There is a big difference between “evidence” and “proof”, and I think many of our difficulties with both religion and politics could be much better understood if we use these terms correctly.
“Proof” is defined as “evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement” whereas “evidence” is defined as “the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
They are very similar but different. “Proof” is generally not something that can fit in a soundbite, or even within the attention span of the average sceptic. It is made up of the sum total of a body of evidence, and in my opinion, it is almost impossible to establish, even in science. The whole post-modern movement exists because long-held physical “laws” are being undermined. Scientist are increasingly being reminded that they can’t afford the arrogance of certainty.
So I never claim “proof” in my Gospel outreach conversations, but I do claim to provide evidence, which Pastor Tim Keller wisely calls “clues”. In a court of law, both the defense and the prosecution build a body of evidence for their respective claims, and the judge or jury weigh the evidence, pro and con, and declare a verdict. Rarely would one claim that the other side has absolutely “no evidence”. Both sides usually have reasonable evidence; it’s just that one side has more than the other.
Yet that is what I see in arguments for both religion and politics. Usually what people mean when they say there is “not a shred of evidence” or “baseless claims” is that they see no evidence that they are willing to consider or accept according to their personal “scepto-meter”, due to their strong commitment to a certain position.
A young man named Ishmael, for example, claimed he would start believing in God as soon as he saw “proof”. My usual response is that as a Christian I can’t “prove” God exists, but that there is enough evidence that we can have “reasonable faith”, as opposed to the blind faith that Christians are so often accused of.
The Bible and Romans 1 in particular tells us that God gives us all the evidence we need for that reasonable faith, but it never tells the sceptic will get all the evidence he wants. In my experience, even if a sceptic does get the proof he requires, he would just dismiss it by quickly moving the goalposts.
For most controversial truth claims, circumstantial evidence and eyewitness accounts aren’t enough to convince the opposing view. Casual arguments rely on expert testimony, which can be detailed and time-consuming to consider. So the argument quickly devolves into a contest of “my favorite expert versus yours”.
In person, I for one can’t remember all the details of the arguments my favorite experts give that were so convincing at the time I read them, so I end up making claims that I can’t quickly back up in a sound bite. Online, our opponents are rarely willing to read the convincing but lengthy sources we link them to.
I believe the best approach is usually to present our view along with a reasonable amount of evidence to at least show our claims aren’t baseless, and to demonstrate we understand the opposing view and have considered that evidence also. But before we do that we need to prove ourselves to be careful, active listeners, and to ask sincere clarifying questions.
I hope we can all learn to stop talking past each other, to quit trying to convince each other of our position in a slam dunk (otherwise known as shoving our view down their throats), but also to stop retreating to our polarized safe zones and avoiding and even condemning dissenting opinions. We as a culture, especially in this age of social media algorithms, must make an effort to engage in civil conversations that help us to stop demonizing the other side but to better understand both our differences and the many things we still have in common.
Thanks for allowing me to record our conversation, Ishmael! It can be seen on my YouTube channel.
No comments:
Post a Comment