New Video on Apologetics

[Minimalist]

"Singularity of stupid." Great line. Where is Godschild, btw. He was the embodiment of that.

[catfish]

"Singularity of stupid." Great line. Where is Godschild, btw. He was the embodiment of that.

I'm gonna take credit for chasing him away...

[DeistPaladin]

But anyways, wouldn't you agree that claiming victory before evidence is presented is a logical fallacy in all circumstances?

They (you) don't present any evidence. That's why they've lost.

[Minimalist]

They cannot present what they do not have.

[catfish]

See, but there could be. I don't trust that what scrolls and fragments that are available aren't the only ones. There could be some pointer to scientific proof and noone can really be sure of anything until the entire case has been presented.

What do you want, evidence of God or that the "Biblle" is true? Or both? Personally, I wouldn't defend the Bible untill I saw what the Vatican is hiding...

[Angrboda]

While I appreciate your videos, whenever I hear people echo the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I tend to cringe inwardly. For one, it's often wielded as a dogmatic truth, without explanation or rationale, and that is done here no less than elsewhere. When stated in this fashion, it appears to be argument by bare assertion, which it is, and is unlikely to convince someone not already convinced. (Or skeptical of the viewpoint of the person making the assertion. I might turn this around and say that the claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is itself an extraordinary claim and ask you where your extraordinary evidence for the proposition is?)

Ultimately, the question of extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence touches on deep topics in statistics, epistemology, ontology and human belief. Throwing it out there with just a "because Sagan says so" is not going to be particularly useful. In my view, the extraordinary evidence claim rests on the nature of setting the boundaries for Type I and Type II errors, or in plain terms, how often we're going to accept our tests producing false positives or false negatives, with false claims and true claims respectively. (Victor Stenger notes in God: The Failed Hypothesis that tests of medical claims and hypotheses use a much less strict standard for evaluating Type I and II errors than do those in the physical sciences, pointing out that the question of when extraordinary evidence is required and to what extent, is not a free floating absolute, but is entangled with assumptions about how the knowledge acquired from such tests is to be used, and what the relative consequences of failure are; there is no "one size fits all" here.)

Moreover, whether a claim is itself extraordinary, and whether the evidence provided is satisfactory is not purely objective and can depend critically on the person's prior beliefs, as well as to overall world view. The claim that "God exists" is going to seem considerably less extraordinary to someone who has accepted such notions all their life than to a lifelong atheist; and a person who believes in ghosts and spirits isn't as likely to see other disembodied forces, whether gods or telekinesis, as seemingly as exceptional as someone who doesn't. Moreover, most worldviews come with their own sets of evidences, and these evidences are seldom either rigorously acquired or examined, such that, people generally just assume the adequacy of their world view and its evidence, independent of what an outsider may think of that evidence. (And this applies generally, not just to religious belief. One might suggest that the appeal of coherency theories of truth, that the truth of an item isn't evaluated absolutely, but only with respect to its consistency with other held truths, that the popularity of coherentism, might itself well point to a very real circularity in all our beliefs, that we gauge the evidence for one belief in terms of the other beliefs in our "network" of beliefs.)

And finally, the nature of evidence and type I and II errors is highly theory dependent. One corollary to the extraordinary evidence claim which is often wielded against parapsychology and alternative medicine is the notion that for any hypothesis where the mechanism of action is either implausible or absent, it is perfectly legitimate to require a tighter bound on Type I errors (reduce the probability that chance will result in a false positive). This is just the "extraordinary evidence" slogan wearing slightly different clothing, and whether it is justified in application in those fields requires considerably greater rationale than provided in the video. Furthermore, as modern philosophy of science makes clear, evidence is not just an objective collection of facts that exists independent of theory: evidence is highly theory dependent. While I don't hold to any theory which would accept the demonstration of the health benefits of magnets without extraordinary evidence, someone who holds to a theory that our health is in some way tied to the flow of "biological energies" would likely require a different standard of evidence, as well as different views on what constitutes evidence, and how to interpret the results of various tests, scientific or otherwise. (And note that this gets very tricky. While those in mainstream science are quick to label the theories of pseudoscience as "absent mechanism," there's always going to be a grey area where it's impossible to tell whether what is at hand is quackery, or unproven science. Lest our science be ruled by the Semmelweis effect, we have to be sensitive to such boundary questions.) For a practical example of the theory dependent nature of evidence with respect to religion, one might point to the supposed absence of miracles in the modern era. While there are methodological issues at large here (what is the proper base rate occurrence of miracles, e.g.), one might look to the differing theories that antagonists each have in mind. For the secularist, the miracles and stories of Christianity are theorized to be largely mythological, a result of credulous people accepting belief of things improperly; on this theory, the change in the supposed rate of observed miracles might be viewed as a sign that with decreased credulity, increased knowledge and so forth, over time these miracle stories had a harder time establishing a foothold, thus leading to a supposed "dearth" of miracles. The evidence fits the theory. However, a Christian may reflect on Jesus' words and the story of the curtain ripping in the temple, and hold to a theory that Christ and his dispensation led to a new era in which miracles were no longer an important part of God's message to the world. Under this theory, the dearth of miracles is explained by the change in the nature of the covenant. To their view, the evidence equally as well fits what theory would predict that they would see. One might point to the possibility of circularity involved in forming theories, but the larger point is that you can't speak of "evidence" independent of specific theoretical assumptions and commitments, and to ignore the different theoretical stances in determining what is evidence, and certainly the question of what are extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence, is likely going to lead into error; at minimum, it's unlikely to bridge whatever gaps need bridging in order to persuade someone with a different set of theoretical and ideological commitments than you.

[fr0d0]

Great post apophenia

[DeistPaladin]

Apophenia, did you watch this video?

[ECREE is] ...often wielded as a dogmatic truth, without explanation or rationale, and that is done here no less than elsewhere. When stated in this fashion, it appears to be argument by bare assertion, which it is, and is unlikely to convince someone not already convinced.

I already went over this in the video. ECREE isn't dogma. It's a reflection of how we evaluate claims in all areas of life outside of religious faith. See the examples I used in the video.

Throwing it out there with just a "because Sagan says so" is not going to be particularly useful.

Agreed. That would be the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, which is precisely why I did not do that. My mention of Sagan is to properly footnote the observation.

Similarly, I don't believe in evolution "because Richard Dawkins says so" but will still cite Dawkins on what he's said.

However, a Christian may reflect on Jesus' words and the story of the curtain ripping in the temple, and hold to a theory that Christ and his dispensation led to a new era in which miracles were no longer an important part of God's message to the world. Under this theory, the dearth of miracles is explained by the change in the nature of the covenant.

Interesting theory. Too bad the Bible completely contradicts this theology. Have you read the Book of Acts? It's probably the one most filled to the brim with magic of any of the NT books. Certainly so when you consider only mortal-wielded magic.

[catfish]

Damn, you non christians are so dogmatic in your Christian beliefs...
.

[DeistPaladin]

Damn, you non christians are so dogmatic in your Christian beliefs...
.

Are you incapable of being coherent?