Let’s Talk About Evidence

Arguably the most common thing we atheists are heard saying is that there is no evidence for the existence of god. Just as commonly, we hear believers say that we must show evidence that god doesn’t exist (it’s at this point where you can usually hear an audible *sigh*).

Before getting into the backward logic of the latter demand, let’s look at some examples of evidence:

  1. Fingerprints and hair samples (DNA) are evidence for a person being placed at a crime scene.
  2. Fossils are evidence that extinct species of animals once existed.
  3. A photo of my wife and I kissing is evidence that we love one another.
  4. Observing the speed of different items falling (in a frictionless vacuum) is evidence that gravity has the same pull on items of different mass.

Sometimes, the evidence is convincing and easy to find. Other times, it is weak and difficult to come by (for Galileo’s gravity experiment, we need a frictionless environment). In science, when evidence is weak, we continue to push until we have more and more of it – until we have a degree of confidence that our theory is correct.

What all evidence has in common is that it demonstrates something about the physical properties of the world we live in (i.e. that everything is made of matter). Therefore, evidence must take physical form. It may be visual. It may be auditory. It may be something we can touch or measure in some physical way because, where there’s matter, there’s generally a way to measure it. The point is, evidence is more substantial that a thought that exists in our minds.

The claims of religion operate on two levels. At the macro level, we have the claim that God exists while, on the micro level, we have the claim that the Bible is true, and that Jesus existed.

What evidence do we have that supports those claims? Well, the Bible claims that there is a God. Outside of that, he seems to exist only in the minds of people since there has not, in our time, been any documented, verifiable, observable, physical proof that he’s around.

With respect to the Bible, where’s the evidence in support of its claims? I think to answer this question, it’s helpful to separate the claims into two areas:

  1. Its claims about the origins of the universe and life.
  2. Its claims about history – specifically, about Jesus’ existence.

With regard to claim #1, virtually everything we know about the origins of the universe (e.g. that it’s 14 billion years old) come into direct conflict with what’s said in the Bible (6000 years?). Most importantly, the knowledge we have is supported by copious amount of evidence. In contrast, the Bible’s evidence is that the Bible says so. A key concept used in the scientific method is this: When a theory is shown to have massive amounts of evidence that conflicts with a theory with no evidence, the latter theory is very likely implausible. This IS evidence for the non-existence of God – or, at least, for the god that is written about in the Bible. It’s also evidence that the Bible is deeply flawed. Given that, I think its prudent that we ask ourselves, “Why should we trust the Bible?”. I see no reason we should.

Aside: Even the claim that god loves us is bogus. Where, outside a thought in your brain can one find evidence for the love of an invisible man in the sky?

With regard to claim #2, again, the Bible runs up against a method similar to science. Historians test in specific ways when they evaluate claims about what happened in the past. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t do well when these tests are applied. Without getting too deeply into the historicity of the Bible, one of the best examples of this test is that Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in Roman records of the time. You’d think, someone of that importance would have been mentioned somewhere by the Romans – wouldn’t you?

Aside #2: I recommend reading anything by Bart Ehrman (you can also find some excellent videos of him debating believers on YouTube).

All this means that there is little if any reliable evidence showing the Bible to be worth the paper it is written on. And if this is so, what does it say about the claims about Jesus, or his father?

All this aside, the claim that we must prove the non-existence of god is ludicrous. It’s a claim that was adeptly brushed aside by Bertrand Russel when he conceptualized his “celestial teapot”:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

___

I really can’t put a finer point on it than that. Besides, it’s late and I’m tired.

Print Friendly
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

Tags: • • • • • • • • • • • •

August 27, 2009 · Filed Under Atheism, Religion

Comments

3 Responses to “Let’s Talk About Evidence”

  1. Paul on August 27th, 2009 at 9:40 am

    I find I must take exception to your example of evidence #3. A photograph of your wife and you kissing is not evidence that you love each other. Many people kiss without love being involved. That photograph is evidence only that you and your wife kissed at least one time in the past. Nothing more.
    This may seem like nit-picking, but I think it is important in any discussion of evidence to be very precise about what a particular piece of evidence actually demonstrates.
    Another thing about evidence I like to stress is the importance of the use of the scientific method when collecting it. And the most important parts of that, to me, are repeatability, and replicability. I should be able to repeat the same experiment or observation over and over again, and receive the same result. And, I should be able to describe my experiment or observation to someone else, and they should be able to successfully replicate it themselves.

  2. 40 Year Old Atheist on August 27th, 2009 at 9:44 am

    Point taken, Paul. In my defense, I *did* say that some evidence is weak and must be supported by more evidence. You’ve reinforced that point.

    And I appreciate your points about repeatability and replicability. Thank you.

  3. Mullmeister on August 27th, 2009 at 11:52 am

    We could say the lack of evidence (for God) is not the evidence of abscence (Of God not existing). This was one arguement i put foward to a Child Of God when they asked me to argue that God existed. Now, a consitent lack of evidence, we can say is more evidence that God does not exist. So we do not need proof that He does not exist. (For how long have we not seen evidence of God) Don’t know if you see what i mean but i thought i would just say that here….

  • Why I Blog

    I'm here to help doubting believers let go of their fear and guilt, to provide an example of an atheist leading a happy, moral and fulfilling life, and to connect with fellow non-believers. Welcome!

  • Subscribe/Bookmark

    AddThis Social Bookmark Button Follow 40yroldatheist on Twitter subscribe

  • Navigation


  • On Youtube

  • Great Reads

  • History & Statistics

  • Favorite Articles

  • Meaning of Life Type Stuff