Our cleverness leads us to ceaselessly pen intricately woven logic equations which show off our talents, but rarely accomplish the goals our clever articles seem to be aiming at.

As example, I've been typing posts challenging both atheism and theism almost daily for over 20 years, and although I consider myself handy with words and ideas, I am routinely ignored, and when read, rarely persuade anybody of anything. A self imagined master of logic, being very illogical. All that redeems the folly is that I see the truth and admit it. I like typing, way too much.

This admission hopefully shines a light on what's really happening, all of our logic dancing is really about emotion, for that is the fundamental human condition. Human beings are like an M&M candy, with a thin hard shell of reason on the outside obscuring a much larger soft and squishy center of emotion.

Thus, if the author of the article, or this author, is serious about persuasion we have to find a way to address such issues where the action really is, and that is not at the level of logic calculations.

It seems we of Catholic heritage are too often seduced by our intelligence in to forgetting that Christianity is not really about ideas and claims etc, but about the experience of love.

Who are the best Catholics? Those too busy serving others to have time for writing sermons. My wife is like that. Obviously I am not.

Well, the same would go for your arguments. We can't prove a negative, but a postive claim about a god existing should be able to be proven, if she/he/it really exists. You have merely asserted that a god exists, even though there is no evidence for this claim.

Carl Sagan was a strong advocate of the scientific method so it's truly baffling for him to have proposed this rule.

ECREE is an emotional statement, not a scientific one. Extraordinary claims require evidence. Period.

I understand that to stay on point this discussion is primarily about this saying as it applies to the supernatural (specifically g(G)od) but from what I've observed the "extraordinary claims" rule seems to come up most often when discussing the subject of extraterrestrials so my point of view comes from that perspective, but I believe is still relevant to this discussion.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, Richard Feinman and even SETI's Seth Shostak get absolutely defensive and aggressive about it when talking about "aliens". But there's a cognitive dissonance when it comes to them and the majority of the scientific Community on this subject.

They'll agree emphatically that it's likely there's extraterrestrial life all over the universe and highly probable there's intelligent extraterrestrial life. But if you ask them whether earth has ever been visited they revert back to 50's era knee-jerk scoffing and ridicule - a very unscientific and unprofessional response. It's also contradictory to those other beliefs they hold, hence the cognitive dissonance.

If you accept the premise that it's highly probable there's extraterrestrial intelligences in the Galaxy then you have to look at time frames. Are they a thousand years ahead of us, ten thousand years, a million? Perhaps they're a thousand or ten thousand years behind us. But if they are that far ahead of us then why is it a ridiculous idea that they've been here or are currently here. The question of evidence comes up but if you believe a race that's even ten thousand years ahead of us technologically then the idea they'd "accidentally" leave something behind is ever so slightly ludicrous.

My point in saying all that is to highlight the biggest problem with this maxim: that it's an emotional statement rather than a scientific one, as I said before.

I think John Jackson of critical-thinking.org.uk sums it up best and I'll end with his conclusion:

"The claim “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” lacks definition which makes its meaning ambiguous. Therefore, it is not legitimate as a scientific claim or rule. Even if someone defines its terms before using it, it's still problematic as the underlying assumption - that there is a universal, directly proportional relationship between the nature of a claim and the nature of the evidence required to support/establish it - is not true.

Although there are instances where its usage as a precautionary approach to accepting unlikely claims may seem appropriate, caution should always be exercised when ECREE is used or encountered as it is not a universal principle and so can be misapplied or even abused: to dismiss evidence, avoid debate, avoid assessing pertinent claims, etc."

"New research indicates that the more iron in a given population, the more vulnerable that population is to the plague."

Merit?
Based on merit, I alone, have gathered enough 'evidence' to prove my theory, based on merit . . alone.
Treatment for and cause of .. all disease, interpreted, claimed, found in the Bible.
The breaking of a covenant, the covenant of blood, the covenant between god, man and all creatures of all flesh. The same covenant Adam and Eve broke, the covenant of blood, a murder and the eating of a corpse, an abomination, an animal .. original sin.
Sooo, the sword of god, iron from meat, righteous just punishment, is invoked, releasing .. all disease in man.

Believe it or not.
Iron deprivation, treatment recommended for more diseases than any treatment in history.
Coincidence?

"Therapy by taking away: the case of iron"

"Iron and Iron Chelators: A Review on Potential Effects on Skin Aging."

Furthermore, what is needed to reasonably believe any claim seems to be just good evidence; or evidence that makes a claim more reasonable to believe than its opposite.

I'll start here. I probably know the answer, given that you're a Catholic, but here's main question to you: Do you believe the claim that God supernaturally raised Jesus from the dead, some 2000 years ago, is more reasonable, given the evidence that we have, than God did not raise Jesus from the dead?

Hi Peter,

The phrase: slavery-endorsing "god" caught my eye. Allow me to share my thoughts.

Slavery was invented by man. In my opinion, the God of the Bible does not endorse slavery. God chose to work with our fallen nature and steadily remove it.

Consider Jeremiah 34:15-16

“As for you, today you repented and did what is right in my eyes by proclaiming freedom for your neighbor and making a covenant before me in the house which bears my name. But then you again profaned my name by taking back your male and female slaves whom you had just set free for life; you forced them to become your slaves again.”

Here we get a glimpse of the heart of God. According to God, setting slaves free was “right in my eyes”.

Also consider the following:

St. Paul further appeals to his friend Philemon to do the right thing and treat the runaway slave Onesimus “no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother.” (Philemon 16)

Earlier in the letter, St. Paul appealed to Philemon, “Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.” (Philemon 8-9)

Finally, St. Paul wraps up his letter with the following: “With trust in your compliance I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say.” (Philemon 21)

The historical evidence suggests Philemon did what was right and set Onesimus free and he became a bishop of the early church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onesimus

All the best!

“He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free” (Luke 4:18)