What evidence would it take?

Changing ones mind in science and religion

In #articles

I heard over the past couple of days the question being asked "what evidence would convince you that there is a God?", and the reverse (to a believer) "what evidence would convince you that there is not a God?" It got me thinking about the cases where I may have changed my mind due to evidence, and what evidence would convince me of various claims. This leads inexorably to the processes of science.

Lawrence Krauss flippantly said that if the stars in the sky reorganize and spelled out the words of the Bible it would get him to start considering it (however, upon reflection, one might want to consider delusion at that point). Believers talk about, if the bones of Jesus were found that would do it...however, is that even reasonable to expect under any circumstances? It's a lot simpler than that, than trying to find nearly impossible data.

If we insert any kind of scientific claim, like "what evidence would convince me of [the Sun orbiting the Earth], [evolution], [evolution is false], etc...", we can start to see part of the problem. It's not a matter of new evidence, it is a matter of explaining the existing evidence...and then some. In order to convince me that evolution by natural selection is false, you have to come up with an explanation that does as well explaining all the existing data (e.g. geographic organization of animals, embryology, genetic relationships, vestigial features, etc...) as well as find a domain which cannot be explained by evolution by natural selection. Apologists often focus on the latter, pointing out supposed flaws or gaps in our understanding, but that is not nearly enough. The gaps are either things we already understand with this theory (e.g. intermediate forms), or are not addressed by this theory (e.g. origin of life), or are details that don't change the overall picture (e.g. punctuated equilibrium). Even if true gaps were found, to mount an actual overthrow of evolution by natural selection, you have to put forward a useful explanation that works for all of the cases natural selection works for.

Here we can think of Newton's laws. What evidence would it take for me not to believe in Newton's Law of Gravity? Pretty much nothing at this point, even though I know there is a correction with Einstein's equations - Newton's laws work so well, that it is very nearly the truth even given its limitations. All of the evidence for Newton's Law of Gravity is still around, and isn't changing, and any replacement has to address that (which Einstein's equations do). This is why science gets progressively harder.

Now, with the evidence for God, any explanation has to deal with the fact that the various direct predictions from, say, Christianity have been systematically undermined by science. Mental disease caused by spirits? World created in the order (orders?) specified in Genesis? End of the world coming before 100AD? Prayer is a direct, and effective, method for healing? People are actually spoken to by spirits/God? God designed the diversity of life on the planet? There was a global flood in the past 10,000 years? These are topics, directly supported in the Bible, and refuted by science. The only way modern Christians deal with them is to either say the science is wrong (which it isn't) or to ignore those inconvenient parts of the Bible as "metaphor".

Like the evidence for a flat Earth, or the heliocentric solar system, the evidence for Christianity is a tale of an ever increasing list of refuted claims, until all we are left with are claims about the fringes of our understanding and a possible deist agent out there...somewhere. Any theist explanation must first to be able to contend with this mountain of negative evidence before it can get off the ground.

What would convince me of the truth of Christianity? I don't need the stars reorganized, or a big booming voice from the sky. If any of the direct claims of Christianity were to be demonstrated as true, then I'd be willing to begin to consider it.