Why I Ask for “Evidence” From Evangelicals

bible is inerrant and infallible

When it comes to supernatural or extraordinary claims, I always ask for evidence to justify said claims. When someone makes a religious, historical, political, or science claim, I expect them to justify their claim . People should expect the same from me. I never expect someone to take my word for any substantial claim I make.

Granted, some things don’t matter in life, so evidence is unnecessary. That said, we should want to believe as many true things as possible. When I am confronted with things I know little about, I tend to rely upon and trust experts. I mean real experts; men and women who either have relevant academic training or have committed themselves to an apprentice program where people learn by doing. Both are a path to expertise.

As a religion writer, I frequently interact with Evangelicals who disagree with me — all well and good. I don’t expect anyone to take my word for it, though it would be nice that when they do disagree me, they would interact with me on an academic or evidentiary basis instead of sharing personal testimonies or opinions. Part of the problem is the result of Evangelicals being unable to distinguish between evidence and opinion (personal interpretation). The Bible is a book of claims, not evidence. It makes all sorts of supernatural and extraordinary claims. Just because the Bible makes a claim doesn’t mean it’s true. The truthfulness of a claim requires evidence, which, for the most part, Evangelicals are unable to provide. Proof texts and cross references don’t cut it. Want to convince a skeptic of the veracity of a religious claim? It will take more than quoting Bible verses or following apologetical manipulations of the Biblical text. As you might know, Evangelicals have an explanation for every error, mistake, or contradiction in the Bible. Not good explanations. but they do have them.

Before engaging Evangelicals on this or that claim, I suggest debunking the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible first. This is a claim that can be easily debunked in five or so minutes. It only takes one error, mistake, or contradiction to overturn the claim that the Bible is without error. Of course, when you succeed, that doesn’t mean Evangelicals will agree with you. Conditioning and indoctrination keep them from seeing things as they are. When your family, church, and pastors repeatedly make supernatural or extraordinary claims, it is difficult not to believe them, even when evidence is lacking. Why would someone’s family, church, or pastors lie to them? Lost in the discussion is the fact that religious indoctrination and conditioning is often multi-generational. People raised in church tend to embrace the beliefs taught to them by their pastors or other authority figures. In the Gerencser family, four generations of people believed the Bible was inerrant and infallible. I was the first person in the family to ask for evidence for this claim, but none was forthcoming until I stepped outside of the people I trusted. If Evangelicals want me to believe the Bible is the Word of God; that it is without error and true in all it says, they will have to do more than quote proof texts or provide doctrinal statements.

I am not an anti-theist, though there are days when I think I would be better off if I were. That said, I am open to evidence for the central claims of Christianity. It is unlikely that such evidence will be forthcoming, but as a skeptic I am more than willing to have my beliefs challenged. As I stated previously, I want to believe as many true things as possible. Want me to believe Jesus is the son of God, that he was a miracle worker who was executed and came back to life three (or was it two?) days later before he ascended back to Heaven — never to be seen again? Don’t quote me Bible verses. Show me actual evidence for these claims; evidence, as of this date, that is unavailable. I’m not holding my breath.

Bruce Gerencser, 69, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 48 years. He and his wife have six grown children and thirteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Comments

18 responses to “Why I Ask for “Evidence” From Evangelicals”

  1. Avatar
    GeoffT

    Without getting into overly deep philosophy I think it’s important to ask ourselves what we mean by statements of ‘truth’. It is self evidently true that 2+2=4, and that this is always so. It’s also true that Donald Trump has been impeached twice, but it is not necessarily true that he merited being impeached because that involves matters of opinion (amongst other things). It’s true that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and that’s an interesting one. I’m not saying that the earth is exactly that age, but an approximation, and nor am I saying that this estimate might not change. It is, however, the best estimate we have that is consistent with all of the data and all of the evidence. In the same way that we refer to the truth of evolution, we do so because this is where the evidence leads us and, when the evidence is so great as pointing to one conclusion, then that is when we regard it as a statement of truth. This is so even in the face of there being some deniers (flat earth for example) or many deniers (evolution).

  2. Avatar
    JT

    Bruce,

    I want to take a few minutes to address a key point in this article. You are putting the burden of proof on Christians when you know that the level of proof you are requiring is unattainable. Hebrews 11:1 says

    “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (KJV)

    “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (ESV)

    “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” (NIV)

    When we, as a society in general, refer to religion, we often call followers “people of the faith”… no matter which branch they adhere to (Catholic faith, Christian faith, Muslim faith, etc…). As referenced above, the Bible itself says that faith is believing in things you can’t see. Google AI says:

    “Webster’s definition of faith centers on strong belief, trust, and loyalty, often without needing proof, encompassing allegiance to duty/people, fidelity to promises, and deep religious conviction in God or doctrines”

    By definition, faith is unprovable. So, as a Christian, if you ask me to prove that God exists, I will not be able to scientifically do so. That’s impossible and you know that. Faith is personal, and we all have different reasons for believing what we believe. I can only answer the question of why I believe what I believe, not why anyone else does. For example, when I look around at the world we live in, the scientific theory of the “big bang” and evolution do not make sense to me. The “how” of it does not make sense to me. There are too many unanswered questions and lack of proof. It’s all based on theories that, to me at least, are not provable. The creation story in the Bible seems more feasible to me than the evolutionary theories I was taught in school/college.

    I also have many prayers that have been answered in my life that lead me to believe in existence of God, though I will admit only two of them come close to the “minor miracle” category. Could it be luck that a lot of things have went the way I prayed? Maybe, but I prefer to believe God had something to do with it.

    I do appreciate the fact that you’re honest in your position (and I’m paraphrasing) that you don’t think God exists but are open minded if someone could prove otherwise. I’ve long held my “scientific” position on the matter:

    “I cannot prove that God exists, but I don’t think you can prove He doesn’t”.

    Note: As a follow up, I am still digesting Bart Ehrman. I purchased one of his online course over the weekend, so more to follow on that when the time is right.

    1. Avatar
      Benny S

      JT, if you wish to learn more about evolutionary science, I recommend checking out the YouTube content creator named Gutsick Gibbon. See link: https://www.youtube.com/@GutsickGibbon/videos

    2. Avatar
      GeoffT

      JT, I don’t want to try and dissuade you from your belief in god, though I would point out that the burden of proof is entirely on the believer, and there is no burden at all on the non believer to provide evidence that god doesn’t exist (though I would argue strongly that the lack of evidence for a god is convincing evidence of non existence).

      I don’t understand your point, however, about looking round you and thinking there’s no evidence of the Big Bang, though that’s the extreme end of our understanding of the beginning of the present universe, and I’d prefer just to refer to the world as a product of natural forces. Everything we see around us, as I perceive it, is clearly of natural origin. I hear believers say that they see things like waterfalls and trees as designed but this fails to understand the nature of design. Waterfalls can be explained right down to the last detail. There is no point in which our knowledge fails to explain how they come about. They are not ‘designed’, they are the consequence of the forces of nature. The same with trees. Things that are designed stand out to us as having a purpose. We can harness the power of waterfalls for hydroelectric purposes, but that is design making use of natural forces. Trees can be used for even more design purposes, but again by harnessing the natural properties of trees.

      Evolution is surely even more obvious. The fact that no two human beings are absolutely identical is to me one of the most obvious reasons that evolution must be true. It is also the most widely evidenced of all scientific models, and is regarded as factually established, denial of which is now regarded as delusional. Note that the use of the word ‘theory’ as regards evolution is not in the everyday use of the word, where we tend to mean hypothesis, but rather theory in scientific terms is reserved for areas that have been factually established, like germ theory or the theory of gravity.

      1. Avatar
        JT

        Geoff,

        Disclaimer: I use the term “big bang” to generically describe the evolutionary process that science uses to describe the origins of the universe.

        We may have had a similar discussion in the past regarding this, but I honestly believe both sides of the “big bang” and creation debate end in an unanswered question that requires a bit of faith to believe in.

        For creationists, it’s where did God come from? For others, it’s a version of where did the matter come from that supposedly evolved into what we have? In other words, in my opinion, both sides do not truly have a defined beginning point that is explainable with “proof”. For me, I do not know where God came from or how He exists. I cannot grasp the standard Christian answer of “He always existed”… My mind says “how?” and I’ll never claim to have an answer for that.

        For evolutionists, I have never been presented with what I consider a satisfactory description of how everything came to be if it wasn’t created. I do not argue that the world is a lot older than 6,000 years old, but how did it get here? How did the chicken get here without an egg? If the egg was here first, where did it come from? For me, God creating the chicken that lays eggs makes more sense.

        As for evolution, that is an entirely different topic all of its own. Do I believe that evolution happens? Yes. Do I believe that humans come from monkeys/apes? No.

        1. Avatar
          GeoffT

          Thanks for the response JT. May I first respond to your final point, that we evolved from apes (and monkeys). Firstly we are apes, albeit a highly evolved one. But secondly, it’s not that we evolved from apes, it’s that we evolved from a common ancestor, for which we have hoards of evidence.

          As regards the chicken and egg point, yes the origins of ‘everything’ present all sorts of questions which we can’t presently answer. Why is there something rather than nothing? Well if there were nothing we’d not be having this conversation. But ask yourself is it possible for a state of ‘nothing’ to exist? Perhaps something has always existed, but involving physics we don’t presently understand? The beginnings of life we are sure came about by abiogenesis in some form; the fact that there are no elements contained in organic matter that aren’t contained in non organic matter suggests that it did all come from the same building blocks. God has been the answer to everything we don’t understand since time immemorial, but as science discovers more and more the gaps into which god can be fitted become smaller and frequently inconsistent.

    3. Avatar
      Sage

      I just wanted to reply to this statement “I cannot prove that God exists, but I don’t think you can prove He doesn’t”.

      This kind of statement doesn’t make sense. Why would you argue something nonsensical like “You can’t prove something doesn’t exist” as evidence that your particular god MAY exist.

      If I change this sentence to “I cannot prove that Orcs exist, but I don’t think you can prove they don’t”, you would dismiss my argument as pointless. Saying “prove it doesn’t exist” doesn’t make it possible that thing my exist. This argument style is nothing more than a reactionary statement made because the thing you believe in cannot be proven. Its basically a form of ‘OH YEAH??? well then prove it doesn’t exist if you are so smart. There, gotcha, now what are you going to do huh?”

      Now, when it comes to christian belief or gods in general, I am not a believer. There are many reasons and regular people here know what my reason sare. However, just because I see that christianity in particular (based on my experience) can be extremely harmful, dangerous, and even deadly system, it doesn’t invalidate your belief. Your experience may be different.

      When I was a christian, I never felt the need to prove god exists because, as you pointed out, its all about faith, and the bible makes that clear. People who asked me to prove god exists were met with a statement like “I can’t, because its based on faith, not on verifiable data. Its evidence I see, but not scientifically measurable.” and I was fine with that. Faith and proof do not mix, so why try?

      If christianity makes you a better person, and gives you guidance, help, support, or whatever, then by all mean follow that belief. I feel the same about any religion. Use it to better yourself, but leave me out of it. You do you, and let me do me.

  3. Avatar
    Steve

    That which can be offered without proof can be rejected, without proof.

    Do you honestly believe that the God meme is not self reinforcing ? Of course it says there cannot be proof, if there was the meme won’t “survive” cursory examination.

    You also misunderstand “theory” in the scientific sense. Theories are our best guesses at underlying mechanisms, and can be falsified at any time – I can’t remember which evolutionary biologist said it but ” a rabbit skeleton in the Jurassic” would falsify and invalidate much of evolutionary theory. Newtonian theory of motion was observed to break down near the sun, this lead to Einstein’s theories, which so far have not failed under experimental or observational testing. Now do the same for your claim “Goddidit”

    By all means take comfort from your fairy tales, they are just that.

    Just because you can’t understand something doesn’t make it false.

    1. Avatar
      JT

      “Theories are our best guesses at underlying mechanisms, and can be falsified at any time”

      “Just because you can’t understand something doesn’t make it false.”

      Exactly! No disagreements from me on either point. However, two comments on the following:

      “By all means take comfort from your fairy tales, they are just that.”

      Can you prove, beyond all doubt, there is no God? (I doubt it, which makes this an opinion)
      Even if this statement is correct and I am believing fairy tales, why would it bother you if it made me “take comfort”? I am not on here pressing my beliefs on anyone. I offer opinions from time to time and Bruce’s writing interests me. He has me researching and reading things that I never would have except for finding his blog. I accuse no one of believing in fairy tales if they believe differently than I do.

    2. Avatar
      Karen the Rock Whisperer

      Steve, the apocryphal story is that J.B.S Haldane was asked what would disprove evolution, and his answer was “Rabbits in the Precambrian.” He might actually have said that. Would it disprove the theory of evolution? It would certainly provoke a lot of questions, but a single rabbit fossil in rocks dated to that age would prompt a whole lot of good questions about provenance, geologic history, and dating methods before anyone would worry about a scientific theory that has mountains of scientific evidence supporting it from the biological sciences and the earth sciences.

      1. Avatar
        Steve

        That’s a very good point. Thanks

  4. Avatar
    Jim Barker

    You are an Anti-theist and an Anti-Christian. If you weren’t this blog wouldn’t exist.

    1. Avatar
      John S.

      Well “Jim Barker”, I am a Christian who has corresponded with Bruce for a while. He is neither “anti- Christian” nor “anti-theist”. He has never disparaged me due to my beliefs. He has never advocated for people like me to be sent to the Gulag or set before a firing squad Pol Pot-style.
      Just because he is a secular atheist, that does not make him “anti-Christian”. I will not speak any further for him or anyone else on this page. There’s a difference between a secular atheist and a totalitarian anti-theist.

  5. Avatar
    Karen the Rock Whisperer

    I want to throw my $0.2 in about evidence and proof. Evidence is factual, either obvious or inferred. An obvious fact is that it is currently raining where I am, easily verified by looking out the nearest exterior door. An inferred fact is deduced from obvious facts. If I go out tomorrow morning, my lawn is wet, and I know my sprinklers are turned off for the season, I can reasonably infer that it rained overnight. An inferred fact can be more provisional than an obvious one. Maybe it didn’t rain, maybe my neighbor washed his car before I got up and inadvertently sprayed my lawn. The inference gets less provisional if I know my neighbor has never, to my knowledge, washed his car in my driveway, if the street is also wet as far as I can see, and so forth.

    In other words, evidence is established with trails. It supports or fails to support an assertion. It might not conclusively support an assertion. Some assertions can’t be supported by our current collective human knowledge base. There might be evidence that the assertion is not true. There might be conflicting evidence, some supporting the truth of the assertion, some indicating falseness.

    Bruce isn’t asking for proof of anything. He’s asking for evidence. In the example he alluded to, an assertion is that a few decades after the start of the current era, an itinerant Jewish preacher was brutally executed by the occupying authorities of his homeland, but rose from the dead a couple of days later. Did the Roman Empire brutally execute citizens of occupied lands who might be thought to be fomenting civil unrest? I believe that is relatively well documented in their own records and by neutral observers of the state. Were some of those people itinerant preachers? I don’t think there is much surviving evidence for or against that, but plenty of evidence that just about anyone could end up in Rome’s crosshairs, especially in a place that had rebelled against the occupation at least once before. So, no direct evidence to back up the claim that a preacher named Jesus was crucified, but he certainly could have been. That an event seems feasible is not PROOF that it happened.

    Now, as to rising from the dead…living entities that are complex enough to stop functioning completely, i.e. dying, don’t come back to life. They are no longer self-actuating in any way, cells don’t generate or regenerate within the organism, etc. They become part of the biomass of the planet, the materials within them usually used for formation or growth of other organisms. This is how biology works on our planet. There has never been a scientifically rigorous observation of a dead organism coming back to life (and scientifically rigorous observations aren’t only a modern idea; they only require an honest, awake, sane person not under undue chemical influence to record what they observed). That’s a whole lot of evidence against anyone dying and coming back to life. It is not PROOF that no once-living, dead entity has ever come back to life.

    The very concept of “proof” is a distraction. Proof is for mathematics. In reality, something is likely to be true, likely to be false, or lacking sufficient evidence to determine truth or falseness. All honest conclusions are provisional and open to new evidence. Maybe only very slightly provisional, but even so.

    I’m not bothered by living in a provisional reality, but I’m aware that not everyone shares that outlook. I also refuse to declare that they’re wrong. I won’t judge, at least until the absolutes of their reality impinge on my existence and/or liberty, or strike me as ethically unacceptable. But please, let’s not go down the rabbit hole of Proof.

    1. Avatar
      GeoffT

      Karen, that’s a great comment! The distinction between proof and evidence is something I frequently stress (not helped by the fact that people use the terms interchangeably), especially that absolute proof is reserved for mathematics. Where we use the word ‘proof’ legitimately outside of mathematics is where we assign a level of proof in any given field, most notably in criminal cases, where proof is defined as evidence amounting to beyond reasonable doubt.

      Overall you explained my case much better than I ever have.

  6. Avatar

    Karen the Rock Whisperer: “Bruce isn’t asking for proof of anything. He’s asking for evidence.”

    Zoe: A distinction worth highlighting. I like your 2 cents. 🙂

    1. velovixen

      Yes!

  7. Avatar
    Steve

    The thing about “proof” is that that has been corrupted to mean certainty, it actually means to test. As in , “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”, or proof testing explosives or alcohol.

    A mathematical proof is a test of certainty, not a guarantee of it.

Want to Respond to Bruce? Fire Away! If You Are a First Time Commenter, Please Read the Comment Policy Located at the Top of the Page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading