The extraordinary claim is: “God exists”.
The extraordinary evidence is the self-evident existence of the self-awareness that is able to doubt the truth of the proposition: “God exists”.
Anglican Samizdat
The extraordinary claim is: “God exists”.
The extraordinary evidence is the self-evident existence of the self-awareness that is able to doubt the truth of the proposition: “God exists”.
BRILLIANT!
The whole “extraordinary claims” mantra is a fraud. I discussed it here:
http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2010/08/25/how-not-to-evaluate-evidence/
“Finally, the librarian should stress the skeptic’s rule: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
They do, do they? And how do we decide whether a claim is “extraordinary”? Well, “it’s obvious” isn’t it? Whatever is not considered “normal” in our society, of course!
Is there any practical difference between this and demanding “extraordinary evidence” for whatever we prefer not to believe? If not, surely this is merely an engine for introducing prejudice?
Perhaps I am influenced here by seeing how this supposed rule is actually used online. It is used routinely by atheists online to demand that Christians produce far more evidence for anything the atheist wishes to deny than would be the case in any parallel investigation. The atheists themselves, when questioned about their own beliefs, invariably duck the examination with stock excuses — evidence for their own claims is not something they wish to produce! It’s just a way to make things difficult for people you know you disagree with. This should warn us that the “rule” is ill-formulated, and productive of prejudice rather than information.