Proof or Evidence? Believing What You Want To?

[Josh]

The following is an excerpt from an email response I made a few years back to a friend who is skeptical of Christian claims (that would be Moritz ). We were discussing the difference between proof and evidence and also adressing whether people just believed what they wanted to believe, or if they could be convinced to change their mind by evidence:

"Okay, here's how I see the difference between evidence and proof. Proof means you know something with absolutely no doubt (or extremely little doubt, if you're Plato!). This is something immediately and empirically available to us. Proof is like a blood DNA test in a murder case. Evidence, on the other hand, is the stuff that is short of absolute proof, but that we nonetheless consider when we are trying to make a decision about something. This would be like Motive in a murder case, or whether the accused has an alibi, or whether their story can be corroborated. Most of the beliefs we hold are due to evidence and not proof.

For instance, we believe that Martin Luther lived and wrote his 95 Theses, not because we have absolute proof or can empirically observe it, but because we have excellent historical evidence in the form of manuscripts, eyewitness testimonies, and logical argumentation. We believe thousands of facts based on this kind of evidence.

I agree with you that when it comes to Christianity (or naturalism, for that matter) we will most likely not find proof. But we do find evidence. And although we all have some degree of subconscious desires when it comes to our beliefs, I still think we can purposely be fairly objective about the evidence. And some beliefs have little propositional evidence for them (like, say, reincarnation in Hinduism) and others have great amounts of evidence (like the claim that the universe is expanding). So we must either make decisions based on the 'preponderance of the evidence' (the legal term for what a jury must do to decide a verdict), or I guess we can remain skeptical of all beliefs; which seems to be your position.

However, I think it might be a little contradictory to expect proof, because I'm sure you hold many, many beliefs based just on evidence, not proof. If you can get good evidence for the God of the Bible-- better evidence than any other belief system (including agnosticism), then it would seem logical to pursue Christianity further- testing it out, so to speak.

And I do think people are often persuaded of something that they don't want to believe. For instance, it happens all the time when people die. When a loved one dies, we tend to deny the fact for a while, but pretty soon the truth of the matter speaks so loud that we are forced to accept the truth. Unless we go crazy, no amount of wishing is going to keep up from the truth. I think it is possible for you and I to face the evidence and purposefully risk our current belief systems for the sake of truth."

[Josh]

Later, I responded further on this topic in this way:

"Yes, I think it is difficult for anyone to question their own beliefs seriously, and make a real dedication to discovering the truth. Most people never do that, Christian or Non-Christian. And we always have to deal with our own biases, but I'm glad that you agree that with great effort, we can let truth affect our beliefs....

When I went about surveying possible beliefs about the universe in order to find which one was the most credible, I checked out all the major worldviews (atheism, naturalism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, new age, Christianity, Unitarianism, etc....) and I also considered the possibility that the truth is something altogether different. The reason I settled on Christianity was the realization that although I may never know anything with absolute mental certainty, it was Christianity that had the most to back it up; it was the most warranted.

In studying various world religions I found factual, historical, scientific, or philosophical errors and/or difficulties that I couldn't get around. In studying atheism (which always appealed to me as the second most possible answer) I found that it could not explain the miracle of life, the meaning of life, and a host of other things in any defensible way. Now, yes, you can say that maybe it's explainable but we just don't know enough, but that means a lot of faith.

What I found with Christianity is that it has the most evidence for it. So, in the absence of any absolute proof for a belief system, we have two choices: choose the most warranted belief (as I believe I've done), or remain unattached to any belief (as you claim to have done). The problem I see with your approach is that in taking that stand, you are attaching yourself to a belief: skepticism. One of the main problems with skepticism in and of itself, is that if you let it lead you to its logical conclusions, you really shouldn't believe anything. You have no basis to believe in the existence of Socrates, or the Trojan War, or Hitler, or Jupiter, or..... But I know you believe in those things. Why?? Tell me why you believe in the existence of Bismarck or Goethe, Abraham Lincoln, or the Inquisition.

You believe in them because of evidence."

[sonlyte]

Very interesting ...
somewhat parallel to my own search.

I concluded that I could not be 100 percent sure - thus agnostic, but my rationale favored God and his creative work to a very high percentage, and then I simply chose the view that was surpassingly the most complete of any I considered.

If I was 99.44 percent sure, I figured it was as pure as ivory.

[Douglas]

I once had a friend who was examining Christianity and together we reached the conclusion that Christianity had the overwhelming evidence in its favor. However there was still that chance that it was all an irrational illusion and that all life as we perceive is not real, kind of a Hindu approach i guess. Anyway he made a conscious decision to refuse to believe the overwhelming evidence and instead followed irrationality and illusion. it was very sad to see someone come to that place and refuse to believe. There was not much else that i could say. I personally believe that the Spirit is what makes the difference and with out his conviction and revelation the person who is refusing to believe the evidence will never believe.

[Josh]

I have had that experience with someone at least twice.

Apologetics can clear away the rubble and make a firm foundation from the leap of faith, but being born again is between God and each individual wrapped up in the paradox of free will and predestination.

[Josh]

brandonstabley wrote on another thread:

I now only live in the view of what can be proven which doesn't leave me much room for hope or faith.

Brandon, what you said on the Santa? thread made me think of the discussion we've had so far on this thread (Proof or Evidence?).

I'm curious what you think about the discussion about "proof" on this thread. It's a bit long, but worth reading if you have the time.

I appreciate your perspective and can relate to it in some ways. I have a question, though. In your mind, what does it mean for something to be "proven" enough to be believed? Where/ how do you draw the line between things that are worth believing and things that are not?

[Josh]

show_no_mercy posted this on infidels.org, I thought it was a nice affirmation of what I was arguing above:

Proof vs. Evidence

Scientists never "prove" anything. However, following the scientific method they can arrive at theories that have evidence for them. Proof is a concept for mathematicians and logicians, since math works on the concept of tautologies. 2 = 2 is proof that 2 = 2... which is also a tautology. 2 + 2 = 4 is a proof. Proofs are unchanging, however "evidence" can always lead to different conclusions and support separate theories.

A scientific theory is a collection of observable facts and falsifiable conclusions based on those facts.

He does bring up an interesting fact about our universe, however, namely that the only two fields of knowledge which can absolutely claim to dealing in self-evident proofs are math and logic.

I would also loosely include under the heading of "proof" things which we can repeatedly scientifically test with consistent results. The laws of gravity would be a good example here.

However, this kind of "proof" is a step below the kind he's talking about above in math and logic, because, for instance, the theory of gravity, though highly reliable, contains some degree of inprecision.

I wonder how often your average person realizes when they are doing math or using logic that they are tapping into unambiguous absolutes. I know I didn't in high school.... if I had maybe I would have done better in math!

[Josh]

elsewhere, mo wrote:

you guys believe what you want to believe. If something can’t be beard up any longer it becomes a translation issue or even worse, symbolism. But all the other things aren’t translation issues or symbols of course. It doesn’t matter how many generations of Christians believed that God was sitting on the ceiling of this flat disc we call earth. Suddenly it’s not the sky anymore but the universe. Suddenly it doesn’t matter that plants were growing even though the sun wasn’t created yet because… yeah, well, because! Suddenly it’s not 6 24-hour days but 6 ages of undefined length. Okay, the rant is over. I know what you have to say about this, save it to yourself please. Christians will always find a way of getting around all the logical flaws in the bible.

Mo, I'm sorry but I don't think it's fair to ask us to save rebuttals on this kind of stuff for ourselves. Judge the rebuttals each on their own merits.

One thing I note here is that, for instance, in the example of the 6 24 hour days verses 6 ages issue, once again 9we've been through this before, but it's been a while) you assume that the 24-hour day interpretation is the older one and the 6 ages view(which you call symbolic and but is actually a literal interpretation of the word yom) you imply was developed later as a response to scientific evidence. On the contrary, both interpretations of that Genesis text go back more than 2,000 years.

Furthermore, there are things in the Bible that were obviously meant to be read symbolically, things that were obviously meant to be read literally, and, yet again, things that were meant to be read on both levels. In addition to this, there are passages that are justifyiably debatable in regard to symbolic or literal interpretation.

I understand that you feel this is how Christians are, and I daresay humans do have a tendency toward explaining away impediments to what they want to believe, but if you're trying to make a sound and thorough logical investigation,
it doesn't do any good to lump together all situations in which interpretation plays a role and just conclude that all Christians always find a way to get around....

First off, there are some things that are so clear that a rational person just can't get around. People do actually change their beliefs on things (even when they don't want to, as I pointed out in the posts above) because of evidence.

Secondly, and most important, why not judge the merit of each claim separately? That would be only logically sound approach.

[moritz]

Jul 14, 2008 15:18:48 GMT -8 Josh said:

elsewhere, mo wrote:

right now I'm still in a state of shock that somebody in this thread wrote that Christianity had the overwhelming evidence in it's favor.

I can't see how anybody in his right mind could say that!

For how long have we been discussing religion, Josh? And you didn't bring on even ONE overwhelming piece of evidence in favor of Christianity! Not one! Maybe I should have been discussing with Douglas ;D

[Josh]

For myself, I wouldn't say "overhwhelming" unless that simply means that for an individual at some point the evidence "tipped them over" into belief (and I suspect that's what Douglas was meaning).

Forget overwhelming or compelling, though, Mo.

Let's just talk about good evidence. And I think there is plenty of good evidence in support of the Christian claims, and I think our discussions demonstrate that.

[robin]

If one (unbeliever) wants to make an honest attempt to discover truth they must first determine if their are any philosophical predisposition that would not allow for an honest evaluation of the evidence. I think most atheists are guilty of this including moritz. The common philosophical predisposition is that nothing outside the natural can exists, and any apparent evidence for the supernatural must have a natural explanation. A person who holds this view is not, in my opinion a seeker of truth, and when the engage in these types of discussions they are simply being antagonists. Anyone who honestly seeks the truth will follow the evidence where it leads even if it does disagree with their current world view.

To drive my point home consider this Quote from Dr. Richard Lewontin the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University.

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"

IF we can cast off any predispositions then we can begin to evaluate to evidence and answer important scientific, and philosophical questions like:

How is it that life can arise from non-life or and unintelligent precess? The odds of this taking place are by all accounts astronomical if not impossible.

The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?

Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?

People from every culture, both men and women, young and old, from the educated and uneducated, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these convincing accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?

I must now run, but I hope to be back soon with more thoughts.

[robin]

so to continue.

Josh asked on another thread that if anyone thought they could prove the existence of God with a capital "P", to post it here.

It is my view that there is enough naturalistic evidence to allow for the likely suspicion that God actually does exist, and when you consider some of the better philosophical arguments I believe all doubts can be removed that something that can be described as "God" in fact does exist. Couple this with personal experiences with God, and vast amount of evidence that supernatural events have taken place and cannot be adequately accounted for by natural means, would lead any thoughtful person to the conclusion that God does in fact exist.

However if one is only willing to accept natural evidence for the existence of God, then it would be impossible to convince such a skeptic of the existence of a supernatural being like God.

Simply from a philosophical standpoint, I consider the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be the most convincing. IT goes like this:

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Another Philosophical argument that seems thoroughly convincing is The Formal Moral Argument which says:

(1) Morality consists of a set of commands.
(2) For every command there is a commander.
Therefore:
(3) There is a commander that commanded morality.
(4) Commands only carry as much authority as does their commander.
(5) Morality carries ultimate authority.
Therefore:
(6) The commander that commanded morality carries ultimate authority.
(7) Only God carries ultimate authority.
Therefore:
(8) The commander that commanded morality is God.
Therefore:
(9) God exists.

It is beyond me how anyone looking at the evidence (natural, supernatural, and philosophical) can say that there is no God.

[Josh]

I too believe the cosmological argument (of which Kalam is a variation- and one of the best because it includes the phrase begins to exist) to be solid.

However, it is not without it's challengers and I do believe it comes short of absolute Proof.

Here's a thread on the subject where Moritz chimes in to some degree:

The First Cause Argument

I also think the Argument from Morality has great merit-
here's a link to several threads on the subject:

aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=morality

However, the formulation of the Moral argument you posted above which posits the existence of moral "commands" and a "commander" could be challenged on it's premise that moral laws are "commands". Who says they are commands? How can the argument assume we all know or believe they are commands in the first place?

I prefer to see the Moral Law not as a command which God arbitrarily declared, but as something which reflects His very nature and the very nature of the Universe He created.

Here's an alternative formation:

1. Moral facts exist.
2. Moral facts are transcendental in nature.
3. The best explanation of there being transcendental moral facts is provided by theism.
4. Therefore the existence of moral facts provides good grounds for thinking theism is true.

Or, here's a summary of Lewis' own version of the moral argument:


LEWIS’S MORAL ARGUMENT SUMMARIZED

Lewis’s Premise (1): Everyone knows, and so believes, that there are objective moral truths.

Lewis’s Premise (2): Objective moral laws are very peculiar in that they are quite unlike Laws of Nature and “natural” facts.

Lewis’s Premise (3): The hypothesis that there is an intelligence behind, or beyond, the natural facts that implants the knowledge of right and wrong in us and serves as the foundation for the objectivity of such judgments is the best (or a good) explanation of our intuitions of objective moral facts.

Conclusion: The existence and nature of objective moral facts supports the existence of an intelligence behind them serving as their basis and foundation.

[Kirby]

I prefer to see the Moral Law not as a command which God arbitrarily declared, but as something which reflects His very nature and the very nature of the Universe He created.

Because it is only a reflection, and not an actual representation, does that not indicate there is an unknowable aspect? Because of this, a reflection can only be treated as a sometimes vague evidence, not proof. I like to think of a reflection as not one you see in a mirror, but more like you would see in a pond...there are often ripples that distort the image, or other things being reflected that can distract the viewer from the intended reflection.

(1) Morality consists of a set of commands.

I'd rather see morality consisting as a set of choices. Because of this, morality is somewhat ambiguous, and is a poor reflection on which to make evidence or proof.

[Josh]

I guess my response to that, kirbstomp, would be that, yes, there is some unknowableness to the moral law (ie, aspects of it that are unclear, that appear subjective) but what is definitely knowable is that a moral law exists, and it is that existence of a moral law that provides strong evidence for a trascendent Creator.

[Kirby]

Makes sense, maybe I am over-thinking it. I'm just not convinced that an Absolute Moral Law exists. Or are you saying it does not matter if it is absolute or not?

I mean, early 80's TV taught me that:

Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.

But they got, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.

Everybody's got a special kind of story
Everybody finds a way to shine,
It don't matter that you got not alot
So what,
They'll have theirs, and you'll have yours, and I'll have mine.
And together we'll be fine....

Because it takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
Yes it does.
It takes, Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.

But my question above was serious.

[robin]

I prefer to see the Moral Law not as a command which God arbitrarily declared, but as something which reflects His very nature and the very nature of the Universe He created.

I'm not sure I understand why you used the word arbitrary. You make it sound as if, by using the word command, God could have chosen any standards and called them morals, and we would be obligated to abide by this standard even if it required immoral acts like stealing, and murder. If fact they are commanded of us because God created us in His image. As a Christian I don't object to the use of the term command, because in fact God does command morality. It is not simply a suggestion. Now I would not expect an atheist or an agnostic to accept that term, but if at some point they cross over to being a believe, and more specifically a believer in Jesus then it would seem that morality is commanded of us.