THE
FALSE ANALOGY OF COURTROOM RULES OF EVIDENCE
by
A.S.A. Jones
Why is it illogical to think that a Christian needs
to 'prove' that the resurrection
and other miracles happened, 'beyond a reasonable
doubt', in order to see these beliefs as legitimate? See
how David Hume's advice that 'extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence' can have embarrassing results.
SHOULD
CHRISTIANS HAVE TO 'PROVE' THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IN ORDER TO REASONABLY
HOLD THOSE BELIEFS?
Let’s examine the idea that criminal court rules
of evidence should be applied to claims of the
miraculous based on high stakes or consequence
involving the belief of the miraculous.
Obviously, the
analogy is impractical because one
cannot remove the rules of evidence from the
entirety of the judicial process and expect a fair
trial. Before a skeptic can claim that only the
rules of evidence, as presented in criminal court
cases, should apply to belief in God’s existence,
he must be willing to agree to the following:
1) An impartial judge
2) An impartial jury
3) An examination of all of the claims that are said
to result in God belief, including philosophical,
societal, psychological, scientific arguments in
addition to an examination of historical and
experiential claims.
If skeptics insist
on Christians using the rules of evidence as found
in criminal law, then they can’t expect us to take
them seriously when they present themselves as the
sole juror, prosecuting attorney, and judge.
But there is a more compelling point of
contention that demonstrates the falsity of the analogy;
the criminal court rules of evidence are artificial constructs designed to minimize
the convicting of the innocent. In order to
prevent a wrongful conviction, by which the
defendant would suffer the consequence of
incarceration, the defendant is given the benefit of
the doubt ; he is innocent until proven guilty and
he must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.
As the following will
demonstrate, the simple actions of a man cannot be
adequately compared to complex beliefs or belief
structures.
Proposal #1
Skeptics claim that the reason why Christians
must validate their beliefs beyond a reasonable
doubt is because the consequence of belief may be
negative; it may result in war or dispute or
restrictive moral legislation. Since the consequences
involve high stakes, the criteria for evaluating the
validity of the belief in question, must be of the
highest caliber, that being the rules of evidence as
is found in criminal court proceedings. In this
particular proposal, the belief, or miraculous
event, must be proven true, beyond a reasonable
doubt, in order to avoid an undesirable consequence
(war or dispute).
The comparison to a
criminal case is thus: The Christian assumes the
role of the prosecution, having to prove that God is
real beyond a reasonable doubt, in order that the
skeptic, who assumes the role of the defendant, will
not be wrongfully sentenced to an undesirable
consequence.
Proposal #2
However, a Christian
may counter-argue that the consequence of belief is
salvation or an orderly society, and that the
consequence of non-belief is damnation or immorality
and anarchy. In this proposal, the miracle or belief
does not assume the role of the prosecution, but the
role of defendant.
The comparison to a
criminal case is thus: The Skeptic assumes the role
of the prosecution, having to prove that God is not
real beyond a reasonable doubt, in order that the
Christian, who assumes the role of the defendant,
will not be wrongfully sentenced to an undesirable
consequence.
Examine the
comparison:
CLAIMS OF WRONGDOING
Error in interpreting the evidence could
result in the _________ going to jail.
The error would be in thinking that X
[the defendant murdered a person] is true
when in fact the negative of X is true.
CLAIMS OF GOD/MIRACLES
Error in interpreting the evidence could
result in the _________going to Hell.
The error would be in thinking that X
[God isn’t true] is true when in fact the
negative of X is true.
Therefore, in order to minimize the error, the
evidence that attempts to prove X true must be of
the highest standard, that being the criminal court
rules of evidence. Fill in the blanks. In a criminal
court case, the plaintiff is not the one who is at
risk for sentencing. Also, it is the prosecution
that attempts to assert the truth of X, not the
defense, since the establishment of the truth of X
is what sentences the defendant to the consequence.
What the analogy is actually proposing is that the
evidence that would free the defendant from the
consequence should be subject to the highest
standards, while the evidence that could sentence
the defendant should be subject to the lowest
standards, that being the introduction of a
reasonable doubt that the negative of X is true. In
other words, in the second proposal, the skeptic is indeed suggesting that a
defendant be presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Immediately, we begin to see the complexity that is
involved when we try to equate beliefs with the
criminal actions of men. When we attempt to put a belief
on trial, there are any number of ways to design the
case; some cases will have the belief as the
plaintiff, others will have it take on the role of
the defendant. Since the criminal court rules of
evidence give the benefit of innocent until proven
guilty to the defendant and place the task of
proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt on the plaintiff, how are we to decide which
role the belief should assume, given that we have
just made cases that demonstrate that the belief can
assume either one?
What happens when we attempt to put other beliefs on
trial, such as evolution? Can we logically say that
‘evolutionary beliefs should be held to criminal
standards of evidence because belief in evolution
carries with it the consequence of racism’?
Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and
zoology at Columbia University, said that blacks
were further back on the evolutionary ladder (nearer
the apes) than whites, and "The standard of
intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar
to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo
sapiens". http://www.cstnews.com/Code/BasisForRacism.html
In view of the above, should the belief of evolution
have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before
it can be considered legitimately true?
Now we are not only arguing for the validity of the
belief, we are also having to prove that the belief
itself is the cause of some undesirable
consequence. There is no doubt that any beliefs that
cause passion, also cause dispute. In that respect,
evolution is as guilty as Christianity. However,
dispute, in and of itself, is not a crime. But what
if the dispute results in an atrocity or a crime? A
skeptic will claim that religious disputes cause war
and a religionist will say that the atheist agendas
of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung also caused war. Just as
a skeptic will argue that atheism and evolution can be
misused to support political agendas, so will a
Christian argue that Christian faith can also be misused.
After all, it would be difficult to make a case that
Christianity is being used properly by those who
initiate dispute and warfare, given that it
instructs its followers to ‘love one another’,
and to ‘love your enemy’, and to ‘live
peaceably among other men’.
So the main points are as follows:
1) Beliefs are more complex than the actions of men
and cannot properly be ‘tried’ according to
criminal rules of evidence.
a. Beliefs alternately would assume the roles of
both plaintiff and
defendant, depending on the
construction of the argument.
b. The standards of evidence for plaintiff and
defendant are in opposition to each other.
i. The plaintiff must prove its claim true beyond a
reasonable doubt.
ii. The defendant must be presumed innocent until
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2) Variations among individual’s beliefs within a
belief system should not subject the entire belief
system to ‘sentencing’.
a. Some evolutionists use evolution to promote
racism.
b. Some Christians use the Bible to promote war.
3) There is no logical reason why beliefs of a
religious nature should be subject to the rules of
evidence of criminal court, while beliefs of a
non-religious nature should be immune.
Conclusion: Court room analogies fail to give reason
why the religious belief should assume the role of
plaintiff. While the person making any claim thereby
becomes the claimant and has upon him the burden of
proof, to be a claimant is not synonymous, nor can
it properly be compared, with being the plaintiff.
Thus, one who makes a claim outside of the context
of a court of law or a lawsuit, does have the burden
of proof, BUT that proof needn’t be subject to the
high standard of the rules of evidence of criminal
court in order to be considered reasonable or
legitimate; there is no logical basis for requiring
that claims of a religious nature be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt in order to be considered
justified.
WHAT
CRITERIA SHOULD SUFFICE IN EVALUATING RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS?
The proper standards
for determining the validity of miraculous claims
are the same standards of evidence that are
already established and used to evaluate the
validity of ordinary, non-miraculous claims.
I consider Hume's assertion that 'extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence' to be
unreasonable. Hume defines a miracle as that which
violates the laws of nature. He then suggests that
no human testimony could ever be 'reliable' enough
to outweigh our confidence in the laws of nature.
In short, he is either saying that no miracles
ever occur, or if they do, they should never be
believed.
First of all, I disagree with Hume's definition of
what constitutes a miracle and I do so based on
the reaction of primitive mindsets to modern
technology. People claim that a miracle has
happened when something 'appears' to violate the
laws of nature and when it is not within their
intellectual capacity to give a natural
explanation for the alleged event. An ignoramus
who observes a metallic ball suspended in midair
may think that he is eyewitness to the
supernatural. He doesn't understand that the
ball's suspension is the result of a magnetic
field.
I would argue that a miracle is that which
'appears' to violate the laws of the nature and
that relies upon the absence of knowledge by which
it can be explained in order to maintain its
classification as a miracle. Therefore, 'miracles'
need not violate any laws of nature in order to be
classified as such.
Secondly, there is a degree of folly in Hume's
suggestion that no amount of human testimony can
be considered reliable enough to validate that a
'miracle' has taken place. For example,
despite public demonstrations and eyewitness
testimonies, the claims of Wilbur and
Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a
hoax by most American scientists.
The scientific community viewed
heavier than air flight as a violation of natural laws; to fly would be a
miracle. But hundreds of Americans were witnessing
the miracle of flight long before scientists came up
with equations that would validate it as a
possibility. Yet
according to Hume, American scientists were
totally reasonable in dismissing the legitimacy of the
flights, because no human testimony could be
considered reliable enough to validate such a
claim. That's right! The ignorant masses had
accepted air flight as a demonstrable reality, while
the scientific elite walked around for an entire
year, pompously dismissing it as an utter
impossibility.
In view of the above, and other instances that I
won't take the time to print here, it can be said
that human testimony, concerning allegations of
the miraculous, should at least be subject to the
same evaluations of human testimony regarding the
mundane, if only to open the door into further
inquiry.
Let us not forget that there are different courts
of law with different rules, depending upon the
nature of the claims. There is no 'law' stating
that proof of miracles has to be tried according
to criminal procedure. For example, our country
has civil court. In civil court, one only has to
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence
that the facts are probably true. However, unless
a miracle results in a bid for financial damages,
I don't see why it should be held to the stringent
rules of evidence found in civil proceedings no
more than those found in criminal proceedings.
Keep in mind that because criminal court rules of
evidence are so stringent, the amount of evidence
necessary to result in a conviction, need not
necessarily negate the probability of guilt. For
example, OJ Simpson was declared 'not-guilty' by
criminal law standards, but guilty in the civil
court. In other words, he is considered 'guilty' (he
DID commit the crime), 'not proven'. By the same
logic, religious beliefs may be considered true
(i.e., the miracle DID happen), not proven.
Practically speaking, every day we apply the
general rules of evidence in our decisions that
lead us to what we will, and will not, believe.
For example, your trusted friend is dating a bug
exterminator, who seems like an honest, and well
balanced person. Your friend tells you not to eat
at a certain restaurant because her boyfriend says it
is infested with cockroaches. In a court of law,
this evidence would be inadmissible; it would be
hearsay, and so you would have to dutifully
disregard it. But in reality, you take this piece
of information and conclude that you will never
eat at the restaurant again, unless, of course,
the hot wings are THAT good!
In real life, and beyond the artificial constructs
of a court of law, we depend a great deal upon
eyewitness testimony and hearsay in order to form
our belief structure. What separates the gullible
from the prudent is the following set of
evidential rules:
1) Confidence that an eyewitness, a reporter of
hearsay, and the one reported to have said the
hearsay, is honest, trustworthy and reliable.
Much of what we believe depends upon the character
of the person making the claim or allegation. This
is why a defense attorney attempts to discredit
witnesses by trouncing upon their character. It is
reasonable to believe those who have a reputation
for honesty; it is gullible to believe those who
are known liars.
A subset of this rule is establishing a lack of
incentive that would cause an otherwise honest
person to lie. If the person has something to gain
by making the claim, there is a chance that he has
lied in order to benefit himself. If the person
stands to lose by making the claim, the
probability of him lying decreases.
2) Corroboration amongst witnesses and other
evidences.
If one person tells you that they saw a UFO (and
by that, I mean just that, an unidentified flying
object - I'm not making a case for alien life)
hovering above the mall on Friday night, you may
dismiss it as a trick of that person's visual
perception. If two dozen people report it
independently of each other, at the same time, I'd
say that would be reasonable evidence to believe
that a UFO of some type was in the area. When the
mall reports scorch marks on its roof the next
morning, I'd say it would be unreasonable to not
believe at that point!
3) Upon close
examination, there is an absence of evidence to
the contrary.
While it may be considered acceptable to believe
in the probability of something being true with
little supportive evidence, it would be
unreasonable to persist in believing something
when there is a preponderance of evidence that
indicates that it is untrue.
For example, crop circles and BigFoot used to be
subjects of semi-serious speculation, until
hoaxers came forward and demonstrated how they
made the crop circles and faked BigFoot
footprints.
4) There should be evidence that one would
reasonably expect to find, dependent upon the
nature of the claim.
For example, one can't expect to find dental
evidence in a case involving a missing body, or
evidence of semen in a rape victim who reports the
crime a week later. We wouldn't expect to find
scientific evidence involving a case concerning
which tenant defaulted on paying the rent.
5) Personal experience is used as evidence for our
beliefs, realistically speaking.
In 1938, a woman discovered a coelacanth, a
primitive fish that was thought to have been
extinct for over 65 million years, in a fish
market. Had the fish escaped her possession and
had she not been able to present it to a
scientist, her claim to have seen the extinct fish
would have remained unfounded; she would not have
been in a position to convince others of her
discovery. However, we are in no position to deny
the woman her experience, and we may believe or
disbelieve her claims, based on what we know of
her character.
These 5 general rules of evidence are what we use
in our daily evaluations of claims and I see no
reason why claims of miracles should be treated
any differently.
[Return to Ex-Atheist home]
|
