In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e., the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month. This is the next installment.
Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:
- The existence and attributes of God
- The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all
- The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
- The truth of Catholic moral teaching
- The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II
In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.
Miracles and "Extraordinary Evidence"
To My Readers: One of the arguments against the truth of the Catholic Faith is to disparage miracles--which would, of course, include the Bodily Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This post is a compilation of various sources, both in print and online, which refute a common atheist claim that miracles do not have sufficient evidence to support them. I take no credit for any of the material herein, except insofar as I have condensed it into a terse post.
God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo
There is a claim often made by skeptics that "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence." A person might say by way of illustration, “Listen, if you told me you found a squirrel in your garage, then I’d probably believe you. But if you told me you found a fire-breathing dragon in your garage, I’d be highly skeptical. Why? Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This slogan exhibits threefold power in conversation. First, it sounds commonsensical and intelligent. Second, it instills anxiety in the believer, who might think: Shoot, unless I come up with extraordinary evidence, there’s no way I can persuade this person. Third, it implicitly sets up a rule that rational people, as opposed to gullible or superstitious ones, must follow.
How do we answer?
The atheist using this slogan has not set out to show that God does not exist. Rather, it allows him to harbor a sweeping skepticism regarding religious claims, specifically about miracles. Since the slogan targets miraculous claims only and not God’s existence generally, we might ask, “That’s an interesting point you make. I’m curious: Could it be true that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that God still exists?” This small point has large ramifications. Rather than proposing a reason for atheism, it targets miraculous claims. Yet it should be clear that believing in the possibility of miracles depends on whether a person believes in God.
Is the slogan true? Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? It seems preposterous to suggest it might be false. Do we dare say extraordinary claims don’t require extraordinary evidence? The atheist may say that’s as crazy as believing a friend who says he has a dragon in his garage.
Clarify terms
To judge whether the slogan is true, we must examine the terminology in detail. “Extraordinary claims” and “Extraordinary evidence” sound like impressive phrases, but we have to carefully define terms. So, ask the skeptic what he means. You might say, “What do you mean by extraordinary claims?” The skeptic will likely answer one of two ways. Here’s the first one:
1. Extraordinary claims involve extremely rare or improbable events. Rarity, in and of itself, gives no reason to doubt a claim. It would be a rare event for your best friend to win the lottery, but if you had good reasons to think he did, you would not need to doubt it. For example, if you saw the winning ticket or the large check sent to him from the state, that would make it completely rational to believe your friend won the lottery. Next, let’s consider a second possible answer.
2. Extraordinary claims involve the supernatural. This reveals the true nature of the debate. Our worldview (e.g., Christian theism, pantheism, atheism) dictates how we judge evidence. The atheist believes that supernatural events require extraordinary evidence because he believes that God does not exist, whereas the classical theist considers extraordinary events to be rare but live options because of God’s power to work miracles. You might ask, “If God exists, is an event like raising Jesus from the dead really so extraordinary? It may be rare, but surely it’s something the divine creator could bring about, right?” The obvious answer is yes. If they say no and assert that not even God can do that, then we are not talking about the same God. If God exists, God can do a miracle. So, the question knocks the discussion back a step.
In other words, if we have good reasons to think God exists, then supernatural events can be examined in a way similar to the lottery case. Yes, they may be rare, but if we have good evidence to believe they occurred, we can rationally affirm them. We should not rule them out for lack of “extraordinary evidence.”
Let’s consider the next part of the slogan and ask, “What do you mean by extraordinary evidence?” Consider a couple of potential replies:
(a) Extraordinary evidence is evidence that overcomes the exceedingly low intrinsic probability of an event. What does it mean for an event to be “intrinsically” improbable? Scholars debate the best interpretations of probability, but let’s stick with the commonsense notion that it seems highly unlikely the event would occur. However, proceeding along those lines, we find that good, ordinary evidence can be sufficient to overcome intrinsically low probabilities. Again, take the example of your friend winning the lottery. This event has low intrinsic probability in the sense that it seems highly unlikely that your friend will win. This low probability persists even if your friend buys tickets weekly. Nonetheless, if your friend does indeed win, simple, good evidence suffices to show this occurred. This good evidence can take many forms:
- Your friend calls you telling you he won and wants to celebrate
- He posts his winning ticket on social media
- Another trustworthy friend calls you to relay the information
Although none of these establishes the event with strict certainty, they all serve as evidence that your friend won the lottery. Yet, who adduced any evidence out of the ordinary here? It seems that mundane, good evidence suffices to show it’s reasonable to believe that an event with intrinsically low probability occurred.
(b) Extraordinary evidence is evidence that meets an extremely high bar of probability. On this view, extraordinary evidence establishes an event with, say, 99-plus-percent certainty, or close to it, such that no rational person could ever doubt it. So the skeptic claims. However, we can challenge this assertion. First, observe that theses in other areas often seem to lack this extraordinary evidence. Consider three examples:
- Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
- The minimum wage is a good idea.
- It is ethical to murder two innocent people to save a hundred innocent people.
These stock examples from history, public policy, and ethics underscore the point that an atheist will be hard-pressed to find “extraordinary evidence” of the type he defined in any domain. Sure, he may encounter some good arguments and strong evidence, but there will always be experts who disagree. He will hardly find the 99-plus-percent certainty he pursues. We can ask the atheist, “Is it irrational to believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, that the minimum wage is a good idea, or that it’s unethical to murder two innocent people to save a hundred? If not, why not? Especially since these claims fail to meet your standards of extraordinary evidence.” The atheist has a couple of options here:
- Lower the bar of what counts as extraordinary evidence to a more reasonable level
- Reply that none of those examples from history or ethics constitute extraordinary claims, so they don’t need extraordinary evidence
If he chooses the first option, then the conversation can resume along the lines that good evidence suffices to establish the rationality of a belief (even if such evidence is rather ordinary). More likely, though, the atheist will argue the second option, maybe adding a point: “The difference is that whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon has no impact on my life. I’m never going to be in those ethical dilemmas. Those answers make no difference.
If Caesar were saying I had to renounce myself and follow him, that would be a much different story. So yes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you should just admit that you don’t have any.” At this point, we should note the change in terms the skeptic brought into the conversation. Now, it seems that “extraordinary events” are not rare or supernatural events, but rather “rare or supernatural events that dramatically impact our life choices.” We can now proceed with this new addition to the terminology. Of course, if the atheist doesn’t ever make this point, we do not need to answer it; I raise it because it’s a fairly common response.
Very high bars of evidence for extraordinary claims will prove too much. Note where we are in the discussion. The skeptic says that extraordinary claims that may dramatically impact life must meet a very high bar of evidence. I suggest asking the following question: “Why do extraordinary claims need to meet this special high bar, yet ordinary claims do not?” Why is an especially high bar needed for believing in the resurrection of Jesus that is not required for the answers to public policy questions, ethical dilemmas, or trials by jury?
Why exactly are extraordinary claims treated in such a special way? Why is this not special pleading? Listen carefully to the answer. First, if he simply points to the rarity or unexpected nature of extraordinary claims, we have already answered that. Second, he might reiterate his point about the supernatural. “Supernatural events are unfathomable and wildly unbelievable in themselves,” says the skeptic. He does not believe in supernatural events, so any such fanciful claims must meet a tremendously high bar of evidence. Here, atheism is presupposed. After that sort of answer, let the discussion turn to God’s existence. If God exists, then he could work a miracle, and thus it could be reasonable to believe in a supernatural event.
Third, your conversation partner may argue that the importance of a claim renders it in need of extraordinary evidence. In other words, if something makes a big difference in a person’s life, extraordinary evidence is required. However, this cannot be right, since public policy questions and ethical decisions (for example) can make a big difference in someone’s life, yet the skeptic likely does not require extraordinary evidence to take positions on them.
In response, you might ask, “I’m curious, are you pro-choice or pro-life? Or do you take neither position?” If he has a position on abortion, you might ask, “What extraordinary evidence do you have in favor of that view? After all, it could make a big difference in the lives of many women and unborn humans, depending on how people answer.” It seems inconsistent and special pleading to apply the “extraordinary evidence” requirement to supernatural events and not to all important matters.
We should look for good reasons and good evidence for the things that we believe. Good reasons and evidence suffice to show the rationality of belief in a claim, and if God exists, that can be the case even if a claim is wildly out of the ordinary.
Conclusion: Putting it All Together
Let’s return to the skeptic’s claim about a fire-breathing dragon and explain why it differs from the idea of a Catholic miracle. If an “extraordinary claim” is a rare or supernatural event, then your friend having a fire-breathing dragon in his garage fits that definition. At first, you might think he’s joking, and if you had no additional information, you would be justified in your skepticism. However, suppose instead you asked him more about the dragon. You started looking for clues. You asked if anyone else had seen it. You examined how serious your friend defended his claim.
In all probability, this investigation would reveal that there never really was a dragon in the garage. However, the miracles that Christians believe in are not like the dragon case, for two reasons. First, because we believe that God performs them for a reason; they are connected with His revelation, not sporadic magic tricks. Second, they are backed up by credible witnesses and early testimony. Anthony Flew, at one time a very famous atheist who later adopted theism, said, “The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” (See There Is A God, [2009],).