Proof, evidence, doubt and decision
There are words that are commonly misused with few ill effects. However, in other cases, using the wrong words can seriously harm how we communicate with one another. One such case is the common misuse and confusion surrounding the word “proof”. The problem becomes especially acute when we think about God – especially when believers and sceptics are both involved.
“Prove” means “establish beyond doubt” or “demonstrate to be true”. In its strict sense, it really only applies within the realm of mathematics. Only somewhere like that, where everything is clear and unambiguous, is “proof” ever possible. This means that “proof” relates to a logical construct, showing that certain premises lead inexorably to a certain conclusion. It leads forward from the one to the other; it does not work backwards, explaining post hoc why a decision is correct.
When most people talk of “proof”, they think that perhaps science deals in proof, but it doesn’t. The bedrock of science isn’t proof but evidence. Evidence is a piece of information that supports or fails to support a theory. Science knows nothing of proof, only of theories that have withstood testing. The great theories of science (Newton’s gravitational theory, Einstein’s theory of relativity, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection and more) stand not because they have been proved to be true (in each case, there are limitations, omissions or problems in the theories that are shown by the real world, and that are dealt with to greater or lesser extents by subsequent workers) but because there is a lot of evidence to support them. That is, in science, we accept a grand theory not because it has been proved but because there is a lot of evidence for it.
This is a crucial distinction because it shows the role that doubt plays in our decision-making process. Doubt is not an enemy, to be rooted out and defeated. Rather, doubt is the engine that forces us towards greater understanding and awareness. When a grand theory is overthrown or surpassed (as happened to Newton), doubt is what causes that to happen. When a grand theory is supported and upheld (as happens with natural selection), doubt is the driving force that refines theory and reveals the truth. We do not need to remove all doubt in order to accept a grand theory (that is, we need not provide proof) – we merely need to gather sufficient evidence to make accepting it reasonable.
Decisions are made when evidence overcomes doubt. This is the way we all live our lives – in science, in politics, in law. For some reason, though, many people seem to believe that this doesn’t apply when it comes to matters of religion. In the sphere of religion, many seem to feel compelled to discover a proof of their religion (and others seem compelled to demand one). Of course, there is no such thing, not least because any proof will rely on premises that cannot be proved and can hence be disbelieved. What we need instead to remember is that the believer believes because the evidence that they see points them towards a conclusion. If we want to sway one another, we must not offer proofs (which are logical constructs appealing to the intellect alone) but rather evidence, which can appeal to the heart as much as the head.
The believer should say, “I believe for this reason, and this reason, and this reason.” The sceptic should say, “I do not believe for that reason, and that reason, and that reason.” Then, we can share our evidence (which will be both objective and subjective) and see where it points us for decisions. It might not be so easy, and doesn’t let us claim “scalps” so clearly, but it is more honest and more reasonable.
pax et bonum
Follow comments using Co.mments.com
Add to your del.icio.us bookmarks
Nice work. Keep it up!
Hammertime () (URL)
11:24pm on 16 October 2005
It’s not that we non-believers require extra proof for religion, but that there are so many countervailing considerations. In the face of fairly intractable objections (the problem of evil; the seeming arbitrariness of God’s withdrawal from the world; and the arbitrariness of the Christian god’s system), we need more proof than we would require of something for which there weren’t so many objections.
In legal terms, these shift the burden of proof from non-belief to belief, and a correspondingly higher burden is required.
jpe ()
01:52am on 20 October 2005
I have no issue with demanding plenty of evidence – that’s perfectly fine and reasonable. But calling it “evidence” means that we can ask the appropriate questions about it. If we start calling it “proof” then there’s the implication that it stands alone and we can’t ask questions about its subjectivity/objectivity, about its accuracy, about the relative weights we give different pieces (and why), and so forth.
As to whether the burden of proof (assuming “proof” is even possible) lies on the believer or the sceptic, that can’t be demonstrated a priori. It depends on whether you think the default should be “God” or “Not”
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
08:16am on 20 October 2005
As a Christian, I am baffled by other believers who seem to have to affirm their faith by proving it to others. That is not how you make new christians. What is the point? My conclusion is, it shows that they themselves have weakness in their own belief system. It seems to me, the whole Intelligent Design debate is not about “truth” as much as it is about “doubt”. Doubt that comes from the proponents questioning their faith to the extent they must prove it to others (and thereby affirm their own beliefs to themselves). Sad.
chris () (URL)
2:25pm on 20 October 2005
I think you’re missing the point of John’s article. He doesn’t appear to be arguing for no “foundation” of knowledge; rather that the threshold of “certainty” is based upon how “reasonable” the cumlative amount of evidence leans, one way or another. Although, this distinction still, seems to me, to be seeking some sort of “certainty” (proof); it just seems more humble, than say Des Cartes’ cogito ergo sum offers. I think certainty is a real possibility – but it must be based upon some foundation of knowledge/evidence. The Kierkeggardian approach, “leap of faith”, gives up way too much (of course he was reacting to the rationalism of his day – much like PoMo’s are doing today).
Thanks for the article, John!
Bobby Grow () (URL)
6:55pm on 20 October 2005
I got John’s point perfectly well, but was responding mainly in agreement with the second-to-last paragraph regarding those seeking “proof” of religion. Sure we want to “sway” others to our points of view (hence the whole purpose of commenting or blogging, etc) but trying to “prove” the “unprovable” doesn’t make sense at all… and yet occupies many people in a seemingly endless endeavour.
Chris (in Texas) () (URL)
7:05pm on 20 October 2005
I am not dealing here with certainty. Indeed, I’m not even trying to address how evidence becomes convincing. I just want to re-emphasise that there is a crucial distinction between “proof” and “evidence”. Calling things by their right names helps us to think and communicate clearly.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
7:19pm on 20 October 2005
Bobby Grow () (URL)
7:52pm on 20 October 2005
Evidence is convincing when someone is convinced. Sounds tautologous, because it is. There is no absolute standard – the requirement will depend on the matter to be demonstrated and the person to be convinced. So, the distinction between “prove” and “convince” is that a proof is absolute – once we accept the premises, which ought to be unarguable for a good proof, the conclusion is logically inescapable. By contrast, convincing someone doesn’t require the removal of all doubt, merely that the evidence outweighs that doubt by a sufficient margin.
pax et bonum
[John] () (URL)
8:22pm on 20 October 2005
Bobby Grow () (URL)
9:07pm on 20 October 2005
Morgaine Swann () (URL)
05:03am on 08 November 2005