Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence? Nah.

Examining the slogan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It may seem simple and true when you first hear it but when you really think it through it's full of problems. In reality this slogan is often used to keep people from following evidence to things they simply don't want to believe in or things that they don't already believe in. This video will be an attempt to thoughtfully work through this issue in the hopes that it will help people to avoid the subjective confirmation bias that tends to come with the slogan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[ryanbuikema]

I have taken to asking an honest question "You just admitted you see the evidence, and just admitted it's not good enough. My question is if you had enough evidence would that conclusively sway you to faith in Jesus? If not then who cares if you have all the evidence? " I feel like so many people say they want "signs" or "evidence " but at the end of the day do not care either way.

[ramigilneas]

It’s pretty easy.

If Jesus really resurrected then I would expect the evidence to look exactly like it does.

If Jesus didn’t resurrect then I would also expect the evidence to look exactly like it does, because "it actually happened“ has never been the most likely explanation for any belief in miraculous events.
And countless people believe in events that never happened.

But if Jesus resurrected and really was the Messiah or the son of God or even God himself and wanted to spread the good news about the sacrifice that he made… then I would expect the evidence to be a billion times better than it is.

[inTruthbyGrace]

Wow Mike... you did an _extraordinary_ job on this one... really well done brother!

[blostin]

Mike, you were born to do this. Great!

[jayman]

It’s good hear you got your funding to do this full time bro. I wish we had many more ministries like yours but I’m very glad you’re out there Mike.

God bless you man!!

Grace & Peace

[AbleAnderson]

Mike, the pet dog vs pet dragon example illustrates this Perfectly, I’m not sure where your disconnect is.

If you say you have a pet dog, I would prob just accept that, bc there’s little risk to being wrong and I know ppl have dogs, it’s extremely common.

If you say you have a pet dragon, that would completely upend what I understand about reality. I would wanna see serous evidence of that. It would literally change my worldview, and to overcome that hurdle, I would need serious evidence.

[saturnz]

The word extraordinary is completely tripping you up. Just think of it as the level of evidence that is sufficient to warrant acceptance of a type of claim. A mundane claim that maps to our everyday experience, like you have a pet cat named Frisky, we can accept on its face. A claim that is outside our experience, like you have a pet zombie named Fred, will require much more to overcome its rightful burden. This is the concept, and not a "slogan" and surely you see how it fits with natural/supernatural claims. One is inconsistent if they accept certain supernatural claims (such as a man rising from the dead) and dismiss others with similar or even better contemporary evidence as was pointed out to you by Matt Dillahunty. You were very quick to dismiss the resurrection video as a fraud. I encourage you to think about why that was and if this "slogan" had anything to do with it. What type of claim was it and what kind of evidence would it take to convince you to be authentic?

[ThomasJDavis]

_"What constitutes an extraordinary claim?"_

Like the first tweet said, the lower the probability of it being true, the more extraordinary the claim. (I won the lottery)

_"What constitutes extraordinary evidence?"_

Whatever evidence would be necessary to demonstrate the claim's veracity. Having _the actual winning lottery ticket_ is extraordinary evidence. The measure for how extraordinary a piece of "truth making" evidence is, is based on how extraordinary the claim is.

its ability to demonstrate the extraordinary claim IS what makes it extraordinary evidence.

When it comes to supernatural claims, we need a clear definition for what "supernatural" actually means or what it is. It's kind of ironic that this video talks about the ambiguity of the term "extraordinary" and how there seems to be no clear answer, or people just make analogies, and yet that's exactly what believers do with the term "supernatural".

No one really seems to know what they're talking about. It _sounds_ like they're referencing something in the world, but what exactly is it?

I would say that supernatural claims require supernatural evidence, but maybe I should first say, "the supernatural requires a coherent and definite description before anyone can even make coherent claims about it".

edit: No, the evidence does not become subjective. The "extraordinariness" is _relative_ to the claim.

[zechariahfire]

Top video, Mike still respectful but also laying it out as it is.. I like it 😎

[TheKoolbraider]

Does this mean I have to let my fire-breathing dragon loose to fend for himself? What a horrible thought! I enjoy your live streams, you always have timely and helpful advice.

[ThinkClub]

You can’t know. The evidence you want doesn’t exist. That’s why faith is so important.

[erics]

Claims with a lower prior probability require more evidence. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is just a catchy way of saying this.

I own a car.
I own a Ferrari.
I own a time traveling delorean.

These require different levels of evidence.

And all Christians, unless extremely gullible, live there lives with this level of rational, critical thinking, except with their own claims.

Still shocked you push back so hard on this Mike.

edit: just noticed my tweet at 9:20 and 13:30

[SaraJeanne]

Trying to be charitable as I often have an extremely skeptical mindset. I think the outlandish "unreasonable" responses are intended to point out that they would expect something that wild because God in His power could make something like that happen(and God could) -I think they mean to point out that these examples are what could convince them. I think the resurrection is the insanely outlandish event that gave us reason to trust God.
Now imagine if we had tapes on the moon.. ff a couple thousand years and we only have copies of the tape, perhaps future generations will also demand additional miraculous evidence to trust?
I think we need to take what we have and judge on its merits rather than our biased expectations on what God would give us for evidence.

[dievas_]

Yeah. Yeah it does. Always, without exception.

[OPabstrakt]

It's not reasonable to ask for a recording of Jesus' life but it is reasonable to believe he walked on water and died for 3 days then came back to life.

[tommywoods]

to answer your first question:
1. violating things that have a high probability of being true (i.e. low probability)
2. it is more likely that the evidence supporting the claim is true than that all of the contradictory evidence is true


example:
Extraordinary claim: newtonian physics is incorrect (at least on some levels of analysis/not in most circumstances on earth), and relativity is correct
Extraordinary evidence: thought experiments and complicated math backing up relativity, thereby making it more likely that what we previously thought to be a high-probability truth was in fact false (or not entirely true) when compared to the even higher-probability of relativity being true in the areas that it contradicts newtonian physics


how it applies to the resurrection of jesus:
Extraordinary claim: a man rose from the dead, contradicting what we think to be a high-probability truth that after total brain death, no one can come back (and possibly also introducing some aspect of the supernatural, which has a low likelihood of being true, given that there is no evidence in support of it and if it was to ever interact with our world, we would reasonably expect to see some evidence)
Required extraordinary evidence: the truth is, proving something so contradictory with the things we think we know (i.e. low probability) like this from this long ago would nearly be impossible. for the evidence from the past to be sufficient for THIS particular claim and similarly improbable/contradictory ones, it would have to outweigh the probability of all the things that contradict it (some already listed) being true. this would entail evidence that we simple don't have, like far more first-hand accounts, many from non-followers, or some sort of physical proof or maybe even a video
What we actually have: a few people write their first-hand, second-hand, or worse accounts of the event, many of whom have a strong reason to want to believe the events as true or even stage them or spread stories. there's also some circumstantial evidence on various things you've discussed before. clearly, none of this comes close to outweighing the even better supported ideas I've listed and more. in other words, the probability of the resurrection of jesus being true, is reasonably thought to be significantly lower than the likelihood of the contradictory evidence being true.

[rikardotsamsiyu]

Mike, I'm no Christian, but I do enjoy your videos and the fresh perspectives that you bring me. That being said, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.

That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (ECREV) is *true by definition*. Regardless of what "extraordinary" means or who gets to decide, it is still true. It also doesn't matter if you notice the skeptic shifting the goal post whenever you provide "good" evidence for your beliefs like the resurrection.

Why? Because, claims [a] require evidence [b]. Therefore, it follows that X claims require X evidence (X can be whatever adjective you'd like). What I mean is, the quality and degree of claims should be proportional to the quality or degree of their evidence (if you want to persuade someone of their truthfulness).

The question is not whether ECREV. The question is what is "extraordinary?" And, if your claim is "extraordinary, " why isn't the evidence you have provided "extraordinary?" What would count as "extraordinary" evidence?

I will now answer some of the objections I saw posted by your subscribers as well as objections that people may raise.

"I always thought it was kind of fishy." <-- Yeah, I suppose you can think that ECREV is fishy, but only because people abuse of it does not mean that it is not true. The truthfulness of the claim stands or falls regardless of whether people misuse it. Many people throughout history have misused Christianity to justify atrocities. Does this prove Christianity is false?

"​What is considered extraordinary and who or what determines that?" <-- Doesn't matter. The claim is still true by definition. Once you accept that the claim is true, you can then ask what constitutes extraordinary and who determines that. But, merely pointing out that the criteria for "extraordinary" is vague does not nullify the claim that ECREV.

"ECREV is a self-defeating statement because it is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence itself." <-- There are two ways I can address this:
1. No, it is not because there are two types of claims: rational and empirical. Rational claims are like math and are basically just reflections of immaterial and non-physical laws. Rational claims cannot be tested, they can only be analyzed philosophically. Empirical claims, on the other hand, are about the physical, natural, and material world. They describe phenomena, events, observations, etc. Sometimes, they can be tested, but other times not. In essence, empirical claims deal with things that are made of atoms and take up space (or are the result thereof) while rational claims deal with the immaterial and non-physical. ECREV is a rational claim concerning empirical claims. So, it does not require extraordinary evidence itself. As a matter of fact, it requires no evidence at all. The proof is in the fact that claims require evidence. It then follows that [insert adjective here] claims require [insert same adjective here] evidence. There is nothing extraordinary about that!
2. Yes, it is but there are a plethora of things that are self-defeating that we still accept as true. The claim "we should use logic and reason" is self-defeating because it says that all things should be proven or supported through logic and reason. But, logic and reason tell us to abstain from circular arguments. So, we cannot prove that logic and reason are necessary with logic or reason because that in itself would be illogical and unreasonable. Does this cause you to abandon logic and reason?

"To us living in 21st century Western culture, a lightbulb is not extraordinary. But, to an un-contacted Amazonian tribesman, a lightbulb is extraordinary. This proves that 'extraordinary' is relative." <-- Okay, so? A tribesman, in his ignorance, is justified in thinking a lightbulb is extraordinary. So, what? What he doesn't know is that we actually do have the extraordinary evidence. So, if he were presented w/the evidence for lightbulbs (in his language), he would then be unjustified in denying the existence of lightbulbs or their mechanism. Similarly, you can point to a resurrection-skeptic that you actually do have the extraordinary evidence of the resurrection. If the repeat the ECREV slogan, just agree with them and remind them that you do have the extraordinary evidence.

"But, there is extraordinary evidence for the resurrection. So, why do keep throwing this slogan?" <-- I don’t know why they keep throwing it around and, quite frankly, it doesn't matter. The slogan is still true because X claims require X evidence. Perhaps, there is extraordinary evidence for the resurrection but it wouldn't prove ECREV false.

"What evidence/proof do you have that claims require evidence?" <-- Ah, yes! The good ol' tactic! You see, I can never prove to you that claims require evidence just like I can never prove to you that logic is useful. If I claim that we should use logic, you can always ask me to prove that claim with logic. And, I wouldn't be able to since I can't use logic to prove logic because that is a circular argument (i.e., a logical fallacy). Similarly, I cannot prove to you that claims require evidence because it would also render a circular argument. What we do, as adults in a conversation, is acknowledge that we cannot prove these philosophical starting points. Then, we simply assume they are true and go from there. Not doing so would mean that no one could ever have a discussion about the truth.

"You're just being pedantic! Stop focusing so much on a technicality." <-- What is pedantic? Who gets to decided that "pedantic" means?

"Okay! well, just because ECREV is a true statement does not mean it is a meaningful statement. It still doesn't prove the resurrection is false or unsupported by evidence!" <-- Hooray! You finally understand that you can believe in both (a) ECREV and (b) Jesus' resurrection at the same time! Thank you for acknowledging my point.

"You straw-manned the positions of this video. Did you even bother watching the whole thing?" <-- Nope, didn't need to. The title itself is what I'm going after. The video itself could have contained the most well-orchestrated argument in human history and I couldn't care less if the title is off.

*"Wait a minute! It seems, based on everything you just said, that Christians should be the ones using ECREV, not atheists!"* <-- You got it!

[a] I'm talking only about empirical claims, not rational ones. I'm drawing a distinction between empiricism and rationalism. Rational claims are a different category of claims and actually require proof. So, if I say that a tree exists in my backyard, I must provide evidence if I want to persuade you. But, if I say 2+2=4, then I cannot provide evidence, but I do have logical proof.

[b] When I say "evidence, " I specifically mean "physical evidence." Of course, I have heard people use "evidence" to mean "philosophical evidence, " but in this context of ECREV, we are talking about physical evidence, not philosophical.

[ArmorofTruth]

Thanks Mike for making that suggestion to a viewer about Greg Koukl's "Tactics".
I am finding my way through a new community ministry (using YouTube as well) and this book is extremely helpful in organizing my approach to evangelism. I am always left very encouraged and impressed by your meekness and integrity when dealing with difficult issues. I am happy to call you my brother and to direct others your way as well. All the glory to God.

[ambercape]

2 years ago and this video is still having an impact!

[kravitzn]

When Jesus ascended to heaven, where did his body go? Into space? Did it pop out of existence? What happened to it?