This is my latest piece for Samaritan Ministries International

Imagine a game of Cluedo where instead of sitting down to play by the rules – going from room to room, eliminating suspects, places and weapons – the players start making accusations and counter-accusations before a move has been made. One player says it must have been the Reverend Green, because he is known for his religious extremism. Another reacts to the charge by calling the first player a Christophobe. Still another says that it must have been Miss Scarlet, since she has a certain sort of femme fatale look about her. Another counters with the accusation of misogyny and says it must have been the Colonel, the Reverend or the Professor, since they are representatives of the patriarchy. And so on and so on.

The scenario is plainly absurd. However, it is not a million miles away from how society now tends to react to tragic events. Take the reaction we often see when an atrocity occurs, such as a truck attack or a bombing. Within minutes the media tend to describe them as terrorist attacks bearing “all the hallmarks of ISIS.” The Twittersphere then erupts and counter-erupts, with some blaming it on Islamisation, and others decrying their Islamophobia.

The suspicion that such incidents are inspired by Islam and/or connected with terrorism is of course a very reasonable one, since there have been enough occurrences where this has indeed been the case to make it at the very least a strong possibility. However, there are also enough of such incidents where this has turned out not to have been the cause to at least make us wary of turning a suspicion into a “fact”.

I can think of numerous such incidents where the perpetrator has turned out to have had no connection to any terrorist organization whatsoever, but has been acting entirely on his own. I can think of such incidents where the perpetrators have turned out not to have had any particular terrorist motive, but have simply been lowlife criminals with a long history of mental illness and regular users of drugs, prescription or illegal. I can even recall the shock many felt when the perpetrator of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma turned out to be a fairly average white American with no links to any extremist group.

This tendency to draw conclusions before the facts are established is not confined to incidents which may or may not be explained by terrorism, however. For example, Hillary Clinton once said that women who make a claim of rape “should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence”. Her attitude is not uncommon, nor is it confined to rape. Having largely imbibed the Marxist ideology that society is made up of oppressors and the oppressed, we are increasingly developing an instinct which rushes to believe the “victim”.

This is the very opposite of how a law governed society should operate. It is not the police’s or anyone else’s business to “believe” the one making the claim, whether or not they happen to belong to what society has deemed to be an oppressed group. Neither should such accusations be disbelieved. Instead, they should be taken seriously and treated with sensitivity, but until they are investigated and the evidence is collected, they should never be “believed”.

This type of thinking is very dangerous. Nowhere is this more so than where the abuse of children is involved. I can think of a number of cases in which people have had their reputations utterly trashed by what turned out to be unfounded accusations of child abuse, where the police and the media automatically believed the claims being made against them, long before any evidence has been presented. Such reputations are not easily restored.

These type of reactions to events, where we assume we know who did something, or why they did it, or where we believe the accuser before the evidence is in, are symptomatic of how we are losing a basic understanding of the rule of law, and even a basic ability to reason. If we cannot grasp such simple truths as the need for evidence before making accusations, and the need for proof before taking action, then we are truly at a dangerous point.

What does the Bible teach us about this? Firstly, it teaches us how God judges. It is not according to partiality or prejudice, but rather according to the truth: “He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity” (Psalm 98:9). It is not hasty or impulsive, but rather slow and deliberate: “The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty” (Nahum 1:3). It is not according to an emotional response got from hearing or seeing an incident, but rather according to eternal principles of justice and right: “He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth” (Isaiah 11:3).

Secondly, it teaches us that we are to judge in a similar way. Our judgements are to be according to truth and facts, rather than partiality or prejudice: “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbour” (Leviticus 19:15). We are to be slow and deliberate, not hasty and rash: “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). We are not to let our senses and emotions cloud our judgements, but rather we are to establish the facts and principles of a case: “What your eyes have seen do not hastily bring into court, for what will you do in the end, when your neighbour puts you to shame?” (Proverbs 25:8).

If all this seems obvious, great. However, my observation is that this is becoming far from obvious to many people, and we are seeing judgements and conclusions made more and more on the basis of emotions, partiality and prejudice, rather than facts, reason and truth.

This can and will lead to a whole host of problems. It can and has led to miscarriages of justice. It can lead to us missing the real causes of some events and atrocities, because we blind ourselves to other possibilities. But perhaps most alarmingly, it leads to a sort of conformist, mob mentality where the media explodes with their explanations, and we are all supposed to accept the line on the basis that “the media says so” or “the intelligence community says so” or “most people say so”, regardless of whether any evidence has been provided to back it up. This is inherently dangerous, and leaves us extremely vulnerable to manipulation and propaganda.

Again, the Bible warns us against following the crowd rather than the evidence, depicting the mob mentality as the enemy of justice and righteousness:

“You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit” (Exodus 23:1).

I can’t stress how important all this is. I have found it increasingly painful to watch the way our society now reacts to events before waiting for evidence to come in, usually in a din of collective hysteria, and often without even bothering to wait until such things as “facts” to emerge. And I have found it increasingly painful to watch as we have accepted the sort of argument put forth by Mrs Clinton, that accusers are to be believed before the evidence is in, just because they belong to some designated class of people that have been assigned the label oppressed.

This is not how rational people and rational societies react, and it is certainly not how Christians should be reacting. Our God is a rational God, and he judges righteously, according to evidence, and with exact deliberation. We don’t have his perfect knowledge of course, but he expects us to assess situations in a similar fashion. Rather than relying on assumptions, hearsay and plays on our emotions, we are to wait for evidence to come in, weigh it in the balance, and only when the evidence is overwhelming are we to arrive at a conclusion. Unless we soon regain our ability to face calamities rationally and with reason, and according to the rule of law, we will find that we bring a whole host of problems our way which could easily have been avoided.

One thought on “Drawing Conclusions Without Evidence is a Dangerous Game

  1. Another great article, and sadly another one that makes no difference. I am sorry if I sound pessimistic this morning, but I have allergies 😉

    In your “It can lead to…” “It can and has” “It can and will…” section you didn’t highlight how this ruins lives. You mentioned reputation in other areas, and I understand that you can only put in so many points before your article becomes longer than you want. But as terrifying as propoganda and fake news is, I am almost more terrified that there is absolutely nothing protecting me from a fate like the Atlanta Olympics security-guard-not-bomber guy or JonBenet Ramsey’s father.

    There was a time when the media policed themselves. The media censored themselves, but only because they feared a harsher government crackdown. I know many Christians are heatedly against government regulation, but I can’t see any other way to manage this. Businesses WILL NOT do what’s right on their own accord (except in a minority of instances) and I don’t understand how people think they would. I would add that governments also will not do what’s right, but in my estimate are vile slightly less often than businesses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.