If it is true that Christianity doesn't fit into the cateories of mathematical or scientific "bomb-proof certainty", then what kind of proof can we speak of for basic tenets of Christianity?
We have, in this country, a longstanding legal tradition that says that cases can be settled on the principle of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". We do not require that matters be settled with absolute certainty, which is not humanly possible for your average court case. What we require is that a case be made which establishes something in such a way that to doubt a particular conclusion would be unreasonable.
I was once a witness to a traffic accident. I was, in fact, one of several witnesses. I was asked to submit a written statement as to what happened. So I wrote that I was trailing a car by perhaps 300 yards and started to slow down because the light had turned red. The car in front of me, involved in the accident, did not stop and collided with a car coming into the intersection from the right, as I recall now. Another witness saw essentially the same thing I did. I believe there were additional witnesses as well. My understanding is that the driver of the car claimed the light was not red. I assume the case was not settled in his favor in spite of his claim.
Clearly, the matter could not be settled mathematically, as if there was one and only one possible "truth". It could not be reconstructed scientifically in terms of a repeatable experiment with controlled variables. But it could be reasonably established, however, that the driver, in fact, ran a red light.
This is the kind of "proof" we rely on every day. What is the preponderance of evidence? We ask questions like, "Who started the fight on the playground?", or "How long are the skid marks on the pavement?", or "Was the suspect at home at the time of the crime?" We amass evidence, pro and con. Often there is contradictory information. Usually there are unanswered questions. Rarely is there "certainty". Yet this uncertainty does not paralyze us. If there is a significant and compelling case for a certain conclusion, we act on that evidence. If there is not, if there is reasonable doubt, we generally do not. Reasonable doubt is not foolproof, but it is workable and indespensible to civilization.
Scripture is one source of this "reasonable doubt" tradition. Deuteronomy 19:15: "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses". Matthew 18:16 "But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'"
Obviously, we do not limit ourselves to only eyewitness accounts in our legal system, but we do normally require a preponderance of evidence. "Reasonable doubt" is eliminated, for example, when 12 jury members come to a common conclusion based on evidence, which may include witnesses, chemical and genetic tests, phone or bank records, and more.
In other words, if we do not attempt to apply "scientific" or "mathematical" conceptions of proof to apologetics, but clearly define apologetics as "making doubt unreasonable", the "modern/post-modern" tension is lessened. We are not claiming "bomb proof certainty" when engaging in evidential apologetics. We are simply making faith reasonable. Proof of God's existence, proof of the resurrection, proof of the miraculous, is not a matter of making a "water tight" empirical, naturalistic or rationalistic argument which no one can find a "hole" in. It is simply a matter of answering objections in a way that makes belief more reasonable than unbelief.
Abandoning evidentialism means abandoning much of the Old and New Testaments. Critics of evidentialism realize that evidence was not invented during the enlightenment. It has always been a useful support to faith and should always remain so.
No comments:
Post a Comment