Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
When discussing the resurrection of Jesus with non-believers, whether they are hostile to religion or not, the slogan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” often comes up. It is very common. It is too common. There are many different ways one could approach this claim, by either asking for clarification (what constitutes something being extraordinary?) or by laying a burden of proof (what’s so extraordinary about the Son of God coming back to life?) but for now, I want to take a look at the form of the question.
Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? If so, then would it also make sense to ask that ordinary claims require ordinary evidence in order for us to be justified in believing them? It would seem like that is the rationale. So this is what the formula would look like:
(X) kinds of claims, in order for us to believe in their truth, require (X) kinds of evidence, (X) being identical.
If this is the reason someone would push this slogan, then we seem to run into problems. For example, what about silly claims, such as, “I am a monkeys uncle”? Of course, that is silly. No one takes such a claim seriously. But, if we apply this formula, we are actually justified in believing this claim to be true if we were to give silly evidence, like an obviously phony birth certificate from a Clown Hospital. But who would really believe that one is justified, from an obviously phony document, in believing phony or silly claims? No one.
More seriously, what would it take in order for someone to believe a false claim? According to this formula, belief in false propositions are justified if they have false evidence. Again, it is asked, who seriously does this? Who thinks, for example, that Socrates was an alien based upon testimony they knew was false?No one. This formula has been reduced to absurdity, and can be safely dismissed.
Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? If so, then would it also make sense to ask that ordinary claims require ordinary evidence in order for us to be justified in believing them? It would seem like that is the rationale. So this is what the formula would look like:
(X) kinds of claims, in order for us to believe in their truth, require (X) kinds of evidence, (X) being identical.
If this is the reason someone would push this slogan, then we seem to run into problems. For example, what about silly claims, such as, “I am a monkeys uncle”? Of course, that is silly. No one takes such a claim seriously. But, if we apply this formula, we are actually justified in believing this claim to be true if we were to give silly evidence, like an obviously phony birth certificate from a Clown Hospital. But who would really believe that one is justified, from an obviously phony document, in believing phony or silly claims? No one.
More seriously, what would it take in order for someone to believe a false claim? According to this formula, belief in false propositions are justified if they have false evidence. Again, it is asked, who seriously does this? Who thinks, for example, that Socrates was an alien based upon testimony they knew was false?No one. This formula has been reduced to absurdity, and can be safely dismissed.
Comments
Post a Comment