Inference

When Christians are asked to provide a proof of the existence of God, or of the resurrection, it is a common response to use some version of the explanation "It doesn't work like that. Proof is actually a form of compulsion, that there is no possible other explanation and one simply must accept Explanation A. It is better to use what is called inference to best explanation." I will develop that no further. Others have done it better than I ever will.

I will allow that I have an initial sympathy with those who find this unsatisfying. It does have the sound of being evasive. "Well, you haven't got a proof, so you're sidestepping into some sort of second- or third-best approach instead." I don't think that argument is sustainable.  I think it is itself an evasion, because even those who use it revert immediately to inference to best explanation for everything esle they do, without noticing or acknowledging it. Yet people with OCD or Aspergerer's or a rather strict sense of laying everything out in the most provable possible sense do see why it at least seems like an evasion at first.  I would only say "Hold that thought and follow it further."

My intent here is to speak directly to the Christians about this state of affairs. Many of us would love to have a proof.  We would earnestly desire to have that level of no-escape surety, to be in effect compelled to believe because there was simply nothing else that could make it to the table. I think we miss why God runs things that way. He runs it that way because it accords with reality. If we had proof that God existed, we would without drawing another breath want a proof of exactly what sort he is, in finer and finer detail.  We would want proof that we were called to be an evangelist and want to know whether we should speak or write? To speak to crowds or to individuals? To preach revival in Memphis or in Nashville? To start the crusade at 7PM or 7:30PM? It is not only that we would be spoiled and childish, not developing any faith about it, which is the usual explanation given. It is that once one proof was given, of anything, we would never be quite sure of anything unproven ever again. And why would we not? If God proved one thing because it was so important, then why not the next thing as well?  What would be a possible reason for God not to prove himself over and over to the smallest detail?

We are given inference to best explanation as our starting point because it is also going to be our ending point and every point in between. In creating a psychiatric diagnosis, we look at the possibilities and try to fit the patients words and actions into one slot after another, hoping to find the closest fit. There are no glass slippers. Nor are there glass slippers in other parts of life.  Even the best possible matches have some downsides, some questions, some exceptions.