The following is a brief excerpt from a larger book.
For a fuller treatment of this subject as well as a better context, see:
I’d Like To Believe In Jesus But..(The harder, less frequently discussed questions) By Bob Siegel
Published by CSN Books Copyright © 2007 by Bob Siegel All Rights Reserved
Published by Campus Ambassador Press Copyright © 1999 by Bob Siegel All Rights Reserved
This article is not to be reproduced without written permission from the author.
My first concern is that people frequently attach different meanings to words. Words like proof and evidence can be confusing, sometimes used interchangeably, sometimes not. For example, often Christians claim that there is proof for the existence of God and instead of proof, they offer evidence, perhaps some significant scientific phenomena of nature. What they offer may even be good evidence, but evidence is not the same as proof, and eventually they get a smug rebuke: “Yeah, well you still didn’t actually prove anything.”
Here are my working definitions of evidence and proof. I define evidence as “that which points to a high probability that a given claim is true.” I define proof as “something establishing an absolute fact.” I do not believe we can know anything for an absolute fact apart from personal experience.
If you were doing jury duty on a murder case, it is very unlikely that you would ever have genuine proof concerning the guilt or innocence of the accused. All you would have to go by is the evidence offered by those who claim to be eyewitnesses or perhaps the logic presented by an attorney as motive and probability were explored. Finally, based on everything you could see, hear and think about the case, you would reach a decision. Your choice might very well stand upon good evidence and sound logic. There may even be a 99 percent probability that your decision is the right one. But let’s face it; there will always be room for doubt. Why? Because you weren’t there. You did not see the crime committed. Maybe there is a unique and mysterious side of the story that nobody has heard. Perhaps it is a clever frame up. Who knows? Who really has full assurance? Only a genuine eye witness. Her own senses would draw the final conclusion.
A scientist will tell you that nothing is proven unless it is repeatable. An honest historian would have to admit that without the use of a time machine, historical facts are really historical records pointing to a likely possibility. We have every reason in the world to believe that Julius Caesar ruled Rome. But is such documentation proof? After all, we weren’t there. We are trusting the manuscripts, mere testimonies of human historians who we hope weren’t lying or deceived.
If these illustrations seem blatantly simple, I submit to you that the most common objections to Christian evidence can be addressed in a similar manner. This seems hard to believe because people grant themselves the right to invent a whole new system of logic when religion has entered the conversation. Application of such “logic” to a more common situation would usually be unthinkable. People have a tendency to believe what they want, and who wants to believe that they are condemned in their sin? A belief in Julius Caesar is harmless, for such a belief is not demanding upon our lifestyle. People may continue to live a selfish life whether Caesar ruled Rome or not. But they would think twice after gaining the awareness of a God who holds them accountable.
Wrapping it all up
With this in mind, I can safely say that we have as much evidence to support Christianity as anything else in life accepted through “high probability.” At the same time, a person can know Jesus through a personal experience as real as any other experience perceived through the senses. His Spirit can come upon you and make Himself so mightily known that you will actually be able to say, “I have met God.” I know that sounds incredible, but that is the wonderful claim: God can prove Himself to you!
“But couldn’t I be suspicious of this too? How will I know that I am not hallucinating?”
You know yourself. You will have to examine your heart honestly to see if you think you are being brainwashed. Keep in mind, however, that I am not referring to a mental state of faith but an experience which identifies itself as a true encounter with Christ.
“Couldn’t you just as easily ask me to suspend all judgment about green leprechauns until I actually meet a leprechaun? What about UFOs or unicorns? What about Santa Claus? People claim to have all kinds of unusual encounters. Why should I pursue Jesus and not the others?”
Because there is excellent historical and rational evidence for the existence of Jesus. This provides a better reason with which to seek Him out.
“So the evidence authenticates the experience, and the experience authenticates the evidence. Sounds like a vicious circle.”
Perhaps. But that is as good as information can possibly be. Let’s face it: Our own personal experiences, along with the witness of other testimonies, are the only two criteria people use to establish facts. Let me illustrate with a modern parable.
A college student named Kevin was approached in the Commons by his friend Roger. Roger had an excited and somewhat mischievous look in his eyes.
“What’s up buddy?” Kevin asked.
“Boy, have I got some good news for you,” Roger said with a smile.
Roger proceeded to tell Kevin all about this cute sophomore named Carrie who had observed him from afar. Although Kevin could not recall actually meeting this Carrie, Roger insisted that she existed and had seen Kevin at a few public gatherings, such as rallies and football games. Since Roger was prone to play practical jokes from time to time, Kevin initially dismissed Roger’s claim.
Later in the week several other people, close friends as well as casual acquaintances, spoke to Kevin about the alleged Carrie. “Honestly Kevin, she really wants to meet you but she’s kind of shy. Still, she’s a knockout and it would be worth your while.”
Kevin was now finding evidence that Carrie existed, but he still wasn’t sure because it certainly could be a collaborated hoax. He began to weigh the likelihood of truth versus fiction. Although he had no reason to trust Roger, some of the witnesses were people who did not have joking personalities. This, Kevin found significant. Others did not even know each other but knew Kevin. They too had spoken with Carrie. The abundance of witnesses seemed to increase the likelihood that Carrie was real. On the basis of evidence alone, Kevin concluded that there actually was a Carrie, but of course, there remained a shred of doubt. After all, he never knew how far reaching Roger’s schemes might go.
How is Kevin ever to move from the likelihood of Carrie’s existence to the conviction of Carrie’s existence? Yes, the answer is simple: He must ask to actually meet her.
You can meet Jesus too. But perhaps your mind is so inclined to doubt His existence that you first need to examine some evidence. The evidence is abundant but it will take you only so far. Eventually, you must invite Jesus Himself to communicate with you. This part is between you and God, but the evidence is something the following chapters will help you with.
If you still wish to doubt your experience with Jesus, I hope you will be consistent enough to doubt all of your experience. On the other hand, if the “absence of proof” leads you to doubt the evidence, I hope you will doubt everything else in science or history that is supported by evidence alone.
Some will claim we can always doubt our senses. Since we perceive everything through our mind, perhaps the brain is deceiving us. Maybe what we see, hear, touch and smell is only imaginary. I personally find no need in discussing these possibilities. After all, nobody lives by such a philosophy. We can speculate about our senses, but, all the while, we are continually placing a trust in them. In fact, the moment some one challenges the credibility of Christianity, asking for factual data, I am quite safe in assuming that she will use her senses to examine the data.
Share this on
