Not too long ago, I was reading Michael Shermer’s preface to Peter Boghossian’s book, A Manual for Creating Atheists. In the preface, he criticizes belief in eternal life, Jesus, and God’s work of salvation as being extraordinary claims made by Bible believing Christians. He reminisced about how he used to be an evangelical Christian, but he found these claims unreasonable. After researching what he calls the truth found in science and ”reason” he became an atheist.
As I was reading Shermer’s remarks, I found something I could not resist addressing. Those of us who have found ourselves talking to someone embracing the “new” (as in popular) atheism may have heard this claim. But Shermer’s ridiculing religious faith was in the context of a popular atheist objection (may I use the term “gauntlet”?) that I want to address in this post: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Where does this statement come from?
This phrase was first popularized by Carl Sagan (1934-96), who was an astronomer, author, and host of the popular PBS TV series, Cosmos. Along with his television show, Sagan is known for his hundreds of scientific articles, and for being a professor of astronomy at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. What did Sagan mean by this statement?
Sagan’s dogmatic statement, ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence‘ is really self-explanatory. Anyone making an extraordinary claim, needs the extraordinary evidence to back up veracity of the claim. For example, if someone said they saw the late great Elvis Presley over at the local McDonalds, they would need some solid circumstantial evidence to back up that claim. In other words, the extraordinary claim would need some extraordinary evidence to show that Elvis was really at the local McDonalds.
May I say that the church is in dire need of training in critical thinking? At the same time, I think there is nothing wrong with having a little healthy skepticism, particularly with some of the wild stuff that is coming up on Facebook walls. To be honest, there are some reasons that I think this statement is really not all that bad. The problem surrounding it is the unbelief encompassing the evidence that we present to the atheist.
So, before I agree with the statement, allow me to present some of the qualifications that are needing to be understood before full agreement can be accepted. Let’s look at those qualifications.
First, it requires an extraordinary validation
The atheists like to say that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.’ But this too is an extraordinary claim. How does the person know that the statement is true, if it is a universal statement? Is the claim extraordinary? Is it a universal principle? Is it a statement of historical or empirical fact? These things are very important. The response this is to have the atheist show us the evidence that their claims are true and that our claims are false. This implies the burden of proof. I will deal with that one in a future posting.
Second, we need to evaluate and qualify the presuppositions
The requirement of ‘extraordinary evidence’ for ‘extraordinary claims’ is highly subjective. While it might sound good at the onset, the atheist’s presuppositions strongly impact how and what degree this statement is to be applied. The application in most cases manifests itself as dishonest on the part of the atheist. Allow me to demonstrate this.
Let’s use the example of Jesus‘ resurrection. As a Christian, I believe that God exists, and because God exists, He could raise His Son from the dead in the same body that was crucified, only glorified. What extraordinary evidence would I give? Well, we could start with the minimal facts that every scholar would accept. We could talk about fulfilled prophecy, and move to the circumstantially sound eyewitness records of Jesus‘ post resurrection appearances. Lastly we might bring in the changed lives of the disciples, and how it is shown in history their willingness to die for their faith. These lines of evidence, along with many others, would make a great presentation in a church to equip believers. They may even be enough to convince many who believe in God but struggle with the facts of it being reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
The atheist does not see it this way. That is because they negate the resurrection by default because their presupposition is that there is no God. Since there is no God, God could not be involved in the resurrection, so it did not happen. Therefore, for an atheist, the ‘extraordinary evidence’ would have to be ‘exceptionally’ extraordinary in order to overcome their atheistic presuppositions. In other words, the kind of evidence that would need to be presented would be that which is rock solid, and irrefutable.
This is why the atheist requires “extraordinary evidence.” The atheist’s escape hatch of God’s nonexistence enables him to retain his presupposition should the extraordinary level of the evidence not be met. Well of course it is not going to be met, since there is nothing supernatural in a naturalistic worldview. So, requiring extraordinary evidence effectively stacks the deck against the claim.
So what would qualify as extraordinary evidence?
Frank Turek asks atheists the following question: “If Christianity were true would you become a Christian?” Some waffle with the morals, while others cut to the chase with a strong answer to the negative.
Over the last couple of years, since going to the Reason Rally up on the DC Mall, I have had numerous conversations with atheists; some on Facebook and others face to face. In those conversations, there have been some who have thrown down this objection, especially when it came to my sharing with them about the resurrection of Jesus.
When they have asked me for evidence on why I believe in Jesus, I have gone to the resurrection of Jesus. In those same conversations I would have them tell me what they would qualify as extraordinary evidence. The response is not really sensible. Normal evidences would be something like an eyewitness document written at the time of the event. Extraordinary evidence would be seeing something on video when it is impossible during Jesus’ time to have such technology.
So, in the atheist’s mind can the claim of Christ’s resurrection requiring extraordinary evidence apply to Jesus’ resurrection? In the atheist’s mind it apparently does not. Jesus’ resurrection is an historical event. If that is the case, then wouldn’t it seem reasonable for a reasonably thinking individual to possibly accept the normal historical evidence and pursue a normal historical examination of that evidence? The resurrection is an event of history. Since it claims historical veracity, then the typical criteria for examining historical claims, and not scientific method, should be applied.
Third, what criteria do they use to determine what is extraordinary evidence?
Most atheists appeal to science or some other naturalistic approach. The problem is that they are looking at something through the wrong “spectacles.” There is no precise scientific method for determining the veracity of historical events. At the same time, there are no scientific methods for proving esthetics, or logical truth claims. When using the tools required within the scope of “doing” history, there appears to be a degree of subjectivity involved. Different people will claim different requirements for validating ancient phenomena based upon their presuppositions for doing history; and their type of evidence will reflect those presuppositions. Also, since ancient events dealing with human historical claims are not observable and repeatable, one must look at the evidence from a different discipline. This makes the application of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence(s)” subjective for determining ancient events.
Lastly, are the criteria for extraordinary evidence reasonable?
The atheist often requires “proof” that God exists, or “absolute proof” that Jesus rose from the dead. When an atheist uses the word “proof” it usually means that they are looking for what Descartes was trying to pursue, indubitable certainty. And in many cases, their only appeal for indubitable certainty is through the lenses of natural science.
In my handfuls of discussions, I have heard some atheists say that the only proof they would accept of Jesus’ resurrection would be if it could be tested using the laws of science. This is absurd, because we know that this is an impossibility, since the scientific method means constructing the hypothesis, observation, experimentation, analyzing, and measuring in pursuit of empirical adequacy revealed in repetitive results. We all know that we cannot scientifically test an event that happened over 2000 years ago, just as much as we cannot test empirically something we did last year on vacation.
Atheists know this but they still press for it anyway, which makes their case unreasonable. This is one of the main reasons why I believe that an atheist is one for moral reasons and not for intellectual reasons. Atheists like to argue in this brute fact manner, and when the Christian fails to produce a scientific method or scientific evidence, they feel vindicated.
Conclusion
You and I can pick any great figure in human history, whether a Caesar, an Alexander, or a Washington. We can show their deeds, good or bad. We can read their writings, and research whatever their namesake is known for, and it is really no big deal. It won’t have any effect on anyone and it won’t change anything in anyone’s life. But, if we do the same with Jesus Christ, it is completely different. Jesus claimed to be divine and He had a message for people about heaven and hell. He gave the message that salvation is only through Him. Such a claim requires extraordinary evidence, such as performing miracles and rising physically in a glorified body from the dead. The claims concerning Christ can have a profound effect on people and it they make them uncomfortable. Therefore, people will not want what Christ said to be true, and they will desperately try to hold onto their presuppositions. Therefore, when someone makes the claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” it is only a gauntlet that will one day come down.
We just need to make sure that we understand that the playing field needs to be level, whenever possible, and share our convictions with gentleness and respect with the mind of Christ.
“That is because they negate the resurrection by default because their presupposition is that there is no God.” I, as an atheist, don’t negate the resurrection because of my lack of belief in god. I don’t think the two are automatically connected. Jesus might have risen from the dead, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he was god, or the son of god. It helps the case for him being god, but in no way proves with absolute certainty that he was god. There could be a completely natural explanation to his resurrection. Or there could be a non-natural explanation to it that has nothing to do with Christianity or what we typically conceive of as god. It is through these “spectacles” that I look at the resurrection in and of itself and ask myself “What is the likelihood this happened?” I think we would all agree that the probability of a human waking up after dying three days earlier is extremely low.
You seem to want the resurrection to be looked at as just another historical event, with the same amount of skepticism. The problem is, the only other events in history that have supernatural elements are myths, like those of Zeus and the rest. This is why it’s different. This is why, in the atheist’s mind, it should not be treated as just any other historical event of natural phenomenon. If Christians want to claim that this supernatural event is real, but all the others that have been told throughout time (barring any others mentioned in the bible) are myth, then rational people need a damn good reason to believe it’s true, because there’s a pretty strong trend of supernatural claims turning out to be myths in history.
I’ve also seen a trend with believers putting atheists in the box of “they just don’t want it to be true”, or “they’re just scared of god’s word”, or “they just want to do whatever they want and be immoral with no consequences.” I hope you can see why atheists would be offended by these accusations – just as tildeb was. You’re basically calling us immoral, immature, and cowardly. I see it differently. I think it’s cognitive dissonance at work on the believer’s mind. Believers want to believe that there is good reason to believe (at least those who would visit this website), because they think of themselves as rational people. Then come atheists, who coincidentally tend to be better educated, tend to have a heavier professional involvement in science (the study of how the universe works), and in fact know more about the bible than the average Christian (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious) – in other words, they tend to be more intellectual about the topic (this is not meant to be offensive, just to provide some factual perspective). This causes some dissonance in the believers mind, as I imagine it would in my mind as well, were I to be a believer. So, you have to reconcile that dissonance. A quick and easy way to self-justify is to label the atheists as “scared of god’s word”. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is any way for tildeb or I to relieve you of this offensive misconception. All we can do is ask that you take us at our word, just like you ask us to do of your word. I don’t have any fear of the Christian god’s word, or Allah’s word, or Buddha’s word, or Vishnu’s word, etc. If any of them turn out to be true, then I look forward to dealing with the truth.
“I believe that an atheist is one for moral reasons and not for intellectual reasons.” I have no problem admitting that I think a lot of what is in the bible is immoral. Just like I take issue with a lot of moral actions/proclamations in other religions. But I also do not presuppose that god, if he exists, is good. I have no reason to think he would be good. So the imperfect god that I see in the bible does not take away from his potential to exist, at least not in my mind.
there’s a pretty strong trend of supernatural claims turning out to be myths in history
I wanted to make a side-comment about this sentence, if you’ll pardon the diversion for a moment.
It’s funny how we now equate the word ‘myth’ with ‘lie’ or ‘falsehood’ these days when to read a myth and extract it’s meaning (which is why it’s such a special kind of teaching narrative and timeless) is to recognize the role of the supernatural to be a signpost for a human theme symbolically represented.
No one in their right mind – or familiar with mythology – would assume a supernatural character or event in a myth would be historical or literal! To assume as much is to prevent (and pervert) the myth from being read as a myth (and this is certainly the case with both christian and jewish theology)! It’s like claiming to be a cinematic proponent by trying to turn the Darth Vader character (with a vital role to play in the Star Wars story) into an historical figure that really did live and die in a real place at some moment in history. By assuming as much, one loses the ability to connect the hidden teachings of the Star War myth – like any other myth – to real life lessons for each and every one of us. Just because the story isn’t true doesn’t mean it loses its intended value, yet today’s use of the term ‘myth’ suggests exactly this: something that must either be accepted as historically true to have value OR can be disregarded because it isn’t true in the historical sense. I cannot express how little personal value can come from the Genesis myths when it is read to be either literally true or historically false; in both cases the value of the teachings the myth offers everyone is negated. I think this is such a shame.
I want to address your comment that I seem “to want the resurrection to be looked at as just another historical event.” The problem I see with your tying in Zeus and the rest is that those deities are from mythological stories. There is a huge difference between these mythologies and the historical life of Jesus living, dying and resurrecting from the dead. There is no myth in this since there were eyewitness accounts which you probably will not accept, which will prove the point of my blog posting.
Your problem is that you reject the supernatural phenomena, and that stands to reason that you would. The gospel records were all completed before the end of the AD First Century, and Jesus was worshiped as God well shortly after His resurrection at the appearance to his disciples.
I will leave your comment about God not being good for a separate comment, to just a question that I would like to ask you. When you use the term “god” or “God” what do you mean?
I’m surprised my comment about cognitive dissonance and atheists knowing more about Christianity than Christians didn’t incite a response! Perhaps the stats were already familiar to you.
I suppose non-believers are looking at historical claims and asking the following question first: Is there a supernatural claim? If the answer is yes, eventually everybody seems to come to the conclusion that it was not real, with the exception of the few major religions remaining in the world today. And I’m not just talking about “mythology stories”, I’m talking about lots of stories of resurrections in different religions throughout time.
Regarding the definition of god, I don’t think I ever capitalize the first letter, just when quoting. That’s something believers seem to like to do, I guess in an attempt to make it a proper noun, or to give him more respect. When I use “god” in discussion with you, I’m usually referring to the Christian god and his specific characteristics, since that’s the relevant god to the conversation. When referring to other peoples’ ideas of god I usually use the plural form “gods”.
The existence and works of Jeshua ben Joseph is pretty well documented. The resurrection does not quite have the same historical support – only reports of eyewitnesses. In fact, I think they are second hand reports: someone writes that they heard that someone saw it. I don’t think that is very reliable. Even if there were eyewitnesses, and they weren’t fudged into being by writers trying to spread their politics/religion, research by Elizabeth Loftus (among many others) has shown that eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable. Every UFO sighting is backed up by eyewitnesses, after all.
The atheist does not see it this way. That is because they negate the
resurrection by default because their presupposition is that there is no
God. Since there is no God, God could not be involved in the
resurrection, so it did not happen.
Wrong.
My atheism is identical to yours. Do you presuppose there is no Loch Ness monster? Or, like me, do you simply admit that you have no compelling reasons to think there is? There may be a Nessie, but until such a time compelling evidence is presented, neither of us has any good reasons to inform a strong belief – a justified belief – that there is.
Now let’s pretend the Scottish have built upon the ‘reality’ of Nessie and entire philosophical perspective of the world and what lies beyond it (where Nessie resides until such a time she intervenes in our world while simultaneously keeping track of each individual’s thoughts and wishes and hopes and prayers, where Nessie determines your purpose, your life’s meaning, your ethical response to an objective moral code she has brought into being, and so on) as well as a metaphysical blueprint that allows for the universe and all it contains to exist.
We’re not talking about compelling reasons any more for justified belief in the Loch Ness monster; we’re now having to deal with the imposition of concern about ‘Nessie-ism’ throughout the public domain… especially when public policies, legislation, laws, education, governance, defense, medicine, scientific research, and so on, are all impacted to various degrees by how much or how little consideration is first granted to what would best please Nessie!
Look, New Atheism is about criticizing religious privilege in the public domain because it is unjustified by compelling reasons independent of faith that can stand on its own merit. Just look at how united are the religious of this world to get some idea of how ‘compelling’ in the real world evidence for any of them. Geography of birth – not concern for what’s true – is the strongest correlation for one’s religious beliefs. That’s a clue…
Concern for Nessie’s divinity is fine in one’s private life but there must be a boundary between this kind of belief (usually termed ‘faith’ where compelling reasons adduced from reality play no arbitrating role in holding such a belief) and one that influences the public domain. Reciprocity (you probably call it the ‘Golden Rule’) justifies that in the same way my faith-based beliefs should hold no publicly empowered sway over you, so too should your faith-based beliefs hold no publicly empowered sway over me. Until the religious get their house in order and can come to a global agreement by compelling evidence which god is the right god, believers have their work cut out for them with contrary and contrasting beliefs of other believers! Targeting atheists as if they were the unreasonable ones (when all of us we share atheism towards all kinds of extraordinary claims in general with very few exceptions) seems to me to be a losing strategy because reality is not an ally but an adversary to justifying faith-based claims about it.
tildeb, You’re the one who is wrong. The claim that “your atheism is identical to mine,” is a false claim to try and level the playing field. I am not an atheist to those religions, I don’t accept them as realistic interpretations of the God I believe exists. Your illustration of a legendary Nessie does not hold water, because as a Christian, I don’t believe God is a legend or a myth. You would like to claim that you are an atheist to one more god (God) than me. Fine, so let’s talk about that God that you don’t believe in.
Rob, we share non belief in many claims about reality for the same reasons. If we were sitting together, we could probably come up with a few hundred quickly and easily. Now, I understand your sensitivity to holding your religious beliefs as somehow qualitatively different from those that others may hold, but from the atheist’s perspective that depends on allowing reality and not faith to arbitrate all such claims, there is no qualitative difference; the difference you imply is due entirely to your subjective sensitivity. So you cannot dismiss why I claim that your assertion about atheist presuppositions is wrong on this flimsy self-appointed difference. And I explore this by substituting belief in an actual Loch Ness monster and create a scenario whereby all kinds of claims are then based on only this belief and why this method – empowering faith-based belief – can be and in fact is just such a problem.
You want to talk about your god as if you know something I do not (an assumption based wholly and solely on your faith-based belief utilizing a method of inquiry that can demonstrably be shown to have never produced one speck of knowledge). But the point of my comment is that you are making an assertion about the method atheists use to justify non belief in your god that simply is not correct. Do not presume to tell me why I do not believe as you do. I’m telling you straight up and with authority that I, as an atheist, do not share your faith not because I presuppose your god does not exist but because I have no compelling reasons to believe otherwise. For you to continue to insist to not recognize my honesty and authority in this matter is hubris.
tildeb, let me invite you to read my post here: http://roblundberg.blogspot.com/2014/01/responding-to-were-all-atheists.html
Please note, Rob, that I continue to say we’re atheists – meaning we share non belief – in all kinds of claims. There simply isn’t an equivalent term as ‘atheist’ to find exactly the same non belief each of us uses daily for such claims that require the same kind of method to believe in. The two methods are faith-based beliefs and evidence-based beliefs. And that is why the term ‘atheist’ in regards to the belief of theists is also a handy one to apply whenever and wherever the same method of empowering faith-based belief is used. It would be too cumbersome for you to call yourself an a-Santa Clausian and an a-pixieist and an a-unicornian (and so on) to identify the same non belief – for the same reasons – almost all of us use.
This is important to recognize because atheists have long been subjected to villainy and discrimination by theists not for non belief owed to a lack of compelling reasons that all of us exercise but because of the venerated object many of us hold to be factual of a specific faith-based belief.
You (meaning theists in general), not I, change the rules for venerating this specific faith-based belief. Rather than demand the same level of compelling evidence you would need to alter the default non belief you hold for most faith-based claims (including such beliefs that empower many diet fads, alternative therapies, grand conspiracies, supernaturalism, and so on), you realign what atheism is in practice and start to assign all kinds of attributes to atheists themselves. This is simply not accurate. I use exactly the same method of inquiry into all claims about reality and allow reality the authority to determine how much or little confidence to arbitrate and adjudicate claims made about it. I do not make exceptions whereas the theist does (and must do because reality isn’t allowed to arbitrate faith-based claims to effect). Put another way, if you could produce compelling evidence adduced from reality to support you theistic claims, you wouldn’t need faith because your compelling reasons would stand independent of needing your beliefs for the high level of confidence you assert they are owed.
The exceptions that I make is the fact that I believe the God of the Bible exists and all the other gods are false deities based upon the premises of their world views not being coherent. I believe that you have a strong belief in your atheism being true, but you haven’t really given any convincing reasons, just criticisms that do not hold water with me. So let’s start with the word, “faith” as in my previous response.
While there are some things that we would agree on, about the other religions like Islam and the other world religions, there are plenty of qualitative and quantitative differences that we would disagree on.
You bring up this term, “faith-based belief”, can you please define this for us? I think this is where the crux of our differences begin. I would like to know your definition of “faith.”
All of us hold beliefs about how reality operates. We infuse confidence in these beliefs to help us navigate the environments in which we must operate. But there really are two kinds of beliefs in operation. The first is the kind we use almost all of the time: we allow reality and the evidence it contains to arbitrate our beliefs. For example, I may believe I left my keys on the counter. I know that my belief is probably justified because this is where i usually leave my keys. But my belief does not determine whether or not my keys are on the counter; reality does and I allow reality to justify my belief. I go to the counter and, if my keys aren’t there, then I suspend my belief and grant it no power because reality has alerted me to the fact that my belief is not justified and deserves no confidence.
Sounds very reasonable, doesn’t it?
The scientific method, for example, is built on this vital allowance for reality to arbitrate and adjudicate claims made about it. That’s why scientific explanations can sometimes change: reality tells us that the explanation adduced from cumulative evidence previously used to justify some level of confidence in an explanation may have to adapt to new information, new data, new considerations, and must therefore likewise adapt. Many people assume this ability to change is an indication that we shouldn’t place much confidence in any scientific explanation, but fail to consider the importance of explanations used to produce technologies, therapies, and applications that seem to work for everyone everywhere all the time as a pretty strong indicator that the explanation is probably an accurate reflection of how reality operates and deserving of our confidence. These few explanations are called ‘theories’ and they have passed all testing over time and have successfully incorporated every challenge, every bit of evidence we bring from reality, to test their explanatory value.
Again, sound very reasonable, doesn’t it?
These beliefs are called evidence-based beliefs, and the justification for confidence in them is always subject to critical review by reality and the evidence it contains.
But there is another method at work to justify claims made about how reality operates… one that is intentionally formulated to be exempt from requiring reality to arbitrate claims made about it. These are called faith-based beliefs, and the justification for confidence in them is not open to critical review and change by reality but stands in opposition to the explanations formulated by evidence-based belief. For example, the body contains vital forces that when impeded cause various kinds of illnesses and physical problems. By realigning certain body parts through manipulation or needle insertions or increasing body waste, the flow of energy can be restored and health reestablished. This multi-billion dollar industry has no evidence that the belief about vital forces is an accurate explanation is justified; we have an accumulation of testimonials and revelations that this must be so because certain positive effects are attributed to the suggested cause with no demonstrable mechanism to link the effects to the cause used to justify the explanation. You simply believe the claim to be true or you do not. Reality plays no arbitrating role. This is faith-based belief in action.
We find faith-based belief at odds with evidence-based explanations all the time. And the most widespread purveyor of promoting faith-based belief is religion where exercising faith in accepting and justifying the religion’s central tenets is held to be virtue even when it contradicts evidence-based theories (like evolution, for example)!
The important question each of us must face when a contradiction appears between claims made by these two methods is, “How do we know which one is most deserving of our confidence?”
The key here is to recognize the value of knowledge to inform what we claim we ‘know’. If we value knowledge to be an accurate reflection of the reality we share, then we need to first compare and contrast how much knowledge has been produced by each method (evidence-based or faith based). And the results are startling: evidence based claims produce explanations that seem to work for everyone everywhere all the time and allow therapies, applications, and technologies that work reliably and consistently well. Faith-based claims produce explanations that only appear to work but upon which not a single therapy, application, or technology works reliably and consistently well everyone everywhere all the time. If we allow reality to arbitrate the incompatible claims produced from these two methods, only one – evidence-based belief – yields knowledge.
Why does this matter?
Well, if we are going to present our beliefs as if we know anything about them, then faith-based beliefs are out of the game because we know that they don;t produce knowledge about the reality we share; they produce assertions that reality does not support with compelling evidence (or the evidence-based method would be used), assumptions that explain nothing in any practical, testable, and reliable sense about the reality we share, and explanations that often are shown by the evidence-based method to be inaccurate.
Simply put, faith-based beliefs are unjustified by the reality they claim to describe and are deserving of zero respect regarding the knowledge value they purport to contain.
Methodology matters in how we ascribe confidence to the beliefs we hold about the reality we share. And this why faith-based beliefs are justified only in those areas where there is no current knowledge. The honest description of such claims is ignorance-based beliefs infused with false confidence masquerading as a virtue. And allowing this charade of people claiming to know stuff they know nothing about to continue without criticism, with some level of intellectual accommodation in the name of tolerance, with some deference in the public domain, is not wise because it’s based on a falsehood that ignorance is somehow virtuous. And this misplaced belief ends up causing real people real harm in real life all the time. Those of us with principled intellectual integrity must stand up against the spread in confidence for all manner of faith-based belief respected in the public domain.
I hope that explanation helps.
Me, I don’t believe in elves. That makes me anelfic. Of course I could be wrong. When the Greenland ice sheet melts, who knows what we’ll find!
A normal claim is something the likes of which we see often. An extraordinary claim is something unlike anything we’ve ever seen. How’s that for a definition?
Caesar, Alexander and Washington didn’t do miracles. Despite their grand successes, their lives were more or less like other men’s. Jesus is very different! Christians can heartily accept that Christianity makes extraordinary claims – backed up by extraordinary evidence.
The problem, as you say, is that atheists don’t accept Christian evidence, and you’re right to point out how the atheists are making impossible demands.
But there’s no need for you to cast doubt on science or obfuscate the issue. Referring to the need for extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, you say, “But this too is an extraordinary claim.” Clearly it is not. You and I and everyone else require extra evidence for any claim unlike what we’re used to. This is simple common sense.
There’s no need for you to say, “There is no precise scientific method for determining the veracity of historical events.” Science can indeed give us pretty good information about past events – as long as they are similar to everyday happenings. It’s just that science can’t give us good information about extraordinary events, the likes of which we’ve never seen.
If you want to convince atheists, you can’t denigrate science. You can’t say Christianity contradicts science. You’ve got to say it goes beyond science. You’ve got to embrace science and respect science, and then move beyond. That’s the only way to talk to atheists.
John, I think you missed the point with Caesar, Alexander and Washington. I mentioned those historical people in the context of history. The category that I mention Jesus was also from an historical reference. The point of your bringing in miracles has nothing to do with the context of the discussion.
I am also not seeing what you seeing. I don’t think I said anything about disrespecting or denigrating science. In fact I have a healthy respect for science and worship the God who gave us science.
Pardon me if I am wrong, but I think you are appealing to pity because you think I don’t believe that science can prove all knowledge or prove historical events. In all actuality, science and history are separate disciplines. Doing history may involve using science, but science alone cannot prove history. At the same time, science cannot prove logical propositions. Scientific propositions cannot even be proven scientifically.
OK, but what about my proposed definition? I suggested that a normal claim is something the likes of which we see often, and an
extraordinary claim is something unlike anything we’ve ever seen.
Maybe you’re not denigrating science. On the other hand, it’s certainly possible to denigrate science without saying that’s what you’re doing. Rightly or wrongly, Christians have a reputation for denigrating science, so you as a Christian must be extra careful to build trust among your readers that you understand science and respect it. We agree that science doesn’t give rock-solid proofs of things. There’s no need to trumpet that.
So you only trust the claims that are scientifically or experientially verifiable? That leaves history out of the mix, doesn’t it?
I don’t think it does. I have a photo of my grandfather, though I have never met him. That’s history. I see him accompanies by my grandmother in the picture, and he has left writing. And there are public records. So I would say it is “scientifically” verifiable history.