Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Chad]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
by Matt Slick

The phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was popularized by Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996), a well-known astronomer and author who hosted a TV series called "Cosmos," published hundreds of scientific articles, and was professor of astronomy at Cornell University in New York. The statement is self explanatory; if someone makes an extraordinary claim, there better be extraordinary evidence to back it up. If, for example, someone made the claim that an alien race has made contact with earth, we would need sufficient evidence to verify the claim, such as an alien space craft, or an actual alien. The extraordinary claim would need extraordinary evidence.
At the heart of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a healthy and normal skepticism. There are far too many charlatans and con-men in the world who make extraordinary claims without evidence to back them up. Unfortunately, too many people lack the necessary skepticism and critical thinking skills to help them avoid being duped by con artists and wild theories. Personally, except for a few qualifications, I agree with the sentiment of the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Those qualifications follow.

Presuppositions

Requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims sounds good on the surface. But, it is subjective. The fact is that a person's presuppositions strongly affect how and to what degree the statement is applied. In Jesus' resurrection, for example, Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead. The evidence of fulfilled prophecy, eyewitness records, and changed lives of the disciples is enough to convince many people who believe in God that Jesus rose from the dead. This is a logical conclusion based on the presupposition and the evidence.

Atheists, on the other hand, would negate the resurrection by default since their presupposition that there is no God1 would require that God involvement cannot occur. Therefore, for an atheist the extraordinary evidence would have to be "exceptionally" extraordinary in order to overcome his atheistic presuppositions. In other words, evidence would need to be presented that was rock solid and irrefutable.

This is why the skeptic must require "extraordinary evidence." It enables him to retain his presupposition should the extraordinary level of the evidence not be met. Therefore, requiring extraordinary evidence effectively stacks the deck against the claim.

What would qualify as extraordinary evidence?

When debating skeptics, I often ask them to tell me what would qualify as extraordinary evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Generally, nothing sensible is offered. Normal evidence would be written accounts. Extraordinary evidence would be a film, but we know that this extraordinary evidence is not reasonable since there was no film in Jesus' time. Therefore, can the requirement that extraordinary claims (Christ's resurrection) require extraordinary evidence apply to Jesus' resurrection? It would seem not. Since Jesus' resurrection is alleged to be a historical event, then it seems logical that normal historical evidence and normal historical examination of that evidence would be all we could offer. The resurrection is supposed to be an event of history and since it claims historical validity, then typical criteria for examining historical claims should be applied.

What criteria do they use to determine what is extraordinary evidence?

The reality is that there is no precise scientific method for determining the validity of historic events. There is a degree of subjectivity involved. Different people will claim different requirements for validating ancient phenomena based upon their presuppositions and the type of evidence involved. Also, since ancient events dealing with human history and claims cannot be observed or repeated, we must look at the evidence differently. This makes the application of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" somewhat subjective and invalid for determining ancient phenomena.

Are the criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable?

The skeptic often requires "proof" that God exists, or "absolute proof" that Jesus rose from the dead. I have heard many atheists, for example, say that the only proof they would accept of Jesus' resurrection would be if it could be tested using the scientific method. Of course, we know that is an impossibility since the scientific method means observation, experimentation, and repetition and we can't apply that to an event that occurred 2000 years ago. Atheists know this and that is why they require it; therefore, they are being unreasonable. Nevertheless, when the Christian fails to produce a scientific method or scientific evidence, the atheist feels vindicated.

However, the requirement for absolute proof ignores the fact that there is a category of "sufficient evidence." In logic, there is deduction and induction. Deduction is drawing a conclusion based on facts. It is reasoning from the general to the specific. Induction is process of drawing general principles from specific facts. It is from the specific to the general. Often times, we use deductive and inductive reasoning to arrive at conclusions about events in history. In so doing, there is no requirement of "extraordinary evidence." The evidence is simply examined contextually; that is, it is examined according to the genre in which it fits. This is what I mean:

We do not apply observation, experimentation, and repetition to the subject of Napoleon's existence. The genre, history, does not fit that methodology. Yet, the skeptic will sometimes require that experimentation and repetition be applied to Jesus' resurrection, thereby, misapplying evidential and logical analysis.

Furthermore, we cannot ascertain all things with absolute certainty. We cannot, for example, prove that Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) ever lived by observing him. But, we have ancient writings from eyewitnesses concerning his existence. Skeptics readily believe in Alexander the Great without involving the scientific method and without requiring "extraordinary evidence" yet they will require it of Jesus' existence.

However, a skeptic might say that Alexander the Great never claimed to have risen from the dead and that normal evidence would be sufficient to determine his existence with reasonable probability. But, Alexander the Great, according to history, performed an extraordinary feat. By the age of 33 he had conquered the known world. That is indeed an extraordinary event in history. So, I ask, "Where is the extraordinary evidence to back that extraordinary claim?" Has any skeptic in Christ's resurrection equally applied the principle of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," to Alexander the Great's conquest of the known world? If not, then this brings us full circle to the issue concerning presuppositions. With an atheist, for example, the presupposition that God does not exist means that the extraordinary claim of Christ's resurrection requires extraordinary evidence but Alexander the Great's world conquest does not, yet both are extraordinary claims of history. I can't help but notice the inconsistency.

Conclusion

If it is true Alexander the Great conquered the known world by 33 years of age, no big deal. It won't have any effect on anyone and it won't change anything in anyone's life. But, if it is true about Jesus, then that is completely different. Jesus claimed to be divine and He had a message for people about heaven and hell and that salvation is only through Him. Such a claim requires extraordinary evidence, such as performing miracles and rising from the dead. The claims concerning Christ can have a profound effect on people and it can make them uncomfortable. Therefore, people will not want what Christ said to be true and will sometimes desperately try to hold onto their presuppositions; hence, the claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Nevertheless, when defending the Bible and dealing with the claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," address the following issues.

1. Will their presuppositions allow unbiased examination of the evidence?
2. What would qualify as extraordinary evidence?
3. What criteria is used to determine what is extraordinary evidence?
4. Are criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable?

Hopefully, a healthy dialogue can be had by both parties.

 

[David777]

Hello Chad.

I still hold to the position that Jesus Christ is the revealed Truth.

One cannot fully know the Truth unless one first seeks Jesus.

When Jesus makes contact via the Holy Spirit then one knows
what the real Truth is.

This is the real extraordinary evidence.

Is this subject to scientific testing?

No, because science cannot measure revelation.

Also, science cannot detect the Holy Spirit.

In the end science is and always will be in the dark.

Let there be light!

 

[B-A-C]

Science... ah sweet wonderful science.. has become the "god" of many. And what is science really? Theory. All of science is theory. This week alone I have seen articles claiming that perhaps Einstein wasn't correct, maybe some things do move faster the speed of light, and yet another article stating that perhaps the speed of light is as always as constant as we thought it was. Yet another article stating that carbon dating could be off by millions of years. These weren't Christian articles trying to discredit science.. these were mainstream news stories on secular news sites.

Some of these theories can be "proven", and some of these proven theories end up being "un-proven" a few years later. Remember, at one time the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

So really science is all just theory.. what is theory? This is from merriam-webster.com

Theory -

2
: abstract thought : speculation

3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4
a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6
a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

So theory is.. a belief, a speculation, a plausible explanation, or a hypothetical abstract principle.

This sounds a lot like Christianity. A belief in something that can't be seen.

Should we believe in science? speculation? theory? a plausible abstract? hypothetical? the laws of nature? or should we believe in the one who created all these things?

references..
http news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110923-neutrinos-speed-of-light-particles-cern-physics-einstein-science/

http www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/permian-extinction-dynamics/

http www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

 

[David777]

That's the way B-A-C.

Science reminds me of Politics and Philosophy, when all is said
and done there is more said and done.

These areas are a hot bed of debate, no solutions can ever be found.

Why?

They do not have the Truth, the Truth is spiritual, it sets us free.

Jesus Christ is the Truth, always was, always will be.

Jesus Christ is the evidence, extraordinary at that.

 

[my_little_pony]

The thing is, Jesus is not an ideology or a philosophy or even a theology. He is a way of life.

The only proof that will convince anyone is their own willingness to try what Jesus said. After all, if anyone can talk us into faith in Jesus, it's only a matter of time before someone will talk us out.

Even in Jesus' day, we read about miracle after miracle, and still Jesus was challenged on his validity. He fed thousands of people and the scripture records that, when he perceived the people would try to make him a king by force, he ran away. The next day, when they found him again, they asked him for a sign to prove himself!!! (john 6)

In another place Jesus said that if people would try his teachings, they would see that he really was teaching on behalf of God.

In the book of acts, we read about a community of Christians who sold everything they had, shared all things in common, and started living and working together. The book later records a statement "those who have turned the world upside down have come here".

The proof that people need to see is US. It is our leadership (i.e. Christians doing what Jesus and his followers did) which will give others the courage to try for themselves, and when they try it for themselves, that will be the ultimate proof in their hearts, which no one will be able to take away.

 

[Mr. Traverse]

I enjoy Hume's take on this matter.

"That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish;..." - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding By: David Hume

Matt Slick is assuming that "extraordinary" in the phrase, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.", means we are to decide, based upon presuppositions, which claims require evidence and which claims do not. That is not what the phrase is meant to communicate.

In Jesus' resurrection, for example, Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead. The evidence of fulfilled prophecy, eyewitness records, and changed lives of the disciples is enough to convince many people who believe in God that Jesus rose from the dead. This is a logical conclusion based on the presupposition and the evidence.

Atheists, on the other hand, would negate the resurrection by default since their presupposition that there is no God1 would require that God involvement cannot occur. Therefore, for an atheist the extraordinary evidence would have to be "exceptionally" extraordinary in order to overcome his atheistic presuppositions. In other words, evidence would need to be presented that was rock solid and irrefutable.

Matt Slick is correct in saying ones presuppositions influence which claims are extraordinary and which are not. He even demonstrates it himself by pointing out the claim "an alien race has made contact with earth" would need sufficient evidence to verify it, but then allows the presupposition of the existence of a God to influence Biblical claims as "not extraordinary". However, he is assuming the aforementioned phrase is attempting to communicate that we should hold a presupposition at all.

He also asserts that, "Atheists, on the other hand, would negate the resurrection by default since their presupposition that there is no God1 would require that God involvement cannot occur.".

Matt Slick himself admits that the Christian is presupposing the existence of the God of the Bible, thus biasing biblical claims in favor of concluding truth. However, atheism does not necessitate that a God does not or cannot exist, thus the presupposition "there is no god" need not be held. The difference is in proclaiming this God does not exist, and admitting that one has not been presented adequate evidence to believe this God exists. The latter allows for the possibility that God exists, thus there is no bias for or against such a possibility, only open skepticism.

Going back to Matt Slick's "alien race visiting earth" example: It would be as if the believer of this claim presupposed an alien race with the knowledge of earth, the capability of visiting earth, and the desire to do so actually existed at all. Why hold that presupposition at all? Similarly, why presuppose the God of the Bible exists?

This is why the skeptic must require "extraordinary evidence." It enables him to retain his presupposition should the extraordinary level of the evidence not be met. Therefore, requiring extraordinary evidence effectively stacks the deck against the claim.

On the contrary, Matt Slick admits that the theist presupposes the existence of the God of the Bible, thus biasing Biblical claims as more likely true than not. Whereas, the most intellectually honest position would be to not hold such a presupposition in the first place so as not to bias Biblical claims in favor of a truth conclusion.

The term "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not meant to elevate certain claims as out of reach regarding their truth. It is about applying the standards of evidence equally to every claim made. When those standards of evidence are met, the claim is no longer extraordinary.

Claim 1: "I am typing on a computer.". This is not an extraordinary claim because we have evidence that computers exist, and that people use them to type letters and correspondence. Therefore, evidence already exists for this claim to be deemed reasonable and for it to be probable that this is true.

Claim 2: "A flying, fire breathing dragon destroyed my computer.". This is an extraordinary claim not because I hold a presupposition that dragons do not exist, but because the existence of flying, fire breathing dragons does not have the same amount of evidence behind it that a claim like, "I am typing on my computer" has. Thus, it is deemed extraordinary until it meets the same level of evidence that claim 1 has.

Respectfully,

Traverse

 

[David777]

Puzzling line.

Hello transverse.

You said,

"Whereas, the most intellectually honest position would be to not hold such a
presupposition in the first place so as not to bias Biblical claims in favor
of a truth conclusion."

What an interesting statement to make.

Is an intellectually honest position an ideal in itself.

Is your presupposition that this position exists?

How do you measure honesty or test it?

Are we honest within our own thoughts?

How would we know in the first place?

 

[Mr. Traverse]

Hello transverse.

You said,

"Whereas, the most intellectually honest position would be to not hold such a
presupposition in the first place so as not to bias Biblical claims in favor
of a truth conclusion."

What an interesting statement to make.

Is an intellectually honest position an ideal in itself.

Is your presupposition that this position exists?

How do you measure honesty or test it?

Are we honest within our own thoughts?

How would we know in the first place?

David,

I would have thought the statement speaks for itself. If you don't want to bias your conclusions, that type of intellectual honesty is indeed ideal. If you do want to bias your conclusions, clearly it isn't ideal.

Even Matt Slick's argument, at the very least, implies that these presuppositions should be avoided, otherwise he would have no contention to raise (even though his contention is not correct). See his example of alien visitors being an "extraordinary claim" without any held presupposition, as well as his discussion and condemnation of the presupposition he concludes atheists hold, as an example (even though the latter was wrongly arrived at as I explained above).

For further clarification: Wikipedia has a perfect submission on "intellectual dishonesty". I recommend searching google for the keywords "intellectual dishonesty wiki" for that page, as I am unable to post links. The second bullet point seems to be the most relevant for our purposes.

"the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position" *Wiki

A presupposition is just that; A supposition made prior to having knowledge. Matt Slick admits, "In Jesus' resurrection, for example, Christians presuppose that God exists and that He could easily have raised Jesus from the dead.".

Respectfully,

Traverse

 

[Donnie Ducati]

I still hold to the position that Jesus Christ is the revealed Truth.

One cannot fully know the Truth unless one first seeks Jesus.

When Jesus makes contact via the Holy Spirit then one knows
what the real Truth is.

This is the real extraordinary evidence.

Is this subject to scientific testing?

No, because science cannot measure revelation.

Also, science cannot detect the Holy Spirit.

In the end science is and always will be in the dark.

Let there be light!

Perfect ! :handshake:

 

[Kit Carson]

Some of these things are dangerous. One can get led astray by becoming too smart...I know I become too smart, found out I was really pretty stupid.
So when I speak of such things, I simply say, my extraordinary evidence is the way I know right from wrong. No one has to tell me right from wrong, I just know. If I do something wrong I know it to be so, and I will most likely not do it to begin with as I am convicted that it is wrong .

So my extraordinary evidence is the way God speaks to us. One would have to be totally dumb not to realize how this takes place.

Of course those who have not accepted God, do not realize this as they are still caught up in mans way of justification by our own mind and ways, that all elusive request for evidence of physical proof.

As God is spirit.......it is the spirit within us that provides us with extraordinary evidence.

Kit

 

[JRFifty]

Logic

I think the book of Romans addresses these issues. but I have found that many atheists and others, even when shown the truth still refuse to accept it.
Here are some logical proofs for the Bible. There's more
The gifts of the Holy Spirit
Bible Prophecy
Then Evolution can be refuted using the scientific method.
Law of biogenesis is violated in Evolution.
Since only life begets life, then creation must be supernatural beyond science.
I'm not a big fan of taking things on faith. I'm with the objectivists when they say reason is the only tool for mans survival.
So with my reason and logical faculties I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

 

[Fraction]

This thread seems to bend to the topic of "what to say to an atheist".

What's with all the defense against the atheist threads? Christianity would have a lot better chance at spreading if debates were avoided. Debating and fighting over reasons to believe or to not believe have been useless since day one of humanity. Simply look at all the death and destruction in the world currently and in the past.

I also get this feeling that you are trying to say there actually IS extraordinary evidence out there. This is obviously a false statement, or else everyone would be a believer in Jesus Christ. There is no evidence. There is no proof. Faith in Jesus Christ is a chance that every single one of us take. Our beliefs will take hold of us in several different ways and appeal to us for several different reasons.

My point isn't trying to aim at "God doesn't exist". It is the fact that there is no proof or extraordinary evidence in general or as a whole. You might feel this extraordinary evidence within you for your own personal reasons, but no one can speak for humanity as a whole. In a very logical perspective, it is safe to say "at least the Christian God doesn't exist". We as Christians ignore that, take the chance, and it is proven to us individually by Gods will.

This global extraordinary proof you are talking about would come from God's constant direct (in a materialized worldly form) contact with humanity. It will need much more than a book (that could have been made up for multiple reasonable reasons) or on TV (which can obviously be edited and made pretty with CGI).

We also need to address the fact that there are a lot of things that Christians refuse to believe that have extraordinary evidence. One of these things are dinosaurs. There are a a lot of world wide events and changes as well, but I'd have to google and stuff and I think that everyone has the point from dinosaurs lol.

If anything, there is strong evidence that disproves Christianity. We can examine the fact that none of the events in the bible were written down by any historian to ever exist during it's time. After saying this, we must be careful with our faith. Whether it be real or not, true Christianity is a very positive state of mind and heart.

In no way do I try to disprove anyone's beliefs, or even my own. In no way do I mean to offend anyone. I am simply stating my own opinion and view. In no way am I aiming to start and argument or any type of debate. Debates and arguments will get us nowhere.

 

[agua]

.....
I also get this feeling that you are trying to say there actually IS extraordinary evidence out there. This is obviously a false statement, or else everyone would be a believer in Jesus Christ. There is no evidence. There is no proof. Faith in Jesus Christ is a chance that every single one of us take. Our beliefs will take hold of us in several different ways and appeal to us for several different reasons.
.....

God thinks there is ample evidence of Him.

Rom 1:19-21 KJV Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. (20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.


Some choose to accept this and seek God. Some don't.

 

[Fraction]

When you look at everything closely, there is evidence of there being some type of higher power or deity. Which is why I could never see my self converting to atheism. (no offense to any atheists)

A few examples are very obvious.

Life exists in a very logical and sometimes even perfect way. Take Photosynthesis for example. Without this process life would not be possible. We would simply use up our most valuable resource, and life on earth would end. Another example is the beauty of life which includes amazing emotions, such as love. Another one is the beauty of earth and the heavens/space. Ever notice how some things are just too beautiful for our minds to sometimes understand? These things are all natural, which is even more impressive.

This extraordinary evidence and ample evidence that we speak about has changed dramatically from the time of Jesus Christ. Look at it this way, the question "Why?" has always been a huge question. As science and technology increase, this question becomes a tiny bit less every time there is a boom in these fields. So it's safe to say that the question "Why?" used to be so much bigger. What I am trying to say, is that people blame science for causes and effects more now, because science actually is pretty stable in a whole lot of areas. Some of the natural reasons for things to occur now have a reason behind it, and people see it as not a Godly reason.

I however, believe that God is not only our creator and caregiver but also a highly skilled scientist. The inventor of science to be more precise. His science is perfect, while we are still to young to achieve absolute answers with science (obviously).

I guess what I am trying to get across that extraordinary and ample evidence have taken on a new meaning and will continue to do so until the end of time. However, it is obvious to me that God reaches through these changes and adapts to them perfectly. (God doesn't really need to adapt because He is perfect and all powerful, but I hope you understand my point here) Look at this as an example, diseases constantly evolve to try to survive and kill us. However, God still performs miracles on the sick even though the sicknesses constantly change in structure. Take notice that starting from the old testament and ending in the new testament in the bible, A LOT of changes are made by God himself. He makes decisions and push forward actions to change things into what will work.

In the end I say this, the world changes all the time but God does not. God has always called out to people in his own way. All of the writers of the bible are direct evidence to back this up. Even though we not be able to see what we consider "hardcore proof", God will convince us if we are willing to accept it.

Sorry, kind of all over the place with this one. I hope readers will be able to understand. >.<