MIRACLE CLAIMS ARE BIG CLAIMS SO THE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE MUST BE HIGH

THE POINT

An extraordinary claim that Annie whose toenail came off suddenly gets a new one is indeed extraordinary. But an extraordinary claim that she died and rose from the dead a week later is also extraordinary.

How do we think about that??  We need excellent evidence if we are to believe either.

One may say, "Despite the dramatic flair with a resurrection claim, despite how the toenail seems uninteresting, the point is not how they present but the principle.  Has something that nature cannot do happened?  That is what matters.  If you only want the resurrection miracle for you like it and it is a popular story, what if some witnesses star reporting a vision of Mary Poppins from some other dimension?  It should not be about the drama."

Or one may say that "One claim is not as extraordinary as the other."  That would again be making it too much about what you want to believe.  And it is a lie.  Suppose the doctor will demand proof that she did lose her toenail and that she has another re-grown. The extraordinary evidence will consist of a physical inspection before and after.  If that is lacking in a resurrection report, then the toenail is the better miracle.

THE ARGUMENT

A miracle is best described by examples. If Mary and John and Joseph really came down to appear at a gable wall in Knock in 1879 that is a miracle.

If you want miracles to believe in then using writings decades after the event or writings that may have been tampered with is not now to do it.  And using ones that show signs of tampering is worse.  Most tampering by definition will not be detected.

With the gospels and the depositions of the Knock vision there are clear evidences of interference with the texts.

One thing that makes Knock dubious is the fact that Catholicism does not have the authority which inspires belief.  Its main wonder, the resurrection of Jesus is full of holes and absurdities. 

Miracle as a mere suggestion creates a host of problems.

Suppose we could go back in a time machine to see those who said that Jesus rose from the dead.  For all we know, they might sign a statement to the following effect.  "You believe that nature is God's instrument.  Do you think that God used unknown natural means to raise Jesus?  Sign if your answer is yes."

Or worse,

What if they signed, "Jesus himself indicated that natural causes brought him back"?

The resurrection of Jesus doctrine is carried more by people SIMPLY imagining Jesus coming alive in the tomb.  If a doctor went in with some potion that God energised to bring Jesus back to life the doctrine would collapse.  People would ditch it.  The gospels say nothing only that Jesus was buried and then was found to be absent from the tomb and appeared.  That is very skeletal.

Carl Sagan advised that a miracle is a very big claim.  Religion may say a miracle does not overthrow science.  Science says the dead man stays dead.  Religion counters, "We agree.  We would be overthrowing science if we said a miracle is naturally caused.  We say it has a cause outside of and beyond nature."   That is playing with words.  The fact is that if a miracle like that is claimed, all you know is that a man died and is now alive and you have no way to test if this was natural or not. There is more to nature that we will ever know.  So this leaves science unable to be sure if dead men naturally stay dead.  So a miracle is a very big claim - even if it is not on the face of it very interesting.  For that reason, Sagan said that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.  He only meant strong evidence.  If all you ask for is hard evidence or evidence of the same standard you need to put a person in jail for murder that is quite ordinary evidence. It is just good evidence.

The seeking of extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, whatever it taken to mean, definitely asks for one or more of the following: unbiased evidence, high quality evidence, perhaps a different kind of evidence, and a greater amount of evidence.

It is worried that demanding extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims creates a standard that no miracle claim could meet. That would be very unfair. But even if a researcher is never happy that does not stop them affirming that there is unbiased evidence and that it is good evidence. It does not stop them offering it. So if you want extraordinary evidence and it is not there then work on what is there anyway.

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence refers to some natural claims. (For example you need great evidence if you want to support your view that a small person managed to overcome and murder a hulking bully with no weapon.)  It always refers to paranormal claims. It always refers to miracle claims. It must not be misrepresented as impossible claims need impossible unattainable evidence. Or as extraordinary or miraculous claims need impossible unattainable evidence. Religions hate the principle and try to gaslight those who sustain it.

Richard Packham wrote in 1998,

So does an extraordinary event require extraordinary evidence? If “extraordinary evidence” means “clear and convincing” evidence or evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt”, then the answer is clearly “yes. But that requirement is a statement about the sufficiency of the evidence, not its nature. The evidence itself can be very ordinary, and, in fact, must be (since improbable explanations are inadmissible). But if a miracle really happens, there is no reason why there should not be evidence to prove it.

This is a good quote but I could prefer “no reason why there should not be evidence to establish it.” Talking of proof leads believers to say we are too demanding.

Matson in The Skeptical Review from 1997 tells us wisely, “To win his or her case, the skeptic need only show that the arguments in its favour are not compelling. The skeptic does not have to disprove the claims. The skeptic’s claim is that supernatural miracles and miraculous prophecy should presently be rejected as extremely unlikely, not that they have been proven false beyond any possible doubt”.

From this you see that religionists throwing down the gauntlet to critics are being exploitive.  They are telling critics of their miracle reports to disprove them if they can.  In saying that they are affirming that you need compelling evidence for miracle claims. To say you demand that your miracle story gets disproved to the hilt is admitting the standard of evidence must be very good and very high.

It is not just skeptics then!

Matson might be altered by some as follows. “To win his or her case, the skeptic need only show that the arguments in its favour are not compelling. The skeptic does not have to disprove the claims. The skeptic’s claim is that supernatural miracles and miraculous prophecy should presently be rejected as TOO unlikely, not that they have been proven false beyond any possible doubt”. Religion itself has to agree with this. It is not as strong as the first version where we have EXTREMELY where the TOO is but it does the job. It avoids being accused of being too demanding.

To complain that human nature lies willingly, lies accidentally while being unaware, makes mistakes, has a corruptible memory and so testimony to miracles and the paranormal is thus debatable leaves you open to this accusation. The accusation is, “But if you think that why believe what anybody says? Why believe them that the birthday cake is ready for collection?” The difference is that a miracle is outside of testability so the scope for error, lies and inaccuracy is bigger. The birthday cake is part of a bigger picture where we trust that most ordinary stuff we are told is true. It fits in that wider framework that validates it. It is not the same thing.

Many Christians today are aware of the problems of looking for evidence for miracles.  They find difficulties.  Yet they suggest that if you take the facts about Jesus, his death and supposed return, you find that the resurrection suggestion has enough potential. The suggestion has explanatory scope and is not leaving information out. The suggestion has great explanatory power. After dealing with those you can then ask if the resurrection is at least plausible.

This is a trick for each thing has more than one explanation and we should be told the others or encouraged to find ones of our own.  But we are only told of their pet one, that Jesus really did rise by the power of God.

When faith in what God has done and how God works miracles is said to be a gift of grace involving personal revelation, miracles are no longer being assessed on shared, public grounds but from within belief itself. That move does not lighten the evidential burden; it makes it heavier. A claim grounded in private revelation cannot function as public evidence, because those without the gift are excluded in advance from rational access to it. The more a miracle depends on faith to recognize it as such, the less it can serve as an independent reason to believe, and the greater the obligation to provide clear, external evidence if it is to be presented as credible to others.

Conclusion

Miracle claims, whether dramatic or mundane, all assert that nature has been overridden, and that alone makes them extraordinary. Because of this, they do not earn acceptance through popularity, emotional appeal, tradition, or imaginative explanatory power, but only through evidence that is clear, unbiased, and sufficiently strong to outweigh more ordinary explanations. Skepticism does not require miracles to be disproved beyond all doubt; it requires only that the case for them be compelling. Where evidence is sparse, late, altered, or dependent on testimony alone, withholding belief is not hostility but intellectual responsibility. If miracles truly occur, there should be no reason in principle why adequate evidence could not establish them. Until such evidence is offered, extraordinary claims remain unproven, regardless of how meaningful or cherished they may be.