Proof, Evidence and Christianity

People throw the words "proof" and "prove" around somewhat carelessly. The fact of the matter is that technically, outside the realm of mathematics, it is pretty much impossible to prove anything.

For example, can you "prove" that the sun rises in the east? No, technically you can't. The most you can do is demonstrate that throughout all of recorded history it has risen in the east and the odds are pretty good it will rise there tomorrow. As a matter of fact, the odds are so good that not to accept the conclusion "the sun rises in the east" would be somewhat irrational. But, still, technically, it cannot be proven to 100% certainty.

So much for technicalities. Let's talk about practical day to day existence. Most people would consider something "proven" if not to accept it as true would be irrational like not accepting the conclusion that "the sun rises in the east" is irrational.

But we're still really talking about probabilities. You can't "prove" to 100% certainty but you can get pretty darn close.

Now let's consider evidence. Evidence is anything that you believe increases or decreases the probability of something being true. When you present evidence to someone, the critical issue is how credible is that evidence.

This is where most Christians miss the point. They always claim they have lots of evidence for God, Jesus and Christianity. The problem is that none of it is terribly credible.

The most credible evidence is physical evidence. It's hard to argue with finger prints, DNA, blood, burn marks etc. The reason for this is physical evidence doesn't change and it is very difficult to forge or modify.

Next in credibility is documentary evidence because again, it doesn't change over time but it's much easier to forge or modify.

The least credible evidence is human eye witness testimony and the further away you get from the original source, the more it degrades. As a matter of fact most courts will not accept evidence which it even only once removed. It's called "hearsay" and is usually inadmissable."Hearsay" is still evidence, but very, very weak evidence. In addition, if the witness has a known agenda then the evidence is virtually worthless.

Here's the problem with all of the Christian's evidence. They have no physical evidence. They do have some documentary evidence in the Bible but (1) the authorship of the bible is unknown and anonymous testimony must always be viewed with suspicion and (2) with the possible exception of the Gospel of John, all of the testimony is at best "hearsay" and all of the gospels, including John, have an agenda. Paul I dismiss as so far removed from the events as to be completely worthless and the epistles attributed to Peter are considered by most reputable scholars to be forgeries.

The problem with John is even if it was written by the Apostle John, it was written so long after the events, and is so different from the Synoptic Gospels, it can't be considered credible. It is a known fact that human memory changes over time.

That leaves us with, at best, second and third removed hearsay which is basically useless.

So what about the "prophecies?"

I have to be honest that I just don't find the so-called prophecy passages terribly compelling. Most aren't even prophecies. Just passages that happen to be similar to some gospel event. The others are either clearly backfits after the fact or cases of heroic exegesis, reading into the passages something that simply is not there.

What about the "would the apostles be willing to die for a lie" argument?

Well, the word "lie" implies knowing something is untrue while claiming it's true anyway. It's not hard for humans to delude themselves into thinking something is true and then be willing to do ridiculous things to support or demonstrate their faith in that delusion. The apostles were ignorant peasants. That they deluded themselves into believing something doesn't surprise me. It is telling that no educated intellectuals accepted Christianity in it's earliest stages. That only came later when Christianity had managed to acquire some power.

So when Christians say they have lots of evidence, they do, None of it is very good though and none of it, in my opinion, justifies accepting Christianity as true.