Apologetics
The Nature of Evidence
Evidence exists in many forms. It may be that individual pieces of evidence are quite compelling (e.g., cosmological, teleological, etc.), or perhaps the evidence is compelling when the individual pieces are put together into one multi-faceted case (e.g., as in a court of law). In any event, there are many aspects of evidences to consider.
"Can you scientifically prove the existence of God?" one might ask. No, I would reply, can you scientifically prove where you were yesterday? Or perhaps you can scientifically prove the concepts of love or justice? No? How about scientifically proving your own individual birth? You might be able to scientifically study the birthing process, but what about your own personal birth? In order to scientifically prove something, it would need to be testable, observable, controllable, and repeatable. God cannot be put into a laboratory and tested because He is outside of nature. Since science deals in matters of nature, then it is obvious that the supernatural is not amenable to that. The mistake, however, would be to think that nature is all there is to reality. Science is a limited field. It is not the final determiner of truth.
This is not to say that science does not have a place in evidences. Science is a powerful ally for theists. Many scientists are effective apologists. The understanding of scientific principles will enhance our understanding of the nature of God. Through the study of science, we learn more about the intricate nature of the creation in which we live. We can learn about its design, the complexity of life, and how it all points to an overseeing intelligence. The evidence for God in this respect is compelling. But this is not the same thing as capturing God and subjecting Him to controlled tests. We might draw metaphysical conclusions based on observations, but we cannot directly test what is beyond the five senses. We observe nature, and we draw conclusions. We believe it is warranted to draw theistic conclusions from those observations.
Science is the not the only source of evidence, however. If one were going to try to show that Abraham Lincoln was President of the United Stated during the Civil War (or even that there was a Civil War), he/she could not go to a science lab or look through a microscope to show the evidence for this. The appeal would be to historical evidences – historical documents, eyewitness testimony, discovered artifacts, etc. – the type of evidence that might be used in a court of law to establish a case beyond a reasonable doubt. The nature of historical evidence is that we draw conclusions based upon the probability of something. If the evidence is strong, we have no reason to doubt the truth of it. Why would anyone, for example, deny that Abraham Lincoln was the Civil War President? No one today saw him. It cannot be scientifically verified. The answer, of course, is that historical evidence compels us, and we have no reason to doubt it. The case is beyond any reasonable doubt (i.e., one would be considered unreasonable to doubt it).
Biblical evidences incorporate scientific, historical, and philosophical lines of reasoning. We believe that nature points to God. Christians should not fear science, for we think that nature reflects the creative work of the Creator. We believe that historical study reveals a powerful case (beyond a reasonable doubt) for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. We also believe that common sense reasoning is valid because, if God really did make us, then we are made with minds that have the capacity to think and reason properly. So why shun that?
The various lines of evidences work quite well together. Threads of evidence can weave together into one magnificent case for biblical theism. For example, the cosmological argument (i.e., cause and effect – what is the ultimate cause of the universe?) is powerful for pointing to a Creator. Then, historical evidences for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus provide a capstone for the truth of biblical Christianity. Other lines of evidence can be employed to deal with objections and stumbling blocks to faith. For example, the arguments and responses to the problem of suffering are philosophical in nature, but they are important. Supporting evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible is also significant.
Of course, all evidence is interpreted. And how evidence is interpreted usually depends on the biases and presuppositions that one has before coming to the table. If one has decided that no evidence can ever convince him that God exists, then his mind will be closed so that he will not allow any evidence to suggest that possibility. All we are asking is that people who doubt take a look with as open of a mind as possible. Take a look at the creation. Consider the historical evidence. Think through the philosophical reasoning. Christians have nothing to fear along any of these lines. Think it all out, and think it all through.
Remember that none of this negates or denigrates faith. Apologetics may clear the way for faith in the minds of many, and it will enhance the faith of others. For example, the farther we look out into space, the more impressed we become with the vastness of the universe. In my case, this enhances my faith in the power of the Creator. Faith can indeed blossom with the understanding that it is a reasonable response to the invitation to "come and see."
Doy Moyer