Ecree

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The link to tonight's blog can be found here

The text is as follows:

Hello readers and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! As it stands, it still looks like I will be heading out of town again tomorrow and won’t be back until next week so if you don’t see a new post tomorrow, don’t panic. There is simply other business that I must take care of.

Today, I’d like to take a look at the standard atheist answer to many Christian claims and this is to say “ECREE.” What’s that? It means “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.” This is a response that is met so often that it has become a platitude in our times. Indeed, there is a problem when thinking is replaced with soundbites. To be fair, Christians can be just as guilty.

I recall one of the responses a professor of mine has about this kind of objection that is being raised. What is extraordinary evidence? Does it glow? The whole concept of extraordinary evidence is subjective. Propositions do not require extraordinary evidence to believe them. They require sufficient evidence.

Let’s take the claim of an atheist as best exemplified by Carl Sagan. “The cosmos is all there ever was, is, and ever will be.” For Sagan, that sounds certainly like a reasonable claim. However, if we are talking about extraordinary claims, in that there is a claim that is out of the ordinary, Sagan’s claim is just such a claim! The majority of people alive today and who have ever lived in the past have believed in some form of deity.

With that in mind, the rest of humanity can just look at Sagan and say “ECREE!” However, he will look at our beliefs, those of us who are theists and not just Christian theists but all theists, and say “ECREE!” If you are a naturalist, the claim that there is a God will be extraordinary. If you are a theist, the claim that there is no God is the claim that will be extraordinary.

When we reach this point then, the problem becomes more along the lines of examining the believers of the worldview instead of the evidence. It’s “I hold this worldview and yours is contrary and therefore, I must view your belief system with suspicion. I cannot believe it lightly. I require extraordinary evidence.”

None of us should take our worldview lightly, but we should not assume that we have no burden of proof. My thinking is that everyone who is asserting a truth claim has a burden of proof. The atheist needs to demonstrate that there is no God. The theist needs to demonstrate that there is. Of course, there are different methods of demonstration.

ECREE is not a response. It is an excuse to not give a response. It is a way of avoiding thinking because you could always look at the data and just say “Not extraordinary enough.” Instead, it’s best to look at the data for any claim and say “Does this match the claim? Yes or no. Is this data verifiable and/or believable? Yes or no. Do those who are knowledgeable on both sides hold to this? Yes or no.”

With the last one for instance, if you are arguing for a position, you want to get as much of your opponent’s worldview in as possible. For instance, Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker argues that macroevolutionary theory is true. Because macroevolutionary theory is true, God does not exist. That is not part of a Christian worldview however. The Christian worldview does not necessarily say either God or evolutionary theory. There can be both/and. I could grant everything Dawkins says about evolutionary theory from a scientific perspective and that would not disprove that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Meanwhile, when I approach my opponent, that is what I want to do. I want to say “I will grant you your macroevolutionary belief for the sake of argument. I will argue as if the proposition ‘Human beings are the result of a macroevolutionary process’ is true.” Now of course, I don’t mean a naturalistic process, but a process nonetheless. Upon saying that I will then say “Now give me your argument against my theistic beliefs.”

This is coming to the table and accepting the data. A way the new atheists misconstrue this often is their common notion of faith as believing something without evidence. I don’t know of one dictionary of biblical words that defines faith in that way. It is certainly not the way I understand faith. Still, the new atheists regularly trot this out. I only wish to ask “Do you have any evidence that that is the definition of faith?” If they do, then please give it because it has never been found in any dictionaries of biblical words. If not, then they are believing something without evidence, the very act that they condemn.

Instead, the new atheists need to come and say “Here is the data the apologists put forward. Here’s where we think the data is right. Here’s where we think the inference from the data is wrong.” (Check the bibliography several times in works of the new atheists. It is woefully lacking in Christian sources and if they are cited, interacting with them is negligible.)

We Christians need to do better than our opponents are and part of this is calling ECREE the nonsense that it is and really arguing. ECREE has been an excuse for too many people to avoid thinking about data for a long time and really confront it. It is entirely subjective, which is amusing as most of our opponents pride themselves on being objective thinkers.

Christians also need to realize something else. We do have the evidence. It’s whether we present it rightly and if the heart is receptive.

[Rational Gaze]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: TolkienFan

RG, please stop taking your vendetta against The Pixie to all corners of this site.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[jpholding]

I made much the same points in a chapter in Defending the Resurrection. ECREE is just Hume resurrected, and Hume is stale, old news. Sagan was not an expert in evidence and had no business abusing the public trust he had accumulated to make such an outlandish statement.

[Rational Gaze]

• Edited by a Moderator •

For an example of the intellectual suicide defenders and proponents of ECREE are willing to commit, I have spoken to people who said that they did not consider any method of gaining knowledge objective, and that they are not even sure that we can trust our own minds, or even if anything exists at all.

Here is something I have written on the subject:
Typically, when all else fails, some atheists put this mantra forward in lieu of substantive rebuttal. Because the claims made by religions are ‘extraordinary’, the atheist argues, they require ‘extraordinary evidence’ in order to believe them. I shall now demonstrate why this fails as a means of historic enquiry as well as how it fails as a basis for epistemology. Essentially, this is used mostly against the resurrection of Jesus, but, in principle, can be used against anything the arguer arbitrarily labels “extraordinary”. The jist of the “argument” is:
1. ‘I own a car’ is an ordinary claim.
2. ‘I came back to life from the dead’ is an extraordinary claim.
3. Therefore, the claim, ‘I came back from the dead’ requires much more evidence for someone to believe it than ‘I own a car’.
There are several problems with this that I shall now outline, starting with problem one: what criteria does a claim need to meet in order to be considered ordinary or extraordinary? Secondly, what is “extraordinary evidence”? Does this refer to extraordinary amounts of ordinary evidence, ordinary amounts of extraordinary evidence or extraordinary amounts of extraordinary evidence? Thirdly, what criteria does the evidence need to meet to be considered ordinary or extraordinary?

Very rare does one get an actual answer to any of these, but I believe the most concise formulation of this “argument” is: if x has precedent, we require less evidence to prove that x is correct. We require less evidence to accept the claim ‘I own a car’ because many people own cars. Therefore, we require a lot more evidence to believe the claim ‘I own an interstellar craft’ because there is no such technology on Earth yet. To many I am sure this would sound reasonable, although it does not take much thought to realise that there are problems even with this infinitely more coherent version of ECREE. The first is that there would have been a time when x had no precedent. Would x then have had to have ‘extraordinary evidence’ to prove that x was true? If yes, then the whole concept of ECREE is made redundant and reduced to Claims Require Evidence. If not, then it means ECREE is completely arbitrary and subjective, and thus worthless as a means of determining truth values. The second problem is that this is merely an exercise in confirmation bias. If we already believe x is possible or likely, then we would naturally be inclined to believe x, even if x is false. Thirdly, the amount of evidence required to persuade somebody of a claim differs from person to person. Even when evidence for a claim a person finds extraordinary evidence is presented to them, that person can simply raise the bar by saying it is not enough evidence. Some people even will never believe certain claims, no matter the evidence.

ECREE is not a logical principal at all but a subjective shibboleth that atheists pull out of their backsides whenever they are cornered. ECREE compels one to make a snap-judgment about the veracity of a claim before looking at the evidence and introduces bias such that an objective analysis of the data becomes difficult if not impossible. All ECREE does is create a framework to hide the moving of the goalposts. It is not a means of evaluating evidence; it is a means of avoiding evidence that one does not like. It is also a means for legitimising personal incredulity as a means of truth evaluation. However, the one irony in all of this is that atheists and other sceptics assume that their personal disbelief of a claim is warrant enough to question whether or not that claim is true. The inherent but subtle implication being, they can trust their own intuition when it comes to rejecting things they find unbelievable. Of course, whenever it comes to disputing things they accept as a matter of absolute facts, the human mind is unreliable and all of a sudden, human intuition is no longer valid in evaluating truth claims.

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Do not argue with moderation in this thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[robertb]

There are several problems with this that I shall now outline, starting with problem one: what criteria does a claim need to meet in order to be considered ordinary or extraordinary?

A claim that seems to contradict current assumption. For a theist, as an example, the claim that God does not exist might be extraordinary.

Secondly, what is “extraordinary evidence”? Does this refer to extraordinary amounts of ordinary evidence, ordinary amounts of extraordinary evidence or extraordinary amounts of extraordinary evidence?

It refers to the evidence that would be sufficient to support the claim being made.

Thirdly, what criteria does the evidence need to meet to be considered ordinary or extraordinary?

Evidence is simply evidence. You really need to look at this as how convincing the evidence would need to be in order to convince you of the likelihood of the claim.

[The Pixie]

AP

Since my name has already been dragged into this thread, I may as well add my two penneth.

I recall one of the responses a professor of mine has about this kind of objection that is being raised. What is extraordinary evidence? Does it glow? The whole concept of extraordinary evidence is subjective. Propositions do not require extraordinary evidence to believe them. They require sufficient evidence.

First off, let us get this straight. ECREE is subjective. Some people are naive, some are skeptical, with all points between, so of course what counts as sufficient evidence for one, will not for another.

When we reach this point then, the problem becomes more along the lines of examining the believers of the worldview instead of the evidence. It’s “I hold this worldview and yours is contrary and therefore, I must view your belief system with suspicion. I cannot believe it lightly. I require extraordinary evidence.”

Exactly.

ECREE is not a response. It is an excuse to not give a response. It is a way of avoiding thinking because you could always look at the data and just say “Not extraordinary enough.” Instead, it’s best to look at the data for any claim and say “Does this match the claim? Yes or no. Is this data verifiable and/or believable? Yes or no. Do those who are knowledgeable on both sides hold to this? Yes or no.”

Okay. ECREE is saying that your evidence is not sufficient to convince me (as you already said). A full response should also say why the evidence is considered insufficient.

We Christians need to do better than our opponents are and part of this is calling ECREE the nonsense that it is and really arguing. ECREE has been an excuse for too many people to avoid thinking about data for a long time and really confront it. It is entirely subjective, which is amusing as most of our opponents pride themselves on being objective thinkers.

Okay, so you say ECREE is subjective, but that in itself does not make it nonsense. We are talking about what people find convincing, and that must inevitable be subjective. What I find convincing will be different to what you find convincing.

Christians also need to realize something else. We do have the evidence. It’s whether we present it rightly and if the heart is receptive.

I offer an alternative to ECREE, one that gives a specific threshold for evidence. STALE That is Saint Thomas the Apostle Level of Evidence. Thomas did not believe until he could examine Jesus' wounds for himself. Why would you expect me to believe with any less evidence than a saint and an apostle?

I made much the same points in a chapter in Defending the Resurrection. ECREE is just Hume resurrected, and Hume is stale, old news.

I find that a truly bizarre attitude for a Christian. Hume is far more contempory than Jesus. Is Jesus' resurrection to be ignored because it "is stale, old news"?

I shall now demonstrate why this fails as a means of historic enquiry as well as how it fails as a basis for epistemology. Essentially, this is used mostly against the resurrection of Jesus, but, in principle, can be used against anything the arguer arbitrarily labels “extraordinary”. The jist of the “argument” is:
1. ‘I own a car’ is an ordinary claim.
2. ‘I came back to life from the dead’ is an extraordinary claim.
3. Therefore, the claim, ‘I came back from the dead’ requires much more evidence for someone to believe it than ‘I own a car’.
There are several problems with this that I shall now outline, starting with problem one: what criteria does a claim need to meet in order to be considered ordinary or extraordinary? Secondly, what is “extraordinary evidence”? Does this refer to extraordinary amounts of ordinary evidence, ordinary amounts of extraordinary evidence or extraordinary amounts of extraordinary evidence? Thirdly, what criteria does the evidence need to meet to be considered ordinary or extraordinary?

These are all valid questions, but they do not show that ECREE fails. The simple fact is that most of us will believe a trusted friend who claims he owns car (if this is a perfectly reasonable and expected for the friend), and not believe him if he claims to have come back from the dead after three days. Seriously, is there anyone who thinks differently to me on this? Is there anyone reading this who would automatically assume the man was lying about the car? Would anyone assume he was telling the truth about coming back from the dead?

Anyone who believes him about the car, but not the resurrection, is employing ECREE. His word, given he is a trusted friend, and owning a car is reasonable and expected, is sufficient evidence for owning a car. However, if my friend, trusted though he is, want me to believe him about the resurrection, he will need to find some very convincing evidence. Exactly how much, well that will depend on the individual, I agree.

The first is that there would have been a time when x had no precedent. Would x then have had to have ‘extraordinary evidence’ to prove that x was true?

If my trusted friend claimed 120 years ago to own a car, I would not believe him, because at that time cars were very rare. At that time, I would require considerably better evidence; I would need to see the vehicle before I believed him.

The second problem is that this is merely an exercise in confirmation bias. If we already believe x is possible or likely, then we would naturally be inclined to believe x, even if x is false.

Well, yes. That is how people are. Make a claim that fits their world view - their confirmation bias if you like - and they will be far more willing to accept it than if it does not fit. Owning a car fits, so I would believe it. Coming back from the dead after three days does not fit, so I would not.

[jpholding]

I find that a truly bizarre attitude for a Christian. Hume is far more contempory than Jesus. Is Jesus' resurrection to be ignored because it "is stale, old news"?

It's old, but hasn't been rendered stale yet...unlike Hume, who broke his nose on the fist of a tropical prince even in his own lifetime. Too bad. Maybe when you get more experience you'll find things like this less bizarre.

[The Pixie]

It's old, but hasn't been rendered stale yet...unlike Hume, who broke his nose on the fist of a tropical prince even in his own lifetime. Too bad. Maybe when you get more experience you'll find things like this less bizarre.

The point I was making that simply labelling something as old and stale is a pretty weak argument.

The tropical prince illustrates that ECREE is subjective. We each have our own world view, and what we consider extraordinary depends on that. Relativity was considered extraordinary but Einstein presented the evidence to support, same with quantum mechanics (though it helped in both cases that scientists knew here were things in need of an explanation). Nowadays, of course, both are accepted as mainstream science.

The idea of solid water (ice) was totally alien to the tropical prince, so he rejected the idea. Was he wrong to do that? In hindsight, sure, but look at it from his perspective, what would you believe? I freely admit I would have done the same, and so I too would be wrong.

Is the answer to believe every claim? Should we believe reports that Elvis is alive, European royal families are descended from aliens, that Scientology is true? Certainly not! I believe that if you regard any claim with a degree if skeptism, then you have a better chance of been right more of the time, and the degree of skeptism should be a function of how the claim fits with your world view.

[Chrs]

Is the answer to believe every claim? Should we believe reports that Elvis is alive, European royal families are descended from aliens, that Scientology is true? Certainly not! I believe that if you regard any claim with a degree if skeptism, then you have a better chance of been right more of the time, and the degree of skeptism should be a function of how the claim fits with your world view.

I don't think AP said that. Believing everything is obviously silly. He says:

ECREE is not a response. It is an excuse to not give a response. It is a way of avoiding thinking because you could always look at the data and just say “Not extraordinary enough.” Instead, it’s best to look at the data for any claim and say “Does this match the claim? Yes or no. Is this data verifiable and/or believable? Yes or no. Do those who are knowledgeable on both sides hold to this? Yes or no.”

[Rational Gaze]

I don't care if something sounds "believable" or "unbelievable", if there is enough data to warrant belief in it, then it does not matter what prior beliefs I hold.

[The Pixie]

Chrs181818

I don't think AP said that. Believing everything is obviously silly.

Apologies if I implied that, I did not mean to. I was trying to put my position in context; the first step is to note that, as you say, it is obviously silly to believe everything. The second step is to note that some things are more believable than others (my friend's claim that he owns a car is more believable than his claim to have come back from the dead after three days). The third step is to note that it takes more and better evidence to warrant belief in an incredible claim than a mundane claim (I believe my neighbour about his car, just on his word; it will take testimony from respected medical doctors and more besides before I believe him about the resurrection).

[Chrs]

I think the problem AP is saying is that there is no way of determining what constitutes an "Extraordinary" claim and what constitutes a "mundane" claim in such a way as to apply it consistently. Again, what constitutes extraordinary evidence?

[jpholding]

The point I was making that simply labelling something as old and stale is a pretty weak argument.

So is labelling something as "extraordinary".

Do you get the irony now?

The tropical prince illustrates that ECREE is subjective.

Precisely my point. And precisely why it is useless as an objective gauge for historical evidence.

Is the answer to believe every claim? Should we believe reports that Elvis is alive, European royal families are descended from aliens, that Scientology is true? Certainly not!

And do you disbelieve these on the basis of evidence? Or do you disbelieve them because of subjective experience?

For me, it's evidence. It has nothing to do with the claims being "extraordinary."

ECREE is a tool for lazy people.

[The Pixie]

Chrs181818

I think the problem AP is saying is that there is no way of determining what constitutes an "Extraordinary" claim and what constitutes a "mundane" claim in such a way as to apply it consistently. Again, what constitutes extraordinary evidence?

I fully accept that the answer to that question is subjective. Generally, I would say something that does not fit your world view. For the tropical prince, it was solid water. For me, the resurrection. For you guys, the resurrection is fundamental to your world view, so is not an extraordinary claim (in the ECREE sense).

I apply it consistently, and you apply it consistently, but the two of us have very different world views, so we apply ECREE very differently.


jpholding

So is labelling something as "extraordinary".

Sure, it is just a subjective opinion that the claim falls outside our world view. It is, I fully accept, an argument from incredulity.

Here is the thing. ECREE is not saying it is not true, it is saying, you need some remarkably good evidence to convince me. I am not saying the resurrection did not happen, and ECREE proves it. I am saying I am not going to believe your claim without that good argument.

And precisely why it is useless as an objective gauge for historical evidence.

Absolutely.

By the way, is there an objective gauge for historical evidence?

And do you disbelieve these on the basis of evidence? Or do you disbelieve them because of subjective experience?

Subjective experience is evidence, and all evidence gets filtered through subjective experience, so I am not sure what distinction you are trying to make here.

I disbelieve them because they do not fit my world view, and the evidence for them is not strong enough.

If they did fit my world view (and so were not extraordinary) I would tend to believe them. If there was very good evidence (extraordinary evidence) for them, I would believe them. That is all ECREE is for me.

For me, it's evidence. It has nothing to do with the claims being "extraordinary."

So you set the same evidential level for your trusted friend who is rich and old enough to own a car, when he says he own a car, as you do for your dodgy friend, who claims he own a space craft? Do you take both on their word? Neither on their word? Or does he amount of evdence that warrents belief dependent on the likelihood of the claim?

[Chrs]

But, why? Why should you require more evidence for claims you, entirely subjectively, deciding that a claim is extraordinary?

What's the difference between deciding that you need extra evidence to believe than, say, a fundamentalist religious person who believes really really strongly and will, if ever, not lightly change his mind.

Does the fundamentalist in this example have a good chance of finding out the truth? It's surely possible that he's right, of course. But if he's wrong, is he ever going to find that out?

Is asking for "more" evidence for claims contrary to your world view going to actually help you find what is true or not? Surely that's just justifying being closed-minded.

(Also, I'm not a Christian. So, not really "You guys" )