OK, I've run into this enough that we need a post to explain this to the religious posters. A lot of apologists want to take issue with ECREE, not surprisingly. Here's why you can't with all honesty and yet function in day to day life.
ECREE is Carl Sagan's axiom that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". As I understand this, it means that as someone makes a positive claim, the level of evidence required in order to meet the burden of proof is proportional to the nature of the claim itself. This is really a no-brainer and it's how every normal person functions in all areas of life outside of religion.
To help explain this axiom and how it applies in other areas of life, I'm going to use four examples that are all similar in nature (a claim to have had lunch with some person) but different in the claim's nature on the scale from mundane to ridiculous.
Nature of the Claim: Mundane
Probable Reaction: Little or no skepticism
Such an ordinary positive claim about the nature of my activities today and who I had them with will likely require little more evidence than my testimony. My good word combined with the lack of contrary evidence (such as, "Wait, I was with Dave all day today. How could you have had lunch with him?") is sufficient for the positive claim to be accepted. Follow up questions will likely indicate the acceptance of the claim, such as "Oh, how's he doing?"
Nature of the Claim: Extraordinary
Probable Reaction: Skepticism
This claim will probably require some evidence beyond my testimony. Maybe a photograph, a news report or the fact that I represent some influential group that would likely have such access. Followup questions would likely indicate some degree of skepticism, such as "Why would the mayor be having lunch with you?"
Nature of the Claim: Ridiculous
Probable Reaction: Not even taken seriously
This claim will likely not be met with even skepticism but rather immediate rejection, scorn and ridicule. Follow up questions will reflect this lack of seriousness, such as, "Oh, was Vladimir Putin there too?" Evidence required will go beyond just presenting photographs, for these will be likely rejected as photoshopped or doctored in some other way. Only extraordinary evidence will counter this reaction and bring it to acceptance, such as news reports on reputable news stations, with multiple reporters covering the event.
Nature of the Claim: Batshit
Probable Reaction: My friends will try to keep me calm with the professionals in the clean white coats come to give me a sleeveless jacket.
I struggle to think of what kind of evidence would be needed to overcome any and all skepticism. Even with hundreds of eye-witnesses and reputable media outlets reporting on the event would still leave the skeptical stunned wondering if there are non-supernatural explanations. Perhaps its a hoax? Maybe dad faked his death and has been in hiding all this time?
I hope this post helps the religious to understand two things:
1. Why "...but it says in this book..." is not sufficient to persuade non believers.
2. Why we accuse you of special pleading when you accept the extraordinary claims of your own religion with little or no evidence but reject all other religions and don't apply such sloppy thinking to your own day-to-day life.
ECREE is Carl Sagan's axiom that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". As I understand this, it means that as someone makes a positive claim, the level of evidence required in order to meet the burden of proof is proportional to the nature of the claim itself. This is really a no-brainer and it's how every normal person functions in all areas of life outside of religion.
To help explain this axiom and how it applies in other areas of life, I'm going to use four examples that are all similar in nature (a claim to have had lunch with some person) but different in the claim's nature on the scale from mundane to ridiculous.
Quote:EXAMPLE 1
"I had lunch with a local friend today"
Nature of the Claim: Mundane
Probable Reaction: Little or no skepticism
Such an ordinary positive claim about the nature of my activities today and who I had them with will likely require little more evidence than my testimony. My good word combined with the lack of contrary evidence (such as, "Wait, I was with Dave all day today. How could you have had lunch with him?") is sufficient for the positive claim to be accepted. Follow up questions will likely indicate the acceptance of the claim, such as "Oh, how's he doing?"
Quote:EXAMPLE 2
"I had lunch with the mayor of my city today"
Background: My home city is about 1 million in the greater metropolitan area. I am neither related to the mayor, nor am I a personal friend, nor am I an especially rich or influential citizen.
Nature of the Claim: Extraordinary
Probable Reaction: Skepticism
This claim will probably require some evidence beyond my testimony. Maybe a photograph, a news report or the fact that I represent some influential group that would likely have such access. Followup questions would likely indicate some degree of skepticism, such as "Why would the mayor be having lunch with you?"
Quote:EXAMPLE 3
"I had lunch with president Obama today"
Nature of the Claim: Ridiculous
Probable Reaction: Not even taken seriously
This claim will likely not be met with even skepticism but rather immediate rejection, scorn and ridicule. Follow up questions will reflect this lack of seriousness, such as, "Oh, was Vladimir Putin there too?" Evidence required will go beyond just presenting photographs, for these will be likely rejected as photoshopped or doctored in some other way. Only extraordinary evidence will counter this reaction and bring it to acceptance, such as news reports on reputable news stations, with multiple reporters covering the event.
Quote:EXAMPLE 4
"I had lunch with my deceased father today."
Background: he passed away about 10 years ago.
Nature of the Claim: Batshit
Probable Reaction: My friends will try to keep me calm with the professionals in the clean white coats come to give me a sleeveless jacket.
I struggle to think of what kind of evidence would be needed to overcome any and all skepticism. Even with hundreds of eye-witnesses and reputable media outlets reporting on the event would still leave the skeptical stunned wondering if there are non-supernatural explanations. Perhaps its a hoax? Maybe dad faked his death and has been in hiding all this time?
I hope this post helps the religious to understand two things:
1. Why "...but it says in this book..." is not sufficient to persuade non believers.
2. Why we accuse you of special pleading when you accept the extraordinary claims of your own religion with little or no evidence but reject all other religions and don't apply such sloppy thinking to your own day-to-day life.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
![[Image: Those2.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i75.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi319%2FRokcetScientist%2FThose2.jpg)
