A Truth-Test That Demonstrates Christianity Is Absolute Truth

In last week’s blog article we saw that it is impossible to obtain mathematical-like absolute certainty in the areas of scientific, legal, historical, and religious truth, because certainty in these areas requires an entirely different category of proof. We can demonstrate, however, and to the highest level of certainty attainable in the area of religion, that Christianity is truth if we apply the same truth-test to religious truth that we apply to science, law, and history. In this sense, we can claim absolute certainty that Christianity is truth because we can go no higher in terms of demonstrable proof. This is the same level of proof used in almost all areas of knowledge outside mathematics and formal logic. This blog article will explain what this “truth-test” involves.

Evidence

Nineteenth century Harvard Law Professor Simon Greenleaf, considered one of the greatest American authorities on the use of evidence in legal procedures, stated that “a proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence (emphasis his).” (Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists). He then goes on to define what constitutes competent and satisfactory evidence:

By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test to which they can be subjected is, their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a man of common prudence and discretion, and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon the conviction in matter of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. If, therefore, the subject is a problem in mathematics, its truth is to be shown by the certainty of demonstrative evidence. But if it is a question of fact in human affairs, nothing more than moral evidence [probability] can be required, for this is the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable. . . . When we have this degree of evidence, it is unreasonable to require more.

In other words, the nature of proof required in religious matters is not mathematical certainty but confirming evidence. And the amount of evidence required is that which leads to a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. Now what would constitute this kind of evidence? More than anything else, sound evidence would include eyewitness testimony, reliable documentation, and scientific and historical confirmation. It would also be philosophically and logically consistent with human experience (blaming a murder on an alien, for example, would not be in harmony with human experience). This is precisely the kind of evidence on which we make our daily decisions and on which truth is determine in most areas of human activity. As Greenleaf put it, evidence convinces us to take action “in matters of the highest concern and importance to [our] own interest.”

Probability

Simon Greenleaf had this to say about probability:

In all human transactions, the highest degree of assurance to which we can arrive, short of the evidence of our own senses, is that of probability. The most that can be asserted is, that the narrative [i.e. the Bible] is more likely to be truth than false; and it may be in the highest degree more likely, but still be short of absolute mathematical certainly. Yet this very probability may be so great as to satisfy the mind of the most cautious, and enforce the assent of the most reluctant and unbelieving. If it is such as usually satisfies reasonable men, in matters of ordinary transaction, it is all which the greatest skeptic has a right to require; for it is by such evidence alone that our rights are determined, in the civil tribunals; and on no other evidence do they proceed, even in capital cases.

Greenleaf reminded us that people do not have infinite and absolute knowledge and therefore must accept or reject truth based on the evidence available. Furthermore, the probability of truth is based on the volume of evidence amassed for or against it. In other words, the power of probability lies in its cumulative testimony. This is nowhere more evident than in religious truth, as we’ll see in subsequent blog articles.

The fact is, probability controls human actions in almost every area of life. Response to probability is so intrinsic to our human psyche that we take if for granted and seldom think about it. We automatically and subconsciously make decisions according to their probable outcome. The examples of this are endless. When we get into an automobile, we do not calculate our chance of not having an accident—although we know that possibility is real. We eat in restaurants trusting in the probability that what we eat is not poisonous. We drink water from the tap trusting that it is probably safe to drink. We marry on the probability that we will be compatible for life. A doctor prescribes medicine on the probable outcome of his diagnosis. In no case can any of these decisions be based on absolute mathematical-like certainty. A hundred times a day we make decisions based on their probable outcome, all the while acting as if these decisions were at the level of absolute certainty.

In sum, most of the actions we take and the decisions we make in our lives are grounded in our belief that the probable results are reliable and predictable. In our normal activities and decision making, we accept the probable just as readily and completely as we accept mathematical certainties. We rely on probability as absolute proof in the sense that we trust it and think of it as the highest level of certainty available to whatever truth question is at hand. This concept is so important to apologetic evangelism that I want to drive it home with two more illustrations—which I will present in next week’s blog article. ©