Do extraordinary claims really require extraordinary proofs? Or Is it Really the Issue?: Apologetics

I recently engaged in an online exchange of ideas. This involved an atheist organization (Atheism in the Philippines) concerning the nature of faith and its alleged irrationality, entailing that those who have religious faith are downright irrational[1]. Of course, we can immediately and clearly see the stand of our atheist friends. After some time, after I received a hurl of name callings and vitriol, the admin tried to rise from the ashes of that encounter and posted something on the issue: “EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE”. (See image 1 to follow the ‘train’ of thought[2]).

As it appears, our atheist friend was bedazzled with how I forwarded an equivocal case for the historical knowledge about the presidency of Emilio Aguinaldo, or ANY HISTORICAL FACT for that matter to the credibility of the Scriptures and its witness to the humanity and deity of Jesus Christ. In this current article, however, it was used as a negative case against Christianity, since our atheist friend cannot seem to comprehend how the local knowledge of the presidency of Emilio Aguinaldo (I suppose this friend is such a huge fan, which I am certainly NOT), can be paralleled with the case of the New Testament Witness. Let us follow his claims and see how this one falls like water on rock. Not only as a rebuttal case, this article will forward a case for the rationality of faith, particularly the Biblical, Judæo-Christian sense of faith, as opposed to the caricature of faith that #AtheismInthePhilippines (and elsewhere) poses. In effect, we will see how the Christian faith is unique in its intellectual, historical and epistemological validity.

Extra what?: A brief history of the “thought”

Before we grapple the bravehearted facebook post, let us first provide a provenance for the astounding quotation: ““EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE”. By foreshadowing this current post, the admin said:

"Atheism in the Philippines Al Vin textual evidence is not enough evidence to prove the supernatural. -ncap"

And when I asked who said he ‘humbly’ claimed:

"Atheism in the Philippines Al Vin says my skeptical brain. The gospels have no known originals no authorship and are not even eye witness accounts. But if it's enough for you then so be it. Just don't be surprised if we find it asinine -Ncap"

For a better reference, this was said by an American Astronomer Carl Sagan. But the idea was first echoed by Pierre Simon Laplace[3] and David Hume[4]. Once a hallmark for skeptical thinking about miracles (which skeptics lumped together as supernatural or extraordinary events[5]), such idea has been proven fallacious within philosophical circles, both by theists and atheists alike, for its lack of critical integrity (Cf. Hume’s “In Fact” and “In Practice” Objections)[6].

The very term “extraordinary”, to begin with, is a relative term. One time and event to a group of people may find something “extraordinary” as others won’t (imagine how the transmission of information in the 21st century would appear to those who first employed the Morse Code or during the time when the Atlantic cable was first installed). Secondly, the events that are so-called extraordinary do not really need extraordinary evidence, since they happen within the very time-space continuum, only that the process overrides the natural causes operative in that particular circumstance. All we need to have are accounts and testimonies that attest to the event. (Anyway, testimonies and attestations will not be present if there was nothing to testify or attest to begin with).

Thus, the problem with this statement is not the presence or absence of evidence, but with the worldview it first embraces: Naturalism. Naturalism, to its core, is non-admissive of the possibility of the supernatural. Therefore, miracles as such, are immediately ruled out and are not welcomed in such a worldview.

Need to have an “extraordinary” understanding?: Now the main dish

Let us now consider the post by our atheist friend and see if he really understood the affirmations he publicly posted. Let’s hear his ‘explanation’:

“Claim 1: Emilio Aguinaldo exists. He was a human that performed heroic acts for our country. Fought in a war. Was a patriotic guy. The Evidence: There’s not much physical evidence A few photos here and there. There’s textual evidence from independent sources and my parents and teachers in school affirm his existence Conclusion: I believe he exists Why? Because it’s a pretty mundane claim and mundane evidence is enough to convince me. His existence or nonexistence is not world view altering. Honestly, I couldn’t care less if he was proven to be nonexistent tomorrow”

Pardoning the wrong usage of the expression of “I couldn’t care less”, the whole thought is completely unpardonable, with reference to the claim on “extraordinariness”. Emilio Aguinaldo (this atheist’s ‘hero’) did not, at all, do an extraordinary act. Except that this renowned first president of the Philippines defeated Mystique, not for shape-shifting, but for side-shifting and butterfly politicking, quoting and placing him as a case in point for extraordinariness is such a wrong move. The reason for such was that this atheist mistook the very idea that I was originally equivocating: the historicity of events elsewhere and the historicity of the existence—life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This atheist friend right away labelled the eyewitness accounts of Jesus as “extraordinary” events, when originally, these were merely ancient texts, attesting independently of and about this man who claimed God, Jesus of Nazareth. The likes of Foster[7], Ewen[8], Wallace[9] and Strobel[10] (all of which with strong legal and police credentials) are unanimous in saying that the Gospels were texts that can hold water under the court scrutiny, given the kinds of evidences (circumstantial, scientific, rebuttal and whatnot) they provide. Should he dismiss the gravity of the arguments of these source, I suppose and by the power of logic, this pal has to offer an alternative for these cases or else, his thoughts will be proven intellectually dishonest.

On this account, the historicity of the Gospels is deemed parallel to the events of any historical events to be posed. I am not sure what this atheist friend means by “mundane” here, but if what it appeals to is the simplicity of the evidence, the evidence are the Gospels themselves. Should we demand of photos? I suppose that’s a pretty lame one, since any grade school pupil would know that photography had not been discovered until 177 years ago (1839). As regards to the tune of “world view altering”, I suppose this dude has not really heard of the controversy of Aguinaldo being the culprit in the death of Bonifacio and Antonio Luna. That ought to shift his devotion. Aguinaldo, in that sense, is a no hero. But simply, this pal won’t. He is predisposed to believe what he wants.

“Claim 2: Jesus exists. He is the son of god. Omnipotent/benevolent/scient. Walked on water. Rose from the dead Co-creator of the universe. Will save us from a lake of fire in the afterlife if we believe/love/pray/accept him The Evidence: Mentioned in book with no originals, no authorship, revised and translated countless of times and are not eyewitness accounts. A few early historians mention him (pliny tacitus et al) A whole lot of logical and philosophical arguments that attempt to prove his existence. Years of affirmation and indoctrination by family, friends and teachers at school. “Funny feelings when you pray/speak to him/prasise him or sing songs for him. No physical evidence Conclusion: I don’t believe he exists. Why, because unlike Aguinaldo the claims for this jesus/god are simply extraordinary. If his existence is proven true, it would be life changing, ground breaking, world view altering, and religion unifying news. The supernatural feats he supposedly done have never been repeated, tested or demonstrated EVER. . A different standard of evidence will apply to these claims and EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. Hence the evidence presented by theists are not enough for me to be convinced”

This part of the post, despite its hodge-podge hullaballoo, need some serious education of what evidence really means. The “claim” part shows that this dude is really affected by God. Apparently, this should not be the case for an atheist, who, in the classical/original definition is someone who does not believe in God or a god. But he seems to be so preoccupied by God, nonetheless. Could this be an evidence of his closet theism? Well, enough of the dude, let’s see the “Evidence”.

“Mentioned in book with no originals” (?)

Sadly, this accusation displays that lack of knowledge with regard to writing and literacy in the olden times. The manner of transmitting a text in the ancient included the scribes’ understanding of the possibility of immediate decay of the materials (sheep skin, papyrus, sepia) used in writing. Thus, it was the intent of the writers of ancient literatures to copy as much versions of the “original”, which, by the way were read through and through by the scribes. Again, this is part of their understanding that, due to the sudden attacks from barbaric tribes, the writings can be destroyed, thus they need to memorize the texts… TO THE DOT! These people are not as dependent to technology as we are today and, hence did not concern so much about plagiarism and intellectual property, knowing that the enemy that texts faced was OBLITERATION. I am short of saying that once an ancient text is reproduced, the replication was done under the supervision of the eldest patriarch living together with the other veteran scribes who can check out on the fault in doctrine or events once they are juxtaposed against each other. This is the very reason that Bruce Metzger said that the Bible we have today is a few margins of percentage away from the original that had decayed throughout time. Why margins of percentage away? Because manuscripts merely had variations on punctuation marks or inversely spelled names and events.

The other parts of the “objection” are merely affective, i.e. emotional angst, that do not have credible intellectual basis. No proofs. No evidence. Just mere clamor only to have something to say against the belief he does not want to embrace, for reasons he only knows. Clearly, this guy could not employ the sophisticated cloak of ‘rational disbelief’.

His “conclusion” for this line of thinking (?) does not offer the alteration of worldview as his standard. The statement “I don’t believe he exists” is not a propositional statement at all, let alone requires any premise. The irrationality, which is the absence of intellectual force that he faults Christ and Christianity is actually found in his very words. What’s the adjudication? He fails the standards he imposes on Christianity. With this kind of thought, no rationally thinking person can have the faith to be an atheist like him.

“Theists are perfectly justified to believe in his existence, you have every right to do so. However since theists are the ones who are making a positive claim you as a theist carry the burden of proof. Which means we atheists are also perfectly justified to NOT believe until better evidence is presented.

Simple yet so elusive to some.”

It’s funny to see how this dude uses the word “justified”. Who justifies the theists on this sense? On what standard of justification? And who gave the right? (I am not quite sure though if he understands the PRESUPPOSITIONS of these indictments. In saying that “a theist carry the burden of proof”, this atheist friend appears to misunderstand the position of atheism in this clash of worldviews: Atheism is on the prosecution that accuses Christianity of certain crimes, disavowing it of its privileged position for the longest time. Thence, Christianity is on the DEFENSE. The defense counsel, in any court, need not prove anything, but simply respond to the cases (if there were any from Atheism) forwarded. All it has to do is to stand the challenges and ensure that the accusations bear all the reasonable doubts.

It appears as though that this atheist friend wrongly employed a domain of challenge and accusation towards Christianity. Had he challenged the credibility, credulity, and the possibility of miracles, then the quoted line from Carl Sagan would have been a lot meaningful. But, instead, the introduction of this article is the one fairly laid down the case that this dude ought to have set up. The standards were wrong. The terms were questionable. The references were incoherent. The case was not found. Even if this one does not really merit a serious attention, the thought is, as J.I Packer says to this effect: one has to be concerned when the glory of God is attacked. No matter how unmindful the attack is, the believer is in charge to deal with the accusation and show how the attempt at the case against God falls on its own merits. This creates a picture of a man, who, while sitting on the bough, is cutting the very node that connects the branch to the trunk. The Accused stands. The accuser falls. Sadly, the pain will not be enough to make him believe that he is at fault (Romans 1:19-21).

[1] For the exchange, see: https://www.facebook.com/AtheistPilipinas/photos/a.1728991680665196.1073741828.1727617880802576/1821055561458807/?type=3

[2] Better yet, click this link for a better visual pleasure J : https://www.facebook.com/AtheistPilipinas/posts/1822639124633784

[3] "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.” (Théorie analytique des probabilités, 1812, «... Plus un fait est extraordinaire, plus il a besoin d'être appuyé de fortes preuves ; car, ceux qui l'attestent pouvant ou tromper ou avoir été trompés, ces deux causes sont d'autant plus probables que la réalité du fait l'est moins en elle-même.)

[4] See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence

[5] Geisler and Turek (2004) identified at least six categories of Unusual Events. See I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist. Ch.8. pp. 210-217. Crossway

[6] See Ch. 3 of Is God Just a Human Invention by McDowell and Morrow. 2010. Kregel. Pp. 44-54

[7] Foster, Charles. 2010. The Jesus Inquest: The Case for and Against the Resurrection of the Christ. Thomas Nelson

[8] Ewen, Pamela, Binnings. 2013. Faith on Trial: Would the Testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Stand up in Court?. B&H Pub.

[9] Wallace, J. Warner. 2013. Cold Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels.

[10] Strobel, Lee. 1998. The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Harper Collins/Zondervan.