Evidence and Proof?
What is real? What is Not?
What is Dangerous?

Part Two

by Lloyd Harrison Whitling

NOTE:  Comments about this or any other page on this website will be appreciated and given serious consideration. If you have something to say that adds to the wide field this site covers, don't be afraid to submit it to the eMail address at the bottom of every page on this site. Your comments and essays will be granted proper credit; however, they must pass muster with the Principles of Atheology to qualify for consideration. Click here to get the PDF version of this file

To start with, let's learn the differences between the two words. What is evidence? What is proof? We tend to use them interchangeably, but are they both the same?

From the American Heritage:

proof (pr›f) n. Abbr. prf. 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. 2.a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. b. A statement or an argument used in such a validation. 3.a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability. b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence. 4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof. 5. Law. The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

ev·i·dence (µv"ą-d…ns) n. 1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis. 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face. 3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. --ev·i·dence tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es. 1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove. 2. To support by testimony; attest. --idiom. in evidence. 1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets. 2. Law. As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.

—American Heritage—

Careful assessment of both sets of definitions quite clearly shows that while proof gets validated by evidence, not all evidence can be considered proof; that evidence which convinces constitutes proof, and that evidence which fails to convince also fails to be validated as proof. Without good evidence there is no validation. Such validation generally is done while following a specific set of rules. Proof in religion is validated by a set of rules vastly different from those followed by scientists or lawyers, for a common example that affects all of us. The Principles of Atheology is another set commonly applied but not widely noted as a basis for defending atheism, but follows the legal and scientific principles in the main, in secular practices.

Without evidence, he cannot prove his claim that the event ever occurred, let alone that the named character participated in it, and so "…because God told me to" is denied any validity. His accusers still are required to follow that same principle when they must prove in a convincing fashion that he performed in the event where the murder took place. His accusers may all believe in a god, but they (the same as any atheist) are not going to take any human being's unverified word about it, the same as atheists will not take any human being's unverified word that any certain holy text is anything other than the word of human beings.

Atheists are correct in that approach according to the best practices of science and our courts. Following the evidence that theists accept leads to dead ends and more questions: "Who wrote the books of the Bible?" gets answered by "God," or by "Men inspired by God, to whom those immutable truths were revealed." The trail of evidence ends without names, or evidence of the events that were claimed to have occurred, nor any actual witnesses at the scene who wrote verifying accounts. So, while theists are willing to accept their proof "in good faith", their accounts equate to claims made without convincing evidence that, as in the definition, "compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." The same theists who will condemn a man to his punishment for providing no evidence of his communication with God will not demand equal credence from those who produce their sacred texts.

That allows an anomalous circumstance to develop, wherein religious people must operate according to double standards that, if you will look at them, serve to divide those same religions that claim their unity "under God" gives them the rights to sanction morality. The operant factor of "faith" actually gives each religious person the role of deciding which, out of all the religious sects and cults and creeds, he or she ultimately believes enough to proclaim their faith about. Beliefs require yourself to be the authority; they mean something to the believer, or to an organized group of believers, but nobody else, since nobody who does not share a belief (or set of beliefs) will grant them any credence because they cannot see any truth in them. That lack of credence results from religion's inherent inability to test their creeds, that prompts them to demand their acceptance "on faith".

That most people will regard some portions of all creeds as too incredible to adopt evokes the circumstances wherein each religious cult gets divided into hundreds of sects, each sect gets divided into myriad subsects, and each subsect gets filled with adherents who agree only about the basic tenets for their chosen affiliations. That is the result of religion, where each person must accept without convincing evidence what he or she will believe in spite of their proclamations of faith. Beliefs do, as stated, require each individual to be the authority about what he or she will or will not accept as true (or, at least, pretend to accept) and, from there, choose which sect and cult most closely represents those choices.

Atheists, for all their bluster about science and "laws of nature" do not escape that. Our secular ranks are filled with determinists, positivists, naturalists, Popperians, Buddhists, in a wide array of 'ists', 'ians', 'ics' and 'ons' who regard their various philosophies equally as sacrosanct as any religionist. Visit any secular (atheism-based) discussion group and watch them in action. We spend endless hours debating and disputing, and get as emotionally involved and irate as any religious warriors acting in behalf of their cults. Does this mean atheists have not really given up religion? Not really, even though we share a deficiency in common with the religious: The most direct cause leading to this is a dependency on, and willingness to defend, anecdotal evidence on faith which then gets denied. We need to stop that, and wait for science to provide such answers and, meanwhile, learn to demand evidence before adopting divisive credos. We need to practice abeyance.

Anecdotal Evidence, or informal evidence, according to Wikipedia, has no universally accepted definitions, but (as in its common definitions) generally refers to hearsay or ¹grandfathered information, or that which has always been regarded as true but for which no evidence can be presented. ²Evidence that cannot be examined and its nature verified cannot be tested in any way, and so cannot be regarded as factual, is generally regarded to be hearsay, unscientific, not real, and not trustworthy in a courtroom.

Suspicions may lead to accusations, especially when prompted by hearsay or by negative experiences others have told stories about. Untested ideas rise up in the brain to excite their hosts and prompt them to make fantastic efforts to put them into effect, but if they have never been tested a fortune could be lost by investors before any development can be called off. Many things that sounded good in the mind, and sometimes still looked good on paper, just cannot pan out in the real world, where evidence is gained from losses their proponents suffered, the same kind of evidence that denies the existence of gods.

We want to avoid that kind of evidence, if we are wise.

Facts and Opinions (from Wikipedia): "People tend to think that "facts" are much more reliable and convincing than "opinions," yet many "facts," such as statistical surveys, scientific measurements, and historical events, are ultimately based on "opinions." Thus, the difference between verifiable evidence ("The victim's blood was found on the suspect's clothes") and evaluative authority ("According to my analysis, the sample taken from the suspect's clothes matches the victim's blood type), is often more a matter of presentation than of fact vs. opinion." —Wikipedia

While evaluative authority may carry weight because of our regard for a speaker's reputation and credentials, our commonly held opinions about many different areas of reality are seldom apt to influence anyone whose ideas show a different view to be more correct. As in our beginning definitions, evaluative authority may sway onlookers into accepting authoritative statements as proof, but will not influence those who do not accept that authority as sufficient to deserve its status.

That develops into a two way street on which conflicting schemas meet to shoot it out. The main contenders for supremacy are theism versus secularity (religion versus science). Within them are the various cults and sects of theism on the one hand, and those who conform to the various secular philosophies on the other, whether or not those philosophies result from actual science.

The common approach to proof in religion is to accept it wholesale or reject it out of hand with no middle ground. Since it is common in religion to accept authority as the only source of truth (which most religionists regard as absolute), the only form that verification takes requires the religionist to turn to their recognized authorities for guidance. Religious faith, as promoted by those authorities, transfers faith in their edicts into the highly touted "faith in God", once again a matter of presentation more than of fact, since the faith ultimately is in the people presenting them.

Religionists tend to regard the field of science as though it operates by the same methodologies inherent to their religions, and therefore demand "absolute proof" of various scientific theorems while fully aware that cannot be forthcoming. Few religious people (and, I would venture to say, most who are not religious) have any kind of accurate comprehension of the scientific method.

The Role of Science is not to prove, but to verify what increases human understanding, and to refute that which does not. In that role, evidence serves not to prove, but only to discover what forms of data best serve that interest, and to observe the effects of testing upon different theories and hypotheses and compile the results when different kinds of evidence are applied; and, oftentimes, to find that evidence.

Science works when not used to prove anything true, but to debunk whatever contenders for first position there are until one or all have been banished. That testing process is called falsifying, and it can only be applied to testable conjectures that people have developed and presented to it, or that scientists have developed for their own interests. An idea is scientific only if it can be tested; otherwise, it remains only an opinion.

Testing takes many routes, and is not an entirely laboratory process. For testing of social hypotheses, data can be gathered from known situations; questions asked of selected persons and compared to control groups; historical data gathered and compiled, and so forth. Each method offers its own benefits and suffers its own limitations. For that reason, the various methods are used where applicable for whatever verification or refutation they may offer.

Evidence from mathematics is often used for testing what may otherwise be limited to conjecture. An example of that can come from M-theory (formerly string theory) which shows a complex 11-dimensional universe as mathematicians have struggled to describe it, but that cannot be tested in any known way from within our three-dimensional perceptions of the way things are. In mathematics, such a description may be regarded as a theory, but in actual practice outside of that arena it remains a hypothesis because it cannot be tested. While keeping that in mind, let me inform you that I have attempted to describe a version of string theory in layman terminology in The Complete Universe of Memes and Evolution: The Mad Poet Does Science.

My own description of "first cause", as in Evolution or The Complete Universe of Memes was derived from a rhetorical description of the universe as a (at that time) ten-dimensional construct, but remains a hypothesis for the same reason. It can be described in a logical fashion, but fails as evidence because it cannot be tested. Still, because it can be described according to natural perceptions, it remains advanced over other speculations about creation, which depend upon the indescribable and inexplicable for their functions.

Logic and Reason may also have a limited application for testing hypotheses that enable us to apply standards about how some things may be said. Arguments, in logic, are statements made for or against a proposition. As is true of science, the main benefit is gained from disproof of a contention by showing it to be incorrectly expressed, or from verification of correct expression. By no means will anything reasonable and logical be necessarily correct in the real world until they have been adequately verified by testing.

Logic proceeds in a math-like fashion such as can be learned by studying algebra and advanced mathematics, or by comparing statements against a list of known fallacies. The one approach by no means rules out the other. The most common logical fallacies are simple to understand and learn to recognize, and put to use in recognizing defects in our own thinking processes (and, later, for angering those others who cannot comprehend why you have chosen to be such a smart-aleck when you showed no previous signs of being like that). Arguers who invent their own ‘logical fallacies’ on the fly usually contrive them in such a way that inevitably fails to stand up to real world evaluation, but display their own ignorance while so doing, and so tend to declare victory without allowing their ‘fallacies’ a chance to be tested.

Applied to your own thought processes, logic and reason will eventually show you how to work out some of life's perplexing problems, especially in conjunction with plenty of study about other people's ideas and the processes they used for developing them. The "proof", however, will only be from evidence that you deemed convincing, but that may be entirely meaningless to most others. That does not mean you or they are right or wrong about anything; it only means that you can understand both sides of any issue by working toward that, and by enabling yourself to wear and walk in their shoes.

In the long run, when it all has been said and done, and you have satisfied yourself that you have said and done all you can about it, we all must recognize that all we know is that which is contended by religions, what has been tested by science and shown to work, and that vast chasm of knowledge yet to be gained and understood. To realize the existence of the vastness of the not necessarily unknowable unknown is to finally convince yourself of the importance of the one practice we learn almost too late in life, and that is how to hold in abeyance all those things we think could be true when we cannot find evidence to show for them. That one practice, if it could be instilled in people during the period of their youth, would save the world from much of the suffering and struggling for religious dominance we have endured almost for the duration of history. Anecdotal evidence may be what finally renders us extinct.

1: "Grandfathered" generally refers to rights, such as American Heritage's "To exempt (one already involved in an activity or a business) from new regulations concerning that activity or business…." Grandfathered evidence, in a like manner, would be those things regarded as facts by those who lived in earlier times and passed them on to us. That practice does not render them correct and, in fact, works to the detriment of human interests and learning.                    RETURN

2: References: Anecdotal; premises;                       RETURN

"To deny a right to the experience of pleasure is immoral unless that denial can be justified by a valid presentation of how pain will result from that experience in an amount that would render the expected pleasure regrettable; or, if it can be shown that pain will be induced in others innocent of any involvement. The role of science in moral issues should be to test that, predict that, and find harmless ways to demonstrate that."

— L. H. Whitling in the eBook, Secular Morality —