Here is a template for an argument from the minimal facts used for example, to argue for the resurrection (see Gary Habermas here for example).
1) These facts are agreed on as our starting point.
2) There is a variety of explanations of these facts, including the explanation that [insert preferred extraordinary and/or miraculous event E] happened
3) All of these explanations fail to have the explanatory scope or power for all of the facts, apart from the explanation that [E] happened.
4) There is no compelling reason to exclude the explanation that [E] happened.
5) Therefore (probably) [E].
This is a an interesting schema, I think. You find it employed to justify a wide variety of "extraordinary" claims. I am compiling a list of examples, so if you have any, do please let me know (include as a comment, with web link, or whatever). Quotes or clips would be particularly useful.
1) These facts are agreed on as our starting point.
2) There is a variety of explanations of these facts, including the explanation that [insert preferred extraordinary and/or miraculous event E] happened
3) All of these explanations fail to have the explanatory scope or power for all of the facts, apart from the explanation that [E] happened.
4) There is no compelling reason to exclude the explanation that [E] happened.
5) Therefore (probably) [E].
This is a an interesting schema, I think. You find it employed to justify a wide variety of "extraordinary" claims. I am compiling a list of examples, so if you have any, do please let me know (include as a comment, with web link, or whatever). Quotes or clips would be particularly useful.
Comments
http://justinvacula.com/2011/04/27/jesus-resurrection-claims-minimal-facts-approach/
I suppose that one can argue that miracles run afoul of point #4, but I'd tend to argue that the explanatory power of miracle claims is compromised both by the nature of a purported miracle as a rare event and by the poor track record of miracle claims in practice, which puts things back at point #3.
1) The "facts" that believers in the extraordinary cite are often not facts (i.e. the empty tomb of jesus is not an established fact, many scholars disagree with it and there are holes in the arguments for it).
2) The logic of the argument is poor. Could there be a natural explanation that no one has thought of yet? Of course. And we would probably not believe other extraordinary events, like "aliens built the pyramids" even were it the case that no normal explanation was known to us. So we've got a problem there as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8bYx4LwVC0#t=56
One of the facts that I would use as a starting point is that dead people stay dead. It is supported by much stronger evidence than any of Habermas's facts.
My couple of cents:
Question: Is a very low prior probability of [E] a compelling reason in the sense intended in premise 4?
If the answer is “yes”, then that alone blocks arguments for the resurrection and the like. People do not do that – not even religious leaders who claim powers.
If the answer is “no”, then the argument is improper, because it fails to consider the priors.
For example, in the past, nuclear fusion was not known, and there was no known way in which the Sun could emit as much heat and light as it did and does.
Some possibilities were considered, but dismissed. But if someone had said that E: = “Heat and light were coming from the Sun because an unembodied intelligent being is sending it our way”, clearly that would not have been a good argument for the existence of an unembodied intelligent being, even granting that such claim is coherent.
Concluding that probably [E] would be improper even in the absence of scientific knowledge, or history of those (purported) explanations.
Moreover, it seems for any [E] in the context of those arguments, there is some alternative [E1] not difficult to construct, incompatible with [E], and such that [E1] also would (if true) explain the observations, so it’s not clear how condition 3) might be met.
For example, if it’s offered as [E] that the creator of all other concrete beings did X, an alternative [E1] is usually that a powerful creature did X – not a good alternative, but just to illustrate the point.
Granted, someone might claim they can properly rule out all other options that have been considered. But the burden would be on them – and of course, there is the previous problem I mentioned, so I reckon the argument would fail anyway.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/11/04/the-shocking-truth-about-alien-abductions/
1. T can predict not E, it can be incompatible with the evidence or
2. T can fail to predict either E or not E, T is perfectly compatible with but not explanatory of E
The “minimal facts” approach seems to me to only use “2” to weed out rival theories. Two examples (one nicely outside any contentious areas):
Big Bang (BB), Steady State (SS) and the Background Microwave Radiation (BMR)
BB and SS were theories that both successfully explained the same evidence and neither had been refuted. The only way one could prefer one over the other was on metaphysical grounds. This changed when BMR was discovered. BB predicts BMR. SS does not predict BMR, and neither does it predict the absence of BMR. SS is compatible with both the existence of BMR and the non existence of BMR and, so, fails to explain BMR. As a result of the discovery of BMR, SS was rejected as it (now) had inferior explanatory power.
Darwin (D), Intelligent Design (ID) and homology
D forms part of an explanation for why the the bat’s “wing” looks exactly like a deformed hand (and our hand looks like a deformed paw) etc. ID (as its proponents often tell us) is perfectly compatible homology, the designer simply decided to use similar designs in similar places. But ID is not explanatory of homology as the absence of homology is also compatible with ID. So homology provides a minimal facts type argument for D.
Fact: Many people claimed to see the Hindu god Ganesha literally drink their milk offerings.
For a time there was no plausible mundane or naturalistic explanation
However, scientists later concluded that capillary action was a viable explanation.
Fact: People observed new living creatures being produced from "non-living" (i.e. meat) substances.
For a time there was no way to explain this emergence of life other than spontaneous generation.
Was later falsified by Pasteur.
But as I understand it, scientific realism and philosophical materialism are unacceptable positions. And given a skeptical epistemology it's hard to conceive any grounds for ruling much of anything out.
The thing about probabilistic arguments in practice is the ease it is to massage the percentages. And then even if you somehow refuse to accept the possibility that some one can choose to gamble on the lower probability, the opponent can argue that one can always hedge the bet.
I'm pretty sure you can usually demonstrate unsound arguments on this scheme. Except that philosophy seems to accept only logical validity as relevant.
It seems Habermas et al. win?
The general line of argument starts with the apologist quoting Muslim scholars who (doctrinally/dogmatically)hold the view that the Quran is extraordinary. They claim it is beyond the capacity of humans so any explanation other than a miraculous one is dismissed. Then, it is concluded that the Quran is divine.
This argument is weaker than the argument from the minimal facts since the "fact" of a extraordinary is Qur'an as a starting point is not universally expected and is merely Islamic dogma.
Here's the debate, if anyone is interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU2ButuNyI0
If a miracle is appealed to, then given all possiblities regarding the miracle one may assume on a continuum that any miracle may, in and of itself, be impossible. Since E may be impossible, then E is less likely than the most improbable but possible.
Let’s use the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) to see if these facts really are strong evidence for a bodily resurrection, or, do only Christians find these facts convincing simply because these facts are about the founder of their religion. What will happen if we substitute the name of the founder of a different world religion in the place of Jesus’ name in these “facts”? Let’s see how many Christians will find these “facts” convincing for the supernatural claim of a bodily resurrection when the facts involve some other religion’s founder. We could substitute “Mohammad” or “Joseph Smith” for this exercise but let’s use the founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama, otherwise known as, the Buddha.
1. The Buddha died by crucifixion.
2. The Buddha was buried.
3. The Buddha’s death caused his disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The Buddha’s tomb was found empty.
5. The Buddha’s disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Buddha.
6. The Buddha’s disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection of the Buddha was the central message of this new religious belief system.
8. The disciples of the Buddha preached the message of the Buddha’s resurrection in the largest city in India.
9. Buddhism was born and grew.
10. Devout Vedics (the dominant religion in India at that time) changed their primary day of worship.
11. The brother of the Buddha converted to Buddhism when he saw the resurrected Buddha (The brother was a family skeptic).
12. A Jewish scribe and elder converted to Buddhism. (He was an outsider skeptic).
Dear Christian: Would these facts convince you that a man living in India thousands of years ago really did come back from the dead? I doubt it. So why do you believe the same weak claims about Jesus of Nazareth??
Abandon ancient superstitions. Embrace reason and science!