It seems that many apologists discard ECREE as nonsense, but I do not think they should. ECREE, Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence, is not a requisite for proving a claim. It is all about what people will believe. It is entirely relational and not scientific.
If two people are in a room and a sheet of paper is blown off the a desk and onto the floor. One person claims the wind blew it off. The other believes the claim without a second thought because experience has taught that person that it is a natural occurrence. That person has felt wind before and likely seen it blow paper in a similar fashion. That is a Natural claim which requires little evidence, as proof, based on the listener's experience of the natural world.
However, if the claimer had instead said, a tiny leprechaun ran through the room faster than the eye could see and brush the paper onto the floor, it is a different story. The listener has never seen a leprechaun before, had no witness to the claimed events, and has only heard of leprechauns in myth. The listener is right to be skeptical of the claim and is not likely to accept the claim until additional evidence, other than personal testimony, is provided.
So while ECREE is not a scientific method, it is a part of our everyday life. We call those who do not require ECREE gullible. It is highly subjective and dependent on several factors, such as relevance to the listener, conformation with natural laws, etc. The point of ECREE in the theological debate is that the Bible and claims of deities do not meet the standard for ECREE to be believed by skeptics. Personal testimony is not enough for us to accept something that fails empiricism and that natural laws explain better.
Understand that ECREE is not a method for finding truth, it is only a measure of evidence required for believability. What we accept is based on what has been sufficiently demonstrated to us, many here do not believe in evolution, because it fails to meet their standard of evidence. It is exactly the same, ECREE, that make the scientifically minded not accept the bible.
If two people are in a room and a sheet of paper is blown off the a desk and onto the floor. One person claims the wind blew it off. The other believes the claim without a second thought because experience has taught that person that it is a natural occurrence. That person has felt wind before and likely seen it blow paper in a similar fashion. That is a Natural claim which requires little evidence, as proof, based on the listener's experience of the natural world.
However, if the claimer had instead said, a tiny leprechaun ran through the room faster than the eye could see and brush the paper onto the floor, it is a different story. The listener has never seen a leprechaun before, had no witness to the claimed events, and has only heard of leprechauns in myth. The listener is right to be skeptical of the claim and is not likely to accept the claim until additional evidence, other than personal testimony, is provided.
So while ECREE is not a scientific method, it is a part of our everyday life. We call those who do not require ECREE gullible. It is highly subjective and dependent on several factors, such as relevance to the listener, conformation with natural laws, etc. The point of ECREE in the theological debate is that the Bible and claims of deities do not meet the standard for ECREE to be believed by skeptics. Personal testimony is not enough for us to accept something that fails empiricism and that natural laws explain better.
Understand that ECREE is not a method for finding truth, it is only a measure of evidence required for believability. What we accept is based on what has been sufficiently demonstrated to us, many here do not believe in evolution, because it fails to meet their standard of evidence. It is exactly the same, ECREE, that make the scientifically minded not accept the bible.
Comment