Jason Engwer on Extraordinary Claims

John Loftus has edited a book that sounds really good called The Christian Delusion. Some of the contributors at Triablogue have written a somewhat formal response. There has been some very interesting counter replies which are available here, particularly what has been offered by Paul Tobin and Hector Avalos. It's worth reading.

Jason Engwer has written some material on the claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I've interacted with him on this issue before at some length, so I thought I'd address some of his bullet points.

- The term extraordinary is vague. All of us use vague terminology at times. Still, we should keep in mind that a vague word is being used that the critic can define and redefine on dubious grounds, sometimes without letting others know what he‘s doing.

I've responded to this argument before, but unfortunately I don't think I did reply to it in a thread that involved Jason. So I'll do it now.

The term "extraordinary" in the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" does not mean the exact same thing in both instances. Another way of saying it would be "Highly unusual claims require evidence that is very good." The former use means "highly unusual." The latter use means "evidence that is very unlikely to lead to false conclusions." This phrase is kind of a catchy way of describing Bayes Theorem. Claims with a low initial plausibility require evidence that is of the kind that is unlikely to be mistaken and unlikely to come about if the claim were false. So very good evidence.

- Why are we supposed to think that the evidence for the resurrection isn't extraordinary? Something like the conversion of an enemy of Christianity after seeing the risen Christ (Paul) doesn't seem to be an ordinary thing. Likewise, the miracles that Paul apparently had the power to perform after seeing Christ, as he describes in his letters (including in contexts in which his audience was questioning him) and as Luke describes in Acts, don‘t seem ordinary.

This is where the above definitions are important. Suppose I tell you that 100 years ago a person managed to levitate and float. When you asked for evidence I said that a two headed unicorn farted out a text that made the claim. Is this the kind of evidence a skeptic would consider persuasive because it is highly unusual? Obviously this is not what the skeptic means when he says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I think anybody that can really internalize the skeptical claim in order to evaluate it would know this.

- If we need extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, then do we also need extraordinary evidence for our extraordinary evidence? That seems to create an infinite regress.

If by extraordinary we meant that we expect the evidence to be of the sort I describe above (a claim about a two headed unicorn farting out a text), then yes, extraordinary evidence would be required to justify such an outrageous claim. But this is not what the skeptic is asking for.

- If extraordinary is being defined as supernatural, then is the claim being made that we need supernatural evidence for supernatural claims? If, instead, we define the first term extraordinary differently than the second term within the phrase ―extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then the phrases loses the initial appeal that it has due to the parallel use of the term extraordinary. If the term is being redefined later in the phrase, then the phrase loses the force it initially seemed to have.

And as I say above, yes the terms are being defined differently. The common sense nature of the claim in my view should make the meaning of the terms obvious. It should be obvious that we are not asking for claims of two headed unicorns farting out texts in order to justify a resurrection claim. But perhaps this is not obvious to everyone.

- Or is it being said that we need highly unusual evidence for highly unusual claims? But ordinary eyesight is commonly considered sufficient to make a witness to an unusual murder credible in a court of law.....If Jesus appears to one man on a particular occasion, then we‘d expect only one witness, a witness who perceives the appearance with ordinary means, like ordinary eyesight, rather than with extraordinary means.

I would consider ordinary eyesight to be extraordinary evidence. That is, I find my own eyesight to be extremely reliable. So if James saw the risen Christ he might be rational to accept that Jesus rose. But I am not James. The evidence I have is not eyesight. Our evidence is a CLAIM that the risen Jesus was observed with eyesight. Further that claim is put forward decades after the fact by devoted, superstitious followers. Is that extraordinary? In other words, is this the kind of evidence that is extremely unlikely to be mistaken and extremely unlikely to come about if the claim was false? Absolutely not. On the other hand if we all witnessed the risen Jesus today that would change things.

The American Government vs The American People

As I've documented previously, American governmental policies differ sharply from the desires of the American people. The American people recognize that their government doesn't serve their interests. That's why 80% of the American people think the country is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves and not the benefit of all people. I think that perception is accurate based on the evidence.

Several interesting questions are polled here. Let's start with our attitude towards Cuba. Should all US citizens be permitted to travel to Cuba? 68% of Americans say yes, 21% say no. What about the embargo, which has been condemned every year at the UN since 1992 by such margins as 173 nations to 3? Americans support trade with Cuba at a rate of 62 to 26%

Americans think the war on drugs is failing by a margin of 76 to 11%. What should we do? Our government focuses most of it's energy on source country control, which studies show is the least cost effective method. Some Americans think that's the single best way to deal with the problem. 13%. 19% suggest treatment and eduction, 27% say legalize some, and 8% say end the war altogether.

What about NAFTA? When NAFTA was passed it was opposed by the public by a margin of 2 to 1 according to the Wall St Journal. In this '08 poll 58% indicate it should be revised or withdrawn compared to 21% that believe it should remain the same.

There's an interesting poll regarding the thoughts of Americans on Iran here. Americans support a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in the Middle East by a margin of 71 to 21% (incidentally Iranians also favor this by 71 to 18%). The Iranian government supports it. The US blocks it. By a margin of 55 to 38% Americans believe Iran should have the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes just like any other signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Our government demands that they stop.

This poll regarding Iran was taken in 2007. At that time 58% of Americans wanted withdrawal of US forces from Iraq within 2 years or less while only 38% said forces should only be reduced as the security situation improves.

How about the roll of the UN? Do Americans look favorably upon the UN becoming more powerful? Yes, by 66 to 32 percent.

The US government stands opposed to the positions that Americans hold by lopsided margins. But then these policies serve the interests of the few powerful interests looking out for themselves and not the public at large.

Bob Dutko's Chutzpah

Bob Dutko likes to make this argument with regards to evolution and information. Evolution must be false because you never have a generational increase in information, and this is required for evolution to take place.

This is all false as I discuss here. As I document at the prior link I tried to call Bob and challenge this claim but he basically wouldn't allow it.

In my view Bob was basically caught off guard with my question. All he's doing is repeating an argument he's heard elsewhere but probably doesn't understand. I can certainly understand why he doesn't want to put me on the air, though I don't think it's very decent of him. If however he'd like to retain even a modicum of decency he should in my mind at least refrain from making this argument.

Nope. Today in the 2 o'clock hour he went right through the same old talking points on evolution. You never have a generational increase in genetic information, but only a reshuffling of existing information. He'll peddle this line, but anybody that would call in and challenge that on what he calls "Open Line Friday" will be blocked.

He also continues to assert that on the evolutionary view the majority of fossils discovered should appear to be freakish transitional animals. I corrected him on this before as well on the air, informing him that since the vast bulk of animals that have ever lived are extinct in fact what we should expect to find is mostly creatures that look like nothing that presently lives. He babbled and dissembled in reply.

But I think this point I made to him a year and a half ago may have in fact sunk in slightly. Bob's evolution discussion is apparently something he wrote up a while back and whenever he discusses evolution he uses the same material. I suppose this is why he made the argument regarding information. It's in the talking points he wrote way back when. So while that didn't change he did add something that was new this time. He did say that evolutionists claim that the things in the fossil record should be extinct animals. This is a new part of his talking points to my knowledge and in fact contradicts his earlier claim that evolutionists expect the fossil record to reveal a slew of transitional forms. Is the bulk of finds transitions or extinct animals? Is it supposed to be both? But with regards to the claim that they are extinct, his response was simple. Deny it. Say that no, in fact when you look to the fossil record it looks just like stuff that exists today. This is a blatant falsehood that is easily exposed with minimal research.

The fact that the bulk of the fossils in the ground were of creatures that would be regarded from our perspective today as extinct was so obvious to early Christian geologists and scientists that they were led propose creation events prior to Adam and Eve not described in the Bible. As the evidence mounted they moved to propositions that involved multiple pre-Adamic creation events.

Dutko is apparently unaware of all of this and is content to rebut with assertions to the contrary.

Lockerbie

Occasionally you find some outrage about the release of the supposed Libyan Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbeset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi. See for instance Front Page Magazine's recent column wherein Robert Spencer uses the incident for more anti-Muslim fear mongering. What you don't often hear is that Hans Köchler, a U.N. observer at the trial, found the decision “totally incomprehensible” (Köchler report, 3/21/01) and “a spectacular miscarriage of justice” (BBC News, 3/14/02). There are quite reasonable questions about the guilt of al-Megrahi. Ed Herman delves into some of the inconvenient facts here.

It's also interesting to note the civilian airline disasters that merit the attention of our media and also the ones that don't.

Why Palestinians Resist

When you hear it said that Palestinians and Arab's generally despise Jews and this is the real root of the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, consider the following quote from Israel's first Prime Minister David ben Gurion.

"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" (Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif "The Jewish Paradox", pp. 121-122) via here.

Or consider the highly respected historian (and self proclaimed Zionist) and professor of history in the Middle East Studies Department at Ben Gurion University in Be'er Sheva Israel, Benny Morris.

The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed after 1967 as well). (Righteous Victims: a History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001, p 37) (Link)

Cause and Effect in the War on Terror

As I've already noted, US intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq predicted in increase in support for political Islam if the US were to invade. It also predicted an increase in support for terrorist objectives. The subsequent data analysis have shown that the invasion has had the effect of increasing jihadi terrorism seven fold.

There are a couple of additional data points that confirm the same thing. In 2004 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld commissioned the Defense Science Board Task Force to evaluate the effects of the wars on terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan on terrorism and Islamic radicalism. The report is available via pdf here. Here's an excerpt (HT Greenwald).

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.
• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.
• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self determination.

More recently the former head of MI5, that is the UK's domestic intelligence agency, is repeating the same thing. British involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has caused skyrocketing terrorist efforts directed against Britain.

The fact of the matter is reduction in Islamic terrorism is not a priority. Our government was aware that invasions would increase Islamic terrorism before the invasion occurred. They have been made aware of the effects of these invasions and how they have radically increased Islamic terrorism, but they don't care and continue to pursue the very policies that lead to the increase in Islamic terrorism. Why? Obviously other goals are more important.

Some Chomsky Lectures

My friend HP (right wing blogger interested in hearing both sides of the debate) has requested some audio of Chomsky, so I thought I'd provide it here so others can listen if they like. Learn while you drive, workout, whatever. Just don't fall asleep while driving. The content is awesome. The style is boring.

Free Market Fantasies
Government In The Future - An older lecture laying out Chomsky's evaluation of the major government alternatives
Lecture at Brown University - Discussion of Israel Palestine Conflict
Imperial Grand Strategy - Overall understanding of US foreign policy
The Costs of War
Unipolar Moment and Culture of Imperialism - 5th Annual Edward Said Lecture
Chomsky - Perle Debate - Chomsky debates one of the great neocons and it is a bloodbath. One of the most thorough destructions involving a competent opponent I've ever heard.
Latin America
Obama's Imperialist Policies
2004 Elections
The Invasion of Iraq
On Haiti
Assault on Freedom and Democracy