Do extrordinary events require extrordinary evidence?

[danserr]

youtube.com/watch?v=5M9pphsSLPs

It is a common skeptical assertion that “Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.” I’ve seen it a few times on this board and other boards here, often especially when evidence for the resurrection comes up and though it would be fun to discuss. The link above is a pretty good response to that view, in my opinion, but I’ll still write out my thoughts.

“Extraordinary events…” has always struck me as sort of a cop-out. A theist/historian/scientist etc. can put together some good thoughtful evidence for God or the Resurrection, present it, and the skeptic only has to reply “well, extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence, so there.” And the skeptic doesn’t even have to consider or respond to the evidence. Furthermore, there are serious problems with the idea.

1. If the skeptic is applying this claim to God’s existence, what basis does the skeptic have to say that God’s existence is extraordinarily improbable? At most, it could be improbable relative to the evidence, but then the skeptic has to confront the evidence and cannot use “ext.ev.req.ext.evid” as a way to reject the evidence.
2. More importantly, as the video shows, the claims that "extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence is demonstrably false.

• example. I buy a lottery ticket on the way home from work. The next day I hear my number reported on the news as the winning number of 20 million dollars, 10, 18, 59, 35, 22, 23. I get excited. Visions of sugarplums and excessive wealth dance in my head. But then I calm down. I realize that “extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.” I realize that that number being called is extraordinarily improbable, that me winning 20 million dollars is extraordinarily improbable . So I tear up my ticket and throw it in the trash.
• Obviously, I have behaved irrationally, in basing my disbelief in the view that “extraordinary events req. extraordinary evidence,” so where did I go wrong? Because besides knowing that that number being picked is extraordinarily improbable, I know something else. I know that it is very improbable that the news would actually report that number as the winning number, unless it really was the winning number. So you don’t just consider the probability of the event or proposition in isolation, but you have to consider the likelihood the the evidence would be what it is, if the event in question did not occur.

3a). Applied to God’s existence. Even if the theist granted the God’s existence is improbable taken in isolation, he could still say that God’s evidence is not extraordinarily improbable when considered in relation to the evidence. On the contrary, it is very improbable that: the universe would have a beginning, something would exist rather than nothing, the universe would be finely tuned for life, etc if God did not exist. But since these things are the case, it is probable that God exists.
3b). Applied to the resurrection. Even if a thiest granted that the Resurrection is improbable taken in isolation, he knows something else. He knows that it is very improbable that we should have things like the empty tomb, the Resurrection appearances, and the origin of Christian belief if the Resurrection did not occur. But since we have these things, it is probable that the Resurrection occurred.

 

[kaid100]

The phrase is actually “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Imagine it from the other side. If someone said that they could cast a spell to make it rain, or that they were telepathic, or that they were a demigod daughter of Zeus born to a swan, or any other non-JudeoChristian supernatural belief: would you believe them just on their say-so?

 

[thirddec]

I’m afraid the answer No is too simplistic as is the answer Yes. I will try to explain my thinking.

No-- If God gave an extra ordinary proof every time he gave a message it would interfere with our free choice to believe in him or not and therefore interefere with his plan. He gives sufficient proof but not over whelming so we still have a choice to believe or not according to our hearts.

Yes—If God didnt give some extra ordinary proof at least to those being given the message how would they even know for sure it was from a higher power. Without some proof beyond the normal our faith would be at the risk of being undermined by every self serving seer.

So in my humble opinion there is no right or wrong answer its all about context and how big an impact the event is claiming on the faith, and how God wants the event to function in the Human conciousness within the framework of nature and free will.

Love and Respect

 

[jonfawkes]

youtube.com/watch?v=5M9pphsSLPs

It is a common skeptical assertion that “Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.” I’ve seen it a few times on this board and other boards here, often especially when evidence for the resurrection comes up and though it would be fun to discuss. The link above is a pretty good response to that view, in my opinion, but I’ll still write out my thoughts.

“Extraordinary events…” has always struck me as sort of a cop-out. A theist/historian/scientist etc. can put together some good thoughtful evidence for God or the Resurrection, present it, and the skeptic only has to reply “well, extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence, so there.” And the skeptic doesn’t even have to consider or respond to the evidence. Furthermore, there are serious problems with the idea.

1. If the skeptic is applying this claim to God’s existence, what basis does the skeptic have to say that God’s existence is extraordinarily improbable? At most, it could be improbable relative to the evidence, but then the skeptic has to confront the evidence and cannot use “ext.ev.req.ext.evid” as a way to reject the evidence.
2. More importantly, as the video shows, the claims that "extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence is demonstrably false.

• example. I buy a lottery ticket on the way home from work. The next day I hear my number reported on the news as the winning number of 20 million dollars, 10, 18, 59, 35, 22, 23. I get excited. Visions of sugarplums and excessive wealth dance in my head. But then I calm down. I realize that “extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.” I realize that that number being called is extraordinarily improbable, that me winning 20 million dollars is extraordinarily improbable . So I tear up my ticket and throw it in the trash.
• Obviously, I have behaved irrationally, in basing my disbelief in the view that “extraordinary events req. extraordinary evidence,” so where did I go wrong? Because besides knowing that that number being picked is extraordinarily improbable, I know something else. I know that it is very improbable that the news would actually report that number as the winning number, unless it really was the winning number. So you don’t just consider the probability of the event or proposition in isolation, but you have to consider the likelihood the the evidence would be what it is, if the event in question did not occur.

3a). Applied to God’s existence. Even if the theist granted the God’s existence is improbable taken in isolation, he could still say that God’s evidence is not extraordinarily improbable when considered in relation to the evidence. On the contrary, it is very improbable that: the universe would have a beginning, something would exist rather than nothing, the universe would be finely tuned for life, etc if God did not exist. But since these things are the case, it is probable that God exists.
3b). Applied to the resurrection. Even if a thiest granted that the Resurrection is improbable taken in isolation, he knows something else. He knows that it is very improbable that we should have things like the empty tomb, the Resurrection appearances, and the origin of Christian belief if the Resurrection did not occur. But since we have these things, it is probable that the Resurrection occurred.

Kaid100 points out it is extraordinary claims, not extraordinary events. It’s not discounting extraordinary events simply because they are improbable. It is linked to the one making the claim holds the burden of proof. “Put up or shut up”. Etc.

“There is magic elf that lives in my garden”
“Oh really , prove it”

Say for the sake of context you are a loan officer. I come looking for a loan. You ask for collateral. I could claim I won the lottery (an improbable event), you would ask for proof.

I could show you the ticket, show you the number in the paper, look it up on the website, show you a check, my bank balance etc. Winning the lottery is an extraordinary claim because it is statistically improbable but can be proven.

You aren’t just going to take my word for it. It is an improbable event. You are going to need proof. I am the one that has to produce the proof.

That’s all the statement says. You make the claim, Show me the proof.

 

[jonfawkes]

How so? We could have irrefutable evidence of the existence of God and still reject him. That is the story of Satan.

 

[tonyrey]

How so? We could have irrefutable evidence of the existence of God and still reject him. That is the story of Satan.

The story of Satan is a myth which doesn’t have to be taken word for word. It may well be that although he was in the spiritual world he was not in the full presence of God. The same is likely to be true of human beings who reject God after they die because their defects prevent them from seeing His full glory.

 

[danserr]

The phrase is actually “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

@ kaid100. If you prefer, you can consider my OP modified to say this. I have actually heard it on this board and other places typically cited at “ext. events,” typically in relation to evidence for the resurrection, but this doesn’t change my point at all.

would you believe them just on their say-so?

I’m afraid you missed my point altogether. I am not saying the theist need not provide evidence for his claims; what I am doing is questioning the typical skeptical reply, “extraordinary events (or claims if you prefer) require extraordinary evidence, therefore I reject your evidence.”

@jon, you seem to have the same misunderstanding. I am not denying that the theist must justify his claims. But the claim “extror. claims. req. extr. evidence,” (henceforth, “ECREE”) is typically used after the theist has provided his evidence as an excuse to escape the evidence. This statment does not just say, as you put it, “you make the claim, show me the proof,” it claims that for an extraordinarily (improbable) event the evidence must be extraordinarily good. But this is patently false.

Another interesting issue that we can discuss is the tendency for people to equivocate on the meaning of “extraordinary.” When Hume used the argument, he meant extraordinarily improbable, so does Ehrman, who tries to use it today in avoiding evidence for the Resurrection. Some skeptics today equivocate though and use “extraordinary” to mean “amazing, wondrous etc.”

@ Thirddec. Your post is interesting, but it’s not quite what I’m discussing. I’m considering this from an epistemological/probability viewpoint, ie. how do we “know” extraordinary events. Your comments pertain more to the issue of divine hiddenness, which is another subject. I think Jon’s point about satan is fair, but I still think you’re probably right that for God to make his existence too obvious might interfere with free will. He gives sufficient evidence, but not enough to compel those determined to avoid him.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

youtube.com/watch?v=5M9pphsSLPs

It is a common skeptical assertion that “Extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence.”…

More succinctly

Any claim that an event is extraordinary commits the Fallacy of Incredulity.

Has it occurred to anyone yet that in order to know that an event is extraordinary, one would need complete, omniscient knowledge of what is ordinary? Its like me saying a certain soccer play was extraordinary. I know the basics of soccer, but I am not an expert and have no idea what an ordinary play in soccer is.So my claim that there was an extraordinary play, is meaningless, though I have some evidence, I do not have enough information to claim that one or another play is extraordinary it could well be an ordinary play I simply didn’t know existed.
Its little more than a dummied up reversal of the G-d of the Gaps Argument I call….Atheism of the Gaps. Over the centuries people haven’t yet been able to explain how G-ds miraculous events might have occurred, so to explain the gaps in their knowledge they have denied that G-d really exists. This effect has resulted in the disappearance of Penn, Teller, Chris Angel, David Blaine, David Copperfield and The Amazing Johnathon. Though Johnathon only faded out of existence momentarily, since it doesn’t take long to figure his act out.

 

[jonfawkes]

I’m afraid you missed my point altogether. I am not saying the theist need not provide evidence for his claims; what I am doing is questioning the typical skeptical reply, “extraordinary events (or claims if you prefer) require extraordinary evidence, therefore I reject your evidence.”

@jon, you seem to have the same misunderstanding. I am not denying that the theist must justify his claims. But the claim “extror. claims. req. extr. evidence,” (henceforth, “ECREE”) is typically used after the theist has provided his evidence as an excuse to escape the evidence. This statment does not just say, as you put it, “you make the claim, show me the proof,” it claims that for an extraordinarily (improbable) event the evidence must be extraordinarily good. But this is patently false.

Another interesting issue that we can discuss is the tendency for people to equivocate on the meaning of “extraordinary.” When Hume used the argument, he meant extraordinarily improbable, so does Ehrman, who tries to use it today in avoiding evidence for the Resurrection. Some skeptics today equivocate though and use “extraordinary” to mean “amazing, wondrous etc.”

@ Thirddec. Your post is interesting, but it’s not quite what I’m discussing. I’m considering this from an epistemological/probability viewpoint, ie. how do we “know” extraordinary events. Your comments pertain more to the issue of divine hiddenness, which is another subject. I think Jon’s point about satan is fair, but I still think you’re probably right that for God to make his existence too obvious might interfere with free will. He gives sufficient evidence, but not enough to compel those determined to avoid him.

I guess winning the lottery is an improbable but not extraordinary event because it can be proven rather easily

As for claims of the miraculous even the Catholic church has it’s vetting process. It requires extraordinary proof for miracles, possessions and the like. It doesn’t shout hallelujah every time Jesus or Mary shows up on a grilled cheese sandwich.

 

[danserr]

I guess winning the lottery is an improbable but not extraordinary event because it can be proven rather easily

As for claims of the miraculous even the Catholic church has it’s vetting process. It requires extraordinary proof for miracles, possessions and the like. It doesn’t shout hallelujah every time Jesus or Mary shows up on a grilled cheese sandwich.

Now you have to be careful, because you are doing what I warned about, that is, equivocating over use of the word “extraordinary.” What proponents of ECREE mean by “extraordinary” is “extraordinarily improbable.” This, for instance, is how Hume and Ehrman use it.

The point is that we do not require extraordinary evidence to rationally believe the winning lottery number because I also know that it is very improbable that the news would report a number as the winner number if it were not actually the winning number. (ie, there is a low chance that the evidence would be what it is, if the event did not occur.). I believe an extraordinarily improbable (and amazing) event, but do not require extraordinary evidence for it because besides the intrinsic probability of the event, I know that it is very improbable that the evidence would be what it is if the event did not occur.

So we do not deny Mary in the grill cheese sandwich because there is not extraordinary evidence for it. Rather, we know that that evidence (image looking vaguely like Mary) could easily be what it is, even without a miraculous occurrence. On the other hand, we believe evidence for the Resurrection, because we know that it is very improbable that the evidence (empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, origin of Christian belief) would be what it is if the Resurrection did not occur.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What does it mean for something to be extraordinarily improbable? In order to assign a probability, one needs to know how many permutations are possible. A coin only has two sides, a die has six, the lottery has 55 balls. In all these situations we can assign a probability based on the number of possible combinations. When we say that something is extraordinarily improbable we mean it in relation to the number of possible permutations. *Because we have a very accurate idea of how many permutations are possible *. When an atheist claims that an event is extraordinarily improbable what is he basing this assertion on? He can only be basing it on the experience that he has, in essence the number of possible permutations he believes there are. The question then is, how does he know he is making an accurate guess?. I don’t think he does. He is simply saying that if it seems improbable when measured against what experience he has. So in fact, he has no basis for claiming that any event is extraordinary. For instance, based on what Newton knew about the world, he would have seen a light bulb as extraordinarily improbable, yet we all know it is simply a matter of understanding the mechanics of the light bulb. Clearly any claim that an event is extraordinarily improbable is just so much baseless assertion.This argument collapses into the Argument from Incredulity. Fallacious thinking only works as long as you play along with it. The problem is that people who are educated in the western system have a very hard time thinking outside of the box. Rather than accept the logical truth of a statement, they will look for reasons to reject it in favor of already accepted principles, its human nature. Which is how you you can point to the Argument of Incredulity all day long, but someone will insist that he knows the Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be real, because he cannot imagine a possible world where Flying Spaghetti Monsters hang out at Starbucks. The rational truth, is less important than the retention of ones previously accepted paradigms. Its a crazy little flaw in the human psyche.

 

[kaid100]

@ kaid100. If you prefer, you can consider my OP modified to say this. I have actually heard it on this board and other places typically cited at “ext. events,” typically in relation to evidence for the resurrection, but this doesn’t change my point at all.

I’m not going to spend ages on this point, but describing something as an “event” presupposes it is true. Describing it as a “claim” acknowledges there is some doubt. I prefer not to get into long debates about terminology though.

I’m afraid you missed my point altogether. I am not saying the theist need not provide evidence for his claims; what I am doing is questioning the typical skeptical reply, “extraordinary events (or claims if you prefer) require extraordinary evidence, therefore I reject your evidence.”

What evidence do you have that might demonstrate truth of supernatural events in the Bible? Out of interest, what evidence would convince you of the things I mentioned in the previous post; such as telepathy, weather magic or the demigod children of Zeus?

 

[danserr]

What evidence do you have that might demonstrate truth of supernatural events in the Bible? Out of interest, what evidence would convince you of the things I mentioned in the previous post; such as telepathy, weather magic or the demigod children of Zeus?

Well, I am more interested in using this thread to discuss the principle at hand, not the specific applications. I would like to discuss the issue as I lay it out in my first post. The principle “extraordinary claims/events req. ext. evidence” is flawed because it only takes into account the intrinsic probability of the event, but you also need to take into consideration the probability of the evidence being what it is if the event did not occur.

Since you want an example though, let’s take the Resurrection. The skeptic (Hume/Ehrman/others) will say “EEREE” and then deny the evidence we provide. Now the evidence is as follows

1. Jesus was buried and his tomb found empty 3 days later
2. Jesus’s apostles experienced appearances of the risen Christ
3. Despite every reason to the contrary, Jesus’s followers came to believe that he had risen from the dead
   -Now I don;t want to derail this thread debating these 3 facts, save to say they they are admitted even by most skeptical scholars.

The skeptic, like Hume or Ehrman, will say that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence and this evidence is not extraordinary, so they will reject it. But this is flawed for the reason I give above. It is not enough to only consider the probability of the event in isolation, rather you are to look at the evidence and consider the likelihood that the evidence would be what it is, if the event did not occur. So for this example, Considering the 3 facts I give above, it is very improbable they we should have the empty tomb, postmortem appearances, and origin of Christian belief, if Jesus did not actually rise from the dead.

Bringing up Zeus and other stuff then if a red herring because there is no comparable evidence for that as to the Ress. so it is perfectly reasonable to belief in the Resurrection on the basis of the evidence, but not Zeus.

And warpspeedpetey makes a good point too about how does the skeptic even assess whether an event/claim such as the Resurrection or the existence of God is extraordinary anyway?

 

[kaid100]

Well, I am more interested in using this thread to discuss the principle at hand, not the specific applications. I would like to discuss the issue as I lay it out in my first post. The principle “extraordinary claims/events req. ext. evidence” is flawed because it only takes into account the intrinsic probability of the event, but you also need to take into consideration the probability of the evidence being what it is if the event did not occur.

Since you want an example though, let’s take the Resurrection. The skeptic (Hume/Ehrman/others) will say “EEREE” and then deny the evidence we provide. Now the evidence is as follows

1. Jesus was buried and his tomb found empty 3 days later
2. Jesus’s apostles experienced appearances of the risen Christ
3. Despite every reason to the contrary, Jesus’s followers came to believe that he had risen from the dead
   -Now I don;t want to derail this thread debating these 3 facts, save to say they they are admitted even by most skeptical scholars.

Well, if debating these constitutes derailing in your eyes then I fear we won’t get that far. I would say that numbers 1 and 2 are very much in doubt. Simply stating these claims as you do is not the same as giving evidence. What evidence do you have that 1 and 2 occured? (3 is not in doubt because Jesus’ followers today do believe he rose again. I doubt he rose, but I don’t doubt his followers believe) he rose again)

The skeptic, like Hume or Ehrman, will say that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence and this evidence is not extraordinary, so they will reject it. But this is flawed for the reason I give above. It is not enough to only consider the probability of the event in isolation, rather you are to look at the evidence and consider the likelihood that the evidence would be what it is, if the event did not occur. So for this example, Considering the 3 facts I give above, it is very improbable they we should have the empty tomb, postmortem appearances, and origin of Christian belief, if Jesus did not actually rise from the dead.

Again I’ve not seen any evidence for the tomb or postmortem appearances. As for Christian belief proving Jesus rose again, does the fact that Muslims believe… prove that Muhammed received a vision from Gabriel? Does the belief of Scientologists prove that Xenu and thetans exist?

Bringing up Zeus and other stuff then if a red herring because there is no comparable evidence for that as to the Ress. so it is perfectly reasonable to belief in the Resurrection on the basis of the evidence, but not Zeus.

What evidence? People in Roman times happily believed in Zeus, and had books and personal experiences which confirmed his existence to their own satisfaction just as you do with the Resurrection.

And warpspeedpetey makes a good point too about how does the skeptic even assess whether an event/claim such as the Resurrection or the existence of God is extraordinary anyway?

Resurrection is extraordinary because we do not normally see people recover after being dead for two or three days. Existence of God is extraordinary because normally we do not witness beings capable of creating worlds, parting seas or sending a plague which kills the firstborn.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Resurrection is extraordinary because we do not normally see people recover after being dead for two or three days. Existence of God is extraordinary because normally we do not witness beings capable of creating worlds, parting seas or sending a plague which kills the firstborn.

What? If extraordinary events are simply rare, or improbable, then what does it mean to ask for extraordinary evidence, evidence that is rare or improbable itself? It looks like you are implying 2 different meanings of the word “extraordinary”. What do you mean by an extraordinary?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

What? If extraordinary events are simply rare, or improbable, then what does it mean to ask for extraordinary evidence, evidence that is rare or improbable itself? It looks like you are implying 2 different meanings of the word “extraordinary”. What do you mean by an extraordinary?

It very simply means this:
If you are making a claim that goes completely against my understanding of how the world works, I will require you to provide an unusual amount of evidence before I believe it. I have never seen someone rise from the dead after 3 days, moreover it contradicts what I know about how death works. Therefore, before I believe you and try to incorporate this claim into my understanding of the world, I will require you to provide very strong evidence that the claim is true.

If you claimed that the sky was orange last night, I already know that sunsets are colorful, and can sometimes be orange. It is not an extraordinary (outside of the ordinary) claim and I would not likely press for additional proof.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It very simply means this:
If you are making a claim that goes completely against my understanding of how the world works, I will require you to provide an unusual amount of evidence before I believe it. I have never seen someone rise from the dead after 3 days, moreover it contradicts what I know about how death works. Therefore, before I believe you and try to incorporate this claim into my understanding of the world, I will require you to provide very strong evidence that the claim is true.

If you claimed that the sky was orange last night, I already know that sunsets are colorful, and can sometimes be orange. It is not an extraordinary (outside of the ordinary) claim and I would not likely press for additional proof.

Yes, I know what it means, I just don’t understand how he is using it.

 

[wanstronian]

All this chat about having to define the various probabilities before being able to state that a claim is extraordinary, is a load of cobblers. We assess such claims every day without using a calculator, and we do so reliably in the huge, huge majority of cases.

If someone told you that a piano would fall on your head a week Wednesday, would you sit down and calculate the odds? How about if someone claimed you would be hit by a runaway tram as you mowed your lawn? How about if someone told you that Jesus was working at the local pizza restaurant?

I’m guessing you wouldn’t calculate the odds. I’m guessing you would dismiss these claims as nonsense, as too extraordinary to be likely to be true.

These claims that skepticism boils down to the Argument from Incredulity, completely fail to understand that logical fallacy (why aren’t I surprised…?) What they’re in effect suggesting, is that you should believe everything that anybody ever tells you, unless you’re able to calculate the exact odds of the truth of their claim as being below some arbitrary threshold. If you don’t do this, you’re being “incredulous.” What utter bunk.

To take the resurrection as an example: On the one hand, we have a book of uproven origin, of unproven accuracy, that claims somebody died and then came back to life (futhermore, said book also makes a whole host of other claims that either a) have been utterly disproven by science; b) contravene the established laws of physics, which serve us consistently and faithfully each and every day; or c) have never been reliably documented as occuring at any other time. This book is not doing its credibility any favours). On the other hand, we have no modern medical records that document that phenomena happening to anybody else.

If you want to do some calculations, I guess that with a bit of research it would be easy to estimate with a fair degree of accuracy, the number of people who have died in the last 100 years. I don’t know how many it is, but it’s got to be many millions. None have ever come back to life. And yet we’re expected to believe that this one Jewish dude did, and this isn’t an extraordinary claim?

You can do the calcs, but come on - you know you don’t need to.

 

[kaid100]

What? If extraordinary events are simply rare, or improbable, then what does it mean to ask for extraordinary evidence, evidence that is rare or improbable itself? It looks like you are implying 2 different meanings of the word “extraordinary”. What do you mean by an extraordinary?

Extraordinary evidence means evidence you wouldn’t normally see. Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian, for example: this was given by one scientist as a piece of evidence that would disprove evolution.

How about a pregnant woman with scans showing the hymen untouched and DNA analysis showing the foetus only has 23 chromosomes?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I have a question related to this-----

What happens when there is “adequate” extraordinay evidence but certain professional skeptics and debunkers reject it out of hand simply because it does not stand to THEIR self-appointed standards of “proof?”

James Randi and the former CSICOP (now CSI----) come to mind. You can come at them with whatever proof----even if it stands up to other scientific standards of proof by independent, respected researchers----and it is still not enough for them. It is not good for them either that most of them are raving atheists.
If it matters, I dislike the above-mentioned intensely. Particulalrly Randi.
May God forgive me for that.
NOT saying everything they investigate is for real-------just that they seem to come with a preconceived “Bias” that presupposes anything that they do investigate is a fraud----and their findings are labeled accordingly no matter what.

Just throwing that out.

Back to your regualrly schedulae programming.