Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
This is known as the ECREE principle mentioned by Carl Sagan and others. I think it's expressed better as "extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence," or better yet, "extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of ordinary evidence," or even better yet, "extraordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of ordinary evidence, especially when we should expect that evidence to be there," but the point is the same. It's no surprise that Victor Reppert objects to it in these words:
Notice Reppert says these claims have to be "assessed from within some existing belief system." What is he talking about here? A belief system? Ahhhh, yes, he means a faith system, something I've commented on before.
He continues talking about his "priors," that he is stuck with them. But ask him to reason to these priors and he cannot do it without punting to faith. Where do they come from them? And how are his "priors" ranked in a logical or chronological order? He objects to a default position, the position of skepticism, but why? Shouldn't we approach wild and fanciful stories like these coming from the ancient superstitious past with even more skepticism than we would approach similar kinds of stories in today's modern world? After all we were not there. Almost all of our questions go unanswered. We cannot interrogate these ancient texts, their authors, nor the people who they claim testify of such things. What we know is that an utterly overwhelming number of Jews who believed in Reppert's "priors"--that Yahweh exists, does miracles, and inspired the Old Testament--did not believe these claims, and they were there! That's why Christianity had to leave Jewish soil to seek converts in the Greco-Roman world, who could not check the facts for themselves. So why should we believe? I see no reason to do so.
What would he say is the method for determining which culturally accepted "priors" take precedence over other culturally accepted "priors" since they almost certainly determine what extraordinary claims people accept?
I have proposed the OTF to help help determine these things. What is his alternative? He has none. He simply goes with his culturally accepted priors, which is clearly a recipe for epistemic disaster, since believers in different parts of the globe do the exact same thing as he does. Presumably they would say like he does, that they are stuck with their "priors" too. Where does that get any of them? Nowhere but in a sea of conflicting claims that cannot be settled between believers because they are all based on faith, which is an utterly unreliable method if it can be considered a method at all.
There is no doubt in my mind. He is deluded, blind, as a bat. Until he can propose a method for helping people assess the truth of their culturally given "priors" then he is doing nothing more nor less than special pleading.
Extraordinariness is not strictly quantifiable, and has to be assessed from within some existing belief system.This is standard delusional apologetical fare, something I call Definitional Apologetics. Just define a problem away in the face of a concrete example like a virgin birth or a bodily resurrection.
Link
Notice Reppert says these claims have to be "assessed from within some existing belief system." What is he talking about here? A belief system? Ahhhh, yes, he means a faith system, something I've commented on before.
He continues talking about his "priors," that he is stuck with them. But ask him to reason to these priors and he cannot do it without punting to faith. Where do they come from them? And how are his "priors" ranked in a logical or chronological order? He objects to a default position, the position of skepticism, but why? Shouldn't we approach wild and fanciful stories like these coming from the ancient superstitious past with even more skepticism than we would approach similar kinds of stories in today's modern world? After all we were not there. Almost all of our questions go unanswered. We cannot interrogate these ancient texts, their authors, nor the people who they claim testify of such things. What we know is that an utterly overwhelming number of Jews who believed in Reppert's "priors"--that Yahweh exists, does miracles, and inspired the Old Testament--did not believe these claims, and they were there! That's why Christianity had to leave Jewish soil to seek converts in the Greco-Roman world, who could not check the facts for themselves. So why should we believe? I see no reason to do so.
What would he say is the method for determining which culturally accepted "priors" take precedence over other culturally accepted "priors" since they almost certainly determine what extraordinary claims people accept?
I have proposed the OTF to help help determine these things. What is his alternative? He has none. He simply goes with his culturally accepted priors, which is clearly a recipe for epistemic disaster, since believers in different parts of the globe do the exact same thing as he does. Presumably they would say like he does, that they are stuck with their "priors" too. Where does that get any of them? Nowhere but in a sea of conflicting claims that cannot be settled between believers because they are all based on faith, which is an utterly unreliable method if it can be considered a method at all.
There is no doubt in my mind. He is deluded, blind, as a bat. Until he can propose a method for helping people assess the truth of their culturally given "priors" then he is doing nothing more nor less than special pleading.