Hello everyone. I am hoping to get some feedback from skeptics concerning alleged supernatural events. Although I currently believe that some supernatural events are probably authentic, I am open to changing my mind. I am neither a “troll” nor a “hater,” and I have the highest respect for atheists who reach their conclusions through the objective search for truth. Thanks in advance to anyone who responds.
My Challenge to “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof”
When I ask skeptics why they don’t believe in the supernatural, they often say, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” I argue that skeptics also make an extraordinary claim without proof.
Throughout history, millions of people from all walks of life in every part of the world have claimed to have supernatural experiences involving ghosts, hauntings, angels, demons, miracles, near-death experiences, profound mystical or religious experiences, or whatever. Even if 95 percent of them can be attributed to hoaxes, superstition, mental illness, or ignorance, there remain thousands of investigated, documented cases where the witness meets most or all of the following criteria:
-Professes certainty about witnessing or experiencing something that has no obvious natural or scientific explanation. Example: If someone says a coffee mug flew eight feet across the room and hit them in the face, it probaly wasn't caused by a tremor or rodents or something like that.
-Offers testimony that is corroborated by other witnesses or fits a pattern of other reported events. If the previous occupants of the house also reported strange experiences, it lowers the probability that the current occupant is hoaxing.
-Has no history of criminality or hoaxing and comes across as sane and honest—in other words, passes the “smell test.”
-Is educated and employed in a respectable profession. This rules out dullards with nothing to lose.
-Demonstrates how the experience changed their life in some way. If the person sells their house because they're terrified and takes a huge hit financially, it adds to their credibility.
-Claims to have had no strong religious beliefs or interest in the supernatural before the experience. This lowers the probability that their perception of the event was influenced by wishful thinking or an overly active imagination.
-Seeks no payment for their story. This means that money is probably not a motive.
-Seems reluctant to go on the record, regrets doing so after suffering public ridicule, or asks to remain anonymous. This lowers the probability that the person was just seeking attention.
Published reports by researchers and journalists have identified thousands of *seemingly* credible people with no *obvious* motive for making up a story. There only two possible explanations:
1) The supernatural is real.
2) All these people are either lying or mistaken.
Both explanations are unproven, extraordinary claims. Let me be clear: It’s NOT extraordinary that someone could lie or be mistaken about a claimed supernatural event; however, it IS extraordinary that thousands of people meeting the above qualifications could be lying or mistaken—because all it takes is one authentic supernatural experience for the supernatural to be real. Furthermore, unless skeptics can investigate and debunk every single case, it’s also an unproven extraordinary claim.
When it comes to the supernatural, it’s not a question of accepting or rejecting an extraordinary claim. It’s a question of choosing which extraordinary claim to believe. By rejecting the extraordinary claim of the supernatural, skeptics implicitly accept the extraordinary claim that all seemingly credible witnesses are lying or mistaken. Either way, the truth is extraordinary. Therefore, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” is not a convincing rationale for rejecting belief in the supernatural. You’re simply substituting one extraordinary claim for another.
Am I wrong? If so, why?
