Why do Christians become Christians?

[RoadRunner79]

---

And if you did remember differently as I had asked in the original question?   Which are you going to go with then (your memory or science)?

Well, I would be extremely skeptical (to put it nicely) of any evidence presented to me by a prosecutor. They don't seem to know the meaning of selection bias, when it comes to evaluating scientific data and applying scientific methodology to the "evidence" system of courtrooms. Sometimes, perhaps even usually, it's not even deliberate, just the natural consequence of their perspective... as the saying goes:"when the only tool you've got is a hammer, pretty soon everything starts to look like a nail". I would demand a fairly exhaustive version of peer review of the methods employed, independently tested, and personally reviewed to my own satisfaction. There may simply be a better explanation for what the data seem to show, and my skepticism could keep me from pleading guilty to something I do not recall simply because I believed the person wearing the "rose-colored glasses" with respect to my guilt.

But yes, if everything was solidly proved by unassailable means, then I would go with science over my own memory. Humans are fallible. I am no different. And there are many ways that our own minds can play tricks on us. But by doing everything in our power to eliminate bias, especially by skeptical review by independent sources that are not sympathetic to us or our preformed mindset, we can have a much higher degree of confidence in the accuracy of the information.

I would, as I said, acknowledge that I have no memory of the crime, plead No Contest (since I cannot answer the evidence for the charges but cannot actually profess my own guilt from my own memory), and hope that the Court would be fair.

---

After you answered, stating with no memory of the event, I did begin thinking that "confess" was a poor choice in my wording on my part. I don't think that I could confess to what I do not know. I would also agree, in that instance, I would plead no contest (if it was allowed).

I do find it interesting, that many would abandon what they know, because of what a scientist says. I can understand with the way that memory works, if details or what I thought I saw, could be better explained by someone with more knowledge or additional evidence. However if what they are describing doesn't resemble at all, what I know to be true, then I am going to heavily question their assumptions. I think that I would need good direct evidence or some reason to question what I remember to make a leap of that extent.