Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[Whateverist]

My sentiments to a T.  Rather than argue for the superiority of your epistemic position, the essence of faith would be to admit its frailty and persist nonetheless.  If you have so little faith anyhow, why is it important to convince us?  Convince yourself.

I think that you have a different understanding of faith than I do.  And I don't consider my faith weak, but strong because of the evidence.

That kind of makes you like the guy who had to stick his fingers in the hole, kind of lower on the faith spectrum.  Doubt if that will get you a good seat at the table.

[Astonished]

My sentiments to a T.  Rather than argue for the superiority of your epistemic position, the essence of faith would be to admit its frailty and persist nonetheless.  If you have so little faith anyhow, why is it important to convince us?  Convince yourself.

I think that you have a different understanding of faith than I do.  And I don't consider my faith weak, but strong because of the evidence.

Okay, so you are just genuinely fucking stupid. Got it. Good to know.

[KevinM1]

Oh really?  When you go to a doctor does he do diagnostic tests on you or does he drive out demons?

Kindly join the 21st century.  You're embarrassing yourself now.

I put on a voodoo mask, sprinkle my patients with "special" blue water, wave rattles at them, and chant to the god Ripemoff" to drive the demons out.

I find it saves time and I can still charge them a shit-ton of cash.

Man, all my doctor does is order a phlebotomist to draw blood, read from a chart, and prescribe pills. I'd much rather have a show with my vein poke.

[Neo-Scholastic]

---

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

It seems that the word 'extraordinary' is highly subjective based on a person's knowledge or experience. As an extreme example, wouldn't everything be extraordinary to someone who knew nothing? So, what makes a claim extraordinary? Uncommon or rare things happen every day. What is the threshold from crossing from ordinary to extraordinary that triggers this supposed need for a special class of evidence? And what constitutes this special class of extraordinary evidence? Is is a quantity thing or a quality thing?

While we could apply this discussion to a wide variety of claims, my interest  in the question is does it apply to supernatural/NT claims and if so, how?

For the purpose of this discussion, I define a miracle as a supernatural causation of a physical event, happening in time to physical objects. It is not a suspension of the laws of nature--rather inserting a cause from outside nature. 

First point. Of course someone being supernaturally healed or rising from the dead is an improbable claim. However, the improbability of this event could be counter-balanced by examining the evidence and simply asking the question: what is the probability of this evidence being present had a miracle not occurred? As this probability number goes down, the probability of the event having a supernatural cause goes up. Notice that there is no requirement that the evidence be 'extraordinary'.

Another point is that if the atheist equates supernatural with extraordinary claims (citing a lack of evidence), this implies that ordinary claims are ones that have good evidence to support it. To follow that line of thinking through, what is the good evidence for atheism? In fact, since there is zero evidence for atheism, the presence of the NT evidence and the fact that most people in the world intuitively believes in the supernatural, isn't the atheist making the extraordinary claim? If you go with the BS that atheists make no claims, then I would make the more modest point that atheist's 'extraordinary' assessment of NT claims are unfounded.

---

I think it is a fancy way of promoting selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticsim.  As you pointed out, what is an extraordinary claim; or for that matter, what is extraordinary evidence?  It is often just a way to move the goalpost, for that which goes against ones worldview.  To test this, try using this claim when the shoe is on the other foot, and see what your results are.  

I have started discussions before; I don't think that this philosophy is valid (although I can see where it could be useful to dismiss things lazily).  I think it is inconsistent and subjective.   You may get an example, and be asked, which you would be more likely to believe and they will give and analogy, with one thing you will likely accept, and one you likely won't.   However from an epistemology sense they are equal.   You don't have more reason to believe one over the other.  My view is that you are more willing to relieve the epistemic burden for one over the other.  Not that one requires more as a way of knowing.  That is; you are willing to make more assumptions or believe more on faith, in one instance over the other.  

I have heard some valid points, when I am able to get people to discuss this and I'm willing to concede a few things.   However, I don't think it gets you to the way that the extraordinary claims sound bite is often used.  

Anyway, based on my experience, I wish you luck in your efforts.

The whole point of the scientific method is to remove subjective judgment from the evaluation of a hypothesis. The irony is that when it comes to anything remotely hinting at the supernatural, in trots the highly subjective criteria of 'extraordinary'. These pseudo-skeptics are a bunch of hypocrites. It's all science, science, science, until its something they don't like and it suits their incredulity its science+. "Oh, yes that's evidence, but its not EXTRAORDINARY evidence"

[The Grand Nudger]

Neo, lol...what would be ordinary about evidence for the supernatural?  Think it through.  

I'll be blunt, I see three people bitching about the fact that "a demi god rose from the dead" is going to take more than "well, there's this book..see...."

[chimp3]

I think it is a fancy way of promoting selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticsim.  As you pointed out, what is an extraordinary claim; or for that matter, what is extraordinary evidence?  It is often just a way to move the goalpost, for that which goes against ones worldview.  To test this, try using this claim when the shoe is on the other foot, and see what your results are.  

I have started discussions before; I don't think that this philosophy is valid (although I can see where it could be useful to dismiss things lazily).  I think it is inconsistent and subjective.   You may get an example, and be asked, which you would be more likely to believe and they will give and analogy, with one thing you will likely accept, and one you likely won't.   However from an epistemology sense they are equal.   You don't have more reason to believe one over the other.  My view is that you are more willing to relieve the epistemic burden for one over the other.  Not that one requires more as a way of knowing.  That is; you are willing to make more assumptions or believe more on faith, in one instance over the other.  

I have heard some valid points, when I am able to get people to discuss this and I'm willing to concede a few things.   However, I don't think it gets you to the way that the extraordinary claims sound bite is often used.  

Anyway, based on my experience, I wish you luck in your efforts.

The whole point of the scientific method is to remove subjective judgment from the evaluation of a hypothesis. The irony is that when it comes to anything remotely hinting at the supernatural, in trots the highly subjective criteria of 'extraordinary'. These pseudo-skeptics are a bunch of hypocrites. It's all science, science, science, until its something they don't like and it suits their incredulity its science+. "Oh, yes that's evidence, but its not EXTRAORDINARY evidence"

Duh!

[The Grand Nudger]

@Whatevs
"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
-Some Fuckin Guy

“But if I go to the east, he is not there;
if I go to the west, I do not find him.
When he is at work in the north, I do not see him;
when he turns to the south, I catch no glimpse of him.
But he knows the way that I take;
when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold."
-One Dead Hebrew

Guess that god just gave up. These fellas find the evidence everywhere.

[Astonished]

I recall mentioning that the supernatural is a self-refuting term...

[KevinM1]

For evidence to be valid, it not only must exist, it cannot be evidence of something else. And it's that last clause that always trips up theists when they whine about us scoffing at the supernatural. You need to first demonstrate that what's happening isn't actually yet undiscovered natural phenomena (and let's face it - transforming the once-miraculous into the mundane is what science does).

Good luck with that.

[Jehanne]

I think it is a fancy way of promoting selective hyperskepticism and/or pseudoskepticsim.  As you pointed out, what is an extraordinary claim; or for that matter, what is extraordinary evidence?  It is often just a way to move the goalpost, for that which goes against ones worldview.  To test this, try using this claim when the shoe is on the other foot, and see what your results are.  

I have started discussions before; I don't think that this philosophy is valid (although I can see where it could be useful to dismiss things lazily).  I think it is inconsistent and subjective.   You may get an example, and be asked, which you would be more likely to believe and they will give and analogy, with one thing you will likely accept, and one you likely won't.   However from an epistemology sense they are equal.   You don't have more reason to believe one over the other.  My view is that you are more willing to relieve the epistemic burden for one over the other.  Not that one requires more as a way of knowing.  That is; you are willing to make more assumptions or believe more on faith, in one instance over the other.  

I have heard some valid points, when I am able to get people to discuss this and I'm willing to concede a few things.   However, I don't think it gets you to the way that the extraordinary claims sound bite is often used.  

Anyway, based on my experience, I wish you luck in your efforts.

The whole point of the scientific method is to remove subjective judgment from the evaluation of a hypothesis. The irony is that when it comes to anything remotely hinting at the supernatural, in trots the highly subjective criteria of 'extraordinary'. These pseudo-skeptics are a bunch of hypocrites. It's all science, science, science, until its something they don't like and it suits their incredulity its science+. "Oh, yes that's evidence, but its not EXTRAORDINARY evidence"

I assume that you accept the so-called Miracle of Calanda:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

If so, what happened to the body?  (Note my question on the Talk page -- feel free to start a new thread, if you would like to!)