Gairney Bridge

It is not uncommon to hear in the midst of common discourse between a believer and non-believer for the non-believer/non-Christian to demand “proof” from the Christian (for anything from the existence of God, to the divinity of Christ, to the inspiration of Scripture, etc.). While this demand is not unreasonable in itself, it often leads to a never-ending back and forth series of attempts to prove/disprove whatever evidence might be offered (see, for instance, the “Old Earth” thread below; I might post certain evidences for a young earth, another blogger might post something that seems to contradict this, I might post a rebuttal, etc., with the cycle only ending when someone quits out of frustration or exhaustion — it has also been my experience that most cannot conduct such an exchange without eventually committing a logical fallacy, such as the genetic fallacy, which seeks to discredit the source of one’s evidence). Furthermore, there is an inherent problem if the person raising the objection is approaching things from a naturalistic worldview that demands emperical proof for everything: there are things taken for granted by the naturalists that cannot be accounted for emperically. For instance, the reliability of the senses, the use of logic and induction, the reliance upon information not directly obtained through emperical means (e.g., “facts” that are learned, relayed, read, etc. that are not obtained directly by emperical means on the part of the naturalists; this often isn’t a problem, since much of our information is obtained this way).

Instead of chasing endless rabbit trails, a more profitable approach might be simply to ask the skeptic what proof he would accept as adequate evidence. This was precisely the question asked by an audience member during the famous “Great Debate” between atheist Gordon Stein and Christian Greg Bahnsen several years ago (a transcript of this debate may be obtained here). Stein responded as follows to the question:

Well, it’s very simple. I can give you two examples. If that podium suddenly rose into the air five feet, stayed there for a minute and then dropped right down again, I would say that is evidence of a supernatural because it would violate everything we knew about the laws of physics and chemistry. Assuming that there wasn’t an engine under there or a wire attached to it, we can make those obvious exclusions. That would be evidence for a supernatural violation of the laws. We could call it a miracle right before your eyes. That would be evidence I would accept. Any kind of a supernatural being putting it into appearance and doing miracles that could not be stage magic would also be evidence that I would accept.

To which Dr. Bahnsen replied:

Dr. Stein, I think, is really not reflecting on the true nature of atheism and human nature when he says, “All it would take is a miracle in my very presence to believe in God.” History is replete with first of all things which would be apparently miracles to people. Now, from an atheistic or naturalistic standpoint, I will grant, in terms of the hypothesis, hat that’s because they were ignorant of all the calls of factors and so it appeared to be miracles. But you see that didn’t make everybody into a theist. In fact, the Scriptures tells us that there were instances of people who witnessed miracles, who all the more hardened their heart, and eventually crucified the Lord of glory. They saw his miracles, that didn’t change their mind. People are not made theists by miracles. People must change their world views; their hearts must be changed. They need to be converted. That what it takes, and that’s what it would take for Dr. Stein to finally believe it. If this podium rose up five feet off the ground and stayed there, Dr. Stein would eventually have in the future some naturalistic explanation because they believe things on faith, by which I mean that they believe things as which they have not proven by their senses.

In other words, Stein was only fooling himself when he said he would believe in a “miracle” that he could not explain. People do this all the time, but when any sort of proof is offered, they will often find an excuse (and any excuse will often do) to continue in disbelief (Bahnsen’s point that the same people who witnessed Jesus’ miracles later called for His crucifixion is well taken). Yet, they will readily accept things they themselves cannot adequately prove (the “faith” that Bahnsen spoke of in the last part of his rebuttal), while at the same time committing the special pleading fallacy and demanding a different standard of the Christian.

“What proof will you accept?” That is the question. The answer will often reveal much about the worldview of the other person, and they might even begin to expose those inconsistencies in the thinking of the unbeliever that will begin to tear down the intellectual strongholds he has erected to suppress the knowledge of God. And while our arguments themselves will never change the heart of an unbeliever, we are still called to destroy “speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God” and take “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).