God or no God? – a cumulative case
A man is on trial for the brutal murder of his wife. You sit on the jury and attentively consider the various pieces of evidence as they are presented by the prosecutor:
- The man’s fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime.
- The victim’s blood was discovered in the man’s vehicle.
- A witness reported seeing the man running from the scene around the time of the murder.
- The victim’s stolen credit card was used to purchase clothing the defendant was wearing at the time of his arrest.
- The victim made a 911 call as she lay dying, breathing out her husband’s name just before she expired.
- The man had been having an affair with his secretary who was pressuring him to leave his wife.
- The man recently bought life insurance on his wife.
- The bullet recovered from the victim’s body matches a gun the defendant owns.
- And the glove fits.
The defense attorney then rises and proceeds to cast doubt on the applicability of several of the items in determining his client’s guilt or innocence. The man regularly used his wife’s credit card, he says. Nothing damning about that. His name was spoken with her last breath because she wanted him there. And fingerprints, though a reliable identifier, only put one at the scene but give no evidence of time or activity.
Once you and the other jurors are free to deliberate, you acknowledge that none of the evidences 
taken individually are enough to confidently conclude that the man is guilty of murder. There are possible explanations for each that have nothing to do with the crime. Yet the weight of their totality, including the defendant’s lack of a convincing alibi, his failure to demonstrate any genuine grief at the loss of his wife, his cell phone records showing a call made to his mistress shortly after the time of the murder, and her testimony that he told her his wife would never divorce him but there might be another way….leave you with the determination that his guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the same way that the whole body of evidence in a criminal case is greater than the sum of its parts, so too is the case for the existence of God. As I wrote about in my post from a few weeks ago, attempts to discredit particular arguments for theism or Christianity, without providing a more rational explanation of all the evidence, do nothing to convince anyone who wasn’t already predisposed to your position.
The evidences for God are multitudinous, and though possible alternate explanations may exist for each individually, the case must be considered in its totality if one is to be fair and objective. These evidences, or Exhibits A and following, if you will, in the case for the existence of God and Christianity in particular include:
- the scientific evidence for a beginning of the universe from nothing
- the argument from the fine-tuning of the universe
- the obvious appearance of design in biological life
- the existence of objective moral values and duties
- evidence of the immaterial
- the historical reliability of the Bible
- Jesus’ self-identification as the Son of God
- the well-attested reports of the empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and his disciples’ belief in his resurrection
- the high unlikeliness of the rise of Christianity apart from the above reports being true
If weighed on a balance, they combine to form a substantial case for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. Casting doubt on one or two may tip the scales a bit, but disregarding the rest still leaves the Christian worldview as the best explanation of all the evidence.
The problem with your cumulative case for the husband’s guilt is that not all 9 points are relevant. I mean, of course his fingerprint are going to be at his home. Even the blood in the car — unless it’s excessive and in the boot of the car, there are perfectly good reasons why that might be the case. He might even have a medical bill from when he took her to the Emergency Room, because she cut her hand open while cooking.
(Also, “The glove fits”? Were you just trying to make it up to 9?)
The fact is that you give the evidence without both sides of the argument. I’d readily argue that a smart man doesn’t take life insurance out on the person he’s about to kill. But, did she take life insurance out on him? Did a family member or friend recently die?
I like to think that if I were dying, the person I love would be on my mind. What does whispering a name point to? Sure, it sounds suspicious, but it doesn’t actually mean anything.
He was seen going for a run, or fleeing the scene? What’s the difference to an eye witness?
Imagining running to the local shop to get some smart clothes for a dinner date with your wife, and coming home to find her dead — shot with your gun. You may have bought those clothes after her death. And you may have used her card (I mean, I use my partner’s card all the time).
The gun — are there anyone else’ fingerprint? Or has the gun been cleaned? Was it kept in a safe or somewhere easy access? Could it have been a burglar with a weapon of convenience?
All you’ve got is an affair and a phonecall saying he’s got an alternative option to divorce. You haven’t said what his other option (i.e. plan) was.
See, your cumulative case starts to fall apart if you other to try to explain each bit. My blood is probably in my partner’s car; I cut my hands and knees all the time. There are 4 cuts on my hands right now. It’s a different story if it’s a lot of blood, or pooled blood somewhere weird, like the boot or the spoiler. (Details are important.)
You can tear apart the evidence you provide for Christianity in much the same way. Again, details are important: the scientific account for how the universe began bears no resemblance to the Biblical account, except to say that it ‘began’. That’s a tedious detail compared to hyperinflation and the order of different things arising (like, the sun and plants — in that order and not the other way around).
Fine tuning is a nonsense argument. You can watch the debate between William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll to understand why.
The appearance of design is well understood by biological evolution. (Don’t tell me you accept science in so far as it helps you — i.e. the universe had a beginning — but ignore it at every other opportunity.)
There’s no relationship between moral values and God (of any religion).
The immaterial has nothing to do with God.
The Bible is not historically reliable. (e.g. Tyre still stands.)
There aren’t any reliable eye witnesses who saw Jesus die and the tomb and a post mortem visitation. None. No one saw all of them.
I don’t know how Jesus claiming to be the son of God is relevant. But I also don’t know where he said it.
I have no idea how you have established that a religion must be true to be likely to propagate.
In summary, you’re accumulate case for the husband being a murderer is poor. But it’s better than your case for God where three of the claims are irrelevant (4, 5, 7), one already has a better explanation (3), four might not even be true (6, 7, 8, 9) and two are incredibly vague that do become irrelevant or wrong on analysis (1, 2).
LikeLike
To engage or not to engage….hmmm. I think not, Allallt. We’ve been over this before, and your dismissive responses to the arguments for theism demonstrate your unwillingness to really engage with them. I would respond to your comments if I thought it would be productive, but…no, I’m pretty darn sure it wouldn’t be.
LikeLike
I’ve got to admit, I agree that it won’t be productive. See, cumulative cases are not taken without hearing the defence. And the accumulation of bad evidence doesn’t suddenly become good evidence.
And, you’re right, we’ve discussed this before and you haven’t incorporated any of the challenges into our conceptions.
But, your points basically defeat themselves. Take point 1, where you care what the scientific evidence says, and then contrast it against point 3, where you don’t. Point 3 already has an explanation: biological evolution.
And that’s just the surface. See, you don’t really care about the science in point 1 either. Because the scientific arguments that the universe came from nothing include naturalistic explanations, so God isn’t indicted there either.
You call my responses dismissive, but you know I’ve engaged them in detail before.
All 9 points are either unfounded or don’t point where you want them to. The historical accuracy of the Bible is false (e.g. some places simply don’t line up with census data, Tyre is still standing), evidence for the immaterial doesn’t point to a God.
LikeLike
Pingback: Skeptical? Honestly? | a reasonable faith