So, as is no surprise, Matt Dillahunty is wrong once again. He claimed, on a recent video from The Line, that anecdotal evidence is, in fact, evidence. It’s not. It’s a claim. In and of itself, it doesn’t actually demonstrate anything.

I’ll explain why that’s the case below.

So anyhow, here’s the video in question in case you want to go take a look. I always provide my references so people can check it out. I’m going to be using a lot of what was said in my refutation, especially when it comes to religion, so it’s probably better to spend the eight minutes and know where he’s coming from.

The issue here is that anecdotal evidence is just a claim. It means nothing without further corroboration. To take one of the things he mentioned in passing, if someone says they’ve been abused for years, that isn’t enough to convict anyone of abusing them, nor should it be. Leaving the stupid “always believe women no matter what they say” crap aside, it is the start of an investigation, not the end of it.

Anyone can claim anything they want. If someone says “I’ve been abused”, you go and start looking for evidence that it actually happened. Do they have bruises or scars? Can you find anyone that corroborates the events reported? Has anyone seen this abuse? Has anyone seen the resulting effects? Have there been hospital visits? Have there been police reports? How do we tell the difference between a claim and the truth?

The supposed abuse victim could be interpreted not being listened to 100% of the time as abuse. This kind of thing happens. The interpretation is not the same as the reality and that’s why we don’t just take people’s word. Trust but verify. It’s the only rational way.

If, in the end, there is nothing but the claim then we shouldn’t act on the claim itself. If the person being abused wants to be removed from their abuser, we help them out, whether the abuse actually happened or not. We don’t put the supposed abuser behind bars, based on one person’s unsupported claims.

Ultimately, the only thing  that anecdotal claims represent is one individual’s *INTERPRETATION* of supposed events, not the actual truth. We can only determine actual truth with independent corroboratory evidence. Whether you believe a claim, made without support, or not, that doesn’t actually determine the facts. It might sway a jury, or not, but it doesn’t actually prove a thing.

This is clear nowhere more than with religious claims. There, they are reporting, perhaps accurately and perhaps not, some event that may or may not have happened to them and then arbitrarily assigning a cause that cannot be verified to the claimed events. Not only can that not be independently corroborated in any way, the theist themselves has no means whatsoever of actually establishing what happened inside their own head. It doesn’t matter what they want to be true, it matters only what is actually true and there is no way for anyone, including the theist, to verify anything in this case.

That’s why anecdotal evidence for God doesn’t mean a thing, at least not to those who aren’t going to accept it on emotional grounds. Just saying “I was in an accident and I survived, therefore God did it”, that’s just not impressive. It doesn’t prove anything. It’s just empty words coming out of your mouth.

Unfortunately for the religious, this is all that they have. All empty words, zero corroboration, no reason for anyone not previously predisposed to take it seriously. If you tried to float that kind of thing in a courtroom, you’d get thrown out. If you tried to assert that you got attacked, but it was a demon that did it, they’d cart you off for psychological evaluation. Anecdotal claims simply don’t get you anywhere useful and I don’t understand how Matt couldn’t understand that. Just saying it’s some kind of data, so what? It doesn’t actually mean anything in and of itself.

I would never take such a ludicrous position, no matter how many people I have calling in, making the claim. It’s simply not defensible. Being tired of correcting people isn’t sufficient reason to stop telling the truth. It’s why I always ask the religious, “how do you know that” and “how have you objectively verified it to see if your assertions are factually correct?” That’s what really matters. Anyone can come up with a story. It doesn’t matter how much they believe that story is true, it doesn’t matter how often they assert the empty claims, the time to take any anecdotal tale seriously is when it can be backed up with evidence and when it comes to religion, it never is.

And for those who look at things like “I got a new puppy” and accept that without question, that’s wrong too. Sure, for the sake of argument, that’s not an extraordinary claim to make but that doesn’t mean that it’s true. Even if you don’t have them trot the dog out, it is demonstrable if you asked, presumably. In a vacuum, it’s fine. “I got a dog” and then you move on to something else, that’s something that passed in the night and doesn’t mean anything. If they use their claim as the basis for some other claim though, that’s where you need to go back and insist that they show you evidence or you’re not going to believe them. “I got a puppy and he has wings and breathes fire” is nothing that you ought to let pass without challenge. That we do, just for the puppy comment is only because it doesn’t really matter if they got a new dog or not. I am really not concerned. Once those additional attributes start getting added though, it’s a whole new ball game.