Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith

by J. Warner Wallace

in his criticism, he unwittingly affirmed and reinforced the very claims he sought to undermine.

Celsus referenced nearly eighty different biblical quotes as he railed against Christianity, confirming their early appearance in history.

These are written by Jewish theologians, historians, and leaders who were equally hostile to the Christian claims:

Josephus (ca. AD 37–101)

Jewish Talmud (AD 400–700)

If every Bible ever printed was destroyed and the only ancient documents we had mentioning Jesus were those written by hostile non-Christians, we’d still know the following: Jesus was a real man who lived in history. He was reportedly born of a virgin and had an earthly father who was a carpenter. He lived in Judea, in the region known as Palestine. He was wise and righteous. His teaching was so influential that He developed a large following of Jewish and Gentile disciples. He taught His disciples to live with the same virtue He exhibited, and His moral code was exceedingly high. But Jesus was more than a moral teacher: He possessed “magical powers” and had the ability to predict the future accurately. His supernatural acts and teachings persuaded many Jews to walk away from their beliefs. Jesus claimed to be God, and His disciples readily accepted this claim. The Jewish leadership ultimately brought charges against Jesus based on His actions and teachings. He was prosecuted and crucified under Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. There was an earthquake and darkness at the point of the execution. Jesus’s followers reported seeing Him resurrected three days after the crucifixion, however, and Jesus even showed them His wounds. His followers believed the resurrection proved Jesus was the Messiah. They adopted Jesus’s moral teaching and lived their lives accordingly, holding to their belief in His deity, even though it meant they would suffer greatly at the ...

In God’s Crime Scene, I offer eight pieces of evidence from four very distinct investigative categories, all of which are outside the biblical text:

If someone were to ask you, “Why do you believe God exists?” you could answer by saying something like this:

The cosmological, biological, mental, and moral evidence in the universe points to a particular kind of suspect who possesses specific characteristics. The evidence is best explained by an “external” suspect who is clearly non-spatial, a-temporal, non-material, and uncaused. Our suspect is also powerful enough to create everything we see in the universe and purposeful enough to produce a universe fine-tuned for life. Our suspect is intelligent and communicative, creative and resourceful. As a conscious Mind, our suspect is the personal source of moral truth and obligation and the standard for goodness. Only one Being can be described in this way; only one suspect can reasonably explain the evidence in the universe. God is the best explanation, based on the evidence from science and philosophy, without any reference to the Bible. This description of God does, however, happen to match the description offered in Scripture. 18

Scientific experiments provide us with data. Historical investigations (including criminal investigations) provide us with facts. The raw data and facts don’t speak, say, or tell us anything. Observers and thinkers assess the data and facts, interpret them, and provide “findings” and “conclusions.” The problem, of course, is that observers and thinkers (whether they are scientists, historians, or just common jurors like you and me) hold presuppositions, and these presuppositional biases affect the way they form conclusions. If, for example, you are part of a post-enlightenment scientific community, committed to philosophical naturalism (the idea that nothing exists outside the natural realm of the material universe), you’ll find a way to interpret every piece of data to confirm your naturalistic presuppositions, even if the best inference from evidence points to something supernatural. If you are already committed to a particular answer before you investigate a question, you’ll find a way to arrive at the answer you started with.

Bruce was Bart’s professor and mentor at Princeton; Bruce was the master when Bart was the pupil. Both men knew the evidence thoroughly, yet apparently didn’t hear it “say” the same thing.

That’s why it’s so important to be familiar with the evidence itself, as well as what experts say about the evidence.

Jesus knew that many of His hearers had a heart problem rather than a head problem. While the evidence was clear, their presuppositions and closed hearts wouldn’t allow them to determine the truth.

I want jurors who are capable of examining the evidence fairly, regardless of their relationships and past histories. I’m looking for open-minded jurors.

As a Christian case maker, I want to be as effective as possible, even though I know there are people who have deeply entrenched biases they are unwilling (or presently unable) to resist. Some people simply cannot be fair.

Famed atheist Antony Flew found himself in such a position. Flew was an influential atheist and a self-identified evidentialist. He became a prominent spokesperson for atheism even as he attended C. S. Lewis’s Socratic Club, and although he respected Lewis’s work and character, he remained ambivalent to Lewis’s arguments for Christianity. Flew believed that atheism should be everyone’s default position until an evidential case for God could be made. He eventually began to question his atheism, however, as science provided him with the evidence he’d been looking for.

There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

Only after God removed my enmity was I ready to hear what people had to say about Him.

When someone claims Christian (or theistic beliefs) “lack all supporting evidence,” either they aren’t familiar with the large body of evidence related to Christianity or they aren’t familiar with what qualifies as evidence in the first place.

Evidence Instruction #1: The Fact the Other Side Can Make a Case Doesn’t Mean It’s True

an argument is not evidence; a presentation is not a refutation.

Nothing that the attorneys say is evidence. In their opening statements and closing arguments, the attorneys will discuss the case, but their remarks are not evidence. Their questions are not evidence. Only the witnesses’ answers are evidence. The attorneys’ questions are significant only if they help you understand the witnesses’ answers. Do not assume that something is true just because one of the attorneys asks a question that suggests it is true.

Examine the evidence for yourself. Connect the dots. Use your common sense.

Evidence Instruction #2: Everything Has the Potential to Be Evidence

direct evidence is limited to eyewitness testimony. Indirect evidence (also known as circumstantial evidence) is everything else.

Everything counts as evidence, including the behavior of the original witnesses; the testimony of those who listened to the statements of these witnesses; the corroborative evidence of archaeology; the internal confirmation of geography, politics, and proper nouns; and the deficiency of alternative explanations.

Evidence Instruction #3: Whoever Makes the Claim Has the Burden of Proof

Most atheists believe we, as theists, have the sole burden of proof.

How did the universe come into being from nothing?

Why does the universe appear to be fine-tuned for life?

How did life originate from non-livi...

Why do biological organisms appe...

How did immaterial consciousness emerge from mat...

How is free agency possible in a purely physical, deter...

What establishes the transcendent, objective, moral truths we all ...

As it turns out, there are only two possible categories of explanation for the evidence we see in the universe: (1) naturalistic explanations employing nothing more than space, time, matter, and the laws of physics or chemistry that govern such things; or (2) supernatural explanations that employ the existence of a supernatural Being.

Evidence Instruction #4: Possibilities Are Irrelevant

Most jury instructions recognize the fact that there will always be some form of possible or imaginary doubt,

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

a case, are typically instructed to refrain from speculating about what they don’t know. Instead, they are instructed to focus on what they do know, given what they saw and heard during the course of the trial:

You may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence which you feel are justified in the light of common experience, keeping in mind that such inferences should not be based on speculation or guess.

You’d be surprised to see how much speculation masquerades as reasonable inference, especially in theories related to the origin of the universe.

Both of these naturalistic theories (as I describe in God’s Crime Scene) are popular among atheists, but they are highly speculative.

These theories are contested by both theistic and atheistic physicists for their lack of evidential support. Are the theories possible? Absolutely. Anything is possible. But are they evidentially reasonable? No.

When talking with your skeptical friends about the existence of God, take some time to ask them why they aren’t skeptical about some of the evidentially unsupported theories promoted by those who deny the existence of God. Remember: possibil...

Evidence Instruction #5: The More Cumulative the Case, the More Reasonable the Conclusion

“There wasn’t one piece of evidence that convinced me Christianity was true.”

When the standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” jurors are far more comfortable when the case is overwhelming.

If we want to become effective Christian case makers, we need to help people understand the overwhelming nature of the evidence for whatever we claim.

Cumulative cases are worth your time and energy.