Carl Sagan famously said that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. In this he was popularizing a Humean rule of evidence.
I’ve criticized this maxim on various occasions. Now I want to make a different point.
Unbelievers invoke this maxim because they think it undercuts the Christian faith. For example, unbelievers apply this maxim to miracles. They classify miracles as extraordinary events, then treat miracles as inherently improbable and therefore implausible for that very reason.
But let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that this is a sound maxim. The problem with this maxim is that it cuts both ways.
On the one hand, Christians don’t regard the existence of God as extraordinary. Rather, they regard the existence of God as necessary. There’s nothing extraordinary about the existence of a necessary being. To the contrary, it would be extraordinary if a necessary being did not exist. Indeed, it would be impossible.
Conversely, Christians regard nature as extraordinary. And that’s because nature is contingent. Its existence is unnecessary. Therefore, the existence of nature demands a special explanation.
Given the existence of nature, then nature is ordinary, but the given is extraordinary. As Leibniz famously said, why does something exist rather than nothing?
Beyond the general “specialness” of nature, you also have fine-tuning arguments which contend for the extraordinary character of the big bang, or life on earth, &c.
At the moment, my purpose is not to expound or defend any of these arguments. Rather, I’m making the point that Sagan’s maxim is a double-edged sword. It doesn’t carry any presumption in favor of naturalism. It doesn’t create any presumption against supernaturalism.
Both sides of the debate can begin with this maxim and draw opposing conclusions. Both sides of the debate can try to use this maxim against the other side. So this maxim doesn’t assign a distinctive or disproportionate burden of proof on the Christian. As far as the maxim is concerned, the onus falls equally on believer and unbeliever alike.
Never thought of it that way. Cool.
ReplyDeleteThis is the old question of burden of proof. The atheists wants to assume naturalist, even though the bulk of the human race has believed in SOME sort of higher power or ultimate being.
ReplyDelete"I’ve criticized this maxim on various occasions. "
ReplyDeleteReason being?
"Unbelievers invoke this maxim because they think it undercuts the Christian faith."
Actually we invoke it because we believe it is the best way to understand reality.
"Rather, they regard the existence of God as necessary."
A prime mover is a necesary being. God is not one. Of course, a prime mover might not be necesary- it depends on how reality works. I leave that work to the physicists.
"And that’s because nature is contingent. Its existence is unnecessary. Therefore, the existence of nature demands a special explanation. "
Except that isn't what extraordinary means.
"As Leibniz famously said, why does something exist rather than nothing? "
Because nothingness is unstable. What? That is the current best explanation.
"Beyond the general “specialness” of nature, you also have fine-tuning arguments which contend for the extraordinary character of the big bang, or life on earth, &c. "
Why do you assume fine tuning? To do so requires that you assume life is special. You have no reason to make that assumption.
"It doesn’t carry any presumption in favor of naturalism. It doesn’t create any presumption against supernaturalism. "
Actually it does. Natural things happen every day. Supernatural things have never been reliably confirmed.
"As far as the maxim is concerned, the onus falls equally on believer and unbeliever alike."
Only if the believer completely misunderstands the meaning of the maxim.
"The atheists wants to assume naturalist, even though the bulk of the human race has believed in SOME sort of higher power or ultimate being."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
SAMUEL SKINNER SAID:
ReplyDelete“Reason being?”
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/01/onus-of-miracles.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/extraordinary-claims-demand.html
“Actually we invoke it because we believe it is the best way to understand reality.”
An assertion in search of an argument.
“A prime mover is a necesary being. God is not one.”
You’re confounding the Thomistic cosmological argument with the Leibnizian cosmological argument. Try again.
“.Of course, a prime mover might not be necessary-”
“Of course” is not an argument. Where’s the argument?
“It depends on how reality works.”
No, it depends on what is contingent and what is necessary.
“I leave that work to the physicists.”
Physics doesn’t deal with modal properties like contingency and necessity. That falls under the realm of metaphysics rather than physics.
“Except that isn't what extraordinary means.”
Another assertion in lieu of an argument. For someone who fancies himself a rationalist, you’re short on reason.
“Because nothingness is unstable.”
No. Nothingness is neither stable nor unstable. By definiton, nothingness has no real properties.
“What? That is the current best explanation.”
i) If you’re alluding to allegedly uncaused events at the quantum level, then quantum world (if there is such a thing) is far from “nothingness.” It presupposes the existence of the physical universe.
ii) Moreover, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics is a matter of ongoing dispute. For example, Stephen Hawking thinks it’s just a mathematical formalism, and not a description of reality.
“Why do you assume fine tuning?”
I don’t assume fine-tuning. Likewise, the unbeliever can’t assume the absence of fine-tuning. That’s the point. There’s no presumption one way or the other. Both sides must argue their respective position.
“To do so requires that you assume life is special. You have no reason to make that assumption.”
In the Road to Reality, Roger Penrose argues for the “specialness” of the big bang.
“Actually it does. Natural things happen every day.”
You’re confusing “natural” with “naturalism.” Given the existence of the natural world, natural things happen everyday. But that leaves the given unaccounted for.
Many things happen everyday. People use cellphones everyday. That doesn’t mean that cellphones are a brute fact.
“Supernatural things have never been reliably confirmed.”
Yet another assertion in search of an argument. You’re one of those stereotypical unbelievers who intones rationalistic slogans without the reasoned arguments to back up your slogans. You strike a rhetorical pose. But it’s all attitude.
“Only if the believer completely misunderstands the meaning of the maxim.”
Only if SAMUEL SKINNER SAID begs the question every step of the question.
Your response, from start to finish, consists of ignorant statements, conceptual confusions, and tendentious assertions. Are you really satisfied with the nonexistent level of your intellectual performance here? Are you even aware of how vacuous your claims are? You need to stop playing the role of a rationalist and learn how to actually argue for your position. Play-acting won’t cut it here. You’ve memorized your lines. Now begin to prove them.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/01/onus-of-miracles.html
ReplyDelete"And that is why we need a special kind of evidence to overcome the presumption of their nonoccurrence."
... no, that is not what it means. It means we need to have MORE evidence for it. I can take on your say so that the sun is shining today. I'd need a photo to believe that there was an eclipse. I'd need to see it myself, have other witnesses and have it mentioned by people in other parts of the country is the Moon turned into a disco ball.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/07/extraordinary-claims-demand.html
"But unbelievers think that many natural events are extraordinary in that weak sense. Likewise, they think that many human events or historical events are extraordinary in that weak sense. And they don’t demand extraordinary evidence (whatever that means) for such events. So they must have something stronger in mind."
...unless they work in the given field in which case they tend to be more consistent. Usually historical events get less attention because individuals feel they are less relevant to their life.
"But, of course, that definition begs the question. Whether miracles do or don’t happen is the very point at issue. You can’t very well presume that miracles never happen without begging the question."
Until shown otherwise you can. If you have never seen snow before it is reasonable to disbelieve in its existance until you see it.
"Hence, reported miracles don’t have to overcome the presumption that miracles never happen. For that would assume the very thing the unbeliever must prove."
Not really. A miracle requires that all the laws of nature are wrong. It is alot simpler to believe the laws of nature are (mostly) worth their definition.
"However, the unbeliever is asserting that miracles don’t happen, so he—in turn—shoulders a commensurate burden of proof."
There are an infinite number of unfalsible assertions. If they have no evidence it is perfectly valid to junk them.
"Extraordinary events don’t demand extraordinary evidence as long as they’re the right kind of event—natural events, consistent with natural law. "
Natural events still do. After all, if you don't have adequate evidence you end up believing things like the Poles charged Wehrmacht tanks, that nukes permanently contaminate areas or that (insert nation here) has a clean history.
"He must argue for his view of natural law. "
Natural laws are deduce by observation- rules that have never been broken after repeated testing.
"Rather, the laws of nature depend on God."
You are a pantheist? Such a flimsy view you have of reality.
"But why doesn’t he believe in God?"
Lack of evidence.
"then an atheologian must argue that God is not a necessary being. "
atheoloian is not a coherant word- it means everyone who isn't a theologian. Also, given a definition of God to work with and it might be possible.
"An assertion in search of an argument."
No, you claimed atheists use it to counter religion. I am an atheist because I use tools like it.
"You’re confounding the Thomistic cosmological argument with the Leibnizian cosmological argument. Try again."
? Prime mover means the minimal traits required to start the universe so it, and not God is the "necesary being"- assuming that we need a starter.
"“Of course” is not an argument. Where’s the argument?
No, it depends on what is contingent and what is necessary.
Physics doesn’t deal with modal properties like contingency and necessity. That falls under the realm of metaphysics rather than physics."
How the universe began is a physics question.
"Another assertion in lieu of an argument. For someone who fancies himself a rationalist, you’re short on reason."
No, I'm pointing out you are using the wrong definition. Extraordinary is being used to mean different from what is normally seen. As such it CANNOT be applied to reality because reality is what we normally see! You are equivocating between two definitions to make your argument.
"ii) Moreover, the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics is a matter of ongoing dispute. For example, Stephen Hawking thinks it’s just a mathematical formalism, and not a description of reality."
Can you link? That is an... odd position to take.
"No. Nothingness is neither stable nor unstable. By definiton, nothingness has no real properties."
I need to find that article...
"I don’t assume fine-tuning. Likewise, the unbeliever can’t assume the absence of fine-tuning. That’s the point. There’s no presumption one way or the other. Both sides must argue their respective position. "
If there is no evidence for fine tuning we can ignore it- unless you ignore Occams Razor as well.
"In the Road to Reality, Roger Penrose argues for the “specialness” of the big bang. "
How can he do that? By definition it can only occur once. Isn't that too small a sample size to draw any conclusions about uniqueness.
"You’re confusing “natural” with “naturalism.” Given the existence of the natural world, natural things happen everyday. But that leaves the given unaccounted for."
Why does reality exist is the conventional short hand. The fact of the matter is inserting the supernatural just takes us back one step with word games- we don't get any closer to the truth. To do that we need... tools. Preferably measured in percentages of AUs.
"Many things happen everyday. People use cellphones everyday. That doesn’t mean that cellphones are a brute fact."
brute fact?
"Yet another assertion in search of an argument. You’re one of those stereotypical unbelievers who intones rationalistic slogans without the reasoned arguments to back up your slogans. You strike a rhetorical pose. But it’s all attitude. "
I believe in something called evidence. Provide it to back up claim.
"Your response, from start to finish, consists of ignorant statements, conceptual confusions, and tendentious assertions. Are you really satisfied with the nonexistent level of your intellectual performance here? Are you even aware of how vacuous your claims are? You need to stop playing the role of a rationalist and learn how to actually argue for your position. Play-acting won’t cut it here. You’ve memorized your lines. Now begin to prove them."
This is hilarious. You:
-declare belief in fine-tuning is equivlant to lack of belief because there is no evidence for fine tuning
-do not provide any eivdence for the supernatural, prefering to answer my demand for proof with name calling
-think how the universe began is a philosophy problem
-use the wrong definition of extraordinary
-intentionally use obscuring jargon
SAMUEL SKINNER SAID:
ReplyDelete“No, that is not what it means. It means we need to have MORE evidence for it. I can take on your say so that the sun is shining today. I'd need a photo to believe that there was an eclipse. I'd need to see it myself, have other witnesses and have it mentioned by people in other parts of the country is the Moon turned into a disco ball.”
That’s utterly irrational, even on your own grounds, since a solar eclipse is a naturally occurring/recurring event. There’s no presumption against the occurrence of a solar eclipse which “MORE evidence” must overcome.
You’d don’t need more evidence for a rare event. You only need evidence that it’s a rare event.
“Until shown otherwise you can. If you have never seen snow before it is reasonable to disbelieve in its existance until you see it.”
You yourself depend on testimonial evidence for most of what you believe. It’s not as if most of your beliefs are based on firsthand observation.
“Not really. A miracle requires that all the laws of nature are wrong.”
i) A natural “law” is descriptive, not prescriptive.
ii) A miracle doesn’t require any natural “law” to be wrong. A natural law is simply a description of ordinary cause-and-effect. A miracle is also a caused event. Introducing a miraculous cause doesn’t make a natural cause “wrong.” Rather, it merely means a miraculous event wasn’t naturally caused.
A miraculous cause doesn’t deny the existence of natural causes–in other cases.
iii) Moreover, some miracles involve natural causes. What makes them miraculous is not the causation, but the timing.
iv) Furthermore, you’re in absolutely no position to invoke “natural law” since you reject testimonial evidence. You think that you need to see something for yourself to believe it. But, of course, you’ve never seen the uniformity of nature. Your personal experience represents an infinitesimal fraction of what happens in all of time and space. Natural laws are a generalization of human observations. Since, by your own admission, your own no position to personally corroborate most of these observations, you can’t appeal to natural law.
“There are an infinite number of unfalsible assertions. If they have no evidence it is perfectly valid to junk them.”
To say they have no evidence begs the question.
“After all, if you don't have adequate evidence…”
You continue to assume what you need to prove.
“Natural laws are deduce by observation- rules that have never been broken after repeated testing.”
i) You’re in no position to make that sweeping statement since you reject secondhand evidence. You only accept firsthand evidence–what you youself have seen, which is precious little. You lack anything approaching an adequate sample to make a universal claim like that.
ii) The evidence for naturals law is testimonial evidence. Reported regularities over time.
The evidence for miracles is testimonial evidence. The type of evidence you must rely on to establish natural laws is the same type of evidence that bears witness to the miraculous.
“You are a pantheist? Such a flimsy view you have of reality.”
You’re illustrating your theological incompetence. In pantheism, natural laws would not depend on God since, on that view, there’s no distinction between God and nature.
“Lack of evidence.”
An assertion in search of an argument.
“Atheoloian is not a coherant word- it means everyone who isn't a theologian.”
It’s a variant on “atheology,” which is a standard term in contemporary atheism. Try to acquaint yourself with what your own side is saying.
“No, you claimed atheists use it to counter religion. I am an atheist because I use tools like it.”
No, you claimed that “Actually we invoke it because we believe it is the best way to understand reality”–which remains an assertion in search of an argument.
“? Prime mover means the minimal traits required to start the universe so it, and not God is the "necesary being"- assuming that we need a starter.”
Once again, you illustrate your ignorance. The “prime mover” alludes to a Thomistic version of the cosmological argument, which Aquinas adapted from Aristotle.
I’m not using that argument. I’m using a Leibnizian cosmological argument. Try again.
“How the universe began is a physics question.”
Necessity and contingency are metaphysics questions.
“No, I'm pointing out you are using the wrong definition. Extraordinary is being used to mean different from what is normally seen. As such it CANNOT be applied to reality because reality is what we normally see! You are equivocating between two definitions to make your argument.”
Of course, that would rule out all abnormalities since, by definition, we don’t normally see abnormal events. It would rule out the big bang since we don’t normally see the big bang.
“Can you link? That is an... odd position to take.”
i) Read his published debate with Penrose.
ii) And, no, it’s not an odd position to take. You need to bone up on the realist/antirealist debate in the philosophy of science.
For someone who relies on science, you know very little about science.
“If there is no evidence for fine tuning we can ignore it- unless you ignore Occams Razor as well.”
I didn’t say there was no evidence for fine tuning. Pay attention.
“How can he do that? By definition it can only occur once. Isn't that too small a sample size to draw any conclusions about uniqueness.”
Once again, for someone who relies on science, you’re ignorant of standard scientific literature. Get the book. Read his arguments.
You talk about physics. Well, he’s one of the world’s top physicists.
“Why does reality exist is the conventional short hand. The fact of the matter is inserting the supernatural just takes us back one step with word games- we don't get any closer to the truth. To do that we need... tools. Preferably measured in percentages of AUs.”
Sometimes we need to go back one more step to arrive at the ultimate cause.
“Brute fact?”
You need to expand your limited vocabulary.
“I believe in something called evidence. Provide it to back up claim.”
No, you believe in using the word “evidence” as a substitute for actually giving any evidence to back up your own assertions and denials.
“This is hilarious. You: -declare belief in fine-tuning is equivlant to lack of belief because there is no evidence for fine tuning.”
I see that you’re illiterate. Quote where I said there’s no evidence for fine tuning.
“-Do not provide any eivdence for the supernatural, prefering to answer my demand for proof with name calling.”
i) I point out that you simply deny any evidence for the supernatural rather than arguing for your position.
ii) Moreover, your demand is incoherent. You effectively deny that anything could every count as evidence for the supernatural since you’ve already rigged the definition of evidence to exclude anything abnormal or outside your personal experience. So you automatically discount any possible evidence for the supernatural.
“-Think how the universe began is a philosophy problem.”
Cosmological arguments involve philosophical assumptions.
“-Use the wrong definition of extraordinary.”
To the contrary, you’re the one who’s using an idiosyncratic definition of “extraordinary.”
“Intentionally use obscuring jargon.”
The fact that you have the vocabulary of a five-year-old is your problem, not mine.