Some Christian apologists argue that the courtroom gives a great analogy to how we should evaluate the evidence for the claims of Christianity. It doesn’t. The courtroom analogy is precisely where we shouldn’t go to find the truth. We can do much better.
Consider the difference between a lawyer in a courtroom and a scientist in a university. The scientist is encouraged to share research with colleagues and ask for advice. Openness and camaraderie are essential parts of scientific research. Scientists must follow the evidence, even if it leads away from a cherished hypothesis.
Contrast that with how the lawyer works. The courtroom is an intentionally adversarial environment. There is no collegial give and take between the opposing sides of the issue, no meeting of the minds, no compromise. If you’re paying someone to represent you in court, that lawyer must present just one side of the case—yours. You want that lawyer to be biased and argue just your position. Evidence is useful only to the extent that it supports a lawyer’s side of the argument. The other side does the same thing from their viewpoint, and a judge or jury decides the relative merits of the two cases.
The concept of double jeopardy (someone can’t be tried twice for the same crime) applies in the domain of lawyers, but there’s no equivalent for scientists. A hypothesis or theory is always provisional, and any conclusion can be revisited or overturned.
The thinking of the scientist contrasted with that of the courtroom lawyer is brainstorming vs. secrecy. It’s forum vs. battleground. It’s searching for the truth vs. presuming one’s correctness. Scientists should be open to changing their minds and backing other hypotheses, while courtroom lawyers are obliged to stick with their position regardless of the arguments on the other side. The courtroom lawyer is forbidden from saying, “Okay, you’ve convinced me, and I’ve changed my mind,” but this happens in science all the time. There’s nothing wrong with this kind of lawyer thinking in its place, but don’t confuse it with scientist thinking.
Our imperfect brains are encumbered with biases such as confirmation bias (noticing only the evidence that confirms what you already believe) or the truth effect (trusting a claim simply because you have heard it many times). These biases make lawyer thinking a natural rut for us to fall into, but it begins with the conclusion rather than following the evidence.
Religious thinking is often like lawyer thinking in that you focus on the good points in your case and ignore any bad ones. But religious thinking can be even more unreliable because it often relies on intuition, tradition, authority, and claims of revelation rather than objective evidence.
We’re all subject to faulty thinking, but catch yourself when you make this natural mistake. Try to set your ego aside and open your mind to new possibilities. Scientist thinking makes the most honest use of the available evidence. Use it to come to the most reliable conclusion.
Continue to chapter 46.
Image credit: Joe Ravi (CC-BY-SA 3.0) via Wikimedia
2-Minute Christianity 
There already was a trial where Jesus shunned violence, voluntarily gave himself up to the authorities, was tried in a formal court, and executed for being a troublemaker.
LikeLike
OK. I’m not sure what your point it.
LikeLike
Exactly! Where do you even mention the thinking of the Roman Empire and its oppression and domination? If you want to do science, then do science. If you want to stand up to the Roman Empire under tyrannical leaders with brutal soldiers, you need something a lot stronger.
The last place anybody should want to find themselves is asking “What is truth” while presiding over the trial of a man like Jesus.
LikeLike
Why? Was Jesus particularly skillful with philosophical questions? I’m not even convinced that he was a real person.
Tyrannical Rome isn’t what I’m interested in discussing.
LikeLike
How can you discuss Christianity without discussing the system of domination (Rome) that it opposed? This is like discussing if we need a military and citing its waste while ignoring the threat of war.
LikeLike
I see no problem. If you do, point it out to me. “You can’t discuss Christianity without discussing Rome” makes no sense to me. Very little of my writing touches on Rome.
LikeLike
Yes, you get the same result with the military. Who needs it and all the massive expenditure if we are at peace and feel no threat? Who needs all that hero mythology that is aimed at getting young men to charge into battle without fear?
2-Minute stories like this about the military are easy and you would have 50 of them in no time detailing how the Confederacy rebelled, and lots of other very messy details. Think of how much better if would be to spend these resources on science? It would be a superior investment if you feel no threat.
LikeLike
This is Big Idea #45, which compares lawyers and scientists. It’s not about Rome or the military.
LikeLike
As you have stated, this is about following the evidence, even if this leads away from a cherished hypothesis. I have offered up a plausible motive which would be acceptable in both a court and in a scientific discussion. Extreme inhumanity and injustice fostered the development of religions that are full of mythology and made up stories. In our modern age people misinterpret these because they do not understand the motivation nor the situation which is the root cause of the contrast you make between a legal environment and a scientific one.
LikeLike
I don’t see a rebuttal to the article. If there is one here, somewhere, you’ll have to point it out to me.
LikeLike
Pingback: 44 Finding Jesus Through Board Games: Christianity Makes No Sense | 2-Minute Christianity