Question For Fellow Atheists - Extraordinary Evidence

[Conscious Z]

I don´t disagree with the quote. I disagree with it being used in response to claims regarding the allegedly supernatural.

If you agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then the next question is do you think supernatural claims are extraordinary? If so, then it's an appropriate response.

I don´t think I placed any restriction on it.

I didn't say that you placed a restriction on it, I said that the definition was too restrictive. The definition you gave limited "extraordinary" claim to supernatural claims, and "extraordinary" evidence to supernatural evidence. That is too restrictive because "extraordinary" need not mean supernatural.

I just don´t think there can be - per definition - natural/physical/... evidence for claims regarding the alleged supernatural. So what would be left would be "supernatural evidence" (and I can´t make sense of this term).

There can be evidence that the laws of nature we ascribe to were broken by some person. Now, of course that could just mean that our laws are wrong, but this would at least seem like strong evidence to make one reconsider his position that the natural world is explainable using the laws we currently believe.

However, I am not sure that this quote is always used to mean that one needs evidence of the supernatural. Rather, it is often used simply to mean that something like the Bible is insufficient evidence that a man walked on water, rose from the dead, was born of a virgin, etc. These claims can all be disputed on their natural aspects rather than supernatural.

Yeah, that´s not a claim regarding the supernatural, to begin with.

Right, but no one has said that extraordinary claims must be supernatural claims, or that extraordinary evidence must be supernatural evidence.

Exactly my point. So demanding ordinary or extraordinary or whatever evidence for the allegedly supernatural makes no sense.

See my response two quotes above. I think this quote is often used to mean that even natural extraordinary claims -- walking on water, born of a virgin, etc, -- need extraordinary evidence.

 

[quatona]

If you agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,

I agree with this quote as long as it is applied to extraordinary claims that don´t involve the allegedly supernatural. That´s my point.
Don´t define my idea away by forcing a false dichotomy on it.

then the next question is do you think supernatural claims are extraordinary?

Well, in case the quote is given in response to supernatural claims that´s obviously what´s being meant. It´s not my making.

I didn't say that you placed a restriction on it, I said that the definition was too restrictive. The definition you gave limited "extraordinary" claim to supernatural claims, and "extraordinary" evidence to supernatural evidence. That is too restrictive because "extraordinary" need not mean supernatural.

Certainly, but in those cases I was referring to it obviously did.

There can be evidence that the laws of nature we ascribe to were broken by some person. Now, of course that could just mean that our laws are wrong, but this would at least seem like strong evidence to make one reconsider his position that the natural world is explainable using the laws we currently believe.

However, I am not sure that this quote is always used to mean that one needs evidence of the supernatural. Rather, it is often used simply to mean that something like the Bible is insufficient evidence that a man walked on water, rose from the dead, was born of a virgin, etc. These claims can all be disputed on their natural aspects rather than supernatural.

So what would be sufficient evidence, then?

Right, but no one has said that extraordinary claims must be supernatural claims, or that extraordinary evidence must be supernatural evidence.

Neither did I. I have no idea what your point is.
Again: I didn´t argue against the validity of the quote per se.
I argued against its application in response to claims regarding the allegedly supernatural. And, well, supernatural claims are supernatural claims.

See my response two quotes above. I think this quote is often used to mean that even natural extraordinary claims -- walking on water, born of a virgin, etc, -- need extraordinary evidence.

Yes, that´s why I think that it is applicable as a response to natural claims.

 

[Neogaia777]

Oh how I wish I could describe to Atheists "exactly" what it's like to "feel" and in some cases hear and see, "sense" the Holy Spirit's presence, I just don't have the words...

I pray that they begin to feel and sense the Holy Spirit's presence, it a beautiful thing...

God Bless!

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think in some cases "extraordinary" simply means "a lot".

It is a pretty flexible qualifier. If I were to say "he is extraordinarily tall", we wouldn't be looking for some special quality of tallness; rather, we just mean "very tall".

If then someone were to claim that Jesus walked on water, I'd need more evidence than the claim or a the quote of the claim (the Bible) for my need for evidence to be satisfied.

Perhaps this is all that Sagan was saying. To be fair, I think many of us quote Sagan with a sense that there is some special quality of evidence.

 

[quatona]

Oh how I wish I could describe to Atheists "exactly" what it's like to "feel" and in some cases hear and see, "sense" the Holy Spirit's presence, I just don't have the words...

I also have a lot of feelings that I don´t have the words for. The difference is probably merely that I am not so quick to ascribe them to an entity I´d prefer to exist.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Oh how I wish I could describe to Atheists "exactly" what it's like to "feel" and in some cases hear and see, "sense" the Holy Spirit's presence, I just don't have the words...

I pray that they begin to feel and sense the Holy Spirit's presence, it a beautiful thing...

God Bless!

Can you prove it's actually the holy spirit and not your own imagination?

 

[Davian]

Ok, so before the thread goes down the hill all threads go sooner or later, thanks to all your responses! Much appreciated.



Yes, I agree: In this context the quote makes sense.

Now, would you guys agree that the quote is misapplied when we are facing claims regarding that which is a priori defined as "supernatural"?

I would agree with that.

As I do not know what any given person means by "supernatural", rather than ask for evidence (of any kind), I ask for a testable, or at least falsifiable hypothesis in which they can define their terms and then present evidence to support.

Inevitably it all falls apart as they attempt (or run away from) building some sort of positive ontology for the words they are using, and, for example, can only tell me what they think god/God/supernatural/spirit/etc isn't.

 

[quatona]

As I do not know what any given person means by "supernatural", rather than ask for evidence (of any kind), I ask for a testable, or at least falsifiable hypothesis in which they can define their terms and then present evidence to support.

That´s what I´d do, as well.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

IIRC I read that Wittgensteing once considered some stuff testable empirically, and therefore capable of being either true or false, but there are also supra sensory claims, like "other mindes exist" which are not true or false in that sense, but more or less probable.

Thats how I see metaphysics in general, from the idea of an external reality, to the existence of God. Not debarred a priori as non sense, and therefore scrap, but rather more or less reasonably supported.

Here we do not have direct evidence as such, but more or less rationally coherent warrant for beliefs which lead to subjectively held assesments of probability.

This doent make the claims equally extraordinary, though. For "my dentist is conscious" is far more likely to be true than "my dentist is conscious, and he is Jesus reincarnate".

 

[Snark]

As Christopher Hitchens said "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

"Apart from those weapons of mass destruction. They definitely exist, guys".

Or to put it another way, the problem with Sagan's statement is that he doesn't define what constitutes "extraordinary claims" properly, which leaves us in the realm of pure subjectivity.

It's special pleading to suggest that some claims may need more evidence then others. We may choose not to doubt claims that fit with our experience as strongly, but that isn't the same thing.

Which doesn't necessarily negate the atheist position. It's entirely consistent to suggest that, on the current evidence, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's less consistent to insist that you need more evidence then you need for other issues.

Which gets us into the area of what kind of evidence/truth we're talking about. I'd suggest that theism is very much in the area of philosophical truth. In which case you're not going to get concrete scientific evidence for it, any more then you can prove the existence of utilitarianism using the scientific method.

 

[Davian]

"Apart from those weapons of mass destruction. They definitely exist, guys".

Or to put it another way, the problem with Sagan's statement is that he doesn't define what constitutes "extraordinary claims" properly, which leaves us in the realm of pure subjectivity.

It's special pleading to suggest that some claims may need more evidence then others. We may choose not to doubt claims that fit with our experience as strongly, but that isn't the same thing.

Which doesn't necessarily negate the atheist position.

Atheism is not a truth statement. It cannot be negated.

It's entirely consistent to suggest that, on the current evidence, you don't believe in the existence of God.

It may be the lack of evidence. It may simply be apathy, speaking from experience.

It's less consistent to insist that you need more evidence then you need for other issues.

Not more, but something. Presented in a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, if you can muster it.

Which gets us into the area of what kind of evidence/truth we're talking about. I'd suggest that theism is very much in the area of philosophical truth. In which case you're not going to get concrete scientific evidence for it, any more then you can prove the existence of utilitarianism using the scientific method.

I do not see how theism can be considered a truth statement, as it only requires the belief in god/gods; That there are those that believe in the existence of gods does not make it true that gods are something more than characters in books.

 

[Snark]

Atheism is not a truth statement. It cannot be negated.

Strong atheism is a truth statement and could be negated, at least theoretically.

It may be the lack of evidence. It may simply be apathy, speaking from experience.

Which is an entirely valid position, but probably doesn't move us forward much.

Not more, but something. Presented in a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, if you can muster it.

Heh, you seem to be under the impression that I'm a theist. I'm not. My "other" categorisation on here covers a lot of complexities, but to simplify. I'm a post postmodernist and a hard agnostic. So, naturally, I'm not going to meet your challenge. Because I argue that the existence of the divine is, by its very nature, untestable. Much like the existence of freedom or justice. This simply isn't a question that empiricism is equipped to deal with.

I do not see how theism can be considered a truth statement, as it only requires the belief in god/gods; That there are those that believe in the existence of gods does not make it true that gods are something more than characters in books.

"God/s exist" is a truth statement, in the sense that those who would claim it hold it to be a necessary truth.

And certainly. But nor does the fact that there are those who don't believe in the existence of gods make it true that they don't exist. The truth or otherwise of those statements are unknowable.

I think we run the risk of a category mistake here. The only question we are able to even attempt to address is "is believing in the existence of god/s logical". I'd argue it is. As is not believing in gods. Because both are internally consistent statements, yet both are unverifiable.

 

[Davian]

Strong atheism is a truth statement and could be negated, at least theoretically.

By what methodology would you do this, as later in your post you seemed to have ruled out empiricism.

Which is an entirely valid position, but probably doesn't move us forward much.

Heh, you seem to be under the impression that I'm a theist. I'm not.

Then you are an atheist.

My "other" categorisation on here covers a lot of complexities, but to simplify. I'm a post postmodernist and a hard agnostic. So, naturally, I'm not going to meet your challenge.

No one ever does.

Because I argue that the existence of the divine is, by its very nature, untestable. Much like the existence of freedom or justice. This simply isn't a question that empiricism is equipped to deal with.

By what methodology do you suggest that we explore reality, so as not to overlook this "divine" stuff?

"God/s exist" is a truth statement, in the sense that those who would claim it hold it to be a necessary truth.

Unless they are agnostic on this subject.

And certainly. But nor does the fact that there are those who don't believe in the existence of gods make it true that they don't exist. The truth or otherwise of those statements are unknowable.

I think we run the risk of a category mistake here. The only question we are able to even attempt to address is "is believing in the existence of god/s logical". I'd argue it is. As is not believing in gods. Because both are internally consistent statements, yet both are unverifiable.

And both do not require the existence of actual "gods".

 

[Snark]

By what methodology would you do this, as later in your post you seemed to have ruled out empiricism.

Hence my use of "theoretically"; I don't believe it's possible to negate it in practice. But if it could be shown that non-belief in god/s is a priori unreasonable on logical grounds, that would do it. (And yes, you're correct to say that I rule out empiricism as a methodology on issues of philosophy and theology.

Then you are an atheist.

Nope. Because even weak atheism states that, on the current balance of evidence, god/s don't exist. Whereas I state that the very question is unknowable. It's a genuine difference.

No one ever does.

Which would arguably back up my previous point.

By what methodology do you suggest that we explore reality, so as not to overlook this "divine" stuff?

Skepticism (we cannot know whether god/s do or do not exist) tempered with rationalism (we can however discuss whether it is reasonable to believe that god/s do or do not exist). I fully accept that neither of these approaches are going to ever come to the kind of categorical conclusion that empiricists are looking for.

Unless they are agnostic on this subject.

In which case they can't make that kind of definite statement of belief.

And both do not require the existence of actual "gods".

Correct. But the furthest we are able to go here is to state a subjective statement of belief. While absolute truths can exist on the issue, we're not equipped to ever discover them.

 

[Davian]

Hence my use of "theoretically"; I don't believe it's possible to negate it in practice. But if it could be shown that non-belief in god/s is a priori unreasonable on logical grounds, that would do it.

And has yet to be done.

(And yes, you're correct to say that I rule out empiricism as a methodology on issues of philosophy and theology.

A sound position to take when said methodology fails to support one's position.

Nope. Because even weak atheism states that, on the current balance of evidence, god/s don't exist.

Using your own personal definitions does not get you out of this one. As with collecting stamps, you do or you don't. Which is it?

Whereas I state that the very question is unknowable. It's a genuine difference.

No, it sounds more like ignosticism. You still have to decide whether you collect stamps or not.

Which would arguably back up my previous point.

And would be consistent with gods being only characters in books.

Skepticism (we cannot know whether god/s do or do not exist) tempered with rationalism (we can however discuss whether it is reasonable to believe that god/s do or do not exist).

That does not establish the actual existence of gods.

I fully accept that neither of these approaches are going to ever come to the kind of categorical conclusion that empiricists are looking for.

Only for the empiricists that were hoping to find gods.

In which case they can't make that kind of definite statement of belief.

You should adjust your declarations accordingly.

Correct. But the furthest we are able to go here is to state a subjective statement of belief. While absolute truths can exist on the issue, we're not equipped to ever discover them.

Which is why I do not seek "truths", but accurate descriptions of reality.