ECREE stands for "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence." On X Michael Licona said ECREE is illogical.
Gospel Noir @craftedheavenly replied: "That's a cleaner formulation than the slogan, and I think people on both sides could sign it. It moves the debate to where it belongs, the evidence itself. For the resurrection specifically, what quality and quantity would meet your bar?"
I replied: Thanks for the agreement! The evidence required for an ancient pre-scientific claim to be accepted as a miracle is addressed here.
Gospel Noir @craftedheavenly: Thanks, John. I appreciate you pointing me to the full argument instead of a one-liner. I'll read it carefully. Whatever side people land on, you've pushed a lot of believers to think harder about what counts as good evidence, and that's a service to everyone in this conversation.
I replied by saying: See also this discussion on miracles, along with this one.
--------------
John W. Loftus is a philosopher and counter-apologist credited with 15 critically acclaimed books, including The Case against Miracles, God and Horrendous Suffering, and Varieties of Jesus Mythicism. Please support DC by sharing our posts, or by subscribing, donating, or buying our books at Amazon. As an Amazon Associate John earns a small amount of money from any purchases made there. Buying anything through them helps fund the work here, and is greatly appreciated!
This argument is criticized as illogical because the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" does not clearly define what qualifies as extraordinary evidence and can become circular if it assumes a claim is false simply because it is unusual. Instead of evaluating the evidence on its own merits, this approach may impose an undefined standard that is impossible to satisfy. Critics argue that the proper question is whether the available evidence is sufficient to justify belief, regardless of whether the claim is ordinary or extraordinary.So I responded by saying: "The more initially improbable and unlikely a claim is, the more that reasonable people should require sufficient evidence (in terms of quality & quantity) before we should accept it. [Sounds like Bayes Theorem].
Gospel Noir @craftedheavenly replied: "That's a cleaner formulation than the slogan, and I think people on both sides could sign it. It moves the debate to where it belongs, the evidence itself. For the resurrection specifically, what quality and quantity would meet your bar?"
I replied: Thanks for the agreement! The evidence required for an ancient pre-scientific claim to be accepted as a miracle is addressed here.
Gospel Noir @craftedheavenly: Thanks, John. I appreciate you pointing me to the full argument instead of a one-liner. I'll read it carefully. Whatever side people land on, you've pushed a lot of believers to think harder about what counts as good evidence, and that's a service to everyone in this conversation.
I replied by saying: See also this discussion on miracles, along with this one.
--------------
John W. Loftus is a philosopher and counter-apologist credited with 15 critically acclaimed books, including The Case against Miracles, God and Horrendous Suffering, and Varieties of Jesus Mythicism. Please support DC by sharing our posts, or by subscribing, donating, or buying our books at Amazon. As an Amazon Associate John earns a small amount of money from any purchases made there. Buying anything through them helps fund the work here, and is greatly appreciated!
No comments:
Post a Comment