The Escalating Standard of Proof
“Some Credible Evidence”
The lowest possible standard (used in some child-protection hearings). This standard simply establishes that there is enough evidence to begin an inquiry, investigation, or trial.
“Preponderance of the Evidence”
This is the next standard of proof (used in most civil trials). This standard is established if a proposition is more likely to be true than untrue (i.e., 51 percent more likely to be true).
“Clear and Convincing Evidence”
This is an intermediate standard of proof (used in some civil and criminal proceedings). This standard is met when a proposition is significantly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue.
“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”
This is the highest level of proof required by the law (usually reserved for criminal trials). This standard is met when there is no plausible reason to believe that a proposition is untrue.
In legal terms, the line that must be crossed before someone can come to the conclusion that something is evidentially true is called the “standard of proof” (the “SOP”). The SOP varies depending on the kind of case under consideration. The most rigorous of these criteria is the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that is required at criminal trials. But how do we know when we have crossed the line and are “beyond a reasonable doubt”? The courts have considered this important issue and have provided us with a definition:
“Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.”29
This definition is important because it recognizes the difference between reasonable and possible that we discussed earlier. There are, according to the ruling of the court, “reasonable doubts,” “possible doubts,” and “imaginary doubts.” The definition acknowledges something important: every case has unanswered questions that will cause jurors to wonder. All the jurors will have doubts as they come to a decision. We will never remove every possible uncertainty; that’s why the standard is not “beyond any doubt.” Being “beyond a reasonable doubt” simply requires us to separate our possible and imaginary doubts from those that are reasonable.
“SHUNNING” THE TRUTH
There are many reasons why people may deny (or “shun”) the truth. Not all reasons are based on evidence. Jurors can reject a truth claim for “ra’shun’al,” “emo’shun’al,” or “voli’shun’al” reasons. Sometimes jurors have rational doubts that are based on the evidence. Perhaps the defense has convinced them that an alternative explanation is better supported evidentially. Sometimes jurors have doubts that are purely emotional. I’ve been involved in cases where jurors had an emotional reaction to the prosecutor or defense attorney and struggled to overcome negative feelings so they could evaluate the case fairly. Sometimes jurors deny the truth for volitional reasons. They are willfully resistant and refuse to accept any position offered by the group. Attorneys on both sides do their best to identify strong-willed people such as these during the jury selection process to make sure that the jury is composed of people who will listen to the arguments of others. When making a decision that’s based on evidence, it’s important for us to understand the “shuns” we’ve described and limit our doubts to those that are rational and reasonable.
This makes the decision-making process much easier. When assessing the case, we simply need to examine our doubts and separate those that are based on evidence (rational doubts) from those that are not (emotional or volitional doubts). If the doubts we still possess fall into the second category, we can be comfortable with our decision. Once we identify the fact that our doubts are not reasonable, we can deliver a verdict, even though we may still have unanswered questions.
YOU’LL NEVER KNOW ALL THERE IS TO KNOW
It’s important to remember that truth can be known even when some of the facts are missing. None of us has ever made a decision with complete knowledge of all the possible facts. There are always unanswered questions. I use a version of the puzzle illustration (from chapter 6) when trying to help jurors understand this truth. As we assemble a case that points to any particular defendant, we begin to collect pieces of evidence that slowly reveal the identity of the killer. We begin to assemble the puzzle. While there might be a large amount of evidence in the prosecution’s case, no criminal case possesses every possible piece of evidence. No prosecutor is able to answer every conceivable question.
Like this puzzle, every cold case I work has missing pieces. Some of these pieces are obvious and glaring. But notice that their absence doesn’t keep us from having certainty about the image; we recognize the picture even though some things are missing. We have certainty because the pieces we do have reveal the killer’s identity (in this case, Al Capone, the famous Chicago gangster and crime syndicate leader of the 1920s). We have certainty because additional pieces, even if they are different from what we might imagine, would not significantly change the identity we see in the puzzle. We have confidence in concluding that Al Capone is pictured here, even though there are unanswered questions about the puzzle.
For some, the idea of making a decision while there are still unanswered questions seems premature and even dangerous. What if there are outstanding facts that are yet unknown to us? What if new, additional information comes to light in a few years that contradicts the evidence that we have in front of us today? Wouldn’t it be wiser for us to simply withhold judgment until every question can be answered (including those we haven’t even thought of yet)? But juries understand the importance of acting on what they do know rather than fretting about what could be known. In courtrooms across America, jurors are asked to act (in the present) on the evidence available (from the past) to decide what ought to happen (in the future). They make these decisions because what they do know outweighs what might possibly be known if every question could be answered. Either the evidence is sufficient today or it is not; jurors must assess what they have in front of them at the moment rather than speculate about what they might find out later.
EVIDENTIAL SUFFICIENCY AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Epicurus and the Problem of Evil
The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus is credited with first posing the “problem of evil” as it relates to the existence of God:
“Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?”
(According to Lactantius in On the Wrath of God, ca. AD 313)
A listener of the PleaseConvinceMe podcast recently sent me an email expressing his doubts in the existence of an all-powerful and all-loving God, given the presence of evil in the world. This is a classic objection to theism. If God does exist, why would He allow people to do evil things? Either this “God” is unable to stop people from acting as they do (in which case He is not all-powerful), or He is unwilling to stop them (in which case He is not all-loving). The writer posed this question to me because he knew what I did for a living:
“I bet you see many terrible things that people do to one another. How can you still believe in such a God?”
The problem of evil is perhaps the most difficult issue to address because it is emotionally loaded. It’s at times like these that I try to help people walk through the distinctions between reasonable doubts (that are grounded rationally) and possible doubts (that are grounded emotionally). Let me explain.
We need to start by recognizing that there are many good reasons
to believe that God exists (we talked about some of them in chapter 3). These pieces of the puzzle are already in place before we start talking about the issue of evil. Yes, there are some unanswered questions related to the existence of evil, but we have to begin our examination by recognizing that the puzzle is well on its way to completion even though this piece may seem to be missing. Next, we have to ask ourselves if the presence of evil truly represents a missing piece. Is it possible, instead, that the existence of evil may actually be an additional piece that helps make the puzzle more certain?
When people complain that there is evil in the world, they are not simply offering their opinion. They are instead saying that true, objective evil exists. They are complaining about evil behavior as though this behavior ought to be recognized by all of us, regardless of our personal likes, dislikes, or opinions about human conduct. If evil were a matter of opinion, we could eliminate it by simply changing our minds. People who complain about evil behavior must accept the premise that true, objective “right” and “wrong” exist in the first place. They must accept that some things are morally virtuous and some things are morally repulsive, no matter who you are, where you are located, or when you live in history. This kind of moral evil transcends all of us; if it doesn’t, why complain in the first place? If evil is simply a matter of opinion, why doesn’t the man who emailed me simply change his opinion?
You see, in order for true evil to exist (so that the writer has something legitimate to complain about), there must be a true barometer of right and wrong. In order for an act to be objectively “bad,” there must be some standard of objective “good” by which to measure it. What might that standard be if not God? Can the standard come from some evolutionary process? Can it come from the slow development of cultural groups? If so, morals are simply a matter of opinion (albeit a largely held opinion), and there is nothing objectively evil to complain about. Remember that even the most heinous regimes of history identified their own behavior as morally virtuous. In order for true evil to exist, there must be a source of true good that transcends any and all groups that might make a claim about the existence of evil. In other words, the existence of true evil necessitates the presence of God as a standard of true virtue. It turns out that the existence of evil is actually another evidence for God’s existence, another piece of the puzzle that reveals God’s image.
But let’s return to the very real issue of evil behavior. Why would God allow people to kill each other if He loves us and is powerful enough to stop it? While this question has emotional power, we have to ask ourselves if there might be a reasonable explanation. Are we thinking it through evidentially, or are we reacting emotionally? Are we rejecting the existence of God because there is no rational explanation for the existence of evil, or are we resisting volitionally because we stubbornly refuse to accept any explanation that might be offered?
Theodicy
“The theological discipline that seeks to explain how the existence of evil in the world can be reconciled with the justice and goodness of God” (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Wiley Publishing Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, 2010).
I can think of a number of very good reasons why God would allow people to behave immorally, even though He loves His creation and is certainly powerful enough to stop evil. Ask yourself this question: Which is more loving, a God who creates a world in which love is possible or a God who creates a world in which love is impossible? It seems reasonable that a loving God would create a world where love is possible and can be experienced by creatures who are designed “in His image.” But a world in which love is possible can be a dangerous place. Love requires freedom. True love requires that humans have the ability to freely choose; love cannot be forced if it is to be heartfelt and real. The problem, of course, is that people who have the freedom to love often choose to hate. That’s why freedom of this nature is so costly. A world in which people have the freedom to love and perform great acts of kindness is also a world in which people have the freedom to hate and commit great acts of evil. You cannot have one without the other.
In addition to this, from a Christian perspective, we are all eternal creatures who will live beyond the grave. If this is true, then questions about why God might not stop evil are a bit premature. At best, we can say only that God hasn’t stopped evil yet. But God has all eternity to act in this regard. Our eternal life provides the context for God to deal justly with those who choose hate and perform acts of evil. God is powerful enough to stop evil completely, and He does care about justice. But as an eternal Being, He may choose to take care of it on an eternal timeline. Compared to eternity, this mortal existence is but a vapor, created by God to be a wonderful place where love is possible for those who choose it.
If there are good reasons why God might permit evil in this life (such as the preservation of free will and the ability to love genuinely), concerns about His failure to act are simply unreasonable. Doubts about God’s existence based on the problem of evil may have emotional appeal, but they lack rational foundation because reasonable explanations do, in fact, exist. While one can imagine possible doubts related to the problem of evil, careful consideration of the nature of objective evil reveals that these doubts are not reasonable. We ought to be able to move beyond our reservations here because the problem of evil does not present us with a reasonable doubt.
A TOOL FOR THE CALLOUT BAG, A TIP FOR THE CHECKLIST
In every investigation I’ve conducted, this principle related to evidential sufficiency has helped me evaluate my own conclusions and determine if they were reasonable; this important tool from our callout bag can also help us assess the claims of Christianity. All of us need to recognize that we make decisions every day with less-than-perfect knowledge and missing information. In our daily decisions, we act with certainty even though we don’t know everything that could be known on any particular topic. We learn to trust our cars, even though we don’t completely understand how they operate mechanically. We trust our mates and children, even though we don’t know everything they are thinking or everything they are doing when we are away. We make a case for what we believe, and we accept the fact that we can’t know everything. Criminal cases require the highest legal standard; they require juries to come to a decision that is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The decisions that juries make are often a matter of life and death for the defendants who have been accused. If this standard is appropriate for important cases involving temporal matters of life and death, it is reasonable to apply the standard to the case that will determine our eternal life or death. Juries are able to reach a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt, even though there are still some unanswered questions. They do this because the reasonable evidence they possess is greater than the possible questions that remain unanswered. Let’s make sure that our objections and doubts are less emotional or volitional than they are rational. When I was an atheist, I never took the time to categorize my doubts into “rational” versus “emotional” classifications. I also never took the time to see if theism (or Christianity) offered a reasonable response to my doubts. Looking back at them, many of my doubts were merely possible doubts based on an emotional or volitional response.
I often get frustrated when sharing what I believe about God with my skeptical friends, coworkers, and family members. Those of us who are interested in making a rational, evidential case for our Christian worldview sometimes find our efforts to be completely unfruitful. Try as we might, even when we make a cogent, articulate, reasonable case for our view, our efforts seem to have no impact on our listeners. It’s tempting to get frustrated and begin to doubt our own evidence. In times like these, it’s important to remember the “shuns” of denial. Many of the people we are trying to reach are willing to deny the truth of God’s existence on the basis of an emotional or volitional response, rather than on the basis of good evidence. This is not to say that all atheists are irrational, emotional, or willfully r
esistant. Many have taken the time to make a reasoned case of their own. It’s our responsibility as Christians to make the effort to know our friends and family well enough to understand the nature of their denial. When they are resisting on the basis of evidence, let’s examine the facts together and assess which explanations are the most reasonable. When they are resisting for other reasons, let’s be sensitive enough to ask the kinds of questions that will help us understand where they are coming from before we overwhelm them with the evidence we are so eager to share. Don’t expect someone to respond to your reasoned arguments when the evidence wasn’t that important to him or her in the first place.
CASE NOTES
29. Ochoa v. Evans, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112693 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2009).
Chapter 10
Principle #10:
PREPARE FOR AN ATTACK
My partner sent me a joke involving a defense attorney and a murder trial; the joke’s been circulating around our police agency for some time:
A defendant was on trial for a murder. There was overwhelming circumstantial evidence pointing to the defendant’s guilt, in spite of the fact that the body of the victim was never recovered. After sitting through weeks of the trial, the defendant and his lawyer knew that he would probably be convicted. In an act of desperation, the defense attorney resorted to a trick.
“Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I have a surprise for you,” the attorney proclaimed as he looked down at his watch. “Within sixty seconds, the person you thought had been murdered will walk into this courtroom.”
Cold-Case Christianity Page 14