Posted by Jason on: 03.24.2008 /
In recent discussions the topic of evidence came up. What constitutes good or acceptable evidence? I have frequently argued that personal experience and testimony are very poor forms of evidence. The bible is also a poor form of evidence but not as poor as anecdotes.Let me explain why.
How do we determine what is good evidence? After all, everything can be used as evidence of something when you think about it.
The scientific method:
In simply terms the scientific method is probably best explained in a flow chart.
Above all else the scientific method is an iterative process where the conclusions that are reached are always open to review. We find something that we don’t understand and compose a theory as to how it works. Then we look for evidence to support our theory. We accumulate evidence through observation or through experimentation. Our evidence must always follow predictable laws under identical conditions. Water that is free from impurities, under standard pressure will boil at 100°C and freeze at 0°C. Change the pressure or change the liquid and it boils at a different temperature. Once we arrive at a theory it does not change unless additional evidence indicates that the theory is wrong.
The scientific method is designed to remove, as far as possible, any bias that the observer might have.
Historical evidence:
History doesn’t avail itself to testing very well. Instead we must examine what evidence is available and rather than try to prove an hypothesis we examine physical evidence and testimony to try to determine the truth of what occurred. Unlike criminal evidence, testimony cannot be cross examined directly. We therefore have to rely on additional sources of evidence to support historical evidence. These sources are defined below.
Primary Sources
Primary sources are original materials. They are from the time period involved and have not been filtered through interpretation.
Secondary Sources
Secondary sources are accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. They are interpretations and evaluations of primary sources. Secondary sources are not evidence, but rather commentary on and discussion of evidence.
Tertiary Sources
Tertiary sources consist of information which is a distillation and collection of primary and secondary sources.
The bible, at best, is a collection of secondary evidence. Given the level of interpretation and translation involved I wouldn’t even say that it is a reliable secondary source. It does not constitute good evidence alone but would provide useful supporting material for an historical study. The bible cannot be viewed as primary evidence and even if we did view it as good secondary evidence it would need supporting secondary and tertiary evidence to provide any value as historical documents. Something to help resolve those conflicting parts. There isn’t anything like that but there are lots of additional commentary on the secondary sources that, at times, obfuscate as much as explain. We are left with opinion which is no substitute for truth.
Personal experience and testimony are even worse forms of evidence. How can you separate personal experience from delusion? How can you tell that the report of what someone saw is actually what they saw and not what they think they saw? You can’t.
A�criminal investigation or an historical investigation looks carefully at one or more primary sources and several secondary sources of evidence before drawing a conclusion. New evidence allows us to review our conclusions and, if necessary, change them. In a scientific investigation we examine evidence and experiment to determine if our theories are viable. Where evidence contradicts a theory then we first have to retest the evidence to ensure that it isn’t wrong. If it isn’t then we have to revisit the theory and correct it.
There is no such mechanism within religion. I’d go further with this and point out that religion always seems to get a free pass in discussions about evidence. For example, let us take the theory of evolution. Evolution works wonderfully well and enables scientists from all kinds of disciplines to make predictions and test ideas. It is used not only in biology and medicine but in archeology and anthropology and in psychology and psychiatry. Yet the theory isn’t provable with 100% accuracy, there are gaps and a lack of evidence to support parts of it. Missing links in the fossil record being the most obvious.
What conclusions can we draw from the fact that evidence is missing? That the theory is wrong? That the theory is incomplete? That the theory could well be superseded by a better theory that could arise with the introduction of new evidence? Or that God was involved in the creation of life? The first three propose no new theories that point out inconsistencies and are acceptable criticisms. The last, that God made it so, requires evidence to support the hypothesis. Yet proponents examine a theory that is imperfect and draw a conclusion based on gaps in the theory and not an alternative theory with supporting evidence and arguments. In a scientific discussion the idea is laughable.
Another example could be proof of the existence of Jesus at or around 2000 years ago. We cannot mathematically or scientifically prove or disprove just a hypothesis so we must look at the historical evidence. I’m not an expert but the evidence that does exist seems to indicate that a man named Jesus existed as a prophet at the time. Actually prophets seem to be reasonably common at the time. There are some issues though. Very many in fact but I’m necessarily going to limit myself to one.
The one I am most familiar with is the story of the nativity. Joseph and Mary were forced to travel to Bethlehem in order to take part in the Roman Census. The Census of Quirinius occurred in 6 AD. Herod the Great died in 4 BC and he had some part in the story that I remember from primary school. It was the practice to count Romans only in a census. No migrations were ever necessary as people were counted where they lived. We can conclude that Luke 2:1-7 is either writing fiction or is embellishing the story.
Yet another example is the theory for the extinction of dinosaurs. It is accepted that dinosaurs once walked the planet and that about 65 million years ago they died out. Until a few dozen years ago the accepted theory for their demise was that a big rock of about 10km in diameter impacted our world causing a global catastrophe (for the dinosaurs anyway) that included huge fires, earthquakes, tsunamis, acid rain and a cloud of ash and dirt that blocked out the sun for years. However the evidence does not support the hypothesis that a single extinction level event caused the death of dinosaurs. Several other theories have been proposed including multiple collisions with meteorites, natural selection, global volcanoes causing a change in the atmosphere and an alternative explanation for a single meteorite collision.
We examine the evidence to support the hypothesis and where it contradicts the hypothesis we are forced to change it.
What does that leave us with in the support of religion? I hesitate to suggest that Christians have a lower threshold for accepting evidence because then every psychic fraudster, snake oil salesman and alien abductee would be believed. Clearly that isn’t the case. Instead we have but one thing: tradition.
We, quite rightly, place a lot of importance on tradition. Traditions hold the accumulated wisdom of our forebears. What was understood to work was laid down as a good way to act. The reasons to act in accordance with the traditions may be lost but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t still of value. As we progress we look at our traditions and try to understand them. We try to put them into a modern context. Where they fail to stand up we reject them. You can see this in religion. We have already rejected many traditions of the church: Women are no longer viewed as property; we don’t keep slaves; we don’t stone people to death; we don’t demand proof of virginity from a new bride; many of us don’t view homosexuality as a crime. There are many, many others.
Tradition isn’t evidence though. It has value but only for the people who follow it. Traditions are tied to groups. They add cohesion to groups and support acceptable behaviour but they aren’t proof of anything. Why would a religion even want the validity of evidence anyway?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
1I hear what you’re saying, Jason and thanks for the well-articulated explanation of the scientific method.
If I pray and it seems that God answers my prayers I’m going to find that compelling evidence that God is real and cares about me.
If the prayers are for events/circumstances outside me then this goes beyond personal experience.
I say this because I think this is a significant component of why many Christians believe in God.
The other thing I’m thinking is: if there’s no primary evidence against God doesn’t that mean secondary evidence for God would be enough? (But the way the Bible may contain some primary evidence - letters, for example; also, people disagree on how close to the events and how interpreted the writings in the Bible are)
Comment by: Jason
2Drat! I missed prayer out.
Prayer is an odd ritual. On the one hand it is a method of meditation to calm a person and aid them in ordering their thoughts. On another it is a way of beseeching a supernatural being to intervene directly in a natural environment. The former may very well have measurable effects. The placebo effect in medicine is well known and a positive outlook certainly can’t hurt you. However, every study on prayer that I’ve heard of has shown that prayer has no effect when directed to aid another person. I’ve even read that praying for another person can cause them stress and slow the rate of healing.
In order to prove prayer worked you would need to be able to repeat the experiment. Let’s say I pray for a lottery win and win a small prize. A couple of million would do. The next week I’d want to win again (I have expensive tastes) and so pray for another win in exactly the same way. If I won again I could conclude that prayer was effective. A third test would help but more importantly I should be able to share my methodology with a third party and let them repeat the experiment to get the same results.
Any lottery winning Christians out there?
I probably didn’t make this clear but you can’t have evidence for or against something without first defining what you are looking for. Let’s suggest that clouds are God’s footprints in the sky. We know what constitutes a footprint and we can measure the components of the atmosphere and even collect samples of cloud.
There is no evidence against the being of God because we don’t define what God is. Until we have a definition we cannot use evidence at all. Instead we can use evidence to ascertain the truth of things that are put forward as being done by God. Miracles for example are excellent for testing but they hardly ever occur in a laboratory environment. ;)
Comment by: Pseudonym
3This has always puzzled me, too.
I had an online discussion with a young-earth creationist once. I tried to ask him why it was so important. Amongst other things, he said something that stuck with me, so I made a note of it:
Why would anyone think that was important?
Maybe it’s just me. I see religion as something that people do, not what they believe in. I think that pretty much any reasonable religion (and there are quite a few of those out there) can be a positive influence in many peoples’ lives. What more do you need?
Jason said:
To be fair, the idea of prayer in any theistic religion is that there’s an intelligent agent on the other end. The intelligent agent need not answer the same prayer consistently in different contexts.
Comment by: Karen
4I heard a scholar speak on this once and he made a further point: Jesus was well-known as a Nazarene. Yet OT prophecy established that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
Luke, wanting to establish Jesus as Messiah, needed to show Jesus born in Bethlehem although he was later known to have come from Nazareth of Galilee. Thus, Luke (or whoever wrote Luke’s gospel) invented the census story and the trip to Bethlehem in order to “fulfill the prophecy.” By the way, writings at that time period were typically less concerned with accuracy and more concerned with symbolism than we are today.
Interestingly enough, the scholar I heard used this point to bolster the idea that an historical Jesus did exist (something that’s been called into question). If there was no historical Jesus the Nazarene, there’d be no need to fabricate a census story - Luke could have just called him Jesus of Bethlehem and be done with it.
Exactly, Helen. What we might point out, however, is that any result of prayer can be plausibly determined as “god answering” in a real and compelling way.
For instance, Jason could pray for a million but not win the lottery. Instead of concluding that god doesn’t exist, however, if he’s a faithful believer he’s likely to conclude that god knew it was in his best interest not to win. You see, what Jason didn’t know (but god in his omniscience did) is that Jason would have taken all the money, left his wife and kids to poverty and despair, run off to the Caribbean and spent several months in drunken debauchery before being run over on an island road by a tourist jeep. End of Jason’s short and wasted life!
So in that case, god’s answer of “no” (or maybe “wait”) was really “evidence” of a benevolent god looking out for poor Jason - who has a sadly skewed version of what’s really good for him. ;-)
Comment by: Stephan
5Regarding personal testimony, I agree that the testimony of one person may not be compelling. But when you have many people testifying about the same thing you have to give it some attention. You are free to dismiss my own experiences with God. But when millions of people throughout history say they have experienced God’s presence in a personal way, maybe there is something to it.
I think this is true in the historical sense as well. There are four accepted Gospels in the Bible that more or less agree with each other. Why would four independent writers make up the same thing? I understand why someone could dismiss Mormonism on the idea that Joseph Smith was a nut. But if several others writers around the same time corroborated what Smith was saying I might need to read it a little more closely.
Most atheists depend on the scientific model to reject theism, but there are many experiences in life that do not hold up to this standard. Would you use the scientific method to decide who to marry? What job to take? Where to eat lunch? Can the scientific method capture the beauty of a sunrise? Or the wonder of a Beethoven symphony?
The scientific method falls woefully short of giving us a prescription for a fulfilling life. Why base your idea of religion on it?
Comment by: Jason
6Pseudonym said:
It may be semantics but I see religion is a set of rituals and a structure for a faith. The faith being the belief system and the religion being the actions that are taken to affirm it. In other words I agree with you.
Karen, I had heard that many things were added to the biblical accounts in order to tie in with prophecies. I find the idea a bit distasteful, like changing the answers on a test as you mark it. I’ve not heard it used to support the existence of Jesus though. I suppose it could be interpreted in that way.
Your point about prayer and the effects coming from an intelligent source are interesting. I maintain that the effects of prayer and divine alteration to normal living should have some measurable effects. Certainly not following the example of a lottery win that I’ve given (although that would be great…I’ve got a ticket already) but in a measurable way. If a particular group prays consistently for better health and those prayers are answered then shouldn’t that group overall be consistently healthier and longer lived? If a group prays for wealth and even a small amount of prayers are answered then shouldn’t this group be wealthier overall? Look at it another way. Atheists don’t pray for anything. Shouldn’t we be slightly worse off than theists?
I have some links to various studies that show that this is not the case. Many are contained in this forum.
Stephan, I would be more inclined to accept the personal testimony of several corroborating witnesses to an event than I would of one witness. With religious personal testimony we aren’t discussing a single event but many disparate events or emotions that are all attributed to a single cause. It is very easy to give credit to a particular event to a supernatural source when we have the cultural impetus to do so. An expectation that God interferes with our lives leads to claims that God has interfered with our lives. It’s the same psychology that makes astrology so popular. Besides which, if frequency of belief is a deciding factor then I’m quite happy to lump myself into the third largest group in terms of religious belief (or lack thereof) after Christianity in all its flavours and Islam. That is according to this.
I’d like to correct this. The default state is one of skepticism. The emphasis is on the person making a claim to prove their point. The scientific model is one way to prove a point and one that is very reliable and trusted by many. If you make an hypothesis that can be tested using the scientific method and it fails then it is right to reject it. It does not, in itself, seek to reject any theory.
I (OK not me but a clever scientist) could use the scientific method to examine chemical and electrical signals in my brain and the brain of my partner which might indicate what attracted the two of us together. I could use it to analyse my personality type to indicate which type of work I would enjoy and excel at. I could use it to measure my blood glucose and protein levels to aid me in deciding what to have for lunch. It was toast today. I could measure the frequency of light and the chemical composition of the air at sunrise or the frequency and patterns of music.
The scientific method provides us with facts and theories. As much as I’d like to think that my appreciation for beauty is not linked to my senses and to social conditioning I find scant reason to deny it. The scientific method helps us to explain why we view things in such ways after all.
Comment by: Stephan
7Jason said:
Rather than correct it, I believe you confirmed it. You hold religious claims up against the scientific method. It fails, but not because theism or religion or God is a bad or incorrect idea. It is because the scientific method is a bad test for such a claim.
I think the scientific method is great for scientific pursuits. If you are testing a scientific theory you can’t do better. I just think it’s a poor standard on which to base your life.
I believe the difference here is between deductive and inductive reasoning. The scientific process is inherently deductive. You work with a limited number of known variables to reach a conclusion. According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know it’s not always reliable, but…):
Religion must rely on inductive reasoning to exist. Clearly we don’t know everything about the subject, but we can make assumptions based on the facts we do know. These will never be as certain as conclusions made via the scientific process, but they are still valid.
Comment by: Karen
8Absolutely - I totally agree with you. I was just pointing out how certain Christians will get around that argument you’re making, using standard apologetic explanations that they’ve been taught (many for their whole lives) and never question. Like god’s answer to prayer could be “yes,” “no,” or “wait.” In that case, god might as well not answer at all - right?
Thanks. They look interesting.
Comment by: Jason
9I see your point Stephan but I’d hesitate to say that religion relies on inductive reasoning. Perhaps a form of weak inductive reasoning. I think it relies on emotion and tradition rather than any kind of logic. That’s just my own prejudices coming to the fore though.
Religion, for me, doesn’t seem to follow any logic but it does follow tradition and it does rely on intuition. It draws people who feel the same way together with a set of shared rituals. There is nothing wrong with tradition and intuition but it isn’t evidence and shouldn’t be treated as such.
I’m still not sure why religion even needs evidence. If you view it as a series of moral stories and parables then then it doesn’t require any basis in fact.
Comment by: Pseudonym
10Jason:
And I agree with you. However, it’s only recently in history (probably since the Enlightenment) that “belief” was considered really that important, at least for Christianity. You can see exhortations to “believe” in the New Testament, this is true, but they nowhere near as common as exhortations to “do the right thing” (whatever that thing happens to be at the time).
Science isn’t at that stage yet, but yes, we could do that in principle. And it’d be fascinating, and teach us a lot about ourselves.
But if you over-analyse a joke, you’ll never get a laugh out of it. Analysing why the joke is funny is an interesting study in and of itself, but it completely misses the point.
I’m reminded of ESR’s essay on mysticism (which is well worth reading all the way to the end, whether you’re religious, spiritual or none of the above). He points out:
I maintain that true religion is about doing, not believing. Yes, even religion can be explained in terms of science, and no doubt we’ll eventually get it right.
By analogy: We should also talk about the economic theories behind the phenomenon of global poverty. Of course we should! But we can’t forget that while we’re talking, people are dying of starvation. The theory behind it is important, but in the end, it’s all about doing things: feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless.
Comment by: Stephan
11Jason said:
But where does tradition come from? And how do traditions change (as they obviously do)? Reasoning has to be involved.
You may not agree with the logic of religion, but it is most certainly there. There are many great thinkers that have put a lot of thought into belief in God, not just tradition and emotion. While you may not agree with it, saying it does not exist is dishonest.
Pseudonym said:
I agree to an extent, but there is an underlying current in the New Testament that says that both are important. Actions are important, but so are motives. The right actions with the wrong motives are still wrong. And the wrong actions with the right motives are just as wrong. True religion tries to unite the two.
Comment by: Pseudonym
12I agree with you about motives, Jason. But I think this is crucially different from mere “belief”, as if assenting to a set of propositions is the most important thing.
I see the “belief” component of a religion as more like a “pledge”. A politician should believe in, say, equal rights for all citizens, but only because that will then translate into what they do.
Comment by: Jason
13Stephan, where do traditions come from? Good question. You’d need to look at each tradition and try to trace it’s origins or use logic to explain likely origins. For example the Hijab of some Muslim women probably originated as a garment to protect women from the sun and sand of the region and grew to become a form of modesty. The tradition of crossing one’s self certainly originated in Roman Catholic church dogma, probably as a sign of respect and reverence.
Traditions change just as any social action changes over time. A traditional head covering may be enhanced to show greater modesty if that is the socially acceptable ideal. It may also be retained to signify cultural uniqueness. It may also be rejected altogether, especially when the environment no longer warrants it. The latter two points are both seen in England in the present day.
There may also be some social upheaval that causes a tradition to change. Think of the rule of Henry VIII and rejection of the trappings of Catholicism but not the core faith. The gold and rich robes were replaced with much simpler items.
Pseudonym, an interesting idea but isn’t belief a prerequisite to the idea of a pledge? The idea of a pledge or an affirmation of faith is one of those things about religion that confuses me. I understand why people want to mix with others of similar beliefs but the announcing of faith in itself seems to be a tradition. Why should a faith be public when it is a private belief? I suppose it all goes back to the early church when it was a small minority.. Worth further consideration I think.
Comment by: Pseudonym
14Jason:
Certainly, I think that a belief in democracy (for example) is a prerequisite to a politician taking a pledge to uphold it.
Me too.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
15Karen, I agree - people who believe in God have reasons why God responds the way he does (which includes what looks like no response, sometimes) to their prayer requests. What looks like no response generally isn’t considered a reason to stop believing but is God saying ‘no’ (which is a good decision by definition - even if it’s not what the person wanted - since it’s God’s decision)
Jason wrote:
When I was a Christian I was taught that in the days of early Christianity, people were supposed to give allegiance to Caesar; and becoming a follower of Jesus/believer in him required switching allegiance to Jesus. Public announcement means you’re committed enough to accept the consequences of people knowing about your subversive allegiance. It’s a sign of how serious you are about your faith/allegiance.
In countries where people are persecuted for being Christian this same sort of dynamic exists. In the US and Europe it doesn’t because there aren’t any seriously adverse consequences to publically admitting to being a Christian. (People thinking you’re weird, or whatever, doesn’t count as a seriously adverse consequence)
Comment by: Stephan
16Allow me to go back to this:
We may be confusing the words “evidence” and “proof”. Most atheists I have talked to use the latter definition. No, I don’t have proof, I can’t get it and I don’t need it.
But to me evidence is another thing. It is a reason to believe. Some fact that points in a direction. I see lots of these with faith in God. I have plenty of reasons to believe, all of which I consider to be “evidence”, but certainly not “proof”.
Comment by: Jason
17Stephan, so it is fair to say that you evidence is personal to you? Something (I don’t know what) has provided a sufficient argument to support your belief in your god? I think that it is important that I stress that there is nothing wrong with this approach to developing a personal philosophy for living.
Comment by: Stephan
18Yes, I think that’s entirely fair to say. There aspects of it that I can share with others, but they are free to interpret it in other ways or reject it entirely. That’s where faith comes in.