Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Years ago, here in California, reporting for jury duty was different from what it is now. Then when we would receive the summons, we had to report to the assigned venue for ten days, or, if chosen to serve on a jury, throughout the duration of the trial.

Part of that process was for prospective jurists waiting in the jury room, to be selected randomly to serve on a panel. This group would go to an assigned courtroom where we satin the spectators’ chairs. From the panel a number of potential jurists would randomly be chosen and called up to the jury box. Those twelve, and the two alternates, were then questioned by the lawyers and the judge.

More than once I was included in a panel and sat in the courtroom listening to the lawyers explain law, ask questions, and dismiss various individuals from the box. (Those folk then returned to the jury room until they were impaneled again.) A new name was then chosen and the potential jurist would take the vacated spot in the box and would undergo the same questioning.

During my ten days, first in the criminal court and then later in the civil, I learned a lot about the legal system. But my point here is not to critic the various things I saw then or have seen since from sitting on other juries.

Rather, one of the most memorable learning experiences I had was from one defense and one prosecuting attorney who explained the term “reasonable doubt.”

The trial was of someone accused of murder, so these lawyers wanted to be sure the members of the jury would understand this important term, reasonable doubt.

The defense attorney explained by using an example. Let’s say there’s a swimming pool at a park or somewhere with a sign that says, Stay out of the water. On the side of the pool are clear footprints leading from the pool to your chair. Is this evidence beyond reasonable doubt that you have violated the law? At first blush, it might seem so. But what if there was a shower stall at the edge of the pool? What if there was the possibility of rain that day? I’ll add this one: what if there was a hose lying on the grass or various other people with water bottles that may have spilled? Suddenly there are more possibilities than just the one idea that the person did in fact enter the water when they weren’t allowed to do so.

The way the law reads, according to this lawyer, the jurist was bound to assume innocence—meaning that, if there were these other possible explanations, they were obligated to assume one of them, not the one indicating a law had been broken.

I was a little stunned (so much so that I remember the illustration all these years later). Who could ever be found guilty? Almost, it seemed, you needed an eye witness—well, more than one, and a camera would even be better—if you were to find a defendant guilty.

Then the prosecutor took his turn. He stood behind a podium with a microphone so everyone could hear. As all the attorneys, he looked the part of the professional: neat; nice shirt, tie, suit coat; well groomed. He had not walked to the podium because it was positioned in front of his table. In addition, he faced us. He brought our attention to his clothing, then said, What if someone told you I was wearing boxer shorts and not my suit pants, would you believe it to be true? We didn’t have eyewitness evidence that he was not in his boxer shorts. It was a possibility. Did that mean that we now had doubt that would prevent us from making a decision about how he was dressed?

No, he said, because of he word “reasonable.” There were no other attorneys in boxer shorts. In fact no other people in the courtroom or jury room or anywhere else in the courthouse wearing boxer shorts. To think that he was doing so, stretched the concept that there was reasonable doubt as to what he was wearing. In other words, he said, jurists can and should use deductive reasoning and not think they had to be at the crime scene and witness the crime if they were to arrive at a guilty verdict.

That long explanation applies not just to jurists. It applies to anyone who wants to know if God exists or not. There is abundant evidence that God exists, just not eyewitness evidence. I’ve written on this subject countless times (here’s one I recommend: “What Creation Tells Us About God”).

In one recent-ish post, I made a list of things that point to God’s existence. The first item is the intricacy, the complexity of life—of all the world, the universe, really. Nothing we know of, anywhere, came into existence unless something or someone made it. When we see a canyon, for example, we don’t think, Wow, an anomalous dent in the earth. No, we ascribe a means by which it was formed: by erosion from a river, by a flood, by wind or a meteor. Something.

Only the universe, according to atheists, has no cause. Oh, sure, the “Big Bang.” But what initiated the thing that initiated all the universe? Science has no answer. We don’t know, they say.

Which brings us back to reasonable doubt. I can see that atheists doubt God’s existence. But is it reasonable?

All known complex things — created by someone or something;
the universe — no idea how it came about (but it wasn’t God.)

Is the latter a reasonable position? I don’t see how it could be considered reasonable. Like the attorney who was in fact wearing suit pants, we potential jurists could make that conclusion without having to see him. It simply was not reasonable to believe otherwise. Logical deduction makes it clear.

Advertisements
Published in: on August 28, 2019 at 5:40 pm  Comments (9)  
Tags: , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://rebeccaluellamiller.wordpress.com/2019/08/28/beyond-reasonable-doubt/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

9 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. “Which brings us back to reasonable doubt. I can see that atheists doubt God’s existence. But is it reasonable?”

    Well, after your court room experience Becky you should now understand what real evidence is and because it is the theists position to prove their claim that God exists the question should be is it reasonable for theists to believe in God.

    The complexity of life does not prove someone made it, scientists have made many discoveries and none of them suggest anyone created anything, that is simply an old belief before the event of modern science.

    For the beginning of life on Earth a comprehensible understanding of the scientific understanding and the amazing progress they have made so far, take some time and read this.

    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began

    Like

    • @ Steve

      By the early 1800s, scientists had discovered several substances that seemed to be unique to life. One such chemical was urea, which is found in urine and was isolated in 1799.

      Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase: ”Taking the piss!”

      Liked by 1 person

    • Steve, that was probably 40 years ago. I do understand “real evidence” and I understand how history verifies things and how ancient manuscripts are verified.

      Ironic that you seem to miss the point. You want “scientists” to tell you they’ve seen the evidence for God’s existence. You only accept one type of evidence—the “eyewitness” type. You don’t use logic or deductive reasoning. Why would you think that, when everything else known has a cause, the universe does not? That is not logically sound. It just isn’t.

      The article to which you linked is so long, I wonder if you read it yourself. At one point, the author presents the very issue I brought up: DNA replication is a complex process. So he goes on to describe all these different scientific ways of getting around this problem. Why not accept what is plain and clear: a complex process requires a designer who understands the complexity. I mean all the manipulation these scientists are doing, proves that the process needs an outside source. What’s more, this only deals with life and makes no statement about the beginning of the rest of the universe. It’s not logical to think that it all started itself. That defies the rules of logic. Something in a given set can’t be the cause of that which is in the set. It’s like saying, It caused itself. How could it if it didn’t exist before it came into existence?

      Becky

      Like

      • “So he goes on to describe all these different scientific ways of getting around this problem. Why not accept what is plain and clear: a complex process requires a designer who understands the complexity.”

        Do you see what you have said here Becky? You say, “getting around this problem” Let me explain, scientists explore every possible idea, process and test them many, many times to arrive at what really happens and if you read the article properly scientists do understand the complexity and have learnt much more as decades have passed.

        Only theists seem to need to “get around problems” rather than look at the reality head on, and it is so easy to support your ideology using a designer because for theists anything else will not do. And regarding the universe you say:

        “It’s like saying, It caused itself. How could it if it didn’t exist before it came into existence?”

        It will likely never be never known by humans, but unlike the way we know your God came into existence Becky. Take heed from the statements below that are the results of science.

        Life needs a rich cocktail of chemicals to form and from what is now understood by science we can for the first time in history have the beginnings of a comprehensive explanation for how life began. Finally, after a century of fractious effort, that story is coming into view.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. There is abundant evidence that God exists, just not eyewitness evidence

    No, there is no evidence your god exists, only claims from Christians.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “So he goes on to describe all these different scientific ways of getting around this problem. Why not accept what is plain and clear: a complex process requires a designer who understands the complexity.”

    Do you see what you have said here Becky? You say, “getting around this problem” Let me explain, scientists explore every possible idea, process and test them many, many times to arrive at what really happens and if you read the article properly scientists do understand the complexity and have learnt much more as decades have passed.

    Only theists seem to need to “get around problems” rather than look at the reality head on, and it is so easy to support your ideology using a designer because for theists anything else will not do. And regarding the universe you say:

    “It’s like saying, It caused itself. How could it if it didn’t exist before it came into existence?”

    It will likely never be never known by humans, but unlike the way we know your God came into existence Becky. Take heed from the statements below that are the results of science.

    Life needs a rich cocktail of chemicals to form and from what is now understood by science we can for the first time in history have the beginnings of a comprehensive explanation for how life began. Finally, after a century of fractious effort, that story is coming into view.

    Like

  4. my comments do not seem to publish for some reason Becky.

    Like

    • Not sure why they went to spam, Steve. I pulled them both out. Haven’t had a chance to read them yet, so you may have said the same thing in both because the first didn’t post. But they should show now.

      Becky

      Like

      • Thanks Becky, I struggle to understand how any of this stuff works if it is more technical than my toaster.

        Liked by 1 person


Leave A Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: