In a previous post I discussed my two-and-a-half-hour grilling at the hand of a quintessential rationalist. One thing especially stood out to me was how The Rationalist used evidence as a weapon against me by discounting anything that I claimed was evidence. Only what he counted as evidence was evidence. It’s a common tactic of atheists. The Rationalist, like most rationalists, is an empiricist, meaning only what is empirically demonstrably provable counts as “evidence.” Here is a definition of empiricism:

Empiricism, in philosophy, is the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience.

Key word: only. In the history of philosophy the rationalists and the empiricists often didn’t see eye to eye, and many saw these two approaches to epistemology as mutually exclusive. But that debate is for scholars who have too much time on their hands. In fact, most people who reject the existence of God are rationalist empiricists because they believe all knowledge does in some way only come through sense experience and that it can be rationally deduced as real knowledge, the only knowledge that is in fact real. However, nobody can be perfectly consistent in this because human beings are more than senses and reason, as I think The Rationalist demonstrated in our conversation.

Now let’s take a look at a definition of evidence:

Evidence is anything that can be used to prove something — like the evidence presented in a trial, or the trail of breadcrumbs that is evidence of the path Hansel took through the woods.

The word evidence is derived from the Latin ēvidēnt-, meaning “obvious.” The word evidence shows up frequently in legal documents and dramas, because evidence is necessary proof in linking someone to a crime or crime scene. Evidence is used in many ways to show that something is true, as in “the chocolate stains around your mouth and the crumbs on the table are evidence that you ate the last of the brownies.”

Given all human beings see things differently to some degree, what is obvious to some is not so obvious to others. Notice the phrase “necessary proof” in the definition above. Rarely does “proof” in a court of law equal absolute certainty. In fact, people are sent to prison when certainty is far from certain, and different crimes require different levels of “proof” to convict someone. There are also different levels of “proof” to convict someone in criminal verses civil trials. But, evidence, whatever that might be, is “necessary proof” in a court of law. In other words, it is reasonable to come to a conclusion based on that evidence.

The point, though, is that proof is never absolute, and anyone who thinks it is, in Paul’s words, does not yet know as he ought to know. Also, evidence can never compel someone to believe something against their will. Someone is either open to the evidence, or they are not. Even if they are willing to consider it, they may not be persuaded by it. The Rationalist, and those of his ilk, doesn’t seem to understand that, or more accurately, refuses to think evidence he doesn’t find persuasive as “necessary proof” is ipso facto not evidence! How convenient. This kind of person is deluded by the ghost of René Descartes, the founder of modern philosophy who brought the concept that absolute certainty was possible into Western thought. It’s not. Finite beings cannot be absolutely certain of anything, and if they think they are, they are living a delusion. Such people are often unpleasant to interact with because they are absolutely certain anyone who disagrees with them is absolutely wrong! And they are not shy in saying so.

Given I don’t have enough room in this post to get into what I see as evidence for the veracity of Christianity and why I embrace it, I will do that in another post, but I will mention something here called the cumulative case argument. The phrase explains itself. As evidence accumulates the argument for the case become more compelling until it becomes for certain people “proof” that the argument is true. Put another way, it is that multiple arguments or pieces of evidence come together to form a stronger conclusion. Rather than aiming to prove the conclusion with absolute certainty, the goal is to establish a conclusion that is more likely to be true than false. I would argue that for Christianity, the cumulative case for its being true rather than false is like a tsunami combined with an avalanche that turns into a Noah like flood. For me, it’s impossible to not believe it is true.

That doesn’t mean over the last four plus decades of being a Christian there were not times when I doubted whether it might not be true. Although, this is not exactly the case. I’ve never believed some alternative to Christianity might be true. If I were to believe that I would have to believe the cumulative case for whatever that view of reality was, was more compelling than the Christian faith. I’ve always known what I now call “the consideration of the alternative” must be embraced, meaning if Christianity isn’t true, something else has to be. What has waxed and waned over the decades for me is the plausibility of Christianity. At times it just didn’t seem as real as other times. I now look back at those times and call them times of plausibility insanity. What changed? My deep dive into apologetics in 2009.

I had an encounter with a co-worker that year trying to engage him about the truth of Christianity, and I was pathetic. It was embarrassing, although he wouldn’t have thought so. I determined that would never happen again. I had just purchased a car with an aux cable jack, got a small MP3 player, and started listening to apologetics podcasts. I was amazed to learn there had been an explosion of apologetics resources since I’d last studied this theological discipline in the 1980s. So listening and reading, and reading and listening, I was drinking deep of the cumulative case that yes in fact, Christianity is the truth! And that there was more than enough evidence to make the case that Jesus was indeed the risen Lord and Savior, Creator of the heavens and earth, and the reason for my existence. I will say it as I often say, quoting C.S. Lewis:

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not because I see it but because by it I see everything else.

I will do a third and final post in response to The Rationalist on some of the evidence that to me, makes the cumulative case and has convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that Christianity is true.