"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" | Trent Horn | Catholic Answers Live
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- Atheists sometimes dispute miracles, the Resurrection of Jesus, and even the existence of God on the grounds that these "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But do they understand the implications and assumptions of this catchphrase? Trent Horn gives his thoughts on Catholic Answers Live.
DONATE: give.catholic.com/castudios
SUBSCRIBE: / catholiccom
WEBSITE: www.catholic.com
After his conversion to the Catholic faith, Trent Horn earned master’s degrees in the fields of theology, philosophy, and bioethics. He serves as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers, where he specializes in teaching Catholics to graciously and persuasively engage those who disagree with them.
Trent models that approach each week on the radio program Catholic Answers Live and on his own podcast, The Counsel of Trent. He has also been invited to debate at UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, and Stanford University.
Trent is an adjunct professor of apologetics at Holy Apostles College, has written for The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, and is the author of nine books, including Answering Atheism, The Case for Catholicism, and Why We’re Catholic: Our Reasons for Faith, Hope, and Love.
If you are interested in booking Trent Horn for an upcoming event, please contact Catholic Answers at 619-387-7200 or seminars@catholic.com.
"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence"
This guy makes you question the laws of logic from different dimensions....He is an avid and critical thinker
"Extraordinary" in this context usually has a solely emotional connotation.
I also find atheists generally misunderstand the nature of evidence as such.
As I agree that the nature of evidence is mostly misunderstood (it is, for instance, very common to see atheist claiming "absolute certainty" to religious matters and, at the same time, happily accept the probabilistic arguments of the empirical sciences), I disagree with you that "extraordinary" "has a solely emotional connotation". I am a Catholic myself, but I am by no means satisfied with the answer given in the video.
We all agree, I believe, that the resurrection is an extraordinary event, as we do believe in what regards the incarnation. And I think we can clearly see that we tend to demand more evidence when an assertion is more radical and more "anti-common-sense".
Pray for me :)
@@goncalocosta4948 Lol an atheist told me a few days ago that logical arguments aren't evidence. And then he also added that scientific theories don't count as evidence because they're just theories. So I think the definition of "extraordinary evidence" is evidence that is beyond logic and science! Makes perfect sense. 😅
@@IWasOnceAFetus Well it isn’t evidence. You make theories and logic around facts, not despite them.
I recall Matt Dillihunty saying that "claims do not count as historical accounts," He is wrong about this of course. Testimony of witnesses is always used in court and at other kinds of inquiries and judicial hearings.
Eyewitnesses of judicial hearings are people alive that can questioned and dismissed through cross examination. Simple eyewitness is not enough to incriminate someone. If I’m alone claiming that you killed somebody, our mutual testimonies would cancel each other’s. Multiple eyewitness have to validate each other, that’s why a lot of historical events are hard to determine to this day. The bible itself is full of contradictions. The disciples cannot agree when exactly Jesus was killed.
Now, if I recall events, write about it 50 years after witnessing them (as the bible was written) this evidence would be considered tenuous in a court of law. Now if I make supernatural claims, my testimony deserves even more scrutiny.
@@ronytheronin7439 Defendants may be convicted on the testimony of a single eyewitness.
"Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" is just an intellectual swindle. If there's some phenomenon you don't wish to accept, all you have to do is label it "extraordinary". Then, when evidence _is_ presented in support of the phenomenon, you can reject it because it isn't "extraordinary enough". No matter how much evidence in support of the phenomenon is presented or how high the quality, you can simply keep rejecting it as insufficiently "extraordinary", until the defender realizes he's stepped into an impossible situation and gives up. So, it's a technique for "winning" arguments, but it's useless in actually finding out what's true and what isn't. When put in this position, the defender's best move is not to play that game.
Yes atheists are always saying there is not enough evidence for this and that. but don't define what "enough" would be. How much is enough? Does it mean enough to resist the extremely stubborn attitude of the atheist? At at some atheists are now admitting that NOTHING would convince them. Dawkins says that if he saw a miraculous event, he would assume it was being caused by aliens.
@@Klee99zeno Could be that you never in the thousands of years of religion, provided evidences outside of eyewitness in the Bible?
You call atheists stubborn, I call you gullible.
Extraordinary means a scope of things. It can span from the improbable to the supernatural. It’s not atheists that change the meaning of extraordinary when it’s convenient, it’s you.
Otherwise I can claim to be god, ask a bunch of my friends to validate my claim, then you’ll be forced to accept it.
@@draganskymedia you are describing a God who is like the genie from the magic lamp, your powerful servant who will grant your wishes and do whatever you command. This is completely different from the understanding of God that every major religion has. It is we who are God's servants, not God who is our servant.
@@draganskymedia - To say that something is testable and falsifiable is usually to say that it is an empirical phenomenon that is studied by the physical sciences. But is there only one way to find out what is real? Must all true descriptions of reality be scientific descriptions? The sensory perceptions show the physical properties of things. This means that the senses can only show us what is a physical, material phenomenon. If you say that everything real is purely physical, then we have ask if you can prove that claim. If you say you can prove it with sensory observation, then you are just begging the question. Once you say that anything real can be seen by the senses then you are just assuming materialism rather than proving it. The senses describe the physical aspects of things, so when you use the senses, you are just looking for what is physical. If you use a method that can only detect physical things, then of course you will only see physical things, because that is what your method guarantees. You find only what you are assuming is real. This is the major problem. Materialism cannot be proven to be true; it can only be assumed to be true. There are parts of reality that are not revealed through the senses alone. We can tell that someone has human rights, but not through sensory observation. A right does not have a color, a shape or a size, yet we can still discover that it exists. There are philosophical arguments for the existence of God. These are deductive arguments that logically show the reality of God. No one should assume that everything real is testable by sensory observation alone. That would be very irrational.
@@draganskymedia - Yes, it is possible for anyone to deceive themselves, however you cannot prove someone to be wrong just by accusing them of being self-deceiving. It’s just a personal attack, an ad hominum fallacy. It’s easy to accuse a person of being fooled by a confirmation bias, but this is just an accusation, it’s not a proof of anything. Saying “you’re deceiving yourself” is an insult, it’s not an argument. An atheist could certainly be taken in by confirmation bias. That could happen, couldn’t it? Anybody is capable of a bias. You just assume that EVERYONE you disagree with is self-deceived. But showing how a person may have acquired their belief does not refute that belief. This is called the genetic fallacy. It means you think can prove someone wrong just by explaining the origin of their position. For example, you can say that I acquired the religion I have from instruction by my parents. But the fact that my parents taught me something doesn’t prove that what they taught me isn’t true. They told me that World War Two happened. As a matter of fact, it did happen. It is quite possible for our parents to tell us things that are true. It is really very common. I think that 2+3=5. Now someone could say, “the reason you believe that is that your third-grade teacher told you so.” Well, that is true, but pointing this out doesn’t mean that 2+3=5 isn’t true. It is true, regardless of who taught it to you. It’s the same with religions of different cultures. Yes, it is probably true that I would be a Muslim if I grew up in Pakistan, but that fact doesn’t prove that Christianity is false. It is quite possible that I was born in the country that practices the true religion. That is possible, isn’t it? Think of an analogy. There are some people today who live in a culture where they do not learn that water is H2O. Many cultures do. But the fact that some people are told different versions of this knowledge does not prove that water is not H2O. The truth of such a fact is completely independent of what anyone has been taught. Your parents may have taught you what is true, they may not have. The fact that religions disagree with each other doesn’t prove that they are all false. It is possible that one is true, and others are not. Some could be partly true and partly false. The fact that your parents taught you something doesn’t prove it true or false. We can find the truth about reality by analyzing experience and logic. This will lead us to what is true. Your complaints about people believing in the rain god are just criticisms of pagan religions. The major religions of the world are not concerned with the origins of rainfall. The pagan religions are too simplistic and anthropomorphic to be true. The fact that a person doesn’t believe in the pagan religions doesn’t mean that he should not believe in a monotheistic religion either. There was never any sort of philosophical argument for the pagan gods. The ancient Greeks had many excellent philosophers, but these intellectuals never even tried to make any sort of rational argument for the existence of the Olympian gods. Aristotle did not believe in the gods of his culture, but he did make a set of rational arguments that demonstrated the existence of just one god. This description of God is very similar to the god of the monotheist religions. The pagan religions saw gods as physical beings that existed within nature. The Judeo-Christian God is external to nature, is not part of the universe but is rather the creator of the universe, is not a material thing, but is rather an immaterial being. He is not an invisible man living in the sky.
"You can't prove miracles don't happen"
🥱
What evidence do we have in the New Testament of the Trinity?
Matthew 28, 19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".
You also have Jesus talking a lot of the Father; you have Jesus proclaimed "Lord" very often (which in that time, in Jewish context, meant unequivocally God), and at least one proclamation of Jesus as "God" (By St. Thomas, in John 20, 28: "My Lord and my God", to what Jesus answer: "You have believed..."); you have the many promises of the Holy Spirit by Jesus Himself in the Gospel of John: John 14, 16-17.26: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever- the Spirit of truth (...). But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." Later on, in John 20, 21-22: "Again Jesus said to them, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.' When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'."
In these you have clearly the Three Persons. As to their Unity, you have it clearly between the Father and the Son in John 10, 30: "I and the Father are one". As to the Union between Them and the Holy Spirit, I do not think there is such a clear statement in the Gospels, but it is clear that the Spirit is God (Acts 5, 3.4: "You lied to the Holy Spirit (...). You lied not to human beings, but to God"), and that there is only one God, which implies, I believe, such Unity.
I hope to have helped :)
Pray for me!
@@goncalocosta4948 Jesus didn’t say that the Trinity was co-equal. Jesus says the Father has sent him. If they are equal then why would the Father send Jesus.
@@bngr_bngr But I did not use the word equal, friend... I simply quoted Our Lord Jesus when He says "I and the Father are One". Also St. John says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was in God and the Word was God" (John 1, 1).
The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the central mystery of our lives. Being a mystery, we can always get closer to it, "grasp" it, but never "get" it, never fully understand it.
As Catholics, we believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different Persons, but the One and Only Triune God: without confusion nor distinction. But not "equal" in a blurry sense... The Father is the Father -- He is not the Son, the Son is sent by the Father, from Whom He proceeds. The Father is the Creator, the Son the Saviour, the Holy Spirit the "Sanctificator".
I hope to have helped :)
God bless you!
@@goncalocosta4948 dogma says they are co-equal.
@@bngr_bngr They are equal in Divinity but not in relationship.
Pretty simple concept. If I claim I have a dog, that's pretty normal, you prob don't need proof. If I say I have a komodo dragon...a little more unlikely, but you'd prob want to see it to believe me. If I said I have a real dragon. You wouldn't believe me without being shown.
Why is this so hard?
*BOOM* GREAT EXPLANATION ABOUT HOW EXTRAORDINARY TO AN ATHEIST MAY BE JUST AN AVERAGE EVENT FOR A TRUE BELIEVER!
simple as that.
That’s called having low standards…
faith literally means belief without evidence. why do you guys feel you have to have your beliefs proven? It’s your faith and i only question it if you try to act like it’s real. If it’s real to you and some others, that’s all that matters unless you try to make me believe or hold me to your beliefs.
Atheists replace the notion of God with 'random'. The lack of discernment with regard to evidence is the real culprit. There are no such things as random, random causality, or random processes. Nevertheless, 'random' is the foundation of the modern scientific paradigm.
Jesus is God
The Wright Brothers analogy.......doesn't work here.
@Greg Elchert because if you say to me now that the Wright brothers flew a plane, I'd believe you as I see countless other planes flying. How many times have we seen people resurrected. At that time the scientific evidence was that you couldn't fly, but it's changed and science doesn't make truth claims it provides the best evidence at the time. We still have no evidence of people being resurrected, just a book claiming that Jesus did I don't think is going to convince me. I need something a bit more meatier.
Hope you can help.
How doesn't it?
This felt like a straw man argument. Another definition of "extraordinary" could have been "without understood possible cause." The Wrights flying a plane? Yeah, I'd need either incredible evidence (e.g. see it for myself) or an explanation of cause (e.g. be taught the principles behind the aerodynamics). The elephant march? Cause is somebody had an army of trained elephants, nothing difficult to understand there. A crucified person resurrecting days after death? That's a tough one to explain, I think it is reasonable to need some incredibly strong, out-of-the-ordinary evidence for that.
Whats wrong with regular evidence?
What "out-of-the-ordinary" evidence would you expect for something that happened 2000 years ago? Let me guess, like Dillahunty said, maybe a physician's report after exploring the body of Jesus, or maybe a peer-reviewed article on Nature? I agree, those would be pretty extraordinary, to the point that I'd say they would be impossible to produce. I have ordinary evidence though, and it seems reasonable to me that if some people 2000 years ago saw someone rise from the dead and ascend to Heaven they would start some kind of religion, and maybe they would think this person has Divine origin, and I dunno, maybe they would record his life and they would spread his teachings throughout the world. Hey, wait a second, that's exactly what happened!!!
@@Dan_Capone Nice post! What is the dividing line between extraordinary and ordinary? Where is it written that we do need extraordinary evidence?
I see what you’re saying, but this is coming off as needing to know and understand everything, kind of a God-complex when we’re mere man. This is where faith jumps in.
I am also not satisfied by the answer. But, as someone already said in the comments, you cannot expect "extraordinary" empirical evidence for a claim that is, in itself, a particular and "small" event.
But I would argue that if one looks closely at the history of the Early Church (right from the Apostles), one gets definitely "extraordinary" evidence that something happened. And the best claim so far is that those men really believed it. And they claim to have come to believe in it by means of extraordinary evidence (i.e., they have seen Jesus risen).
Well, you and I cannot see that, but we can see a gigantic movement of people who believed it because they saw (or else knew someone who saw), and we can also attend to the theological explanations (which would correspond to "be taught the principles behind the aerodynamics"). But, of course, it CANNOT BE GIVEN an 5-minute-attention evidence. Just like I cannot really consistently teach you the laws of aerodynamics in 5 minutes. BUT, just as you can go and study those laws, there is a Science called Theology...
I find it telling the first thing you recommend is basically to try to shift the burden of proof and well I will admit extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is a poorly phrased version of that even if it is the original we might have heard far better ways of explaining it although to be fair to Carl Sagan who I think was the originator of it anyways was he was kind of just saying a quick little thing if I'm not mistaken as like a documentary
Now his friend of mine was allergic to dogs and especially if they hated dogs I would ask them did they actually get a dog despite both of those facts being known to me and they simply said yeah I did I would still probably believe them but that is also partially only because it's common enough for people to end up making choices that they'll probably regret later and while that would definitely be out of the norm for that person it's still would not require too terribly much in a way of concession to accept
Now let's look at something that anyone reading these comments probably will agree with me that you probably don't believe aliens interact with our planet regularly and do things like probe people or make crop circles or anything else one would expect stereotypical aliens to do. This is a claim that very much so goes out of the ordinary as as of yet we have not necessarily seen anything we can definitively say is an alien or in anyway seems extraterrestrial and beyond that if you know anything about astronomy then you would understand that the likelihood of any other civilization of an intelligent species that is also close enough to Earth to be able to make it to our planet is extremely unexpected and very much so what would not be considered normal in anyway. As such to support a claim like this one would have to do things such as demonstrate that there actually was some sort of unidentified object that actually managed to take them up via some sort of tractor beam and then they would have to demonstrate after that that they genuinely were probed and then I forgot they would have to demonstrate a planet close enough for it to even be possible that perhaps some other alien life was able to come to Earth and then they would have to demonstrate that such alien life had arrived at our planet and they would also have to show that that alien life likely correlated to what unidentified object interacted with them
Basically the statement comes out to being if you're going to make a claim you have to have ample evidence to support it
Nail on the head with your explanation of extraordinary as yes this statement as it's not question or anything other than a quick snippet to simply just try to make the conversation partner aware that they have a burden of proof that very much so is much greater than the conversation partner seems to acknowledge with a very much so is subjective you and I have pointed out its subjective based on what are you talking about and who are you talking to because if you're trying to convince a person then that person will have their own definition and explanation of what is extraordinary and what is not and what is normal and or expected and not expected or normal. I'm sorry if you guys may not love that not only do you have a burden of proof but you have one that from person to person isn't going to be the same thing and he very much so may find an uphill battle of some people to the point that you think that it will never happen and a complete Landslide with other people but that's just the nature of convincing people as different people take different things to convince them and different degrees of evidence
I can always give you my definition of a miracle which is to say that a miracle in my mind is something that has no natural explanation I'm truly falls into the supernatural although at that point I will say as I defined Supernatural and/non-physical is especially to say that it just doesn't exist meaning if there truly is no possible natural explanation which you'd already have to demonstrate that shows a miracle in the first place Tumi but even if you could show that that would simply leave me with the question how and why did that happen
EDIT: I stick with what I said and I’m not answering any comments. My faith and my religion (Catholic) will NOT be shaken or changed.
(Haven’t watched the whole video yet) Miracles are real and do happen. It’s best not to try to explain them with science. It’s a faith thing. 🙏🏽
Is faith a good indicator of truth? If so, why not have faith in another religion?
Jesus started one Catholic church. Thats why.
Jesus is the only religious leader that resurrected himself.
@@johnyang1420 Ask an Orthodox christian the same question and get a different answer. Do they have the "wrong" type of faith? Clearly there should be a better way of discovering what's true/false than you're own personal belief in something.
@@Regular_Pigeon Orthodox is under Catholic umbrella.
So is the satanist going to die and rapture out a soul alive and just live on earth?
What do you mean