As a detective, I have an interesting job. I have to enter the crime scene and assess the evidence in front of me: is this a natural death or a homicide? If it's a homicide, which suspect best explains the evidence at the scene? While there may be a number of potential suspects that account for some or most of the evidence we see, one suspect will usually emerge as the "best" in that he or she most completely (and most reasonably) explains the evidence. This suspect simply makes the most sense of what I am seeing. I then "infer", from the fact that this suspect provides the best explanation (given the evidence) that the suspect is, in fact, the true killer. This process of "inferring to the best explanation" is sometimes called "abduction". I understand the importance of examining a number of potential solutions (suspects) and carefully assessing which of these solutions best explains the evidence. When I utilize the process of abduction, I end up with an explanation that is simple and coherent and adequately explains the evidence in question. Is it "possible" that I might have the wrong suspect? Sure, especially if I grant that anything and everything is possible. But is it "reasonable" to believe that someone else committed this crime when my final suspect accounts for all the evidence at the crime scene? No. And that's the beauty of utilizing abduction in this manner. I arrive at a place of "evidential sufficiency" and I'm able to make sense of what I am seeing. (MP3 Audio | RSS | iTunes)
Detectives aren't the only people who employ abductive reasoning to make sense of their environment. All of us want to make sense of our world. As a result, each of us holds a view of the world (something we refer to as "worldview") that attempts to explain the situation we find ourselves in. That's fair; all of us observe the world around us and begin to think about potential explanations for what we are seeing. We then find ourselves offering the most reasonable explanation that would, if true, explain the evidence we have in front of us. We are "inferring to the best explanation"; employing the process of "abduction".
The longer we live, the more we recognize life's "big questions". These questions beg to be answered and have motivated theologians, philosophers and scientists to explore and investigate their world. Every one of us develops a particular worldview in order to explain the reality of our lives and answer life’s most important questions. Along the way we make a decision between two potential realities: a world in which only natural forces are at work (an atheistic worldview known as Philosophical Naturalism) or a world in which supernatural forces are at work in addition to natural forces (as represented by Theistic Worldviews). Given these two possibilities, "abductive reasoning" can help us to decide which view best explains the reality in which we live. I hold a theistic worldview because I believe it best explains the world around me, and it does so in a way that simply cannot be equaled by the philosophical naturalism inherent to atheism. In the ten most intriguing and important questions that can be asked by humans, Christian theism continues to offer the best explanation, especially when compared to philosophical naturalism:
- How Did the Universe Come Into Being?
- Why Does There Appear to Be Design (Fine Tuning) in the Universe?
- How Did Life Originate?
- Why Does There Appear to Be Evidence of Intelligence in Biology?
- How Did Human Consciousness Come Into Being?
- Where Does Free Will Come From?
- Why Are Humans So Contradictory in Nature?
- Why Do Transcendent Moral Truths Exist?
- Why Do We Believe Human Life to be Precious?
- Why Does Pain, Evil and Injustice Exist in Our World?
Finally, it's important for us to recognize that no solution will explain the evidence completely (without leaving some limited number of unanswered questions). I've never worked a homicide case, nor presented a case in front of a jury, that didn't have some unanswered question. But this cannot prevent us from moving toward a decision, and it has never prevented a jury from coming to a verdict. We've got to understand that "certainty" can reasonably emerge from what I call "evidential sufficiency". At some point, the evidence is sufficient to cause us to believe that our hypothesis is the true explanation for the evidence under consideration. We cannot expect that every question will be answered, but the hypothesis that explains the evidence the most powerfully, the most exhaustively and the most consistently must sufficiently satisfy our need for certainty. This is the case with the Christian Worldview in light of the ten big pieces of evidence "in the room". The Christian Worldview is the best explanation.
25 comments :
Jim,
Thanks for an interesting post. I and I guess millions of others find your work fascinating. I say millions of others because of the popularity of such shows as CSI ; Criminal Minds ; The First 48 , and so on.
It seems to me, though, that you have a contradiction between the way you practice homicide investigations and the way you choose the best worldview option. Relating to homicide investigations, you say: Is it "possible" that I might have the wrong suspect? Sure, especially if I grant that anything and everything is possible . When you investigate a crime, do you assume there is always a naturalistic explanation? I think you do. But what if you came to the investigation thinking that a demon or the angel of the Lord or God himself killed the individual? What if you had been investigating the homicides Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5? Or one of the Egyptian firstborn in Exodus 12? Sherlock Holmes is famous for the statement: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Since in your worldview, a supernatural explanation is not impossible, do you take that into account in your investigations?
In choosing worldviews you say: we make a decision between two potential realities: a world in which only natural forces are at work (an atheistic worldview known as Philosophical Naturalism) or a world in which supernatural forces are at work in addition to natural forces (as represented by Theistic Worldviews).... I hold a theistic worldview because I believe it best explains the world around me. Why do you give up on naturalism, even though you use it in your homicide work, when it comes to an overarching worldview?
You say that a theistic worldview best explains the 10 big questions of life. I would like to have seen your explanations of these based on your theistic worldview because I happen to believe that naturalism has a better explanation of each or at least one without as many internal contradictions as the Christian theistic worldview has.
Ken:
I fail to see the "contradiction" here. Simply because one suggests supernatural means may lie behind empirical phenomena does not rule out en toto natural means as well. In other words, Aristotle, as you well know, viewed mutltiple causes (4 to be exact) to any given effect. How is it a contradiction to hold to the existence of God as an ultimate cause (read "explanation") while acknowledging other natural means in the causal chain?
I agree with Paul, but might put a different spin on it. When Jim sees a scene, he considers that is may be a murder or a natural death. If it is a natural death, then no further action is taken, it is merely the result of a natural process. However, if there appears to be some cogent, reasonable mind, then they look for someone behind the murder. They do not find a body with multiple stab wounds and think that an earthquake caused the knife drawer to open, a knife fell onto the floor, the knife bounced along the floor, and then the earthquake caused the knife to bounce in and out of a person's body.
I am not attempting to be facetious with this example, but believe this is truer to the analogy Mr. Wallace was attempting to communicating. I share the same critique as Ken, it would nice to see how Mr. Wallace believes theism answers the 10 questions, but this format is too short for that, it would appear.
Correct me if I am wrong (and just to piggyback off the other comments), but I think Jim's analogy focuses on event vs. agent causation. If we were to investigate a death we would ask, "Did the man die naturally (event causation) or was he murdered (agent causation)?" By the same token, when we look at the big questions in life (How Did the Universe Come Into Being? How Did Life Originate? etc.) we can ask the same question. Are these things best explained by natural causes or agent causes?
When it comes to the big questions in life, I think J.P. Moreland correctly points out that the bias of the Christian theist makes him more open-minded at this point. Not only can the theist look for natural causes but agent causes as well. In other words, his bias actually makes him more open-minded allowing him to follow the evidence where it leads. Unfortunately, the naturalist at this point must look for natural causes only (since he has rejected the supernatural a priori), making him more close-minded and less likely to discover truth.
Aaron,
I hesitate to reply because I wanted to hear from Jim first but here is my problem with your assessment. If an agent caused the homicide, according to Jim's worldview, it could be a supernatural agent. I am asking if he ever takes that into consideration when investigating a murder. I would bet that he does not.
As for nonbelievers rejecting the supernatural a priori , some may do that but I do not. I am an agnostic atheist. I am open to the possiblity of super or supra natural forces but I would require very strong evidence to believe it or they really exist.
Paul,
According to Scripture, there are cases where supernatural entities cause the death of a human being directly apparently without using natural means.
Unless one a priori assumes that supernatural agents cannot cause the death of a human except by utilizing natural means, then it seems that this ought to be part of a homicide investigation by one who believes in the supernatural.
First thing:
It seems to me that there would only be one reason for Jim to conclude a strictly supernatural cause of a death, that cannot be attributed to natural means: a crime scene was consistent with a murder, except for the fact that all entrances to the scene were still sealed and locked from the inside. This would definitely establish that something out of the ordinary happened. After concluding that no remote detonation devices were present (that could penetrate the walls, Jim would probably then investigate the victim's social life (search for possible connection to the occult).
My point is that it would take an extremely odd set of circumstances that would cause a CSI to come to the conclusion of a supernatural cause for a death. I think that Jim's worldview is definitely on his mind while investigating cold cases. However, unless the evidence points him that direction, he's not going to posit it as a reasonable explanation. Investigators are going to search for a natural explanation before they search for a supernatural explanation.
Second thing:
Scientific Naturalism can only answer "how" questions (3/10 above); it can never answer "why" questions (6/10 above). "Why" presupposes a teleology or purpose. A purpose requires a purposer. If someone is to say that science can test for the existence of a purposer, then they have just legitimized Intelligent Design as a science. However, if they don't want to legitimized ID as science, then they must accept the limitation that they are unable to answer the "why" questions (they must hold that "why" questions are nonsensical). This forces the Scientific Naturalist to be content with only answering the "how" questions, and leaving the "why" questions to those who can test for a purposer. In Brian's interview with Mike Licona yesterday, Mike had mentioned that a bonus criteria he uses to build a case for the accuracy of an explanation is the criteria of "illumination". When someone is able to posit a specific Purposer, the bonus criteria of "illumination" can be capitalized.
Having a mind that is open to the supernatural provides the person with much more explanatory power in his worldview.
The claim that Scientific Naturalism can answer all 10 of Jim's questions better than theism (or at all) contradicts the worldview itself.
Ken,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Of course, Scripture too contends that God uses natural means to accomplish his purposes.
"This man [Jesus] was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross."
Thus, God may directly intervene or indirectly intervene. Regardless, I would contend that where natural causation alone is the sole means whereby an event instantiates is mere question begging, at the end of the day.
Ken:
Apologies..."inchristus" = "Paul."
Ken,
As others have pointed out, you are making too much of Jim's claim. The choice in his investigative work is not between natural causes and supernatural causes. It is between event causation and agent causation. Was the victim's death attributable to a series of natural events or to an agent's decision?
On the cosmological question, the same logic applies. Is the origin of the universe better attributed to an event that was the result of some natural chain of other events or is it more reasonably attributable to agent causation?
Since "nature" did not exist prior to the origin of the universe, it seems illogical to conclude that the first "natural event" caused itself. But something had to cause the change of state that occurred from nothing existing to everything existing. Agent causation fits this well. A mind seems to be the only logical explanation for such a change.
In this case the mind in question cannot have been a part of the physical universe (because that universe did not yet exist), hence it must be an other-than-natural mind -- supernatural mind.
The investigator at a crime scene can still identify agent causation for some event without being forced to rely on a supernatural cause. But the process is still the same. The only difference is that the cosmological question CANNOT be answered by a natural cause.
Jim,
Very well written essay and I especially liked the closing paragraph. Nice job highlighting the concept of evidential sufficiency.
Keep up the good work!
Godspeed
Luke, you said: unless the evidence points him that direction, he's not going to posit it as a reasonable explanation. Investigators are going to search for a natural explanation before they search for a supernatural explanation. I agree that should be our methodology when it comes to all things not just homicide investigations. We should look for natural explanations first. We should not be too quick to say God did it for anything that we can't explain. I am sure that some of Jim's cases go unsolved. Sometimes there is just not enough evidence to make a definitive conclusion (hence I am an agnostic atheist).
Av8torBob, you said: On the cosmological question, the same logic applies. Is the origin of the universe better attributed to an event that was the result of some natural chain of other events or is it more reasonably attributable to agent causation? I don't think we can compare the theory of origins to a homicide investigation. The nature of the evidence is drastically different. I think it would be more analogous if we asked Jim to investigate a homicide that was committed eons ago and all we have is a very limited amount of evidence. Chances are, he would not be able to come to a definitive conclusion. It seems to me that Christians are too anxious to have every question solved and so, they will insert God into the equation in order to do so.
You also said: Since "nature" did not exist prior to the origin of the universe, it seems illogical to conclude that the first "natural event" caused itself. But something had to cause the change of state that occurred from nothing existing to everything existing. Agent causation fits this well. But we don't know that there was "nothing" out of which "something" came. We don't know what existed prior to the big bang. It is possible that the universe is eternal.
Finally, you said: the cosmological question CANNOT be answered by a natural cause. How can you be so dogmatic? Do you really think you have enough information to make such a definitive statement?
Well Ken ... I don't think it's being "dogmatic" to say either that the universe is not eternal or that a natural cause does not fit. Both of these are not consistent with the scientific and philosophical evidence we have regarding the nature of the universe.
Modern science (re: Big Bang cosmology and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) tells us that the universe must have had a beginning in the finite past. Likewise, philosophy tells us that we cannot have an actual infinite number of moments in time prior to the present. The clear inference from both is that the universe began to exist,.
Your assertion that we only have a "limited amount of evidence" is just factually incorrect. We have quite a bit of evidence for both of these and it points DIRECTLY to a cause outside the universe itself.
My contention is that the inferred cause cannot be part of the universe and is therefore, by definition, SUPERnatural. Likewise, it does not seem coherent to say that the cause is natural because the effect we are talking about is nature itself.
In conclusion, I did NOT "insert God into the equation." The evidence tells me that the the cause is an enormously powerful, personal agent that resides outside of nature. That this cause happens to be perfectly consistent with the Biblical definition of God is simply an inference to the best explanation of the evidence we have.
Do you have a better one?
Av8torBob,
I am not dogmatic about the universe being eternal. I am saying that we don't know what preceded the big bang. Stephen Hawking has himself said that he was wrong about a "singularity."
As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that law and all the others apply to the universe that exists since the big bang. What laws might have been applicable prior to this, no one knows.
I would agree that nothing in our existing universe tells us how this universe came to be but as I mentioned above, we don't know what preceded this universe or even if this universe is all that there is (some scientists believe in multi-verses). My point is that we just don't know.
Your hypothesis that a supernatural agent created the universe is possible but I don't think there is enough evidence to conclusively determine that. One of man's problems is that he is not willing to suspend judgment; he wants to know and he wants to know right now. Thus, in my opinion, the ancient beliefs that a god created the world.
Thanks everyone for joining in on the conversation here. Sorry to take so long getting into the mix, I've been buried this week. Yes the analogy is all about agent vs. event causation and, like all analogies, there are limits. The analogy is narrowly focused on this issue, and as such, I do believe it has the power to explain my approach to these issues. Of course this short abbreviated article doesn't truly do justice to the entire analysis of the ten pieces of evidence. In fact, it doesn't begin to do any analysis at all! But the extended version of the article is available at the PCM website:
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/The_Christian_Worldview_is_the_Best_Explanation
Hope that helps! The issue of whether or not I would consider supernatural forces in the investigation of the homicide is more theological than evidential for me as a Christian detective. I would certainly entertain the Biblical notion that people can be (and often are) guided by evil spirits when they engage in such atrocious behavior, but the end result is still an issue of analyzing agent (albeit spiritually guided) causation vs. event causation. Does that make sense?
Hi Jim,
Buried is an interesting metaphor for a homicide detective to use! :-)
You say: I would certainly entertain the Biblical notion that people can be (and often are) guided by evil spirits when they engage in such atrocious behavior, but the end result is still an issue of analyzing agent (albeit spiritually guided) causation vs. event causation . But based on your worldview, you must hold that at times in history God acted without human agents in causing death. For example, the death of the Egyptian first-born and the case of Annanais and Sapphira. If you had been the head investigator for either of those two cases, what do you think you would have concluded?
If, God acted that way in the past, how can you rule out the possibility he may now?
It seems that when you investigate a homicide you are working under a naturalistic worldview and when you look at the universe, man, ultimate questions, etc., you forsake your naturalism.
Jim,
I wonder if you or any of the other readers here have seen the recent film, Sherlock Holmes starring Robert Downey, Jr.? In the film, it appears that Lord Blackmore has been raised from the dead. There is even an eyewitness who sees him walking out of the graveyard. Most of the police are scared out of their wits but Sherlock Holmes proceeds on the basis of a natural explanation. Comments?
Ken
Yes you are correct in saying that God has acted in the past to create deaths without a human agent. If I encounter a homicide in which there is no murder weapon (or evidence of human intervention), such as was the case in the example you cited, I would certainly (as a Christian) be open to the explanation. But that is not the case in my investigations. In my work, I am investigating homicides that involve the use of a variety of human weaponry. For this reason, it is "reasonable" for me to pursue human explanations (related to agent causation) before I move to other possibilities.
That's why I said this may be a case of theological presupposition rather than evidential presupposition. Biblical examples of God's intevention to directly cause the death of any person or people group simply don't exhibit the evidence of human intervention that I typically see.
Hope that helps.
Hi Ken, good thoughts! Just wanted to add something really quick.
I do think that your objection has some force, and I understand it to mean this:
If you are investigating a homicide scene and there seems to be evidence which might/(could) lead towards a supernatural explanation, are you to hold to scientific materialism and just remain agnostic about it when no other credible explanations are available, or are you to just go with what the evidence could be pointing towards and say "God did it". The detective who investigates a scene and follows the available evidence to the conclusion "God did it" would inevitably look pretty unintelligent to others. He would be accused of "giving up on naturalism" as an explanation.
Ourselves being in a similar situation, in a universe with tentative evidence for God, are we to "give up on naturalism" and posit it to God, or are we to remain agnostic about it, as you have? I would assume that you are of the opinion that we should remain agnostic about it until there is absolute evidence.
The problem is, we are dealing with things on two very different levels. While Jim might hold a skeptical view towards a supernatural explanation for a murder, even while holding his Christian worldview, this is for theological and experiential reasons.
For theological reasons, we as Christians understand that God has created the earth ("The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it"- Ps. 24), and uses nature to accomplish His will a great deal more often than supernatural causes, the purpose of supernatural causes being to give signs to humans or to raise the Son of God from the dead. It makes sense that God would supernaturally create a world in which he would have to perform less miracles to accomplish His will than to create a world where He had to continually do miracles to keep everything going as He willed it, in interest of plain common sense and human free will. In light of this, and because of plain experience, even Christians should be skeptical of supernatural explanations for every day events unless convinced otherwise. The difference is, Christians are more open to it because it fits into their worldview.
However, when it comes to space/time, the uni/multiverse, reality itself, having not observed in everyday life universes coming into existence, one has to be a lot more open to the supernatural- especially as was afore-mentioned about "nature" itself coming into existence.
I'm certainly not saying that it should be the first item on the list, as the natural explanation is to be searched for first, always. One cannot be at fault for "giving up on naturalism" when it is realized that our very universe and the space/time fabric we exist in is in fact contingent and cannot be taken as the ultimate reality. In light of independent evidence for the existence for God such as the resurrection of Jesus, fulfilled prophecy, Objective Morale values, the existence of huge amounts of information in biological life, the actual Fine tuning of the Universe, etc, one cannot be labeled as "giving up on naturalism" but rather "losing faith in naturalism", in order to embrace a worldview which possesses much more explanatory power, even in the face of the advances of science.
This is where I believe the objection breaks down a bit. I certainly see your point though!!
Peace to you
Evan
Evan,
thanks for your reply. You said: One cannot be at fault for "giving up on naturalism" when it is realized that our very universe and the space/time fabric we exist in is in fact contingent and cannot be taken as the ultimate reality.
But that is the very thing that we don't know. We know that the universe as it presently exists had a beginning and will end but we don't know (1) what preceded the big bang; and (2) we don't know that this universe is all that there is, there could be multiverses. That is why I think its being hasty to insist that the only explanation has to be a supernatural one.
You also say: In light of independent evidence for the existence for God such as the resurrection of Jesus, fulfilled prophecy, Objective Morale values, the existence of huge amounts of information in biological life, the actual Fine tuning of the Universe, etc, one cannot be labeled as "giving up on naturalism" but rather "losing faith in naturalism", in order to embrace a worldview which possesses much more explanatory power, even in the face of the advances of science.
But I don't accept any of those as having any real cogency. Obviously, I cannot deal with each of them in this comment section but I have thought about each one and more and find them all lacking.
Thanks Ken, that's understood.
Basically what I believe about the big bang and infer from it is what you've conceded. I have no problem with a multi-verse existing, even though there's no evidence for it, but only a probability. It may reduce the effect of the argument from fine tuning for a multiverse to exist, but a multiverse full of "verses" that began at a certain point only further begs the question "What/Who caused all of the "verses" in the multiverse?" After all I don't believe it could be something to do with quantum mechanics, because quantum mechanics exists within a vacuum, or, time and space, and the big bang was the beginning of time and space. But, that begs all kinds of other questions which I have absolutely no ability to answer. I'm not of the position that the big bang is absolute, unquestionable evidence for the existence of God, but that if you consider the possibility of God existing, it certainly has a way of tentatively pointing straight at a deity. I think the Christian worldview is based more on a cumulative case, or "The Best Explanation" kind of belief. Although every evidence is not 100% ABSOLUTE evidence, there are a huge amount of very compelling proofs which point towards it.
Not that "possible" explanations cannot be offered for each singular proof otherwise. It's simply a question of whether all these proofs can be adequately explained away, and also the question of why all of these clues towards God's existence would be here in the first place if there really is no God.
If none of the other arguments are rationally compelling to you, then the Kalam Cosmological Argument can easily slip into that category of not "absolute" evidence, so I understand your position in light of that!
Thanks for the dialogue!
Evan,
Thanks for the reply. I agree that the big bang and the cosmological argument could be seen to fit within the Christian worldview. However, it could be made to fit within the Muslim worldview as well. Actually as you know, the Kalaam version of the cosmological argument was formulated by Muslims.
I think that we just don't know enough about the universe and its beginning (assuming it had one) to make any kind of definitive conclusion.
Hey Ken!
Oh, and I agree! The Kalam Cosmological Argument fits quite well with the Muslim worldview and the Christian world view, because both say there is a God! Whether it fits into an atheistic worldview is a more begging question.
And I agree with you that we cannot make a definitive conclusion about the universe.. heck, according to some philosophers I can't come to a conclusion on anything, since I cant trust my cognitive faculties or my senses because they don't give me a direct experience :) But, that aside, I don't think you're going to come to any worldview with a positive claim unless there is a cumulative case for it. I honestly believe anything and everything, despite how obvious it is, can be rationally avoided, otherwise people wouldn't disagree about so much stuff.
peace to you!
Not sure I should chime in on this as I am still learning quite a bit about all of this but...
Ken,
I agree that we don't know how the universe started or have any real agent cause evidence to define that. It pretty much leaves it open I think.
Something I guess we should consider in all of this that I haven't seen mentioned is if the claims that Jesus made are true.
If Jesus claims can have enough evidence to show that he was who he claimed to be, meaning the son of God, then that would give us a reason to believe that God exists and that in turn should open the door to the idea that the universe was created by God.
It seems that looking at the historical evidence of Jesus' life on earth, the change in the apostles lives after claiming to see Jesus raised from the dead could bring validity to Jesus' claims.
The number of prophesies that can be linked to Jesus. Even if they are just the ones he couldn't control should give reason to believe he was the one the old testament was describing which in turn could mean he was who he claimed.
Or even the events in the Old Testament such as the flood could also show that the stories in the bible are true and could infer that the rest of what was written could be sound.
God would then exist based on association through Jesus and the historical evidence we do have.
Please poke holes in this as much as possible. I'm still learning and would like to see the flaws in my thinking.
God bless.
Nice
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.