It's something I've heard many times over from people. "Give me hard evidence, hell give me good circumstantial evidence and I will have more belief in
YOUR God." After hearing it for the nth time a few years ago I sat down for a few weeks and started crafting my own counter to this often heard argument. Over the years, i've pruned and tightened the argument to where I'm fairly happy with it. Please, feel free to poke holes or add your thoughts to this.
Monday night I ate a healthy choice spaghetti dinner (like that's actually a dinner, but I digress)... Since trash comes on Tuesday the container and all remains from my dinner are gone. I happened to purchase that meal using cash, and I have no idea where the receipt is. My family was in the living room when I scarfed down the food so they did not see me eat the dinner. And, on a more personal and scientific note all traces of the food have either been used or passed through my system. I cannot in any way prove I had that healthy choice for dinner to a skeptical person. Yet, my own personal experience of eating the dinner is the only thing that remains of that food. Since I cannot prove I ate the dinner, does that mean I didn't eat it?
Lets go one further with a related example. Say I am home alone one night watching television when I hear a bang, scream and a shot outside my door. I run out through the door and I find a neighbor laying in a pool of blood on my porch with a still warm gun on his chest. On the side, I see a person running away wearing khaki shorts and a white t-shirt. I toss the gun on the sidewalk, and try to help the man as he is bleeding on my porch to save his life. I try my best, but fail at helping him. By this time, about 10 minutes have passed, I am covered in my neighbors blood and the police come screaming around the corner. Not knowing the situation, they take me aside of the scene and start questioning me.
At the same time other police officers begin canvassing the neighborhood seeing if any of my neighbors may have seen anything. After a marathon of questioning by police, and speaking to all of my surrounding neighbors I am arrested for attempted murder of my neighbor. Preparing for my hearing, I am given the following sheet from the DA outlining why I was arrested for my neighbors murder.
- Speaking to two sets of my neibhors they find that I have had a few vocal arguments with this neighbor before about his boat in the way of my car and his dogs barking all of the time. I have stated on a few occasions to them in passing that I don't like him at all.
- A neighbor who was getting home from work saw a man wearing khaki shorts and a white t-shirt shoot my neighbor. When the police found me at the scene, I was wearing khaki shorts and a white t-shirt covered with blood.
- My fingerprints were found on the gun.
- I have no witnesses placing me inside my home during the time of the shooting.
- When I found my neighbor on my front porch, I never phoned 911 to report a shooting or an ambulance. The neighbors called 911.
Wow, I'm screwed aren't I? Every piece of evidence shows that I shot and killed my neighbor. The only other people who know I didn't shoot him are my deceased neighbor and the actual killer who is no where to be found. In this case, my recalled memory and experience are correct, even though the evidence says otherwise.
The examples above can usually turn a debate into the question of what truly is Evidence? Many people will then go on the line of stating that for evidence to be true in a rational way then it must be able to be repeated. Ahh, the basis of Science, repeatable experiments and the argument of rationality! Lets take a look at an average human, and "rational" thinking using the Scientific definition of evidence for a minute. Is it rational for me to believe that when I wake up tomorrow (a cloudless day) that when I go outside I will be able to see the sun? According the Scientific rules of evidence in order to make a valid hypothesis I must be able ot repeat the experiment continuously and get the same results. Yet, I have no evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. I can use Inductive reasoning to assume the sun will rise tomorrow, but I cannot prove it. So I lack evidence for a belief, does that make it irrational?
When it comes to evidence, we all filter the available information through our own life experiences and personal biases. Two people can see the same thing, yet get have a totally different perspective on the event. Lets imagine a scene in which a white haired gentleman is walking in the park holding the hand of a little girl. If I were to see this scene, my internal biases would assume that man is her Grandfather. But, what do you think someone who was raised by a prematurely grey haired father to think? We both saw the same scene, and were given the same evidence but we came to difference conlusions due to our biases. It could be one of us is right, and the other is wrong. Yet, maybe if we asked the man we would find out he's actually her great-uncle, or a day-care worker.
If someone's mind is made up on any subject, it doesn't matter what "Evidence" you give that person. If their own internal biases are very strong, they will reject any evidence that threatens their world view. I am one who takes my own medicine though, and I try my best to look at evidence or a situaiton with as open mind as I can. I'm sure I fail quite often, i'm only human. Look at Thomas. He was there during Jesus's walk on earth, he saw many miracles. Yet, he still needed more proof after the resurection when others didn't. We all too often treat God like a sideshow pony, asking him to do tricks to prove himself to us.
Oh God, i'd believe in you if you'd only make this chair levitate in the air. If your God was real, he'd heal every blind persons sight, etc, ad-nauseum. For some, even if God came down and wiggled on their face they'd find a way to rationalize thier way out of it. If your open, and if you truly want the truth, you will find it. God has it there for all to see, you just have to want to see it.