. If we could expand the survey to include all people who’ve lived on earth over the past 5000 years, the percentage of contrary beliefs would grow to 95%, or 99%, maybe higher.
Let’s narrow our focus. We could go with all Muslims in Pakistan, all Jews in Israel, all Hindus in India, all communists in China, or any one of thousands of narrower groupings of people that we’d expect to be more homogeneous. I’ll go with American Christians just because I’m familiar with that group.
I could survey 100 random American Christians regarding their views on 5 foundational doctrines of Christianity, 5 controversial political issues, and 5 contemporary cultural conflicts, and I’d end up with thousands of diverse, contrary opinions. I’d be forced to conclude that American Christians must be wrong in the vast majority of disputable things they believe because they believe so many incompatible things. Most of these people would be confident that they are right and everyone with a contrary opinion is mistaken. I would find this trend to be true regardless of what nationality, religion, political party, or other grouping I choose.
When you think about it, there’s only one logical conclusion to this matter. We are all wrong in the majority of controversial things we believe, even the important things that we want to be sure of.
Science. In science we try to explain physical data that we observe with conceptual and mathematical models that fit the data. Every time scientists collect data that doesn’t match existing theories, we start proposing new theories. Let’s focus only on theories proposed by legitimate scientists who understand the data, science, and math. We’ll ignore unsupported theories proposed by psychics revealed by their spirit guides and such.
Typically, scientists will come up with dozens, even hundreds, of legitimate theories. Most of them are quickly cast into doubt because they conflict with some data or a long-standing, accepted theory. But even the vast majority of theories that seem promising at first end up being wrong. The fraction of scientific ideas that people have trusted in over long periods of time is very small. Science is arguably the field of human understanding with the least uncertainty, yet we know there is still great uncertainty in the realm of science. There’s so much we think we know that is wrong and much, much more that we don’t know anything about.
Everything else. I believe this principle of uncertainty extends to all fields of human knowledge: politics, economics, sociology, medicine, psychology, theology, everything. Only it’s worse. In these fields it’s more difficult to apply the scientific method to “prove” anything. Some of these fields of knowledge can’t use the scientific method at all. Usually, the best we can do is apply evidence to reduce uncertainty with certain ideas and concepts, then proceed with what seems most likely, having an attitude of humility and caution.
Urgency. Some situations demand that we throw caution to the wind. Consider a group of soldiers engaged in combat. Their commander receives some intelligence that the enemy is massing in a certain location, preparing for a decisive strike. If the intelligence is correct, many lives will be lost and the war effort will suffer a severe blow. The commander can prevent that disaster by launching a surprise attack on the enemy before they are prepared, but he must trust the intelligence. In combat, military intelligence always comes with uncertainty. What if the enemy has set a trap to ambush the soldiers when they attack? The commander must evaluate the level of uncertainty in the intelligence and choose whether to trust it or not. If he chooses to attack, he must convince his soldiers that the intelligence is trustworthy and the cause urgent enough to justify the risk they will take to launch their surprise attack.
Many times in life we must act with urgency and trust what we believe to be true in spite of the uncertainty. I believe wisdom calls us to acknowledge the uncertainty realistically, act on what appears most likely, and accept the risk in order to achieve the greatest good possible. We should not ignore the risk and pretend it’s not there. We shouldn’t arrogantly assume we’re infallible. Better that we proceed with humility, striving for the greatest good in an uncertain world.
What to do. Uncertainty may be an unsettling concept if you’ve never considered it before, but once you think it through, the implications are rather good and lead to peace of mind.
When you realize how much everyone is wrong, you don’t get frustrated with people for being wrong so much. Less anger allows you to enjoy life more.
It’s easier to not judge others when you know how wrong everyone is, including yourself.
It’s easier to be humble when you realize that you’ve no idea how wrong you are in your own opinions.
Knowing that so many things we believe might be wrong allows us to be more flexible and adapt to new data.
We can still be decisive with this understanding. We focus on choosing the most probable possibility instead of feeling like we have to know everything for certain. (In reality, we usually choose what we think is the most probable possibility anyway. We just like to convince ourselves we know things for certain because we feel better about our decisions when we’re certain.)
Even when you disagree with someone on nearly everything, you can sense unity in the fact that you’re both human, wrong about many things, and hopefully right on a few points.
Seek all the truth and wisdom you can find. Knowledge and understanding are good. Remember that pride and self-confidence are foolish, because no matter how much you know, you're still in the dark on many things. When you're tempted to get frustrated and judge others who are wrong about things, remind yourself that it's okay for them to be wrong. Everybody's wrong about many things. They're human. Despite their flaws, you can still love them, find things to enjoy together, even find common ground to experience unity and bond with them.
I’m wrong; you’re wrong; we’re all wrong. We can embrace that understanding and thrive with it.
Frequently, I’m wrong; you’re wrong; we’re all wrong, but sometimes we get it right and do good. We can embrace that understanding and thrive with it.
Acknowledging uncertainty in evidential Christianity means I don’t have to pretend my case is stronger than it is. I’m only exploring what evidence indicates is most likely. I can admit that some arguments are weak and others are strong. Many arguments for God’s existence, such as the ontological argument and the moral argument are flawed. Some are valid, but weak. Some are very convincing. I can’t prove scientifically that a creator exists, but I can present evidence that a creator most likely exists.
[12] Holy Bible, NIV, Ecclesiastes 7:24.
[13] Holy Bible, NIV, Ecclesiastes 8:17.
[14] Holy Bible, NIV, Ecclesiastes 11:5-6.
No Delusions. There’s a popular and frequently abused proverb about this recognition that our understanding is limited.
“Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.”[15]
People have quoted this verse to me when they disagree with my evidence and reasoning but they can’t support their position. They want to justify their irrational presuppositions as trusting God. There’s a huge problem with this approach to belief and faith.
The Bible does not instruct us to be intentionally ignorant and irrational. On the contrary, scriptures admonish us to seek knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. The book of proverbs is full of such admonitions. Even Jesus instructed his disciples to “believe on the evidence” of his works. [16]
In writing the words “lean not on your own understanding” the author of Proverbs never intended to tell anyone to be deliberately ignorant and irrational. The point of this phrase is not to be arrogant or overly self-confident. We can have complete faith in God, and before him we should be very humble. Recognizing uncertainty and realizing how often we are mistaken should lead us to trust in God and not place excessive confidence in our own understanding. It does not mean we avoid learning and thinking and making rational decisions.
Taking this verse as a call to ignorance and irrationality leads to deliberate delusion. When I lived in Florida and the national weather service issued a hurricane evacuation notice, I took their warnings seriously. I never said, “That warning is based on flawed human understanding.” The weather service isn’t perfect, but when they issue an evacuation notice the risks are high. I could have said, “I trust God, not human understanding,” then cast lots after asking God to control the outcome. Certainly, such actions demonstrate a trust in God over human understanding, but that kind of behavior is not what Proverbs 3:5 is about. God wants us to gain all the knowledge, understanding, and wisdom we can and use it for good with the humble realization that even our best understanding is frequently wrong. The wise response to an evacuation warning is to evacuate and pray for God to guide and protect everyone.
When we find ourselves dismissing evidence, dreaming up conspiracy theories, and inventing complex rationalizations to justify a belief, we may be victims of delusion. To avoid delusion, we need to embrace evidence and reason, not ignorance and irrationality.
Sufficient Evidence. “Most likely” is the standard I use for sufficient evidence. I don’t demand proof. I imagine evidence for and against a hypothesis. Some evidence carries a lot of weight, some only a little. I imagine all the evidence on a balance scale with favorable evidence on one side and opposing evidence on the other. I accept whatever the scale seems to tip in favor of as most likely true. It’s a subjective, mental process, highly vulnerable to bias, but I try to be consciously skeptical of my own biases.
For example, I have an anti-supernatural bias as I described in the prolog. When someone tells me about a miracle, I skeptically resist believing it because in my experience most miracle claims aren’t credible. I have experienced miracles and found some claims to be highly credible, so I’m willing to set my bias aside and consider claims objectively, even if the miracle claims come from a source I don’t like. (I frequently face this with religious groups that seem manipulative to me with their emphasis on emotional spirituality and miracles.) I examine miracle claims looking for a material explanation, but when no good material explanation is apparent, I’ll acknowledge that perhaps the claim is true. When highly credible evidence supports the miracle claim, I accept it as most likely true. Unfortunately, no miracle claim is repeatably testable, so “likely true” is the best we can do if we don’t witness the miracle personally.
This brings up the difficult question, “Why does God give some people miracles and not others?”
The disciple Thomas refused to believe Jesus rose from the dead so Jesus appeared to him and showed him the wounds on his hands and in his side. Saul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul) presumed that Jesus was a fraud and needed absolute proof to change his mind. Jesus appeared to him in a vision, blinded him, and healed him in the presence of many witnesses. I described in chapter 1 how God proved himself to me with very strong evidence, though not quite at the level of Thomas and Paul. Most people never experience miraculous evidence like that, and I don’t know why. All I know is that we must respond reasonably to the evidence God gives us.
I’ve known people who presume all miracles are hoaxes, coincidences, delusions, etc. Some of them even dismiss or minimize miracles they witness personally. I’ve encountered people who dismiss all the scientific evidence I present in chapter 3 with a “materialism-of-the-gaps” attitude,[17] assuming there’s a natural explanation for everything. People reject the historicity credentials I present in chapter 4, assuming there must be some other explanation no matter how outlandish all the attempts have been to explain away the gospel accounts for 2000 years. People reject the philosophical arguments I offer in chapter 5, embracing fallacious or weak counter-arguments. If God is real, all of these people are presuming away the evidence that might help them discover that truth.
Anti-God and anti-Bible biases are powerful, but I don’t want to counter with a pro-God or pro-Bible bias. I do my best to examine the evidence on my mental balance scale without putting my metaphorical thumb on one side of the scale to preclude a conclusion.
That’s the heart of evidentialism. Examine the evidence rationally and accept what’s most likely true without bias.
[15] Holy Bible, NIV, Proverbs 3:5.
[16] Holy Bible, NIV, John 14:11.
[17] P. Copan, et al., (Angus J. L. Menuge). Dictionary of Christianity and Science: The Definitive Reference for the Intersection of Christian Faith and Contemporary Science. (Zondervan, 2017), pages 333-334.
The 4-Step Evidential Analysis Process. I like to use the 4-step process below to systematically analyze evidence. This is not a process for analyzing claims, such as claims that God does or does not exist, or that life evolved on planet earth over billions of years. This process allows us to objectively consider the implications of specific evidence and decide what to do with it, such as a report of a modern miracle or the stratification of fossils in the earth’s crust.
Step 1, Assess. First, we need to objectively consider the credibility and implications of the evidence. We want to objectively assess the evidence as if we know nothing else, setting aside all skepticism, bias, and presupposition.
Credibility. In this step we consider whether the evidence is trustworthy based on the source of the evidence. We can’t rate it low just because we disagree with the implications. We must consider the source objectively, free of bias, and rate the credibility by the same standards we would use for evidence supporting or refuting our own beliefs. We can’t set standards to dismiss evidence, such as requiring all evidence to be scientifically testable. We must rate evidence appropriately for the type of evidence it is. For example, there are things that make material evidence credible, and different things that make testimonial evidence credible.
Implication. We must accept the implications of the evidence without bias. If the evidence implies a space alien landed in my back yard, I must acknowledge that even though I don’t believe space aliens visit our planet. Sometimes evidence implies things that aren’t true. There are usually many plausible explanations, some more likely than the direct implication, but we don’t bias our assessment at this point. We need to rate the implication strength without bias. It may be extremely strong, very strong, strong, mild, weak, very weak, or extremely weak. The key here is to accept the most intuitively obvious implication of the evidence in isolation, without bias from other evidence or knowledge.
Step 2, Weigh the Evidence. This is where we weigh the evidence against other possibilities, evidence, and knowledge. Are the implications of this evidence supported by other credible sources? Are the implications of this evidence likely true relative to other possibilities, or is something else more likely?
Step 3, Evaluate Skeptical Triggers, Bias, and Presuppositions. Everyone has skeptical triggers, biases, and presuppositions. It’s an unavoidable trait of human nature and can serve a positive function if used appropriately. I discussed this in the prolog. Justified skepticism, bias, and presuppositions help us make decisions efficiently, but they can lead to errors from failure to consider evidence objectively.
Evaluating skeptical triggers, bias, and presuppositions calls for critical thinking. We must skeptically look at our own beliefs and consider how they may have skewed our analysis. Did personal bias influence our assessment of credibility or implications in step 1? Did a presupposition tip the scales when we weighed the evidence in step 2? If so, we should revise our step 1 and 2 analyses to make them more objective, free of bias or presupposition. (One could perform this step first to avoid biases while analyzing the evidence the first time. I still find it valuable to reconsider biases after the initial assessment and weighing.)
Step 4, Conclude. In this final step we decide what to believe. We may decide not to draw any conclusions from this evidence because we need more information. We may decide to trust the implications of the evidence. We could decide that the evidence isn’t strong enough to change our beliefs. The conclusion does not need to align with the implications of step 1. It usually will align with the weighing process of step 2.