Extraordinary Claims

Skeptical atheists (who might better be called evidentialist atheists) like to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I think that obscures a fallacy committed by theists and many atheists alike. I agree with the principle, except for the caveat I will discuss shortly. I would put it this way: the evidence you require for a proposition ought to vary with its plausibility. Remember the three burdens that any sponsor of a proposition must bear: 1) the burden of coherence, 2) the burden of plausibility, and 3) the burden of proof. You don't get to #2 before meeting #1, and you don't get to #3 until you meet #2.

If a proposition contains no logical contradiction, then we can move on to plausibility. Logical possibility doesn't guarantee material possibility. It makes sense to require stronger evidence for a less plausible or implausible proposition than for a more plausible proposition. That's just common sense, and most people understand it in day-to-day matters. I hasten to point out that plausibility will vary among people depending on their experiences and accumulated knowledge. I might think a scientific explanation for some phenomenon is implausible, while experienced reputable scientists do not. Nevertheless, other things equal, a person ought to seek evidence to the degree that a proposition strikes him as implausible. If someone told me he's hosted extraterrestrials at his home, I would have a different reaction from the one I'd have if someone told me that a nearby store's hours are 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. If someone with a reputation as a practical joker told me about the store hours, I would probably have a third kind of reaction.

I said "other things equal" above, because no one has the time or expertise to verify every piece of information he uses every day. As a layman, I may find the explanation of how vaccines work implausible, but I may need to make a decision about whether to get the vaccine. Yet despite my lack of understanding, if I could reasonably decide to go with the advice from reputable doctors. Reputable belief (what Aristotle called endoxa) can count as good evidence, although it is in principle subject to rebuttal. We couldn't get buy without it.

So yeah, extraordinary (that is, highly implausible) claims require extraordinary evidence. But we can't leave the matter there. My beef with skeptical atheism (as opposed to logical atheism) is that claims about the supernatural are said to be extraordinary. They are not. Actually, they're quite ordinary, but that doesn't legitimize them.

I recently heard a skeptical atheist say that the day may come when scientists will be able to investigate the supernatural, but it just hasn't come yet. That's wrong.

Extraordinary presumably means "ordinary plus," very unusual. An extraordinary claim, then, lies on the one end of the usual-unusual spectrum. As the old newspapermen used to say, "dog bites man" ain't news; "man bites dog" is. 

My argument is that supernatural claims as such are not on the usual-unusual spectrum. So they are not extraordinary -- they are nonsense. To talk of existence beyond existence, or of causes originating from outside of reality, is to talk gibberish. To explain life by saying it was created in an indescribable way by an ineffable being external to nature is to say less than nothing. 

There is an unbridgeable chasm between all things natural and the supernatural. It is identical to the chasm between the logical and illogical. And we don't ask for even extraordinary evidence for the existence of contradictions. Evidence for incoherent claims is impossible, and asking for it is a sheer waste of time.

Arguing over what counts as evidence is worthwhile, but it has nothing to do with the supernatural because the concepts evidence, explanation, cause, existence, etc. apply only to nature from which they came.