Fact Hunt

Introduction
There are numerous entries in this blog where I have had to explain the meaning of words such as evidence, hypothesis and theory. But it doesn't matter how many times we discuss it, apologists and creationists in particular, can't (or won't) see a difference. Here are three examples:

Believing a hypothesis is a fact

Confusing evidence with theory

Failure to understand verification

This time a Creationist fails to understand what a fact is. Or to be precise, uses the old dodge of playing one definition of a word against a different definition of the same word. The debate was prompted by my assertion that religious leaders and apologists often present opinion as if it is fact. It's rare to find a religious preacher or apologist who doesn't claim that stories in the bible, the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, etc. are truth.  So let's look at the Creationist fact hunt...

1 Definition

My definition of fact comes from the OED.  "A thing that is known or proven to be true."

This definition is strict and that's why I like it. Consequently there are much fewer facts in my worldview than most especially the religious worldview where opinion qualifies as fact and evidence can be anything. When a creationist asked me to give an example of something that is known I responded with "7 is a prime number."

A fact does not require faith (that's why it is a fact). Faith is required to believe that a hypothesis or theory is a fact. Hence the need for faith in religion.

2 Facts don't change

...unless that's how you define "fact"!

Let's look at examples.

2.1 "Sirius is the brightest star." This is a fact but only if we assume a few things. To be precise, it is the brightest star seen in the sky from earth today. That second statement feels too long so we don't say it, but we know that's what the first statement means. It would be pedantic to use the second statement. Sirius is not the brightest star in the universe - it just appears to be the brightest star to us because of its luminosity and proximity.

A star which is faint today could go supernova next week. So next week, Sirius is not the brightest star. So one could argue that the fact "Sirius is the brightest star" has changed. But it's only changed because our original statement of the fact was a bit lazy.

2.2 Scientific fact. Some scientists or scientific institutions define fact as an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.  So it seems a fact can change - but only if the definition of fact says it can be changed! In my opinion a fact which can change is not a fact - it's a theory.

3 Facts and Apologetics

3.1 Opinion stated as fact

I once said to a Creationist that Apologists tend to make up their own facts, specifically they present opinion as fact. This particular Creationist cited William Lane Craig as a model Apologist so here is an example of WLC in action where he lists what he calls "facts" about the resurrection of Jesus.  He begins by stating that

"We may be surprised to learn that the majority of New Testament critics investigating the gospels in this way accept the central facts undergirding the resurrection of Jesus. I want to emphasize that I am not talking about evangelical or conservative scholars only, but about the broad spectrum of New Testament critics who teach at secular universities and non-evangelical seminaries. Amazing as it may seem, most of them have come to regard as historical the basic facts which support the resurrection of Jesus."

Well yes, all of that would be surprising and amazing if it was true, but it isn't. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that was just an opinion. He then continues with a list of what he claims are "facts"... 

"FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea"

This is not a fact - it is not known to be true. It is a fact that the Bible says Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, but we have no way of knowing if that actually happened. 

Craig continues his list of "facts" in the same vein by extracting passages from the Gosdpels and simply asserting they are fact. It's clear that in his opinion, Jesus was resurrected as described in the Gospels. That is his belief and that's what Christians are taught. But it is not a fact, unless fact is defined as something which is believed to be true.

3.2 Theory stated as fact

A Christian Apologist claims a video clip contains “Another spot on insight from Dr. William Lane Craig”. But what it actually does is demonstrate that WLC doesn’t know the difference between a fact and a theory and relies on fallacies to make his point.  

The clip is titled “Relativism Refutes Itself” and you can find it here …  

The clip begins with a question from a member of the audience: 

“Working with college students a good bit of college students would say "you know, that's true for you but it's not true for me" just the relative how would you address that kind of, what kind of conversation would you have with a student who really believes in relativism?” 

Here’s WLC’s reply 

	William Lane Craig says…	I say…
1	Yeah, I guess I would begin to press that student about whether he doesn’t think that there are any objective truths	But that’s not the argument made by our hypothetical student. There was no suggestion the student was claiming there were no objective truths. Craig’s attempt to show that relativism is self refuting is to invent a straw man - a concept of “blanket relativism” as he calls it, which he then refutes. The straw man ends on line 6.
2	because if he thinks that, that statement is self-refuting, is it objectively true, that there are no objective truths? Or is that just your opinion?	But maybe he doesn’t think that. Moral relativism doesn’t require the complete absence of objective truth.
3	If it’s just your opinion then I don’t have any reason to pay any attention to it or agree with it	LOL OK
4	but if it is objectively true that there are no objective truths then that is self-refuting	Yes that is indeed a self-refuting statement but…
5	it shows that his position is indefensible	…except that wasn’t his position.
6	So that kind blanket relativism is simply indefensible.	Which is probably why he didn’t say it. It’s probably why no one with a basic grasp of logic has ever held that position. By the way, if you’re waiting for an argument of why moral relativism refutes itself, you won’t get it here. There is not a single reference to morality anywhere in Craig’s reply.
7	It refutes itself so he must be holding to some sort of more restricted view where he does believe certain things are objectively true	Yes, he probably does believe certain things are objectively true and some things are not. After all, it’s what most normal people believe.
8	like for example that I have a head, or that I live say in Peoria or something of that sort	Good examples. The first is a fact and the second can easily be verified.
9	and so you gotta, kind of just dialog with him as to what he does think is objectively true	I agree it would be a good idea to get his opinion on what he thinks is objectively true. But I gained the impression on line 3 that Craig isn’t really interested in other peoples’ opinions.  Anyway, Craig is making the point that some things are objectively true and some are not. What he's not saying is that is why relativism is a fact, and a fact cannot refute itself. Craig has refuted himself.
10	and then share with him the arguments for the existence of god that are based on truths of science and history that are generally accepted	I wonder what those arguments are?  (Spoiler alert – he doesn’t say).
11	and if he is going to reject those…	“if”
12	…then he is going to - and I think you need to show him this - he is going to isolate himself into a radical minority that flies in the face of what most scientists and historians believe.	Maybe he will be in a radical minority, but that doesn’t make him wrong.  Craig is encouraging people to use the fallacious argument known as the Appeal to Popularity rather than logic or evidence.
13	And why would anyone want to do that?	Lots of reasons. Maybe they have principles and convictions. Maybe they are deluded, relying on faith. Maybe they are just stubborn.  Maybe they are mentally ill.  Or maybe they are right. We’d have to ask them and analyse their response to find out.
14	Make the non-Christian feel intellectually isolated and separated from mainstream thought.	Hang on… who said the hypothetical student was a non-Christian? What difference does that make? In any case, Craig wants us to make him feel bad for being separated from mainstream thought, like Galileo. Or Jesus. Anyway, what are these truths that the hypothetical student may have hypothetically rejected?  Let’s have some examples…
15	For example, the universe originated a finite time ago in the big bang	Presumably this is what Craig refers to as a “truth of science” on line 10.   But it’s actually a theory rather than a truth. Compare it to the example of objective truth Craig provided on line 8: “I have a head”. That’s a fact. Craig does have a head. It’s observable and measurable.  But the Big Bang is not a fact.
16	or that Jesus of Nazareth was a 1st century Palestinian Jew, who died by crucifixion	Presumably this is what Craig refers to as a “truth of history” on line 10. But it’s actually a hypothesis. More accurately, historians generally agree that the character of Jesus in the Bible is probably based on a 1st century Palestinian Jew. But that's not a truth - there’s no way of knowing if it is true, and it is certainly not an objective truth in the way that “I have a head” is a fact as stated on line 8.  The false equivocation of fact and theory is an apologist trademark.
17	These are generally accepted facts that are not unique to Christians	Wrong.  They are not generally accepted facts. They are not objective truths.  They are generally accepted theories or hypotheses.
18	and if he is sceptical about these he needs to give some good reason as to why the majority of scientists and scholars are wrong about these things.	Yes he does need to give reasons and maybe he can.  But there’s no evidence that he was sceptical about those things.