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