4.27 Accusation: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Published by 1c15 on 9th December 20199th December 2019

This is something you will hear a lot, it’s got some origins in Hume’s literature. But we won’t get into that here, I’ve got a powerpoint for that. Sceptics cite that, the more radical claim, the stronger the requirement for evidence to justify belief. This would be the case with Jesus’ resurrection. They claim it requires more evidence to justify belief in the resurrection than evidence required to justify belief that he was crucified. This imposed rule possesses a common sense appeal, but there are problems with it

1. We believe we have enough evidence to satisfy such a requirement

We have a collection of historical data that is consistent with Jesus’ resurrection and strongly attests to it. The risen Jesus appeared to individuals and to groups. His appearances are attested by friends, an enemy, and a sceptic. His tomb was empty, and opposing theories to account for the collection of data fail. Therefore, Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the most plausible explanation to account for the historical data

2. The requirement for extraordinary evidence cuts both ways 

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, one must explain the known data. Let’s say the sceptic suggests group hallucinations in an attempt to account for the group appearances. We know from psychology that group hallucinations, if not impossible, require certain circumstances of expectation and ecstacy, both of which were absent from the group of disciples he allegedly appeared to. Therefore, the sceptics assertion that group hallucinations account for the appearances to the disciples is an extraordinary claim and, therefore, requires extraordinary evidence in order to justify our belief. We’ve observed all opposing theories to Jesus’ resurrection are extremely improbable, if not practically impossible. Accordingly, they face the same challenge for extraordinary evidence.

People can scoff or laugh at the resurrection but have they ever truly investigated it? I remember seeing an ancestry tv test advert, this man, Turkish, convinced he was 100% Turkish discovered he was actually part Kurdish also, even more, one of the Kurdish people in the room was a relative. Before he hated the Kurds, until he discovered the evidence. Don’t be ignorant of the evidence. Push it, explore it, don’t be unreasonable, be rational and reasonable, avoiding bias where possible and assess the evidence as it stands.