Anders Anderson,
I have to strongly disagree. Jehovah's Witnesses are not actually “evidence-driven” as an atheist generally is in their convictions.
“Evidence” is data or information that confirms, verifies, or validates a view, hypothesis, or proposition. It can even be used to affirm some “beliefs,” depending what these “beliefs” consist of, of course.
But the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses and the conclusions they arrive at have nothing to do with logistical methods or even just plain reasoning that atheists or even many religious people may engage in.
Jehovah's Witnesses base their conclusions on a technique known in hermeneutics as “proof texting.” It isn't “evidence-driven.” Instead it is “citation-” or “source-driven.” This form of theology claims that the Bible is the ultimate source of revelation from God, greater and more substantial than the theophanies witnessed by the patriarchs, the experience of the apostolic college in living with Jesus of Nazareth, and any other person, event or tradition that shaped the Bible. It is no different from Joseph Smith's “discovering” a book and basing a religion on a text history knew nothing about.
“Proof texting” works like this:
Person A, a Jewish man, has a religious practice (wearing kippah or a yarmulke in prayer) that has been handed down from his Jewish culture, shaped by that culture's theology and historical experiences, but not mentioned in Scripture whatsoever.
Person B, a Jehovah's Witness, claims that the practice is false because it is not mentioned in Scripture. Person B also finds texts in the Bible that clearly state that 'men are not to have their heads covered' during prayer.
Person B concludes that their view is true because only their has textual support from the Scriptures.
“Evidence-driven” thinking works like this:
Judaism and Christianity came before and produced the Scriptures the Jehovah's Witnesses use. These Scriptures cannot logically be the “basis” for these religions because the texts were composed by those who already had the convictions they wrote about. The book did not come first. The writers came first. The writers did not get their religion after they wrote down words. Their religious beliefs inspired their writings.
The separate canons of these religions were shaped by religious tradition and authority, not by any written directive in any of the books of Scripture. There are no texts which spell out which books should or should not be included, and no texts that command a library or collection should exist in the first place. Even in Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth neither wrote nor commanded the writing of any texts, nor did Jesus make the study of Scripture a requisite for discipleship or salvation. The Hebrew Scriptures were canonized sometimes between the 1st and 7th century C.E., well after the Second Temple had fallen, and the New Testament was canonized by two bishops in the 4th century C.E., well after the death of Christ and his apostles.
By the time both these religions had their texts, they were well established. Generations of believers had come and gone, including the founders, all without ever having a Bible. Obviously the Bible cannot be the ultimate and final authority from God, otherwise the founder of these religions would not have truth since they were without the Bible. The Bible is the product of religion, not its basis.
Being that religious authority and tradition outside the Bible shaped the Bible itself, the same religious authority and tradition can rightly play a part in the theology of those who follow it. If that religious authority and tradition was good enough to set the canons of Scripture, it is equally authoritative to allow for a Jewish man to pray wearing kippah.
Besides, the Christian text regarding not using a “headcovering” when praying does not apply to Jews since the text was written to Gentile believers and before the practice of wearing kippah was adopted by Judaism.
Atheism, on the other hand, is not necessarily adopted because a person weighs their views with religion. My two best friends growing up were atheists because their parents were. They did not arrive to their convictions because they once were part of a religion and then decided to “employ logic.” They were born into a world where religion is not a concern or important option.
Atheists who do reject religion on the basis of logic do so because they consider evidence. “Proof texting” is not evidence. Just because the Bible says something does not mean it is true, neither does appealing to authority mean one has a fact.
To be honest, “proof texting” is merely an “appeal to authority” or “expert testimony,” and logic dictates that a claim is not true merely because it comes from an authority or expert. Evidence tests claims, not stops once it hears or reads them.