Absurdity 2: No Evidence

Welcome back to my apologetic series concerning the absurdity of the Bible. Last time I talked about why miracles cannot be proof that the Bible is absurd. The second major objection that Mr. Darrow brings up is the claim that there is no evidence to support many events in the Bible. For this article I'm just going to focus on the virgin birth. He also mentions an afterlife, but it basically merits the same response, so here we go.

He mentions the virgin birth, and asks evidence for it. Now that is quite an interesting request, if you think about it. What evidence could there possibly be for this event other than the evidence he already has: the testimony of the people involved? What artifact could conceivably be left behind for us to discover? Why would you request such evidence, and when it cannot be given, pretend you’ve come out victorious? True, a virgin birth leaves no evidence behind other than the testimony of those involved, but to say that the virgin birth is “without a scintilla of evidence of any sort” is simply not correct.

Another question: why is Mr. Darrow’s standard for absurdity so high? He seems to think that if you can’t convince anybody at any time of the truth of a supernatural event that happened 2000 years ago, then the testimony of the event is absurd. If he wants to say he’s unconvinced, then that’s fine. I can deal with that. But he has not demonstrated that it is absurd, which is what I assumed was the point of the article. Furthermore, where is his standard for absurdity coming from? It seems unreasonable to me.

Actually, his request for evidence in the first place begs the question: what kind of evidence would he accept for such an event? This is definitely something you need to clear up before you try to prove anything to anyone inductively (i.e. with evidence). Before you waste your breath rattling off all the internal and external implications to the trustworthiness of the accounts, check if your hearer is willing to accept such reasoning! If people cannot tell you some standard of evidence that would convince them, most likely no amount of evidence will! And I think it is on this point that Mr. Darrow really trips up.

He says it would be impossible to bring evidence in today for such an event, and, excepting eyewitness testimony, I’d have to agree with him! He then goes on to say that “no one would believe it anyway.” Wait… so he’s saying that even if evidence were given for this event, no one would believe it? Woops! It sounds to me like this “agnostic” is revealing again his true worldview assumptions: naturalism therefore atheism. All evidence he encounters is filtered through this worldview, and therefore can never point to a miraculous event. Keep this in mind, Christian, when you attempt to use evidence to prove the Bible to an atheist (or agnostic).

Mr. Darrow asks for evidence, however I’m convinced at this point that putting forth any evidence will be dismissed because the idea of a miracle is already absurd. His worldview does not allow for a supernatural virgin birth to occur, because he isn’t really agnostic; he is atheistic. He is thoroughly convinced that the natural is all that exists, and any evidence to the contrary won’t be believed anyway, as he admitted. So, Christian, fear not when critics go to the “no evidence” objection. What they mean by this really is that there is no evidence that has convinced them, as we can see is the case with Clarence Darrow. And if they stick to their worldview, then there is no evidence that you can give them that will convince them.

Next time: Addressing Similarities Between Christianity and Pagan Religions