If evidence is open to interpretation based on differing worldviews, is that evidence really valid? Is the only way to make ambiguous evidence count for a specific worldview to prove the interpretation of the other worldview false?
top of page
bottom of page
I guess this will teach me not to post such confusing questions in the future ;).
Here is my 2 cent's worth:
All evidence is ambiguous to some degree in that it can be reinterpreted to fit differing views. But then again, it is not so much that it can be as that it has to be reinterpreted. Almost every worldview will have evidence for it and evidence against it. In order for the worldview to be coherent, the evidence against must be reinterpreted.
The way to deal with this problem of ambiguous evidence and conflicting interpretations is to solidly refute the interpretation(s) of the opposing worldview(s). However, what counts as a "solid refutation?" Theoretically, if it comes to this sort of deadlock, the win should go to the theory with the most explanatory power. But what if the different theories dominate different sources of evidence from different disciplines (such as science and theology) to the extent that neither can be fully overlooked?