Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2010                                                            by Liza M

A few weeks ago I got a jury duty summons and like some of you closet-jury-duty-lovers I have something to confess: I actually do like jury duty and hope every time I go to get picked. There is just something about hearing and seeing convincing evidence that really interests me. Actually, one of the reasons I have begun to love teaching reading is because I require that the students show me proof for why they picked a certain answer. It’s just exciting to see them play detective and for me to pretend I’m a judge or a juror. 

Anyhow, today, the day I had been waiting for finally came, so I happily headed off to do my American duty. During the voir dire or time that the lawyers ask questions to get to know the prospective panel they also explain a few things that help us understand how the law works. They said many interesting things, but the ones that stood out to me was the differences between the burden of proof  in different trial settings. I was surprised to know that there was a difference in the amount of proof needed in different trial courts. 

For example: during a civil trial the defendant can be convicted if there is a “preponderance” of evidence against him or her. That means that there was more than a 50% chance that the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injury by negligence.  

However, during a family court trial in which the state want to terminate parental rights there needs to be “clear and convincing evidence” in order to be able to take action. That means that the state’s evidence has shown about an 80% chance that what they are accusing is true and that alone is enough to take a child away from negligent parents. 

As the defense attorney made very clear to us, in a criminal trial the burden of proof is upon the prosecutor and the evidence that warrants a guilty verdict is convincing beyond a reasonable doubt (or 98-99%).  

After this was explained the prosecutor then asked “Is anyone going to hold me to a higher standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt? Anything higher than that would mean that you saw the actual crime and if that is the case you would not be here as a juror but as a witness. It’s like buying a used car” she continued, “you check it thoroughly and buy it because you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it will be a good car. You can’t know with 100% certainty.” 

Since this was a criminal case involving animal cruelty, the jurors would have to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that the man did in fact commit the crime.

This discussion made me begin to think about the evidence there is for the assertion that Jesus Christ is in fact God. I want to share one argument with you and would like to for you to decide on a verdict (guilty- He is God or not guilty – he is not God) based on this one argument. 

When Jesus died on the cross, the Gospels clearly narrate that his disciple were terrified and hiding from the authorities because their ringleader had just been put to death. Jesus’s death was not what they had been expecting. They thought that Jesus would establish His kingdom on earth and that they would reign with Him at that time. This is why the disciples would argue about who was greatest in the kingdom, and also why John and Andrews’s mother had asked for special positions when Jesus came into His kingdom.

This reason explains one reason why the disciples were completely shattered, disappointed, and crestfallen when Jesus was murdered. How then can we explain the complete turnaround the disciples had as soon as they discovered the empty tomb and saw the risen Savior other than they really did see Him alive? Think about it, about 500 people saw him alive, all of this after they had seen him dead and buried! Not only did they lose their fear, but history shows all 12 disciples were killed because they believed and taught Jesus’s resurrection with a conviction that only comes from having been an eyewitness. 

To recap, the disciples saw Jesus die and saw Him in His risen body. Jesus had foretold that one of the miracles attesting to his deity would be His resurrection after 3 days. So convinced were the disciples that the resurrection did indeed take place, that they gave up their lives for it. Based on this one argument (there are many more) would you say there is a possibility that Jesus’s claims to be God can be true beyond a reasonable doubt? 

Sadly, I did not get picked for jury duty, so I went home and took a nap!  :)

   Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2010                                                         by Liza M

Like I said last time, when I first began hearing words such as, “How do you know there is a God?” it totally blew me out of the water! I knew that some people didn’t believe in God and that they were called atheist, but here at Indaphatfarm on the message boards was truly the first time I read those words from a real person, and I didn’t know what to say.

Additionally, at that time I had begun to attend college after graduating from a Christian school and one of the first things I noticed is that while everyone had differing worldviews and religions, everyone was at the same time correct. What I mean is that if I shared my faith with someone they would in turn share theirs with me and end the conversation with, “Well if that works for you that is great for you! That is not for me though because my own religion works just fine for me.”There was not much hostility to the Christian faith per se. It was more like a very nice form of tolerance and acceptance. Frankly, I liked it.

The only nagging problem I had with it is that it didn’t make sense to me. “How can it be,” I wondered, “that we can believe in opposing ideas (Jesus is the only way to God vs Mohammad being a greater prophet than Jesus) and we all be correct?”

This question is answered in the first chapter of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and I will share that with you.

The first point Norman Geisler and Frank Turek make is that, “we demand truth in virtually every area of our lives” (p 36) and I think we can all relate to the following scenarios. For example, if we are going to buy a car we make sure to research as much as possible to ensure we are receiving a good quality car and a great deal. Another case in point is when we are choosing a life partner. We get to know that person as well as possible so that we (hopefully) don’t end up with some very unpleasant surprises after tying the knot. On the lower end of the spectrum is that as a teacher, I demand that my students know that 2 +2 does in fact equal 4 and therefore I refuse to accept any other answer. The list can go on, but the point is that we are diligent to find the truth in every aspect of life, and yet the hunt for truth comes to a screeching halt when we hit the topic of religion and morality.

Some say that there is no absolute truth in religion and morality, therefore everyone must be right. These same people would never dream of saying “everyone must be right” in other aspects of life (the above-mentioned for example), yet they apply this logic to religion and morality. What Geisler and Turek argue is that people reject religious and moral truth, not for intellectual reasons, but for volitional ones, i.e. an aversion to accountability to an absolute moral and religious standard.

An example of believing what you want based on volitional reasons is when I had a high school student who really gave me a hard time when I began to long-term substitute teach in his class. On my first day there I asked him to sit down and he basically said “Make me.” Flustered I threatened to send him to the principal’s office and he told me, “Well if you are going to threaten me do it with a gun or a knife because I’m not scared of you or the principal.”, needless to say it took some maneuvering to get to know him, but after some time (after he told me he was the devil) we got past starting on the wrong foot and actually developed a great teacher-student relationship.

During that time the topic of religion came up and when I asked him what he believed he said, “Well I just made up my own religion. I don’t believe there is a hell…” (he went on to  explain his whole self-made religion). After listening to him for a while I asked him what proof he had that his religion was true and he said, “I don’t have any proof. That is just what I want to believe. I guess I’ll find out if I’m right out after I die.” To this I replied, “Well, don’t you think you should be sure before you die because there is the chance that you could be wrong and then you’ll be stuck forever?” By just looking at his face I knew that he had never considered that possibility. He told me, “You are right. I do need to make sure that what I’m saying is true.” I knew from my experiences with this student that he wanted to be able to live by his own rules, and that the decision to make his own religion came from the desire to be able to do so, not for intellectual reasons.

In conclusion, the points from the book I have unpacked are:

a.        not all moral truths can be right, and that

b.       people reject the notion of absolute truth because it lets them live the way they want without fear of repercussion.

Next time we will after having established that we all demand truth, I will address these four questions.:

What is truth?

Can truth be known?

Can truth about God be known?

So what? Who cares about truth? 

We love truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us. ~ Augustine