In every criminal trial, the defense attorney performs an obligation—presenting a possible scenario creating reasonable doubt their client is guilty.
See, each trial has certain facts. A witness who claims a person matching the Defendant’s description was at the crime. Doctors who testify to the cause of death or injury. Police officers explaining data taken from the scene. Exhibits. Fingerprints. Blood results.
And those facts led the police to arrest the accused as a suspect. Those facts led the prosecutor to authorize charging the crime. Those facts led the magistrate to bind the defendant over for trial. And now those very same facts will be displayed to a group of neutral jurors, who are very likely to equally find the most reasonable conclusion is that the defendant is guilty of the crime.
This is where the defense attorney steps in. She must explain an alternative interpretation to the facts. Just because the Defendant was captured in the video right before the robbery, doesn’t mean he entered the store. Just because the Defendant’s fingerprints are on the gun, doesn’t mean he pulled the trigger. Just because the technician claims the blood results are one thing, doesn’t mean we have to trust them.
The Defense attorney constantly presents “possibilities.” Not probabilities (not their job.) Something…anything…to give the jurors an opportunity to say, “No, maybe there is enough doubt here, we should not convict the Defendant.”
Two things happen; the second sometimes more interesting than the first.
1) Jurors--despite all these “possibilities”--overwhelmingly convict Defendants.
See, the jurors understand the Defense attorney’s job. They understand the inherent bias—unless the attorney has no other choice, everything must be bent toward the scenario whereby the Defendant is not guilty. If someone sees the Defendant arrive at the crime scene at 7 p.m., and another witness sees them leave at 7:30 p.m., Defense counsel will argue the Defendant left at 7:01 and came back at 7:29. That is their job.
“It is possible the Defendant could leave and then come back…” “No one saw them there the entire time…”
Yet jurors realize people rarely are under constant surveillance. That people rarely come onto a scene, leave it immediately, and come back later. While it is certainly a “possibility”—not a probability.
They understand, taking into consideration the other facts, the high likelihood the Defendant arrived at 7 and stayed until 7:30.
In every trial we bob and weave and dance and twist, showing over and over how there is another “possibility” to the prosecutor’s theory. The jurors look with sympathetic eyes and quietly reject the “possibility” for the probability. The fact set conforming to their ordinary life experiences.
“We find the Defendant Guilty.”
2) The second phenomenon is that often Defendants become convinced by their own press. They hear the attorney present these possibilities and the alternatives begin to solidify in their minds. Rather than just “possibilities” they become stronger and strong probabilities. Soon they becomes facts—“It’s not on video, is it?”
The Defendants begin to think their case is pretty good. Real solid. They could win this thing! Their relatives in the galley are impressed with the lawyer cross-examining the police officer. The technician admitting they are not 100% certain—there is room for error. The fact all these “holes” are seemingly punched in the prosecutor’s case.
Besides, O.J. heard “Not Guilty” because of that glove. Every movie (except To Kill a Mockingbird) has the Defendant acquitted in a triumphant Perry Mason twist.
Defendants begin to believe the “possibilities” are sufficient. They are not.
“We find the Defendant Guilty.”
I find this same attitude amongst Christian apologetics. As if “possibilities” of alternative interpretations fitting the Christian’s desired conclusion are sufficient to overcome the overwhelming probability to the contrary. (How many times have we seen “possibilities” offered as a response to contradictions?)
And, likewise, Christian apologists believe their own press. They begin to think these “possibilities” are substantial enough to overcome the probabilities.
We completed a discussion regarding the old chestnut of Jesus predicting the parousia within the lifetime of the listeners, and how it did not occur. Anete Acker did an admirable job, playing the part of the Defense Attorney/Christian apologist, giving about the best answer she could.
But in the end, it is just like the Defense. All those “possibilities” do not sustain over the more obvious probabilities; whether Jesus actually said it or someone put those words in his mouth—they were incorrect.
Apologetics do not convince, because we non-believers look to probabilities, not possibilities. We understand the Christian apologist (just like Defense counsel) will bob and weave and twist the scraps of facts we have to conform to their necessary interpretation. We are not bound by such doctrinal or theological limitations.
We don’t care whether it was recorded Jesus predicted something and it was correct or not. We have no purchase in this game.
Thus we are not convinced, any more than jurors are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
[E]verything must be bent toward the scenario whereby the Defendant is not guilty.
ReplyDeleteI think that the "everything" is the real crux of the matter. Sure, there may be some opaque interpretation that resolves the problem of a failed prophecy or a contradiction. However, in order to sustain a belief in the Bible as a magic book, the opaque reading has to be the right one in every single case of a contradiction or failed prophecy. Moreover, the less obvious reading can never be the right one in any of the cases that might undermine the apologetic argument--such as Paul using "brother" to designate a spiritual relationship rather than a biological one.
It may be logically possible, but the rational person lives their life based on what's probable.
BTW, I just noticed that you quote me in your Blogger profile. I'm honored and I'm happy to be of service.
I find that most atheists do not come to the conclusion that God does not exist, they begin with the assumption that God does not exist. When the most up-to-date "scientific" theory for the beginning of the Universe is that an infinite number of untestable, unobservable universes popped into existence out of absolute nothingness at a finite point in the past for no reason, you can see the presuppositions at work.
ReplyDeleteIf you would like to hear a 20+ year police detective (and apologist) give a presentation on why we should trust what the Gospels say, you can here one here. https://backup.filesanywhere.com/Player/ELinkMusicPlayer.aspx?UV=A
Robertvroom,
ReplyDeleteThank you. By noticing “most atheists” do not come to the conclusion there is no god, but assume it, you recognize there are at least some atheists who DO come to the conclusion, absent the assumption.
While I suspect you and I may disagree as to what percentage come to the conclusion and what percentage merely assume it—at least we equally recognize both types exist.
I am curious—what qualifications does a 20+ year detective have to determine veracity in First Century documents? What would be the difference between…say…a 19+ year detective? Or a 19+ year attorney? Or a 3+ year historian? Or a 42+ year plumber?
“When the most up-to-date "scientific" theory for the beginning of the Universe is that an infinite number of untestable, unobservable universes popped into existence out of absolute nothingness at a finite point in the past for no reason, you can see the presuppositions at work.”
ReplyDeleteI did my graduate work in astrophysics, and true my work was not in cosmology, but I am still in tune with that branch of science. I can tell you that no scientist believes this caricature of the Big Bang model that you describe. Beyond that, Multiple Universes is not a theory – that is called Conjecture on the part of some cosmologists – it has not been elevated to the status of theory. You do understand what Scientific Theory is, no? Perhaps you ought to stop getting your science news out of Christian propaganda websites.
But then again, I am only a 10+ year physicist, so what would I know?
I love your defense attorney analogy.
ReplyDeleteYou're right... the apologists constantly spin "possible" explanations, ad absurdum. If you look at just ONE issue, well, maybe. Maybe. MAYBE they have a point.
But then when you have to do that with hundreds and hundreds of issues (contradictions and errors)... something's rotten in Denmark. It is not convincing.
But they are good at always bringing it back to just one issue. I think that's where those that debate apologists get stuck. Because the apologist can seem to "win" on any particular issue with his spinning of possibilities. In effect, you end up with a series of "wins," one after another. However, rarely does the one debating an apologist discuss the bigger picture of the dozens or hundreds of case in points about a particular issue. The overwhelming weight. At least I haven't seen it in debates.
What you see as an apologetic phenomenon, I see as a human phenomenon. The evidence, among other things, is your analogy. People who have an interest in promoting a particular point of view will offer mere possibilities to escape the force of their opponent's arguments. The common interest all people seem to have when engaged in debate is the protection of their own ego. I have seen people on all sides of the isle suggest the most absurd possibilities to escape the force of their opponent's arguments. Just today, an atheist I was debating with on youtube suggested the possibility that we're all plugged into the matrix so that he could escape the force of my argument. Not long ago, my brother-in-law, who is an atheist, suggested solipsism to avoid the force of my argument. Atheists and other non-Christians frequently suggest the mere possibility of alternative explanations for the origin of Christianity to avoid the force of arguments for the resurrection. They appeal to the mere possibility of naturalistic explanations for the origin of life and the origin of the universe that will some day be discovered to escape the force of teleological and cosmological arguments.
ReplyDeleteIt's no more true that Christian apologetics never convinces than it is that atheist apologetics never convinces. I've read too many testimonies on both sides to agree with the whole point of your post.
I don't think offering possibilities as alternative explanations is necessarily fallacious. While an alternative explanation is not necessarily enough to overturn an argument to the contrary, it sometimes IS enough to introduce reasonable doubt. It weakens the case for the other side.
Sam,
ReplyDeleteWhile you are correct--any position can employ this tactic—the underlying question remains: Is it effective? Does it work to convince? Where you convinced by the youtuber’s “possibility” or your brother-in-law’s?
I would be curious if you could direct me to a testimonial where a non-believer was convinced by a “possibility.” Or perhaps a skeptic convinced that a “possibility” resolved the weight of the argument against the skeptic’s claim.
And (perhaps it is my perspective) I would point out a significant difference between Christian apologetics use of the “possibility argument” and other fields—as a criminal defense lawyer, it is our last bastion of defense when all others have failed. Yet it seems predominant in Christian apologetics to be the first, primary and sole defense.
Argue with an inerrantist; it is their solitary defense.
The possibility tactic really is effective. It's not at all sound from a scientific or logical perspective, but most people don't think logically or scientifically. (Which is not to deprecate most people: thinking logically and scientifically requires considerable training and practice. In much the same sense most people could in theory sink a free throw, but they could actually do so only if they had practiced.)
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not whether the possibility tactic works (it does). The issue is that Christian apologists' (and woo-woo advocates in general) employment of the possibility tactic fundamentally erodes the social power of logical and scientific thought. Because I very value scientific thought very highly, I tend to get just as angry with people such as Sam in the same sense that I get angry with people who erode other values I strongly endorse, such as nondiscrimination in race, sex and sexual orientation. I consider them evil, not just mistaken.
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteAnd (perhaps it is my perspective) I would point out a significant difference between Christian apologetics use of the “possibility argument” and other fields—as a criminal defense lawyer, it is our last bastion of defense when all others have failed. Yet it seems predominant in Christian apologetics to be the first, primary and sole defense.
I do think it is just your perspective. As Sam pointed out, skeptics do this kind of thing all the time to escape the force of the argument for the resurrection and arguments for theism.
You are right that apologists will sometimes rely on implausible explanations for Bible difficulties, and I think this is a very bad idea. But how is this different from Gerd Ludemann claiming that all the apostles, including Paul the persecutor of the church, hallucinated when they thought they saw Jesus? Or Robert Cavin saying that Jesus had an identical twin that arrived in Jerusalem just in time to see Him crucified and pretended to be Him? A skeptic may say that as implausible as those hypotheses are, the supernatural is always the least plausible, but that argument has been refuted with Bayes’ Theorem—by an atheist philosopher of science looking to “set the record straight,” in fact.
I don’t see how I made use of “possibility arguments” in the previous discussion, when the weight of the evidence indicates that Jesus did not set a time of His coming, the prophecies He made have been fulfilled, and the word “generation” was used more broadly in the past than it is today. I defended all those claims in the prior discussion, and I don’t see that my arguments have been refuted.
You compared me to a criminal defense attorney, and your analogy assumes that the defendant is guilty. But I spent about sixteen years asking hard questions about the Bible before I started blogging about apologetics a year-and-a-half ago, so if that analogy is to fit, I would have had to have spent a comparable amount of time establishing the defendant’s innocence in my own mind before defending him.
As I said, your analogy assumes that the defendant is guilty, which seems to indicate that you assume a priori that Christian theism is false and that apologists do what you do when you defend a guilty client. If that accurately represents your position, then you cannot compare yourself to a neutral juror who is evaluating both sides and trying to arrive at the truth. I’m not saying that it does represent your position, because you have elsewhere given the impression that you evaluate both sides in an open-minded way. All I’m saying is that your analogy fails if you consider yourself the equivalent of a neutral juror.
But how is this different from Gerd Ludemann claiming that all the apostles, including Paul the persecutor of the church, hallucinated when they thought they saw Jesus?
ReplyDeleteIt's different because there is no logical reason to invoke a supernatural explanation for the evidence unless every possible natural explanation has been eliminated. (Even then, I think there are problems, but that is a minimum.) If it is possible that Joseph Smith had a hallucination, there is no reason to suppose that an angel named Moroni really appeared to him and showed him where to find the Golden Plates. If it is possible that the apostles hallucinated the encounters with the risen Christ, there is no reason to infer that a supernatural event took place.
On the other hand, if Ludemann is asserting that hallucinations are more like than any other natural explanation such as a hoax or a legend that grew over time, then a mere possibility won't do the trick.
Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteI would be curious if you could direct me to a testimonial where a non-believer was convinced by a “possibility.” Or perhaps a skeptic convinced that a “possibility” resolved the weight of the argument against the skeptic’s claim.
J.L. Mackie was convinced by Alvin Plantinga's free will defense that the existence of evil is not logically inconsistent with the existence of an all powerful and wholly good God. The free will defense depends on the mere possibility of a state of affairs involving libertarian freedom.
But in any case where somebody attempts to argue that one conclusion follows necessarily from a collection of facts or evidences, all it takes to debunk that "necessarily" is to show that some other scenario is possible. That may not render the first explanation unlikely, but it does remove certainty from it. And even in cases where certainty was never claimed to begin with, alternate possibilities weaken the case.
Vinny,
ReplyDeleteIt's different because there is no logical reason to invoke a supernatural explanation for the evidence unless every possible natural explanation has been eliminated. (Even then, I think there are problems, but that is a minimum.)
That is not true. What has to happen is that each naturalistic hypothesis would receive a Bayes factor in terms of how likely it is that such a thing would happen based on what we know about the world, and if they are all highly implausible, then the probability of the miraculous event increases. The hallucination theory is extremely improbable because of the number of people involved, including Saul of Tarsus, a hostile witness who was dramatically changed by the appearance. But we've already discussed the hallucination theory, and I do not want to get into it again.
As we’ve also discussed before, the Joseph Smith incident can easily be dismissed as a hallucination. He was in his bedroom full of sleeping brothers at the time, and they had no idea that the Angel Moroni had been talking to Joseph all night. Based on what we know about the human mind, it is highly probable that he either dreamed or hallucinated.
You said in Tough Questions Answered that we do not have any intellectual tools for evaluating supernatural claims, but that is incorrect. Bayes’ Theorem is a tool that helps us determine whether it is rational to believe in a supernatural event.
And in the example someone gave about whether skeptics would believe if a 50-foot Jesus appeared to them, if that happened to me, I would have to side with Dawkins and Grayling (even though I do believe in miracles). If an event like that only happened to me, and I had no external confirmation that it was real, then the most rational conclusion would be that I hallucinated. The probability that such a thing could happen, based on what we know about the world, is very low, and the probability that I hallucinated is higher, even though I've never hallucinated before. And that is Smith’s experience on the night he supposedly talked with the Angel Moroni (assuming that he was telling the truth).
On the other hand, if Ludemann is asserting that hallucinations are more like than any other natural explanation such as a hoax or a legend that grew over time, then a mere possibility won't do the trick.
That’s not the point. Both Ludemann, Cavin, and others do what some Christian apologists do when they’re stumped by a Bible difficulty—they given an implausible explanation that doesn’t pass scrutiny.
As we’ve also discussed before, the Joseph Smith incident can easily be dismissed as a hallucination. He was in his bedroom full of sleeping brothers at the time, and they had no idea that the Angel Moroni had been talking to Joseph all night. Based on what we know about the human mind, it is highly probable that he either dreamed or hallucinated.
ReplyDeleteAs I pointed out before, this argument is just silly. The Angel Moroni, if he exists, is a supernatural being. The idea that he couldn’t appear to Smith alone without disturbing Smith’s brothers is simply absurd. Why should Moroni be any more limited by natural laws than your supernatural being was? You clearly have one set of standards by which you evaluate the supernatural claims of your religion and a different set of standards by which you evaluate those of every other religion.
In any case, according to the Mormons, Moroni appeared multiple times to multiple people.
Sam,
ReplyDelete“Logical Possibility” is a very low threshold. What I am talking about is convincing claims—something presented as plausible enough to overcome the objector’s initial disinclination to be persuaded.
It is “logically possible” for Jesus to have a twin (hence appearing after his twin’s death.) It is “logically possible” Judas was a triplet, hence the three (3) varying accounts on his deaths. It is “logically possible” David performed three (3) censuses, which sometimes convened on the facts.
Yet none of that is convincing…is it?
I disagree “alternate possibilities weaken the case.” I’ll try a short parable:
I come home from work. There is my son, with a baseball bat in hand. Broken window. Ball amidst the glass inside the room. I suspect my son has hit the ball through the window.
“Aha,” his 14-year-old mind quickly comes up with a possible alternative, “Dad, I know you don’t believe in demons, but I am a Christian. I do. And within my Christian worldview, it is logically possible for demons to interact physically with this world, and cause mischief. That is exactly what has happened here.
“You see, a demon must have smashed the window. For when I arrived outside today (just before you came home) I saw the window had been broken. I thought to myself, ‘Self—I think we are accurate enough to hit the ball directly through the window.’ And so, with amazing accuracy, I was able to hit the ball directly through the window.”
Now, Sam. Honestly, in the real world, do you think his claims regarding demons, timing and subsequent accuracy has even remotely “weakened the case” regarding my initial suspicions as to his actions?
This is exactly what Christian apologists do. First they demand we subscribe to all the inferences in their worldview (such as demons), second they suggest we forget their own bias to develop a case in their own favor (such as my son attempting to be innocent) and thirdly they ask us to believe this one time the world acting in a way directly in conflict with the vast predominance of our experience (the ball sailed accurately through the hole.)
Thank you for the example, I will look into it when I have time.
Anette Acker,
ReplyDeleteIs part of your practice of apologia intended to convince those who do not agree with you? If so, then this is someone not convinced, explaining why. Take it or leave it—your choice.
You can even propose the possibility I assume Christian theism is a priori false, although proposing such a possibility to a deconvert, as a response to this blog entry, is packed with so much irony, I am thinking of framing a new word. “Ironception” (irony + Inception )
DagoodS,
ReplyDeleteIs part of your practice of apologia intended to convince those who do not agree with you? If so, then this is someone not convinced, explaining why. Take it or leave it—your choice.
“Convince” is too strong a word for what I’m trying to do—only a person who is open to being convinced can be convinced of something. I’m trying to challenge people’s thinking, learn something new myself, and be available to people who are trying to work through these questions.
And, to be honest, the explanations you’ve given for why apologetics are not convincing don’t make sense to me. I’d be happy to agree to disagree, though.
You can even propose the possibility I assume Christian theism is a priori false, although proposing such a possibility to a deconvert, as a response to this blog entry, is packed with so much irony, I am thinking of framing a new word. “Ironception” (irony + Inception )
As I said, I am not saying that you do assume that, although your blog post does assume it.
Also, the fact that someone is a deconvert doesn’t, by itself, tell me that he or she has carefully and rationally evaluated the arguments from both sides. There could be many reasons why someone left Christianity.
I used to think, a year-and-a-half ago, that Christians on the verge of deconversion really wanted to keep their beliefs, so I wanted to be available to them. I did not think that I could chance the minds of people who were already atheists because I figured that they were invested in their atheism. I commented daily on Atheist Central, and every time (about five or six times) Christians expressed doubts I invited them to email me or comment on my blog and I would be happy to talk with them.
Before I describe my experiences, I want to point out two things: First, that is a very small sample size, so I’m not drawing any firm conclusions, and second, because it is such a small sample, one person can tip the scale, and just recently I've come across people who act like they would remain Christians if they can resolve their intellectual doubt.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I experienced at AC: as a group these deconverting Christians seemed less interested in what I had to say than any other group—Christians who were not doubting, agnostics, atheists, and anti-theists. The groups that seemed most responsive were Christians who were not doubting and atheists who had essentially always been atheists. In fact, a couple of atheists seemed open to Christianity, but none of the doubting Christians from this Atheist Central group seemed open to reconciling their doubts.
I’ve since then tried to make sense of my experiences because they were so different from what I expected, and this is the conclusion that I’ve drawn: I don’t necessarily think these individuals wanted to resolve their doubts and go back to being Christians, but they wanted to resolve their cognitive dissonance one way or the other. They wanted to have closure on something painful and move on. So they didn’t want someone coming along and making it harder for them by challenging their thinking.
The atheists who had always been atheists, on the other hand, were curious about what I had to say and had no painful experiences with Christianity. They were willing to consider the rational basis for Christian theism in a detached way.
One deconvert went from being a follower of Ray Comfort to an atheist in a couple of months without giving any indication that she had considered the best arguments. When she first expressed doubt, I twice made the offer to talk with her—once on AC and once and her blog—and I got no response. Then I made the offer a third time on AC a month or so later, and by that time she was an atheist. She did respond then, and said that she really appreciated that I cared, but she had made up her mind and had no questions.
I don’t tell this story to judge her and others like her—I’m simply saying that I see no irony in the idea of a deconvert having decided a priori that Christian theism is false. It is just so different for different people, and I no longer assume that the labels (Christian, agnostic, atheist, or anti-theist) make much difference in terms of how open people are to the arguments.
But, as I said when I first commented on your blog, you do seem like someone who deconverted for primarily intellectual reasons. Still, that doesn’t mean you are still open to changing your mind—your recent blog posts indicate that you are looking to move on and not think about it anymore.
how far away from jerusalem was paul when he said that he persecuted the church?
ReplyDeletequote:
ReplyDeleteDoes it seem at all reasonable that the ROMAN authorities would allow a religious fanatic to imprison other people in ROMAN prisons over a sectarian religious squabble?
And even if they were cast into prison', say a Jewish prison, on such shaky premises, would not the exacting rules of of Jewish legal procedure's give them adequate protections from any unjust prosecution?
end quote
Yeap! This juror, after extensive consideration, decided that it was all circumstantial and that Christianity was a lie.
ReplyDelete"...Christian apologists believe their own press."
ReplyDeleteThat's the whole point, methinks. I've long suspected that popular Christian apologetics are meant to dispel the doubts of believers, rather than convince non-believers.