The Necessity of Extraordinary Evidence
14 March 2006It is often claimed that extraordinary beliefs require extraordinary evidence. However, this claim is rarely supported, rather, it is assumed to be an obvious truth. Moreover, when addressing the existence of God or resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is rarely conjoined with the supposed criteria which must be met for rational belief (i.e., there is no identification of the kind or quantity of evidence needed). Additionally, it is almost never conjoined with an explanation of why, exactly, God’s existence or Christ’s resurrection are actually extraordinary, or, if they are, how extraordinary they are. These issues must be addressed if we are to embrace the argument from The Necessity of Extraordinary Evidence, as I will refer to it here.
Laying out the argument
Presumably, by claiming that the theist must provide extraordinary evidence for belief in God, for example, the arguer is attempting to establish, at least implicitly, some type of argument. Here is one possible formulation:
1. Belief in extraordinary events(things) requires extraordinary evidence.
2. God’s existence is an extraordinary belief.
3. Therefore, belief in God’s existence requires extraordinary evidence.
However, this in itself does not really damage the case for God’s existence. To become a full-fledged argument, it could be expanded thusly:
1. Belief in extraordinary events(things) requires extraordinary evidence.
2. God’s existence is an extraordinary belief.
3. Therefore, belief in God’s existence requires extraordinary evidence.
4. God’s existence is not corroborated by extraordinary evidence.
5. Therefore, we should not believe that God exists.
Do extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence?
It may be noticed that demands for “extraordinary evidence” are rarely substantiated with criteria for what such evidence would be, even in theory. Yet, it is crucial to come up with some sort of definition, since the claim is otherwise simply arbitrary.
However, it is difficult to imagine what sort of reasonable, objective standard could be set up for distinguishing between an “extraordinary event” and an “ordinary event.” Here I would like to offer a few ideas for reasons something may be classified as “extraordinary.”
1. If it apparently involves a logical or conceptual impossibility.
2. If it violates currently accepted laws of physics.
3. If it conflicts with our expectations based on background knowledge.
Obviously, 1 is more extraordinary than 2, and 2 more than 3. These criterion for “extraordinary” are objective, because we can actually spell out the amount of evidence that would be required to overcome them. Namely, the evidence must be sufficient to overrule the problem (1, 2, or 3) and then still persuasive to compel (or at least incline) belief in the proposition. Some examples here may be useful.
Let us imagine two different scenarios. In A, John claims to possess a basketball. In B, John claims to possess an airplane. The reason we may require more evidence for B is that according to our background knowledge, persons are more likely to possess basketballs than airplanes. Clearly though, we can conceive of the evidence that would be required to make probable John’s claim to own an airplane. The evidence must be good enough, however, to override our background knowledge that a person is unlikely to own an airplane. There are two ways that this can be accomplished. First, John may provide sufficient evidence (photographs of his plane, confirmation from several friends) that is good enough to overcome the inherent unlikelihood of John owning a plane. Secondly, if we obtain more specified background knowledge of John, say, that he is a multi-millionaire, then his claim to own an airplane is quite plausible, perhaps as plausible as John’s claim to own a basketball in A. Thus an extraordinary event of type 3 can be proved either by evidence good enough to overcome the inherent unlikelihood or by a change in the background knowledge that makes the event unlikely in the first place.
Therefore, I have provided three ways that a belief or event may be considered “extraordinary,” as well as (somewhat) objective means of overcoming the extraordinary nature of the belief or event.
Is God’s Existence Extraordinary?
With this analysis out of the way, does the belief that God exists qualify for any of the criterion?
Some have claimed that the very concept of God involves logical contradictions, or at least severe logical difficulties. However, most of these objections do not seem very convincing (see HERE). In any case, God could easily be construed as finitely powerful and intelligent, or whatever, and so therefore escape any supposed contradictions.
Does the existence of God violate the laws of physics? It is hard to see how, since He exists (or at least existed) distinct from these laws.
Finally, does the existence of God conflict with our background knowledge? This seems unlikely also, since we have no “background knowledge” of existence beyond our own physical universe. One might claim that the existence of nonbelief or evil is background knowledge which makes God’s existence unlikely, but, as I show in the linked articles, these objections are not unanswerable. Additionally, these objections only apply, if at all, to God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent, and not against the existence of God per se. The Problem of Evil and Nonbelief are issues to be considered after God’s bare existence is confirmed and address His nature, not His existence.
However, even if evil and nonbelief constitute background knowledge that counts against God’s existence, this is by no means insuperable. It may be the case that the evidence for God’s existence overrides these problems.
Is Christ’s Resurrection Extraordinary?
Surely, the resurrection of Christ from the dead would qualify as an extraordinary event. In our experience, dead men simply do not rise.
However, the Christian does not claim that Christ rose from the grave by natural means. The Christian claims that God raised Christ from the dead in order to vindicate Him and His claims. This explanation obviously hinges on the existence of God, yet, if His existence is granted, it seems like raising Christ from the dead is one of those things that God would have little trouble doing.
Thus, Christ’s resurrection surely cannot be a type 1 or 2 extraordinary event. It is not logically or conceptually impossible for a man who was once dead to be alive again. And the resurrection does not involve a “violation of currently accepted physics” because the hypothesis has nothing to do with physics- it deals with God resurrecting a man from the dead. It may be construed as a type 3, since in our experience God, if He exists, does not often raise people from the dead. However, the strength of this background knowledge is somewhat reduced due to the historical and religious context in which Christ’s resurrection took place. We may not expect God to randomly raise a man from the dead, but Jesus Christ was no ordinary man (which is admitted even by non-Christians). Christ made radical claims to be the Messiah and was consequently put to death in a shameful way. His resurrection from the dead by God thus plausibly vindicates Christ’s claims. So, in essence, the historical and religious context is a form of specified background knowledge that undermines the more general background knowledge that God usually does not raise men from the dead.
What if Extraordinary Evidence Really Is Needed?
As I showed early on in this article, the mere fact that belief in God or Christ’s resurrection require extraordinary evidence does not complete an atheological argument if there is, in fact, extraordinary evidence for the events or beliefs in question.
I am persuaded that there is extraordinary evidence for the existence of God. The Cosmological and Teleological arguments alone establish with an extremely high degree of plausibility the existence of at least some sort of Creator. So, even if extraordinary evidence is required, belief in God may remain more rational than disbelief. This is particularly the case because, as demonstrated previously, the extraordinary nature of God’s existence is, at best, an example of type 3.
As for the resurrection of Christ, I will admit that it is much harder to produce extraordinary evidence, since the event occurred over 2,000 years ago. However, I do believe that the historical resurrection of Christ is one of the most confident facts we can know about the ancient history. Thus, the evidence for Christ’s resurrection is “extraordinary” in comparison to the evidence for many other accepted facts of ancient history. So, even Christ’s resurrection may remain plausible despite the requirement of extraordinary evidence.
Conclusion
It is important to remember that God’s existence and Christ’s resurrection have been shown, I believe, to be weak type 3 events, at best. Therefore, if it is true that they require “extraordinary” evidence, then the type of evidence that they require is little more than would be required for a mundane event or belief. Nonbelievers will have to consider arguments for the existence of God and the resurrection of Christ on their own merits.
—————————————————————————————————————
no no no, you’re a complete kook, “oh yeah, god exists outside the laws of physics” umm yeah right…simple point, there is NO evidence for god’s existance, save for a long book written by a load of politicians many years ago…you have no proof, just a load of philisophical bullshit and spin, designed to confuse people.x.
— jay Sep 14, 09:26 AM #
Could you expound on the point: “I do believe that the historical resurrection of Christ is one of the most confident facts we can know about the ancient history.”?
The resurrection of christ is documented by the writing of an oral tradition passed down about 30-40 years after the event occurred, supposedly witnessed by 4 people (MMLJ – whose facts may be borrowed from each other in the 4 gospels). There are very few sources outside of the Bible that cite Jesus at all (let alone his crucifixion). But, let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Let us say that the sources outside the Bible validate that Jesus exists and that he was crucified. Where is the evidence of his resurrection (outside of a few passage in the Bible)?
— skeptical_agnostic Feb 2, 11:06 AM #
Look at The Risen Jesus and Future Hope by Gary Habermas
— anonymous Mar 13, 01:42 PM #
Miracles, eg the resurrection, are extraordinary. It seems that you are blinding yourself with a veil of false objectivity.
— Jeeum Apr 15, 11:53 AM #
Just want to say, first, that I appreciate what you are doing. I love debates and logic and am hoping to get into a few myself.
One comment, I’m bothered by your attempt at a courtroom argument rather than a logical argument.
Don’t get me wrong, I think its very persuasive to the “choir” but your narrative when you get to Jesus presupposes a God. (Since you didn’t establish God as a fact – you simply waved away criticisms).
Science – specifically biology and chemistry (which I presume you would add to physics in #2) – shows that a body starts to decompose after 3 days. The resurrection of Jesus WOULD, in fact, be counter to the laws of “physics” – and you must provide the extraordinary evidence for this event in ABSENSE of providing extraordinary evidence for a god. After all, the extraordinary event is the resurrection – the act of the being “god” – the effect. Not WHETHER a god could do it. you need to provide the evidence that it happened, or the proof that there is a god – AND then show that your “minimilist” god is the Xian god.
However, if you wish to continue to use the “God did it” argument, I might add that one of your descriptions of God is that he is “above and beyond the laws of physics” AND “that god is not constrained by the laws of physics”.
If this is the case you have a problem, logically.
One of the laws of physics states that ‘every action has an equal and opposite reaction’.
If God acted in some way in this universe, then there was an equal force affecting him. Or, if not (I have no idea how you can deny this, since you would paint yourself it a logical corner), then he is unable to affect this “world”.
That is, you have a logical problem if you want god both removed from the universe AND acting on and/or within it.
An Argument from Ignorance can’t help you here.
That said, I appreciate your efforts and am impressed by your prolific writing and podcasts – something I’d like to try once I get as knowelgable of the arguments as you.
Keep up the good work.
— daedalus Jun 28, 08:01 PM #
There’s a slight problem with the extraordinary evidence / extraordinary belief “John has an airplane” example:
The last situation in your argument stated that “if we did some background checking and found out that John was a multimillionaire…” While I agree with the conclusion of your argument (that would indeed make his claims of possessing an airplane more plausible), it begs the question: “How do we know that John is a multimillionaire?”
Doing the background research shows it, sure. But that would still require extraordinary evidence.
Similarly—the resurrection of christ, which I think most people would consider an extraordinary event (whether or not you believe in it), needs extraordinary evidence. Citing “well, he’s the son of God,” may make it more plausible, but then you beg the question “How do we know God exists?”
Also – I would argue a burden of proof argument on God’s existence. We can’t assume that anything exists without a reasonable amount of evidence.
And again—claims like this really need to be falsifiable if they’re expected to be taken seriously. If I claim that I can fly, but keep throwing out bizarre corner-case scenarios for why you haven’t seen evidence, my claim should be taken with a grain of salt.
Similarly, all we have is a book and an appeal to antiquity / appeal to majority in favor of God’s existence. None of those three things prove his existence.
— Aaron Sep 27, 12:59 PM #
I find some of your remarks here pretty disingenuous. There is an obvious criterion of extraordinariness besides the three you’ve listed.
An extraordinary claim is one that requires either radical revisions or radical additions to our belief system. You ignore this latter source: radical additions. The existence of God isn’t extraordinary so much because it conflicts with our prior knowledge of the physical world, but because it requires us to admit into our ontology a whole new class of things completely unsusceptible to the prior methods of analysis (physics, chemistry, biology) we’ve heretofore relied upon. For example, I can tell you a complicated story about how I can set a bush on fire – it involves lots of particles, cells, nervous impulses, heat, etc. interacting in various well-understood ways. But how does God do it? Maybe there’s a similarly satisfying answer to this question beyond throwing up your arms and saying, “It’s magic!” Even so, it’s going to employ a huge array of otherworldly processes. The point isn’t that the existence of God demands an overhaul of physics, it’s that it requires a totally new physics, and that’s what makes it so incredible.
You, on the otherhand, might as well argue for ghosts’ plausibility the same way you’re arguing for God’s. Sure, there is no conceivable physical law or mechanism that could facilitate survival in a floaty, ethereal form after death – but ghosts are simply orthogonal to physical laws! They’re composed of ectoplasm, which is an entirely different stuff than matter!
In a similar vein, you reject the resurrection of Christ as extraordinary because, being allegedly divinely guided, it “has nothing to do with the laws of physics.” But again, the very fact that there was a physical event bearing no relation to the laws of physics is extraordinary! Given that physics has been so singularly and uniformly successful in explaining everything we observe happening in the world, can’t you intuit how astonishing it would be if it didn’t apply to a first century Judean?
— mag Nov 23, 03:36 AM #