“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
…except that, yes, it is. It’s evident that when one expects evidence if a thing were true, a lack of evidence suggests the thing is not true. A fun example: If there were a dragon living in your garage, you might expect some evidence for that, and the lack of any such evidence compels you to disbelieve the proposition “a dragon lives in my garage.” It’s the same reason hikers in the Midwest take no precautions against polar bears. If polar bears lived in the Midwest, we would expect evidence to have surfaced by now. It hasn’t, and this lack of evidence inspires a positive conclusion.
Both examples above consist of our drawing simple conclusions on the basis of a lack of evidence for questions most wouldn’t think to ask. After all, we don’t generally decide whether or not to believe something (e.g. “a dragon lives in my garage”) until we have some reason to suppose it might be true. The problem occurs once we do have cause to consider whether something is true, at which point our idiom about the “absence of evidence” represents a non-trivial defect in the way we sometimes evaluate evidence.
We tend not to notice when our beliefs about the world would be better attested if true. We are overly content with any evidence at all which seems to support our position, and we forget altogether that said evidence must be weighed against the amount of evidence we would expect. If a child blamed a scorched wall in the garage on a dragon, we might ask why we never see or hear it. “Where are the dragon’s droppings?!” we would demand, shaking our son by the shoulders. We do this not because the evidence in question (the burnt wall) is inconsistent with the “live-in dragon” explanation (it isn’t!) but because we would expect rather more evidence in that event.
In the interest of those restlessly wondering how this principle will serve my anti-Christian agenda, I will hurry to a more practical application.
Jesus is alleged to have made quite a splash in his day as a major religious figure. He’s supposed to have garnered the attention of notable world leaders, and his ascension into heaven is traditionally said to have been witnessed by five hundred people. Christians believe these facts to be true, and non-Christians by and large do not. It might appear as though we have reached an impasse. What a relief that we haven’t.
It’s true that any absence of evidence on this issue cannot be proof of absence – we can never know with certainty that Jesus did not ascend into heaven. What we can do is examine what evidence we have available to us in light of (this is the part we so often neglect) what evidence we would expect to have if the claims were true.
The supporting evidence we have is Christian literature, particularly the gospels, written decades and centuries after the events were alleged to have taken place, by non-eyewitnesses, in a different language and different country, based on an oral tradition in circulation for the express purpose of gaining converts. Like the scorched wall in the garage, the existence of the gospels is certainly consistent with the proposed explanation, but what other evidence might we expect to complement them in a world where Christian claims about Jesus were true?
If even half of the ostentatious claims about Jesus were veridical, I think it is more than fair to expect some mention of Jesus by a Greek, Roman, or other non-Christian source from Jesus’ day. Recall that Jesus was raised from the dead, after which all the graves in Jerusalem opened, and the dead roamed free in the city. As mentioned, hundreds are supposed to have witnessed his glorious ascent to heaven. He raised the dead, healed droves of sick, and fed thousands with a few loaves and fish. The gospels record that he created a massive stir in the Jewish and Roman worlds in his time. So how many hundreds of pagan and Roman records date within the decades following Jesus’ death? Zero hundreds. None at all.
Depending on which side you take, there is either one first century, non-Christian historical source for Jesus or there were none. The only references we have are two fleeting (and highly suspect) passages from the Jewish historian Josephus which were likely tampered with by later Christian scribes. I think it’s pretty clear that two short references from a single historian writing decades after the alleged events are less than we would expect given the nature of the gospels’ claims. Yet there are no first century records of Jesus, no eye-witness accounts, nor as much as a casual reference to him in a letter. Not until a full century after Jesus lived did the Roman historian Tacitus finally break the silence with a brief allusion to Jesus having been crucified under Pilate (which he probably was).
It stretches credulity that Jesus made the impact he is written to have made in his lifetime, and that no non-Christian source thought to mention it until decades and centuries after the fact. The evidence we have suggests that Jesus was indeed a very important figure while he lived, but only to a small group of followers who later came to believe he had been raised from the dead. If you simply look at the evidence we have, things don’t look too shabby at first. We have the gospels. A Jewish historian may have mentioned Jesus. Paul claims to have had a vision of Jesus. The trouble doesn’t start until you weigh the evidence against reasonable expectations, at which point it’s hard to see how such scanty evidence is sufficient to satisfy anyone. It’s a scorch on the wall! There are a trillion explanations, each of them more likely than the one being proposed, not merely because dragons are unlikely creatures but because there would be more evidence for the claim if it were true.
This is a simple object lesson to illustrate the broader point: ask not only, “What evidence do I have for X?” but also “What evidence should I expect to have for X?” If we fail to do this, we risk quite a mess. Our world is, frankly, in danger of becoming the sort of place in which billions of people hold fast to varying and contradictory convictions on every topic; in which we disproportionately measure the evidence in favor of our pre-existing beliefs; and in which we allow all manner of implausible explanations to account for youthful mischief in the garage.
Cole
Kyle
The Plantlet 
It’s so interesting to me that you guys would want to discredit Jesus when he is the one who would defend you to the uttermost against your enemies.
Then I read this that Kyle said…. “I don’t need a god to provide a purpose for being for the same reason I don’t need one to threaten me with hell fire so that I might desire to do good. We can all desire to exist and to do good and to make our own purpose because this universe houses such capacities – that’s just a fact. The universe doesn’t need its own purpose in order to allow us our own.”
I realized that You are still equating Jesus with the evil satanic fundamentalist “god of this world”.
Of course you would rightfully reject such a god. I would too. and I did.
God doesn’t threaten us with hellfire. Mankind made hell up in order for the powerful people to control the masses (with fear).
You both, Cole and Kyle, repeatedly reference your own standards of excellence. By saying things such as we don’t need a purpose. we can make a purpose of our own here. The universe is hospitable. Or, we should rightfully be gracious to the religious people who are taken and snared by falsehoods and treat them right. Etc etc. I agree!!! I just think that these goodness’ deep in your hearts come from the Jesus that you simply haven’t met yet.
You speak in alignment with him, just without knowing it. it’s kinda cute!
The Jesus I know in my heart does no such thing as create or threaten us with hell. You should meet some Christians who think that stuff is anti-Christ teaching. The problem is one of crying wolf. You were raised being taught things “all in the name of Christ”, but the things you were taught were in actuality anti-Christ. It causes cognitive dissonance. Believe me, I would know, from experience.
Perhaps you need a story in which I interacted with the REAL God. The one you two obviously like too.
Ok, so I struggled with fertility issues for a couple of years. It was during the time that I was most angry with my religion too. I sounded like you guys sound. angry at the complete nonsense of it all and stunned that majorities of “brainless” people could believe such crap.
Anyway, there was a short time in which I still believed in God but I was so condemned, I was about to burn out and resent God. But I still pathetically begged God for stuff….
Here is my story of infertility and then meeting the real God.
I should tell you my story… One weekend, I was begging and praying continually to have another baby so Brody wouldn’t be an only child. I was standing in little moose lake camping, and it was a clear as ever day… Crystal clear water.. cloudless blue sky… Sun on my shoulders… And it felt so incredibly good that for that moment I had forgotten I was begging God for something in my heart…… I looked down at my feet and happened to see an agate rock right by my foot… That’s how clear the water and the sun were that day… I reached in and picked it up and as soon as I touched it, i was flooded with Gods voice in my soul. Not literal or audible. But I felt his warmth in these external thoughts that invaded my head suddenly. The voice said to me… Just when it’s like this, when you are enjoying my presence, when there is peace and still and pleasure and you’re not even looking for it, it will come to you. What you are asking for will come to you.
I was overjoyed but had this also feeling , uncomfortable, of “but WHEN?” I didn’t hear an answer.
The next year, I had almost forgotten about this. But I listened to the goodness stuff about how God is only good and has no darkness or evil in him and it undid so much religion in my heart… I was bounding in joy… Literally almost jumping up and down cuz I realized God is good, only good. And suddenly the same knowing all of a sudden came up on me again. Like God’s voice was putting these ideas in my head suddenly. This voice said, you sure are enjoying my presence, aren’t you? It instantly sparked my memory of standing in the lake and finding the agate and that voice that said, when you are enjoying my presense, your gift will find you. I knew, I knew that he meant now. I was pregnant within three weeks after this…. After having tried without success for a couple of years. Amazing God!!
Not only that but, without asking, my hypothyroidism, anemia, stress incontinence, and intermittent forearm pains went away all on their own, and have never returned. Just because I met the real God, not the pathetic fake one I was raised hearing about.
I have many more stories. My grandpa who healed from stage four bladder cancer. His oncologist from mayo clinic says, I have never seen anyone with your history of severity of cancer, who still has their bladder in. You could never tell his bladder once had anything wrong with it. My grandpa attributes it to faith in knowing that God would do nothing else, other than to heal him. my great grandma, (this same grandpa’s mom), also determined that God would heal her of colon cancer and she recovered from it without treatment and lived many more years after that… To 103 or something.
I once met a homeless man who I visited with Jesus about, who after that his rotton hip, which had fifteen fractures in it healed over the next few months on its own with no surgery. His doctor was astonished.
I once met a heroin addict who coughed up a pneumonia within ten minutes after I explained Jesus to him. I have never ever seen anything like that before! I was floored by that!!!
Miracles happen, but only since I rejected fake jesus and met real Jesus.
While I can appreciate your sentiments, you should know that there is no basis for your distinguishing “real Jesus” from a “fake Jesus” that everyone else worships. One reason is that people who follow “fake Jesus” claim all the same miracles (and more!) that you claim. People are adamant about their miracles. All the thousands of ancient religions had miracles, and so do all the thousands of modern ones. Claiming miracles is not proof of your god or their god or any god – because everyone makes the all-exclusive claim. And you don’t get to simply claim all their miracles as being done by your god. That would be impolite.
But none of this conversation actually matters since you have no real basis for the claims you’re making. For example, you say “God doesn’t threaten us with hellfire. Mankind made hell up in order for the powerful people to control the masses (with fear).” Anyone who can say something like that can and will say just about anything they like. And what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Thanks for the comments, Amy, as always.
I’ll echo Kyle, as you have yet to support your conception of Jesus. I’m curious about your take on the biblical Jesus. Here are just a few of the things he has to say about hell:
Matthew 13:42
They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mark 9:43
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
Matthew 25:41
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Yes, I say to you, fear him!
I’m not sure whether you think these verses are symbolic (of what?!) or if you think they were added later, but either of those claims would require support. You just keep stating that the good things about Jesus are true and the rest isn’t. You’ve yet to support it, as far as I can tell.
Great explanation. Quotes and names of fallacies get used like game show buzzers in conversations. Person A says something Person B disagrees with, and instead of asking clarifying questions or providing their own evidence, Person B just gives a pithy quote or names a fallacy. I prefer actually discussing evidence. What would the world look like if there is a God? If the Bible is true? What would the world look like if naturalism were true? My problem was that for years I only looked at the world presupposing God. Now I am looking at it differently and trying to evaluate things more objectively.
The ol’ “fallacy fallacy.” “Your argument takes the form of this fallacy, therefore your conclusion is false!” It’s annoying to be sure. Fallacies are dangerous in the wrong hands.
You’re exactly correct that the problem comes when we adopt our conclusion first (which we nearly always do) and subsequently reason our way to it. It’s tremendously difficult to go back to the start and reason objectively after we’ve done this.