Don McIntosh’s Reply to Keith Parsons on Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Internet Infidels just published the following on The Secular Web:

The Presumption of Naturalism and the Probability of Miracles: A Reply to Keith Parsons” by Don McIntosh.

Abstract:

In Chapter Four of Science, Confirmation, and the Theistic Hypothesis, Keith Parsons defends the dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as part of a general critique of miracle claims which aims to defend naturalism as a rational operating philosophy against potential defeaters. In this defense of miracle claims Don McIntosh argues, first, that for any unknown the burden of proof falls equally upon naturalists and supernaturalists; second, to repudiate all miracle claims in one fell swoop with a mere presumption of naturalism renders naturalism unfalsifiable and unscientific; and third, estimating the prior probability of miracles introduces an element of subjectivity that makes any general probabilistic argument against them suspect. These points leave open the possibility of confirming specific miracle claims on the basis of historical evidence and eyewitness testimony.

"Luke, at this point, I am going to express some frustration. My basic point in ..."

Tolerating the Intolerant: The Central Paradox ..."
"Whether or not Kreeft's logic works there is an even BIGGER problem arguing for the ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"Hmm..discus not likely my other post.. maybe to much copy from the OP. snip&snip. "What ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
""What is a “perfection”?What sort of perfections are those that “pertain to being”?What is a ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment