Standards of Good Evidence

[Jagella]

In the debate between apologists and skeptics, a word that gets bandied about a lot is the word, "evidence." We are told, for example, that the evidence for a historical Jesus is "overwhelming" or "virtually certain."

Question for Debate: But what does it mean to say that evidence is "good"?

I propose the following criteria for good evidence that should convince any sensible person that a claim is true:

• â–º The evidence is physical. Example, a live specimen of Bigfoot
  â–º The evidence is demonstrable. Example, dropping a pencil and a paperweight from the same height to demonstrate that regardless of weight, objects fall at the same velocity
  â–º The evidence is observable. Example, a fossil of an extinct bird held on display in a museum
  â–º The evidence is unbiased. Example, a double-blind study of racist attitudes among Hispanics using a questionnaire.
  â–º The evidence is accessible to people who have no specialized training. Example, observing the position of the moon
  â–º The evidence is not controversial. Example, the fact that smoking causes illness
  â–º The evidence is unambiguous (there is only one meaning). Example, the length of a bridge
  â–º The evidence is derived from a known source. Example, a document signed by Gerald Ford

Evidence that's not so good is the following:

• â–º The evidence is nonphysical. Example, a purported ghost haunting a mansion
  â–º The evidence is biased. Example, a Fox editorial crediting President Trump for low unemployment
  â–º The evidence is accessible only to people who have specialized training. Example, dating the Shroud of Turin
  â–º The evidence is controversial. Example, the assassination of JFK instigated by a conspiracy

Note that the evidence offered by apologists falls almost completely into the "not so good" category.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Okay, lets go with this.

1. What sort of physical evidence do you have that would demonstrate the reports in the NT are false?

2. What sort of demonstrable test have you performed that would demonstrate the reports in the NT are false?

3. What sort of observable evidence do you have that would demonstrate the reports in the NT are false?

4. What sort of unbiased evidence do you have that would demonstrate the reports in the NT are false?

5. What sort of evidence do have which is accessible to people with no specialized training do you have that would demonstrate the reports in the NT are false?

6. What sort of evidence do you have that is not controversial that would demonstrate the reports in the NT are false?

7. What sort of unambiguous evidence do you have that would demonstrate the reports in the NT are false?

8. What sort of evidence do you have that would be derived from a known source that would demonstrate the reports in the NT are false?

Allow me to help you out here. You have none! And yet, you are convinced that it is false? Now why is that? Well, it is because this is the way in which you interpret the facts involved, but you can in no way demonstrate that your interpretation of the facts would be correct. You cannot even demonstrate that your interpretation would even be more likely.

Now, there are those of us, who interpret the facts involved differently than you have, and have arrived to a different conclusion, but we cannot demonstrate that our opinion of the facts would be correct, nor can we demonstrate that our opinion would be more likely.

Of course you can go on to argue that your opinion is a better opinion, and that it is more logical. However, you have no way to demonstrate such a thing.

Until the debate is demonstrated one way or the other, we are all in the same boat, and can only share the reasons, along with the evidence, based upon the facts we have, in order to support our opinion. Arguing over who has the best opinion, is like two kids arguing on the playground.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 2 by Realworldjack]

I can address some of the issues you have raised, but for now it would be helpful if you would post what you think is some of the best evidence for Christian truth claims that you have. Why do you think that evidence warrants acceptance of Christian truth claims? Is it good evidence that can make any claim believable?

[Tcg]

[quote="Jagella"]

I think you have developed two very good lists. I'd suggest the addition of a couple to your, "Evidence that's not so good" list.

• â–º The evidence is a claim. Example, the Bible is often presented as evidence, but is in fact, a series of unsupported claims
  â–º The evidence is wishful thinking. Example, humans wish for an eternal paradise therefore an eternal paradise must exist

Tcg

[Goose]

Question for Debate: But what does it mean to say that evidence is "good"?

I would say that depends on the question. If it’s a question of whether or not someone from ancient history existed, such as Jesus, then “good� evidence would be good historical evidence relative to some historical standard for evidence. Those standards are available.

I propose the following criteria for good evidence that should convince any sensible person that a claim is true

• â–º The evidence is physical. Example, a live specimen of Bigfoot
  â–º The evidence is demonstrable. Example, dropping a pencil and a paperweight from the same height to demonstrate that regardless of weight, objects fall at the same velocity
  â–º The evidence is observable. Example, a fossil of an extinct bird held on display in a museum
  â–º The evidence is unbiased. Example, a double-blind study of racist attitudes among Hispanics using a questionnaire.
  â–º The evidence is accessible to people who have no specialized training. Example, observing the position of the moon
  â–º The evidence is not controversial. Example, the fact that smoking causes illness
  â–º The evidence is unambiguous (there is only one meaning). Example, the length of a bridge
  â–º The evidence is derived from a known source. Example, a document signed by Gerald Ford

:

I don’t see how the evidence for the following five truth claims have “good evidence� using your criteria:

• 1. 2+2=4
  2. Rape is wrong
  3. Socrates existed
  4. “The following criteria for good evidence that should convince any sensible person that a claim is true.�
  5. All life on earth descended from s single celled organism

It seems to me the evidence for each of those five claims fail at least some, if not all, your criteria.

Evidence that's not so good is the following:

• â–º The evidence is nonphysical. Example, a purported ghost haunting a mansion
  â–º The evidence is biased. Example, a Fox editorial crediting President Trump for low unemployment
  â–º The evidence is accessible only to people who have specialized training. Example, dating the Shroud of Turin
  â–º The evidence is controversial. Example, the assassination of JFK instigated by a conspiracy

Once again passing the evidence for those same five truth claims through this criteria it would seem the evidence is “not so good� since the evidence for those claims meets at least some, if not all, the criteria.

Since some of the evidence for each of those five truth claims fails at least some of the criteria for "good" and meets at least some of the criteria for "not so good" it would seem, if your lists are valid, that the reasonable person should not be convinced those five claims are true.

[Jagella]

I think you have developed two very good lists.

Great--I'm finally doing something the right way!

I'd suggest the addition of a couple to your, "Evidence that's not so good" list.

• â–º The evidence is a claim. Example, the Bible is often presented as evidence, but is in fact, a series of unsupported claims
  â–º The evidence is wishful thinking. Example, humans wish for an eternal paradise therefore an eternal paradise must exist

Yes, these two criteria are or should be obvious as "not so good" evidence. As you say, apologists will present as evidence what the gospel tale says, but what the gospel tale says is what's being scrutinized! And I've also heard that the universal hope for a god is evidence for a god. Is the widespread desire to meet Santa on Christmas evidence that he exists?

[Jagella]

• 1. 2+2=4
  2. Rape is wrong
  3. Socrates existed
  4. “The following criteria for good evidence that should convince any sensible person that a claim is true.�
  5. All life on earth descended from s single celled organism

It seems to me the evidence for each of those five claims fail at least some, if not all, your criteria.

1 is true by definition. It's a rule invented by people like checkmate in chess. It doesn't always work because if you add two clouds to another two clouds, then the result might be one cloud rather than four clouds!

2 is an ethic that people generally agree upon (except for rapists, I suppose). As an ethic it cannot be proved, but I should point out that the evidence for rape is often physical and not controversial.

3 is problematical. Some people doubt if Socrates existed, and I'm afraid that the evidence for him all falls into the "not so good" category.

4 is a proposal on my part. I never meant it as a claim that can be substantiated by good evidence. You are welcome to disagree with what is or is not good evidence, of course.

I don't know what the evidence for 5 is, so I won't comment on it.

Anyway, what Christian truth claims fall into the "good evidence" category? Very little if any Christian truth claim can be backed up by my good-evidence criteria.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 2 by Realworldjack]

I can address some of the issues you have raised, but for now it would be helpful if you would post what you think is some of the best evidence for Christian truth claims that you have. Why do you think that evidence warrants acceptance of Christian truth claims? Is it good evidence that can make any claim believable?

You are avoiding the question, and I certainly understand why.

The point is, you are attempting to make the argument that we should not believe things unless we have good, solid evidence for such a belief. You then go on to give examples of what you seem to consider to be good evidence.

Okay then, it is your belief that the reports in the NT would be false. So then, this same criteria would apply to you as well. Therefore, it is certainly legitimate for me to ask you to defend your belief, using the same criteria.

[Jagella]

You are avoiding the question, and I certainly understand why.

Ask your question, and I'll try to answer it. Did you answer the question for debate? What are your criteria for good evidence?

The point is, you are attempting to make the argument that we should not believe things unless we have good, solid evidence for such a belief.

Yes, of course we should base beliefs on evidence that makes those beliefs probably true.

You then go on to give examples of what you seem to consider to be good evidence.

And do you agree that those criteria are useful in assessing the evidence for claims? Why or why not?

Okay then, it is your belief that the reports in the NT would be false.

Much of the New Testament does appear to be baloney to me, that's for sure, but I cannot falsify most of it.

So then, this same criteria would apply to you as well.

Anybody making a claim, in my opinion, should be able to offer the "good" evidence that fits the criteria I posted in the OP to the extent that such evidence applies to the nature of the claim. I have made no claims that I can falsify the New Testament so I need not meet those criteria.

Therefore, it is certainly legitimate for me to ask you to defend your belief, using the same criteria.

What belief are you referring to? My skepticism regarding the truth-claims of Christianity is not a belief; skepticism is not a belief but an absence of belief. My criteria then do not apply to skepticism. As I see it, skeptics have no burden of proof.

So do you maintain your Christian beliefs because no skeptic can falsify them?

Let me complete this post by pointing out that with the probable exception of your Christian beliefs, you do indeed use my list of "good" criteria for judging evidence offered for claims. For example, If you buy a toaster,

• 1. then you want the toaster (the evidence is physical).
  2. You want to use the toaster yourself to toast (the evidence is demonstrable and requires no specialized training).
  3. You want to see and taste the bread after being toasted (the evidence is observable).
  4. You do not wish to continue to use the toaster if you read in Consumer Reports that it has been known to cause fires (the evidence is not controversial).
  5. You want to know that the toaster is designed to toast rather than for some other purpose (the evidence is unambiguous).
  6. You want to know who manufactured the toaster (the evidence is derived from a known source).

If this hypothetical toaster failed to meet these criteria, then you would not or should not believe the toaster is adequate. Yet if you're like most Christians, you'll abandon these criteria to continue to believe what the New Testament claims. Is it blessed to believe in a toaster you bought from a store yet have never seen said toaster?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 9 by Jagella]

Let's skip over the nonsense, and get to where the rubber meets the road here.

Anybody making a claim, in my opinion, should be able to offer the "good" evidence that fits the criteria I posted in the OP to the extent that such evidence applies to the nature of the claim.

I am not making any claims! I simply acknowledge the fact that I am convinced the reports in the NT are accurate, and I have been convinced of this by analyzing, and studying the facts, and evidence.

I am not insisting that you should believe as I do, and I am not insisting that I could not possibly be in error.

Now the question to you is, do you insist that the reports of the resurrection in the NT are false? If so, it is not that you should be able to offer good evidence. Rather, one making a claim such as, "the resurrection did not occur" would be obligated to supply, proof, not just evidence.

However, if you simply do not believe the resurrection occurred, then you do not own the burden of proof.

Therefore, in the same way, if I am simply claiming to believe the evidence points to the truth of the accounts, I do not own the burden of proof, but can rather to simply give the reasons, along with the evidence to support what it is I believe concerning these things, which I have done, over, and over, on this site.

My point is, you seem to keep insisting that those of us who happen to believe the claims, somehow are under some sort of burden, while those who do not believe the claims, have no burden whatsoever.

My skepticism regarding the truth-claims of Christianity is not a belief; skepticism is not a belief but an absence of belief. My criteria then do not apply to skepticism. As I see it, skeptics have no burden of proof.

Well then, how do those of us who believe the claims, own any sort of burden of proof, when we are simply claiming to believe the claims, and not claiming that we can demonstrate the claims?

Again, as long as you and I are simply claiming to believe, or disbelieve the claims, then neither of us owns the burden. However, when one of us begins to insist that the events did in fact occur, or they did not in fact occur, it is then, we own the burden.

The point is, if I am obligated to the list you supply in order to believe the claims, then you would be obligated to the same list, in order to not believe the claims.