“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it, I see everything else.” -C.S. Lewis
I was recently asked what evidence could falsify the theory of evolution. And later that same week, someone also asked me what evidence could possibly convince me that Christianity was false.
I’d been wanting to write a blog on this issue for some time and so I figured this pair of fortuitously timed questions was close enough to the inspirational introduction I was waiting for, so, here it goes.
To answer the first question, there is no single piece of evidence that could falsify the theory of evolution, or any other scientific theory, for that matter. There is no hypothetical fossil find or failed prediction that would render a scientific theory useless and/or shown false. That’s not how science works. For example, suppose that the theory of evolution predicts that all biological organisms will invest time and resources into their offspring commensurately with the cost of their involvement in the siring of said offspring. Suppose, also, that this prediction is violated by a number of counterexamples. This would not be sufficient to show that evolution is false—nor even that the theory of parental investment is false. A failed prediction could mean that the prediction was not a good one, i.e. it was not really entailed by the theory. A failed prediction could also be evidence that the theory is, itself, is a good one on the whole, but needs to be expanded to incorporate the anomalies (paradigm modifying). So long as the anomalies can eventually be incorporated or explained under the assumptions of the theory, the theory does not need to be abandoned. However, there are times when the anomalies cannot be explained by the theory—and then new anomalies appear that strain the explanatory abilities of the theory.
This is what the historian and philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, referred to as the “paradigm shift” in scientific progress. When a scientific theory begins to strain under the burden of anomalies—data, observations, etc. that cannot be easily explained by theory—then that theory becomes a theory in crisis. When a new theory appears that can explain both the old theory’s assumptions in addition to the anomalies, then a paradigm shift can take place. The paradigm shift is essentially a switching of frameworks through which data can and will be interpreted. The paradigm shift means that evidence is now interpreted in light of new assumptions and a new framework—this leads to new predictions and, hopefully, more fruitful scientific endeavors. Some important paradigm shifts in the history of science include the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution.
Now, what has all this to do with religious conversion?
Well, it seems to me that conversion and deconversion operate similarly to paradigm shifts in science. There is (usually) no single piece of evidence—no single argument, observation, experience, etc.—that makes someone convert into, or deconvert out of, religious belief. This is because we always interpret evidence in light of our background assumptions. If I’m really convinced that there is no supernatural realm and I’m presented with some evidence of an alleged supernatural occurrence, then I will interpret the evidence in light of my background assumptions or “paradigm” and conclude that the evidence is not good and/or the individual conveying the evidence is not trustworthy or is a motivated reasoner or any number of other explanations. Evidence is not and can never be interpreted in a vacuum. Does this mean that conversion and deconversion are impossible?
Of course not. We see them happening all the time.
The point, here, is merely that people do not make decisions in a “one and done” fashion. Our paradigms—the lenses through which we view the world—are formed by countless observations, judgments, experiences, etc. A lot of times, our paradigms are formed by a-rational and even irrational features of the world. Why is it that two people can undergo the same tragedy and one can come out of it a more resilient believer than ever while the other completely loses their faith? Well, it’s possible that they underwent the experience from the perspectives of two different paradigms and, as a result, “interpreted” the evidence very differently.
In order for the theory of evolution to be abandoned there must be lots and lots of anomalies that cannot be easily explained, and there must also be a rival theory that can do the job better than the current one. Until that happens, the current theory will not be discarded. In the same way, people will not convert or deconvert simply because of some acknowledged incongruity between their worldview and the world—there needs to be more. More anomalies. More failed predictions. More existential unease, even. And there needs to be another rival option that purports to explain the anomalies and alleviate the existential unease better than the current one does. Until then, the paradigm probably won’t shift—conversion or deconversion won’t happen.
What then shall we say about the commensurability of religious paradigms? And what does this mean for the culpability of belief and nonbelief? I’m not sure, but I think this way of looking at things is useful if for no other reason than it lets us use the word “paradigm” a lot more often in normal conversations.