Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

This is something that you’ll often hear in slogan or meme form on the internet. Especially when it comes to proving the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

Well, that does sound clever, but what does it actually mean? What do you mean by “extraordinary evidence”?

This argument goes back to Carl Sagan, so in his honor let’s call it the “Argumentum Sagani”

The Argumentum Sagani goes like this:

• Premise one:
  • Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
• Premise  two:
  • Any claim that a miracle has occurred is extraordinary.
• Therefore, conclusion one:
  • Any evidence supporting it ought to be extraordinary as well.
• Premise four:
  • I have no idea what I mean by “extraordinary evidence”.
• Premise five:
  • Whatever evidence you come up with, no matter how extraordinary, is not going to be extraordinary enough.
• Therefore, conclusion two:
  • No one is justified in believing in any miracle claim.

Let’s do a scientific test case on this argument though.

According to one proposed theory in nuclear physics, spontaneous proton decay happens, but it’s just really really rare. The hypothesis is solid, but in practicality it is so rare that no instances of it have ever been observed. It looks like it just doesn’t ever happen because it has never been observed. But scientists interested in this theory still set up sensitive detectors in underground water tanks and leave them there for decades in an attempt to see whether it actually takes place. But so far there is no evidence that it does.

Spontaneous proton decay would be an extraordinary claim. The fact is that 100% of the protons so far observed have not decayed. But that does not mean that it’s impossible for us to accept evidence of such decay.  We even try to set up advanced equipment to look for it. The evidence doesn’t need to be “extraordinary”. One single event of a proton spontaneously decaying would be enough.

So let’s not have double standards. If we’re allowed to look for evidence of unprecedented things in physical science why shouldn’t we be allowed to look for evidence of unprecedented things in a religious context?

Because of false miracle claims?

Yes, people make false miracle claims in religious contexts, and that’s a valid reason to be cautious. But it is not a valid reason to set the bar so high that no amount of evidence is enough. If there really were a God who really did want to communicate something to mankind, and to authenticate his message in a way we could not mistake as coming from just a clever human then a miracle would be just what you’d expect. And wouldn’t a religious context be where you would most likely expect a miracle to take place? Yes, you can naturally expect that there would be false miracle claims in a religious context, but if there is a God, that would also be the very place where he’d be most likely to work, and where we’d be most likely to find real miracles.

So let’s at least be honest and open minded about this and not have double standards.

In 1729 Bishop Thomas Sherlock wrote:

I do allow that this case and others of like nature require more evidence to give them credit than ordinary cases do. You may therefore require more evidence in these than in other cases; but it is absurd to say that such cases admit no evidence, when the things in question are manifestly objects of sense.

The resurrection event was an object of sense. Eyewitnesses saw, heard, touched and talked with the resurrected Jesus. Eyewitness accounts are first class evidence in courts. Even material evidence needs to be interpreted to deduce what happened, but eyewitness evidence is people just straight up saying what happened. So were the followers of Jesus competent enough to give an account?

Say you have a best friend you hang out with all the time and one day you’re out for a meal. A few days later you’re asked in court under oath about this event. You are asked whether you are absolutely sure that this person was your best friend, and not just someone who just looked similar to him or a ghost or hallucination? Also, are you absolutely sure that your best friend was alive at the time you were eating that meal?

If you can answer these questions then you are competent in telling the difference between a dead person and an alive person, especially if it is your best friend. You are then competent to give the kind of testimony we have for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The followers of Jesus were competent to identify their best friend, to tell whether they were hallucinating or not, and to tell the difference between a living person and a dead person. We literally could not expect more extraordinary evidence.