Objective-Subjective Evidence Test
Test beliefs with public evidence, personal experience, and incremental trust
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 93%
The method divides an important belief into objective and subjective lines of inquiry. Objective investigation examines publicly accessible material such as historical testimony, competing explanations, and the internal coherence of a claim. Subjective investigation asks what can be learned only through cautious participation, much as a relationship cannot be fully evaluated from a distance. Neither emotion nor argument is treated as sufficient alone. The investigator keeps asking questions, identifies the evidence already available, and makes only the next commitment that evidence supports. Confidence is expected to develop cumulatively rather than through one dramatic experience. The process preserves skepticism while preventing skepticism from becoming an excuse never to test the claim personally.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO, where John Lennox explains how he has tested Christian claims through historical inquiry, personal experience, and evidence-based trust over more than 70 years.
Core principles
- 01Treat skepticism as an invitation to investigate rather than remain distant.
- 02Separate publicly examinable evidence from personally experienced evidence.
- 03Base trust on accumulated evidence rather than feelings alone.
- 04Move incrementally instead of demanding complete certainty at the outset.
- 05Remain willing to criticize and revise your own conclusions.
How to run it
- 1
State the central claim
Define exactly what you are considering and which part of it remains uncertain. Distinguish questions about historical facts, meaning, and personal commitment.
Pro tip Concentrate on the single question you consider most important before moving to secondary objections.
Watch out Trying to solve every related philosophical problem simultaneously can leave you permanently overwhelmed.
- 2
Examine objective evidence
Look for evidence available to people regardless of their personal beliefs, including historical sources, testimony, logical consistency, and alternative explanations.
Pro tip Actively seek the strongest objections rather than only material that confirms your starting position.
Watch out Do not treat a source's claim about itself as sufficient independent validation.
- 3
Define the experiential test
Identify what could be learned only by moving closer to the claim or practice. Decide what cautious, reversible action would expose you to relevant personal evidence.
Pro tip Use a small experiment that preserves your ability to reconsider.
Watch out A positive feeling can accompany both truth and fiction, so do not confuse emotional benefit with proof.
- 4
Take an evidence-supported step
Act on what the current evidence justifies without pretending to possess total certainty. Treat commitment as a step beyond current knowledge, not a leap that ignores it.
Pro tip Record what you expected and what actually happened so hindsight does not distort the test.
Watch out Do not take a step that violates your conscience merely to force an experience.
- 5
Let confidence accumulate
Reassess the combined objective and subjective evidence over time. Increase, reduce, or withdraw trust as the cumulative case changes.
Pro tip Ask what evidence would genuinely change your mind in either direction.
Watch out One dramatic experience should not erase contrary evidence or replace sustained evaluation.
In the wild
An agnostic first studies whether Jesus existed and examines historical arguments concerning the resurrection. Rather than treating intellectual study as the entire test, they also speak candidly with informed believers, try prayer without manufacturing certainty, and observe whether participation generates evidence that survives critical reflection. They continue asking questions and adjust their confidence gradually.
→ The person reaches a more grounded conclusion—positive or negative—without relying solely on upbringing, emotion, or abstract debate.
A founder checks a prospective collaborator's references and past work, then runs a limited project with clear expectations. The founder compares the person's real conduct with the objective record before expanding the relationship.
→ Trust grows from evidence and direct experience rather than charisma or blind optimism.
Common mistakes
Waiting for total certainty
Demanding a complete answer to every related question prevents any experiential evidence from being gathered. The method asks only whether the next step is justified.
Treating feelings as proof
Peace, meaning, or excitement can reinforce a conclusion but cannot independently establish its truth.
Investigating only from a distance
Some claims concern relationships or practices that cannot be fully understood without cautious participation.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for open-minded skeptics evaluating a worldview, relationship, or commitment that includes both factual and experiential claims.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for decisions requiring immediate certainty or claims that cannot produce any observable, historical, or experiential evidence.
From the transcript
“I have two approaches to this which I call roughly speaking objective and subjective”
“I do not believe that this is a process of taking a leap into the dark but it's making a commitment on the basis of…”
“step by step keep asking your questions absolutely”
From the episode
Christian Apologist: The Truth About Christianity (And Why Atheism Is Fading)