During the era of the “New Atheism,” one phrase occurred so often it began to sound like a new law of logic, as certain as the law of non-contradiction or the law of the excluded middle: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Important considerations are raised here, and they have there merits. However, it’s unlikely that what non-theists mean when they say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is that they need evidence that psychologically compels them to belief in an extraordinary claim. Instead, what is more likely is that the non-theist means that in order to establish an extraordinary event as true you need to provide evidence that is also beyond the ordinary.
In the case of the Big Bang, the event is out of the ordinary, but given the universe is expanding, you would expect there to be an event such as the Big Bang. In other words, although the Big Bang is out of the ordinary, it actually is still expected because it coheres with Hubble’s Law (expanding universe). In brief, the natural law predicts the unique event.
With that in mind, the problem with the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is that what is meant by extraordinary is miraculous. The Big Bang is accepted because although it is extraordinary it isn’t miraculous: it follows the natural law. For the non-theist, the problem then with resurrection is not that it is extraordinary but that it is miraculous.
Therefore, the slogan really means something more like “miraculous claims require miraculous evidence.” If that’s right, then what the non-theist is claiming to be sufficient evidence for a miraculous event is another miraculous event to confirm the prior miraculous event. However, because a miraculous event needs a miraculous event to support it, the non-theist is in effect asking for an infinite chain of miraculous events to confirm the first miraculous event in question.
The problem with that is if miraculous events happened all the time to confirm prior miraculous events, then miraculous events would cease to be miraculous. After all, a miracle is something that doesn’t accord with the laws of nature, but if miracles happened all the time then either there would be no laws of nature, or there would be no way to identify a miracle, rendering miracles useless to accomplish their proper end: revealing God.
Thus, the slogan “extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence” is either smuggling in naturalism or it is undermining the very definition of a miracle in another way. Regardless, it seems to be question begging.
I’ll be interested to hear anyone else’s thoughts.
If you get into the science of the Big Bang, for example, you have cold-blooded scientists saying with a straight face that what happened happened so quickly and with such definitive force that you essentially have something coming from or being made from nothing. If that were stated in any other context that would be miraculous, so...why not here?
I guess that's part of it, that they artificially put events like the Resurrection or the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima as a separate type of thing from natural events because they happen to collide with their world view...?
I'm not sure how to define a miraculous event other than an event that is not in accord with the laws of nature, such as an apple levitating. However, what is relevant is less about how to define a miraculous event and more about how an extraordinary event is not necessarily a miraculous event.
As Matt pointed out, the Big Bang is extraordinary in the sense that it is beyond the laws of nature, but as I previously said, it is not miraculous in the sense that it is in accord with the laws of nature. Thus, there is a distinction between an extraordinary event and a miraculous event.
In light of this, when a non-theist applies the principle "extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence," what they really mean is "miraculous events require miraculous evidence." However, if that is the case, then the epistemic justification that the non-theist is asking for undermines what a miracle is (read the last three paragraphs of my previous comments). Therefore, the principle is question begging or something like that, and it should be rejected.
Good points here, Matt. This "slogan" has always bothered me, but it was hard for me to articulate what was wrong with this. Your breakdown of the descriptive and psychological sense of "extraordinary" is very helpful.
Thank you, Matt, and God bless you in the work that you do!
Point well taken. Additional responses come to mind:
1) The claim that order emerged from nothing (atheism) is more "extraordinary" than the claim that it comes from a supreme mind (theism);
2) That a religion whose founder was executed, and generations of whose followers frequently shared the same fate, grew to become dominant throughout most of the known world, is about as "extraordinary" a set of evidence as one could ask for.
I think the slogan is more akin to: “claims of highly unusual phenomena require a higher standard of strong evidence to support them”. The atheist scientist is convinced that a claim is true when presented with a proof, or multiple lines of complementary evidence. Take the theory of evolution as an example- Darwin’s careful observations, with natural selection as a driver of change, then later the discovery of dna and mutations as the mechanism for different forms. I’m not arguing for evolution here, just using it for the moment. Ultimately the atheists are really saying that they only accept scientifically verifiable evidence and no other. Which is a self refuting claim.
I believe it originated with Carl Sagan in the 1980s TV series Cosmos and one of his very popular books. He was always very eloquent and his words carried a sort of ex cathedra weight as a narrator.
the slogan “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” often replaces:
proportionate evidence with
psychologically overwhelming evidence. This substitution makes the standard elastic and unfalsifiable. Embedded in the claim is an assumed worldview we ought always keep in mind.
On the Big Bang, I wonder. The best explanation of the evidence is rationally warranted—even if it describes a rare or unique event.
This is called inference to the best explanation, and it is one of the central methods of historical and scientific reasoning. The Resurrection argument, properly framed, belongs in this category. There are no other reasonable explanations for the cited features supporting the claim of the resurrection of our Lord.
Ooo I just thought of one thing more. Wouldn’t it really be extraordinarily odd if God exists yet he never intervened in human history? How might we deploy their slogan to show its absurdity?
Important considerations are raised here, and they have there merits. However, it’s unlikely that what non-theists mean when they say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is that they need evidence that psychologically compels them to belief in an extraordinary claim. Instead, what is more likely is that the non-theist means that in order to establish an extraordinary event as true you need to provide evidence that is also beyond the ordinary.
In the case of the Big Bang, the event is out of the ordinary, but given the universe is expanding, you would expect there to be an event such as the Big Bang. In other words, although the Big Bang is out of the ordinary, it actually is still expected because it coheres with Hubble’s Law (expanding universe). In brief, the natural law predicts the unique event.
With that in mind, the problem with the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is that what is meant by extraordinary is miraculous. The Big Bang is accepted because although it is extraordinary it isn’t miraculous: it follows the natural law. For the non-theist, the problem then with resurrection is not that it is extraordinary but that it is miraculous.
Therefore, the slogan really means something more like “miraculous claims require miraculous evidence.” If that’s right, then what the non-theist is claiming to be sufficient evidence for a miraculous event is another miraculous event to confirm the prior miraculous event. However, because a miraculous event needs a miraculous event to support it, the non-theist is in effect asking for an infinite chain of miraculous events to confirm the first miraculous event in question.
The problem with that is if miraculous events happened all the time to confirm prior miraculous events, then miraculous events would cease to be miraculous. After all, a miracle is something that doesn’t accord with the laws of nature, but if miracles happened all the time then either there would be no laws of nature, or there would be no way to identify a miracle, rendering miracles useless to accomplish their proper end: revealing God.
Thus, the slogan “extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence” is either smuggling in naturalism or it is undermining the very definition of a miracle in another way. Regardless, it seems to be question begging.
I’ll be interested to hear anyone else’s thoughts.
How do you define "miraculous" events?
If you get into the science of the Big Bang, for example, you have cold-blooded scientists saying with a straight face that what happened happened so quickly and with such definitive force that you essentially have something coming from or being made from nothing. If that were stated in any other context that would be miraculous, so...why not here?
I guess that's part of it, that they artificially put events like the Resurrection or the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima as a separate type of thing from natural events because they happen to collide with their world view...?
I'm not sure how to define a miraculous event other than an event that is not in accord with the laws of nature, such as an apple levitating. However, what is relevant is less about how to define a miraculous event and more about how an extraordinary event is not necessarily a miraculous event.
As Matt pointed out, the Big Bang is extraordinary in the sense that it is beyond the laws of nature, but as I previously said, it is not miraculous in the sense that it is in accord with the laws of nature. Thus, there is a distinction between an extraordinary event and a miraculous event.
In light of this, when a non-theist applies the principle "extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence," what they really mean is "miraculous events require miraculous evidence." However, if that is the case, then the epistemic justification that the non-theist is asking for undermines what a miracle is (read the last three paragraphs of my previous comments). Therefore, the principle is question begging or something like that, and it should be rejected.
Good points here, Matt. This "slogan" has always bothered me, but it was hard for me to articulate what was wrong with this. Your breakdown of the descriptive and psychological sense of "extraordinary" is very helpful.
Thank you, Matt, and God bless you in the work that you do!
Well said—concur!
Point well taken. Additional responses come to mind:
1) The claim that order emerged from nothing (atheism) is more "extraordinary" than the claim that it comes from a supreme mind (theism);
2) That a religion whose founder was executed, and generations of whose followers frequently shared the same fate, grew to become dominant throughout most of the known world, is about as "extraordinary" a set of evidence as one could ask for.
Great article! I hear this phrase a lot, and typically push back that there is substantial evidence for the Christian worldview.
Highlighting the warrantless burden shift first, however is much wiser. Thank you!
I think the slogan is more akin to: “claims of highly unusual phenomena require a higher standard of strong evidence to support them”. The atheist scientist is convinced that a claim is true when presented with a proof, or multiple lines of complementary evidence. Take the theory of evolution as an example- Darwin’s careful observations, with natural selection as a driver of change, then later the discovery of dna and mutations as the mechanism for different forms. I’m not arguing for evolution here, just using it for the moment. Ultimately the atheists are really saying that they only accept scientifically verifiable evidence and no other. Which is a self refuting claim.
This unlocked a knot of irritation in me. Like many here this argument has bugged me for a long time! Thanks!
I believe it originated with Carl Sagan in the 1980s TV series Cosmos and one of his very popular books. He was always very eloquent and his words carried a sort of ex cathedra weight as a narrator.
Great and helpful.
the slogan “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” often replaces:
proportionate evidence with
psychologically overwhelming evidence. This substitution makes the standard elastic and unfalsifiable. Embedded in the claim is an assumed worldview we ought always keep in mind.
On the Big Bang, I wonder. The best explanation of the evidence is rationally warranted—even if it describes a rare or unique event.
This is called inference to the best explanation, and it is one of the central methods of historical and scientific reasoning. The Resurrection argument, properly framed, belongs in this category. There are no other reasonable explanations for the cited features supporting the claim of the resurrection of our Lord.
Ooo I just thought of one thing more. Wouldn’t it really be extraordinarily odd if God exists yet he never intervened in human history? How might we deploy their slogan to show its absurdity?
Methinks thou art witter than thou confesseth!