Proofs, Evidences, and Apologetics

Proofs, Evidences, and Apologetics


Felipe Diez III
Minister_of_Music@yahoo.com

I am an interesting hybrid of a Clarkian and Van-Tillian presuppositionalist both in my philosophy and apologetics, so what you are about to read may sound familiar on both of those ends. It is quite accurate to assert that the clarification of terms in any philosophical discourse is of utmost importance in order to successfully produce sound and cogent argumentation. It is also of great interest to thinkers of all stripes and types to properly define and delineate the terms they use so that fluency and understanding could be achieved. My thesis for this blog post is that in Apologetics and philosophy, it is imperative that we learn how to use the words “proofs” and “evidences” so that they properly convey the infrastructure of our Christian worldview and express the outflow of it consistently. Now, let me produce a dictionary set of definitions for “proof.” As a noun:

1. Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

2. Anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

3. The act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

4. The establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

5. Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

This is a very general use of the word “proof.” Most apologists seem to use it this way, and when I see article or video titles such as “proof that God exists” or “evidences for the existence of God,” there is a bittersweet taste in my mouth. But why? After all, the dictionary seems to be basically comprehensive. There is a caveat that must be examined. In the history of philosophy, these very definitions have been debated ad nauseam even up to this day. Many Christian apologetics websites and books will simply list some proofs or evidences and stop at that without defining terms and stipulating methodologies in order to place these terms in their rightful place. Although the faiths of many have been strengthened by means of intellect through these means, I find it naïve at best and foolish at worst to simply assume that a non-believer will accept these evidences on the same terms as the Christian has accepted it, as if there is some sort of epistemic neutrality where knowledge can be exchanged between opposing parties. Even some of the foremost Christian apologists have buried this issue under the rug if they ever thought of its philosophical implications (which are usually very practical). I will make a bold assertion. Evidences alone cannot prove anything. Nothing? Yes, nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing can be proven by any amount of evidences if the worldview behind them is unable to account for them, and if Christians are unwilling to take the epistemic route, then an astute non-believer may very well dispose of the evidences if they can muster up philosophical arguments against the use of evidences. I admit that most people cannot do this. The man-on-the-street is generally untrained and unaware of theories of knowledge (epistemology) and / or the question: Is knowledge possible? And if so, how do we know what we claim to know? Is there a warrant or justified reason to believe anything? And if so, is it arbitrary? Should we believe something without evidence?

In a simple blog post, I cannot even summarize answers to these questions, but I will give a short answer to some. It cannot be justifiably denied that knowledge is possible, or else I would not know that I do not know something. In other words, the simple statement “knowledge is impossible” is immediately refuted by the fact that in order to say this, I would have to know something about knowledge. In a more practical sense, this philosophy is unlivable since if my home is broken into, I would not sit there and glibly philosophize “I do not know what a home is.” Such absolute skepticism is self-refuting. But the question still stands: Can we prove anything? Not if our epistemology is empirical or rational, or some outlandish mix of the two. If we use our five senses as a foundation for any sort of knowledge, then we would have to prove the existence of these foundations. But let us then suppose that we have proven the proofs of our foundations, then we would have to prove the proofs that we have given to prove our foundations, ad infinitum. That rendered enlightenment foundationalism useless. Now, nothing was able to be used as a foundation, even the Bible, if one asserted that a foundation was indubitable (unquestionable), in the sense that a foundation could be proven to be true (pay special attention to the phrase “proven to be true"). It is as simple as that. Foundations cannot be proven to be true, so why would Christian Theism be any different than rationalism, empiricism, coherentism, or any other “ism?” This is a very well-reasoned argument advanced by the Scottish Philosopher Thomas Reid and has been adopted by many philosophers since the enlightenment turned to darkness. Unfortunately, Reid had no more answers to give, and succumbed to a “common sense” metaphysics that left more questions unanswered than anything else. Hume, who closed the final lid on the coffin of enlightenment Idealism put forth a similar argument, although he never became presuppositional at all, and only slightly admitted that certain axioms (self-evident truths) needed to be believed in order to be able to think, although a part of me is inclined to believe that even Hume did not trust in axioms. If these two philosophers were alive today, they would baffle many Christian apologists in their evidential endeavors. I speak of traditional apologists as well, with all due respect to their persons. In other words, many of the amateur ones seem to use the word “proofs” or “evidences” in a primitive  untested way. If by this, they claim that one can be “certain” that these evidences actually exist metaphysically, then they are claiming too much, and a skeptic may be able to leave them in the dust. Fortunately, most skeptics are men-on-the-street, and are unable to formulate any good argument against Christianity even if the Christian apologist with whom they converse is ill-informed. (Not that there are good arguments against Christianity anyway).

Let me repeat my thesis. Evidences alone are unable to prove anything, and self-destruct at their outset. In evidential apologetics, if one begins by saying “there is design in the world worthy of an intelligent designer,” one has proven nothing at all metaphysically (in reality). A skeptic can then say “how can you prove that anything exists at all?” Silence! This same question can be then asked of the skeptic, so both sides end up in a stalemate. This is why we must define what we mean by proofs. In traditional apologetics, one may put forth the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. But what is this proving? It has taken its starting point for granted. If one begins by using reason as an axiom (self-evident truth), even if one is not a foundationalist, has one proven anything? Not at all. With reason as an axiomatic epistemology, as in the case of sense experience, there are many arguments that can be used to destroy one’s epistemological starting point even before a classical or evidential argument is put forth in a debate. Reason itself (intuition) cannot account for the existence of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God in real life, since it is saying absolutely nothing about real life, only arguing based on reason. Just as “all bachelors are unmarried males” only suggests a logical postulate and says nothing about whether Tom is a bachelor and is searching for a mate. In other words, if reason is used as an axiom to judge other forms of truths, that very axiom tells us nothing about the real world. The enlightenment rationalists who put forth classical arguments, and even the medieval philosophers before them were not really thinking epistemologically, but were taking their arguments for granted, as if the believer and the non-believer understood the same facts in the same exact way. Cornelius Van-Til was very correct in stating that one can only ascertain a fact (in our case, an evidence) by using the naturally biased machinery that is our epistemology. A non-believer does not understand the moon or the stars in the same way that a Christian does, since the Christian naturally presupposes that these things were created by Christ Himself and the non-believer does not. Metaphysical neutrality is impossible, and there is no metaphysical, ethical, or epistemological point of contact between a believer and a non-believer. The only “point of contact” per-se, is that both people are created in the image of God. Both know YHWH but are in different terms with YHWH. This changes absolutely everything. So again, I assert that the traditional and evidential apologist is not very clear on what epistemological machinery they are using to understand the existence of their arguments, and for the most part never define their epistemology in dialogue or debate. If the Christian is assuming reason or sense experience or both to set forth evidences or any kind of classical argument, they refute themselves. Not only this, but the anti-theist also refutes himself. Both sides are refuted even before they begin arguing. Reason and sense experience are self-refuting epistemologies, and this can be demonstrated philosophically (logically).

So then, what is proof? I am rightly pressed to give a working definition, but it must be made known that my presuppositions are Biblical. They are the Bible itself, where Christian theism resides. That is my epistemology. It is my axiom, and from there I ascertain everything else. But is this not foundationalism? Do I then have to give proofs for the Bible? Not at all. If the Bible is my presupposition, which for the Christian is the case either implicitly or in my case explicitly, then one must assume their positions. One cannot prove them. A presupposition or assumption is not a proof, per se. It is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. Contrary epistemologies are simply false, and this can be demonstrated by the data we find in the Bible. (I will not address the charge of circular-reasoning in this blog post). What I will do is give my definition of what constitutes a proof or evidence.

A proof or piece of evidence is a secondary assumption. It is something we assume to be true justifiably by virtue of our presupposition (properly basic belief) which we must also assume to be true by its own authority and because of the impossibility of the contrary. So our primary assumption (presupposition) is what determines our secondary assumptions (evidences). I know that I am a male person because my epistemology (The Bible) gives me the justifiable proof (secondary assumption) that there exist males and females. Since the Bible is infallible, I can trust that there is evidence that I am a male person. This is an evidence and a proof flowing forth from my epistemology, but even these proofs are not certain. They are assumed to be true reasonably. I am not saying I am skeptical of whether I am a male, what I am saying is that I can be certain that I am because I assume it to be so (this cannot be proven infallibly) because my epistemology (The infallible Bible) demonstrates to me that it is so. I have reasonably deduced my male-ness from my epistemological position. Still, this is a secondary assumption that flows forth from my primary assumption (The Bible as axiomatic or presuppositional). This is what I mean by “evidence” and “proof.” Together, our primary, secondary, and subsequent assumptions make up what we call a worldview. My worldview is Christian Theism, which can intelligibly account for evidences that are demonstrated to be consistent with it.