Message #2961

[Martin]

On the subject of what constitutes evidence, I'd say this.

A dictionary definition of the word evidence might read (I took these from dictionary.com):
 
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. 

I daresay those who wish to count the Bible as evidence would major on number 3, the use of the word in a legal sense, where the testimony of people is an important factor in establishing the facts of a case.   Testimony may still be counted as evidence even if it is not in itself a complete proof so long as the reasons to believe it are strong, so it would usually have to be coroborrated.  The testimony of say 1000 people seeing the same event is stronger than that of one person.

However, and it's a big HOWEVER, it would only really be considered evidence if there was no good reason to suppose that the 1000 people were either duped, or lying, or had some other motivation for saying what they said. For instance, if 1000 witnesses each testified that a black defendent had been observed breaking into a shop in the southern states of America, we might count that as evidence, until it was revealed that each of the witnesses was white and a member of the Klu Klux Klan! Then it would imediately cease to be evidence for a conviction (it should really be considered evidence against a conviction).

Which brings us to the use of a religious book as evidence.  We might say that the fact that there are a number of writers of the New Testament where, say, each gospel writer gives an account of Jesus' life, constitutes evidence from a number of sources that Jesus existed, performed miracles etc.  Such evidence would be stronger, if three of those observing the events were not drawing from a prior document, but were recounting the events independently, in their own words. Such evidence would be stronger if those writing didn't have any motive to paint Jesus as a miracle worker, or if the accounts were intended to be simple observations, rather than obviously having a religious agenda to preach.

If our books of the Bible were simple accounts of observations by people who just wanted to record the facts,  without any religious or other motivation, then they would be evidence for historical fact. 

But what was actually being asked about in this case, wasn't historical fact.  What was being asked was whether there exists a part of us called a soul.  For this sort of question the Bible simply isn't evidence at all. Yes of course, since it was a religious idea of the time, we find the soul being referred to in the Bible.   But even in those days the soul was not a happening, it was not something observable or witnessable. Even in those days it was conjecture, a concept, an idea, a hypothesis.  So the testimony of those people who referred to 'the soul' then, holds no more evidence of its existence than the testimony of those people who refer to it these days.

Neither then nor now is there ANY real evidence for the soul's existence.  That's not to say that the soul cannot possibly exist, but it is enough to say that someone's firm belief in its existence is based upon something other than evidence.