Can we agree that "Jesus rose from the dead" is an extraordinary claim?
Even if we can, so what?
What is an extraordinary claim, really, and does it really need any special kind of evidence to support it?
Whether we call something extraordinary obviously must depend on what we're calling ordinary. A claim that a miracle occurred will perhaps not seem extraordinary to people who are already convinced that miracles happen every day. They therefore will, with some justification, accept evidence that will not convince us who doubt that any miracle has ever happened.
Apologist criticisms often reflect a suspicion that the maxim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is employed less as a standard for rational evaluation than as an excuse for rejecting out of hand any evidence for any claim contrary to a secular orthodoxy.
And in fairness, some skeptics do sometimes seem to saying something like:
- An extraordinary claim is one that we're already convinced cannot be true; and
- Extraordinary evidence is any kind that we know you can't produce.
Is there some way to define the terms independently of anyone's presuppositions about what does or does not happen in the ordinary course of events?
« Jesus Christ | Defining the “Extraordinary†»
No comments:
Post a Comment