Does Evidence Matter?

Well, does it? Of course; The proofs, the facts of something are necessary to affirm it. The reason the above question is relevant is due to the way one approaches all evidence. Depending on the presuppositions or basic commitments carried into the evaluation of evidence, the facts may be irrelevant to actually making any conclusions from those evidences. The interpretation of facts is as important as the facts themselves. We all possess a worldview, a set of known or unknown lenses, that inform how we see information. As the fictional character Razmuhkin (Crime and Punishment) said, “We have facts,’ they say. But facts aren’t everything—-at least half the business lies in how you interpret them!” I agree. This may be hard to grasp, so I hope to provide an example of this issue and expose the vital connection of how we approach evidence to the examination of evidence itself. 

In a 2018 Unbelievable program,  Hugh Ross and Peter Atkins engaged in a friendly debate over the laws of nature and the origin of the universe. Ross is a Christian astrophysicist who founded Reasons To Believe. Atkins, an atheist,  is a world-renown chemist who formerly taught at Oxford and has debated Christian scientists and apologists for decades. The two of these men go back and forth challenging each other’s scientific conclusions for a solid hour. In the final minutes of the exchange, the host, Justin Brierley, asks Atkins what kind of evidence it would take for him to believe in God. His answer is revealing. See the transcript below:  

Brierley: “What sort of evidence could science or the physical universe present to you that would make you think actually that is evidence that there is a mind behind this?”

Atkins: “I find that umm a very difficult question. If I were looking in the Bible for evidence, heaven forbid, I would expect to see, maybe, increasing Entropy=Q/T”

Brierley: “If there was literally an equation in the Bible like that.”

Atkins: “An equation in the Bible rather than all this wishy washy elastic writing that pervades it.” 

Brierley: “So if there was something like that, that they discovered in the Bibl..”

Atkins: “Then I’d think it is probably a forgery.” 

Brierley: “Well exactly. The problem is would it actually make you believe?”

Atkins: “No.”

Brierley: “I mean is there anything from, you know, is there any kind of evidence in the universe that could make. I mean if the stars lined up to spell, ‘Peter please believe in me; It is about time,’ would that convince you?”

Atkins: “No, I’d put it down to madness.” 

Brierley: “You’d put it down to..”

Atkins: “Personal madness.”

Ross: “So it sounds like Peter there is no evidence that could persuade you away from atheism.”

Atkins: “Well, to be honest, I think that is probably the case.”

Brierley: “In that sense, do you even have an evidenced-based view if you are actually committed to atheism a priori?”

Atkins: “Well, I am predicting there will be no such evidence. That’s not quite the same thing as being committed to it a priori.” 

Brierley: “But you said there is no evidence that would persuade you otherwise.” 

Atkins: “I think it is much more likely that I would have gone mad than such evidence would have been provided.”

Brierley: “Right. So in principle, it is impossible to ever persuade you God exists.”

Here is the big takeaway: If Peter Atkins, the nonbeliever, comes to the table with a worldview that fundamentally rules out God, does any “evidence” presented in favor of a Creator actually matter? In some sense, no. The presuppositions or basic commitments of his worldview make the evidence irrelevant. Not all individuals are so blunt about such pre-commitments, but they are there. For all people, the interpretative lens used to view the facts can cripple the clear conclusions the facts point to. 

Christians also bring presuppositions to the discussion. That’s the point. We all bring a worldview into our analysis of things in the world. Therefore, both internally and within our discussions, we must identify our worldview before discussing the world. The presuppositions between the believer and nonbeliever must be exposed and challenged. Transparency from both parties has to be established. 

If Hugh Ross and Peter Atkins would have started the conversation with that final question, I think the discussion would have cut to the heart of the matter. Keep that in mind, digging out the worldview commitments of an individual should probably be the first step of any evidential dialogue. Not so much to double down on our opposing views, but to understand and challenge the assumptions and foundations of how one evaluates reality. Before asking if the evidence makes sense, ask what’s being used to make sense of the evidence. More clearly, who’s worldview interprets the world more consistently? 

So, does evidence matter? Yes, but it relies upon a crucial first question: What’s your worldview?

Link to the Unbelievable program mentioned:

Hugh Ross vs Peter Atkins • Debating the origins of the laws of nature