Atheism 5 - The Proof is in the Pudding

Note: If you haven't already, you should read over all previous posts before proceeding.  These posts build upon previous information; they do not stand alone.  Starting at the end is like criticizing the selection of a hip v. gable roof without knowing anything about the walls and foundation.

This is the post in which we'll start getting into the legal stuff I promised back at the beginning.  It should be noted that I am not a lawyer; I haven't even played one on TV.  My current pastor used to be a practicing attorney, and I'm relying on her to jump into the comment section and correct any error.  😁

I left off with the conditional statement that if I could prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the human incarnation of God, then I could learn about the nature of God by studying the nature of Jesus.  I had then raised two questions: (1) what was acceptable proof, and (2) could I trust the historical accuracy of the New Testament accounts?  We shall take them in order.

"Sure, I'll believe in God!  Just as soon as you can prove God's existence scientifically!"  I can't even imagine how many times I've said those exact words.  And I believed them, too.  This seemed to me the only genuine way to approach the question with any hint of rationality.  That is, until I started dating an actual science major!  She let me know in no uncertain terms that there were many adjectives that could describe my position, but "rational" wasn't one of them.  To prove a hypothesis scientifically, she pointed out, meant to subject it to observation, experimentation and (perhaps most importantly) repetition.  There are a great many issues that we face every day that cannot be observed empirically or cannot bear experimentation or simply cannot be repeated, and yet we do not question their validity.  One could even argue, she went on, that logic exists to deal specifically with those issues in our lives that cannot be subjected to scientific proof.

Just as a case in point - let us imagine that we have been called to serve on a jury hearing a murder trial.  We are charged with determining whether or not the defendant in fact killed the victim.  How are we to prove this scientifically?  We can't.  While it is possible that someone observed the murder, the twelve of us did not.  There will, no doubt, be a great deal of forensic evidence presented during the trial to help determine whether this gun fired that bullet, whether the defendant's fingerprints were found on the gun, etc.  but there is no experiment that can be conducted here in the courtroom that will show us with any certainty that the defendant committed the crime.  And, of course, there's no way to repeat the action.  Perhaps we can let the defendant free on his own recognizance, keep him under observation, and witness him shooting someone else.  We may, at that point, have a case for the second crime, but it still doesn't prove he committed the first. 

Here is a question that simply cannot be subjected to scientific proof.  All is not lost, however.  We need simply apply a different sort of proof; that of legal/historical proof.  Scientific proof relies on observation, experimentation and repetition. It is proof beyond all doubt.  Legal/historic proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt.  It relies on witness testimony, historic documentation and exhibition.  

Scientific proof leaves no room for doubt, which is why both relativity and natural selection are still referred to as theories rather than laws despite more than 100 years of repeated experimentation.  Legal/ historic proof leaves room for doubt, but only if that doubt is unreasonable.  You may tell me that you ate lunch today at McDonald's.  You might produce an order taker who remembers you, a paper receipt of your transaction and the to-go bag containing your trash.  I could still doubt you, mentioning that I did not see you there, but it wouldn't be a reasonable doubt.  In short, I may still doubt, but, in doing so, I'm really only displaying my own foolishness!

Perhaps you've just returned from a vacation in Barcelona.  I've never been to Barcelona.  Actually, I rather doubt it even exists.  But, there are more than a million people living there, you argue.  It's on all the maps.  You, yourself, have just returned from there; here are the photos to prove it.  No, I insist.  All those people, all those maps, you and your photographs are all just part of a vast conspiracy intended to make me believe in a city that doesn't actually exist.  It's all just one giant con game.  Possible, but not very reasonable.

"Ok, Jeff," I argued with myself, "but we're not talking about lunch menus or trips to Spain, we're talking about a Supreme Being.  For that, I still want scientific proof!"  This started another whole argument in my head.  "Why?  You're willing to accept legal proof to any unscientific question but this one.  Why is this one different?"  Ultimately I had to admit it was different because I didn't want to face the possibility of being wrong.  In the scientific arena, I was safe.  I suppose I already knew that God couldn't be proven scientifically, and that's why I insisted he/she had to be.  I wasn't so sure about this legal thing.  I had no experience there.  It was just possible that God actually could be proven legally, and I wasn't at all comfortable with acknowledging that possibility, no matter how remote.

In short, at the first sign of discomfort, I was willing to throw away all my promises to follow the evidence no matter where it went and slip back into my tried-and-true belief.  In even shorter terms, I was letting myself be the hypocrite I was so fond of accusing Christians of being.

Next up - Can the New Testament be trusted?  Fair warning: this will be the first post in which I am obliged to include all my citations.  In addition to the aforementioned More Than a Carpenter, I have checked that world-renowned reference, Google.  Oh my God!  There are so many scholarly works on this subject that I could easy write a tome a la War and Peace and just fill it with quotes sans any commentary whatsoever!  I don't intend to do so, of course.  I will do my best to cull it all down to a digestible portion, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that my next post will be quite a long one.

Pax