Is skepticism the rational default position?

[Haven]

If I told you that, around 2 a.m. yesterday, I was abducted by aliens who instructed me to proclaim a message about the coming December 21, 2012 apocalypse, you almost certainly wouldn't believe me.

Although there is no evidence against my apparently fantastic claims, most individuals would still be skeptical of them unless I presented empirical evidence of my alien abduction. Why? Because skepticism -- non-belief -- of unevidenced, apparently implausible claims is the rational default position. Lacking belief in implausible-sounding claims until presented with evidence for them is how the vast majority of people operate in their day-to-day lives.

The debate question is this: Why is it any different for religious claims? After all, the claim that, for example, a man bodily rose from the dead after being crucified is at least as implausible as alien abduction, yet many believe it without question. Do you think this is reasonable? If so, why? Why apply a different epistemic standard to religious or theistic claims than to other extraordinary claims?

[Bust Nak]

Why is it any different for religious claims?... Why apply a different epistemic standard to religious or theistic claims than to other extraordinary claims?

Basically, your alien abduction claim doesn't make people feel warm and fuzzy inside. Nor does it offer a way out to the pending apocalypse.

[Flail]

If I told you that, around 2 a.m. yesterday, I was abducted by aliens who instructed me to proclaim a message about the coming December 21, 2012 apocalypse, you almost certainly wouldn't believe me.

Although there is no evidence against my apparently fantastic claims, most individuals would still be skeptical of them unless I presented empirical evidence of my alien abduction. Why? Because skepticism -- non-belief -- of unevidenced, apparently implausible claims is the rational default position. Lacking belief in implausible-sounding claims until presented with evidence for them is how the vast majority of people operate in their day-to-day lives.

The debate question is this: Why is it any different for religious claims? After all, the claim that, for example, a man bodily rose from the dead after being crucified is at least as implausible as alien abduction, yet many believe it without question. Do you think this is reasonable? If so, why? Why apply a different epistemic standard to religious or theistic claims than to other extraordinary claims?

I think skepticism is (or should be) the default position for all claims, particularly those which defy nature, have supernatural elements and are contrary to common experience. When examined, the circumstantial evidence against such claims is overwhelming and can only be overcome by indoctrination, dogma and emotion, neither of which is a reliable tool for mining truth. In my experiences, when something is portrayed with histrionics, needing setting and sentiment for support, it's either fictional or false.

[Moses Yoder]

There are a number of differences between your alien abduction claim and the claim that a man rose from the dead.

In your abduction claim, you are the only witness. If four or five people wrote a book about your claims and your life (which would have to be an extraordinary life) and you were then martyred for your claim that aliens abducted you and these books were then adopted as a religion and survived 2000 years of history, people would believe your claim.

People, evidently yourself included, have been attempting to destroy the Jews and then the Christian religion for almost 4000 years. And our religious books have lasted 4000 years. If you want to disprove the Christian religion, simply destroy the Bible and outlaw printing any more. If you succeeded in doing that, my faith would be deeply shaken, because a large part of my evidence would be gone.

Go ahead and write the book about your alien abduction, how you are the son of Thor, and then start magically healing people with cancer or blindness and just see if you don't get a large following pretty quick.

[Bust Nak]

There are a number of differences between your alien abduction claim and the claim that a man rose from the dead.

In short, the difference is lots of people believed the later where as no one believe the former?

[pax]

If I told you that, around 2 a.m. yesterday, I was abducted by aliens who instructed me to proclaim a message about the coming December 21, 2012 apocalypse, you almost certainly wouldn't believe me.

Although there is no evidence against my apparently fantastic claims, most individuals would still be skeptical of them unless I presented empirical evidence of my alien abduction. Why? Because skepticism -- non-belief -- of unevidenced, apparently implausible claims is the rational default position. Lacking belief in implausible-sounding claims until presented with evidence for them is how the vast majority of people operate in their day-to-day lives.

The debate question is this: Why is it any different for religious claims? After all, the claim that, for example, a man bodily rose from the dead after being crucified is at least as implausible as alien abduction, yet many believe it without question. Do you think this is reasonable? If so, why? Why apply a different epistemic standard to religious or theistic claims than to other extraordinary claims?

If you applied that same skepticism to the more fantastic claims of science you might have a good point. When science makes its grandiose claims on the origins of the universe and the origins of life -- claims which lack true evidence -- there is no skepticism from the followers of science, just the normal lemmings to the sea mentality.

The fact is that you apply the epistemic standard to a guy wearing a white lab coat as I do to a guy wearing a chausible. No difference.

[Moses Yoder]

There are a number of differences between your alien abduction claim and the claim that a man rose from the dead.

In short, the difference is lots of people believed the later where as no one believe the former?

When the Christians claimed Jesus was risen from the dead, shortly after His crucifixion and burial, why didn't the Romans simply dig up His body and parade it through the streets and say "Here is your dead God?"

I'm not talking about years later when the New Testament was written. I'm talking about immediately when they claimed He had risen from the dead. According to the Bible there were over 500 witnesses. How many people witnessed this alien abduction we are talking about?

[ThatGirlAgain]

If I told you that, around 2 a.m. yesterday, I was abducted by aliens who instructed me to proclaim a message about the coming December 21, 2012 apocalypse, you almost certainly wouldn't believe me.

Although there is no evidence against my apparently fantastic claims, most individuals would still be skeptical of them unless I presented empirical evidence of my alien abduction. Why? Because skepticism -- non-belief -- of unevidenced, apparently implausible claims is the rational default position. Lacking belief in implausible-sounding claims until presented with evidence for them is how the vast majority of people operate in their day-to-day lives.

The debate question is this: Why is it any different for religious claims? After all, the claim that, for example, a man bodily rose from the dead after being crucified is at least as implausible as alien abduction, yet many believe it without question. Do you think this is reasonable? If so, why? Why apply a different epistemic standard to religious or theistic claims than to other extraordinary claims?

If you applied that same skepticism to the more fantastic claims of science you might have a good point. When science makes its grandiose claims on the origins of the universe and the origins of life -- claims which lack true evidence -- there is no skepticism from the followers of science, just the normal lemmings to the sea mentality.

The fact is that you apply the epistemic standard to a guy wearing a white lab coat as I do to a guy wearing a chausible. No difference.

There are a variety of ideas about the origin of life but there is no widely accepted theory at this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

The Big Bang theory describes the early development of the universe and is well accepted due to a preponderance of evidence. But it makes no claims about the actual origin of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

As with abiogenesis, there are a variety of ideas concerning the origin of the universe but no widely accepted theory.
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~danr/ph367u/report.pdf

Compare this to your statement.

If you applied that same skepticism to the more fantastic claims of science you might have a good point. When science makes its grandiose claims on the origins of the universe and the origins of life -- claims which lack true evidence -- there is no skepticism from the followers of science, just the normal lemmings to the sea mentality.

It would appear that scientists make no grandiose claims about the origin of the universe or of life, just a variety of ideas that are not yet sufficiently supported by evidence to be accepted. The lemming label is clearly not applicable to scientists. But it might easily be applied to those who put forth the idea that God created the universe and life in ways inherently not explainable by science, yet provide no evidence to support that claim.

[pax]

If I told you that, around 2 a.m. yesterday, I was abducted by aliens who instructed me to proclaim a message about the coming December 21, 2012 apocalypse, you almost certainly wouldn't believe me.

Although there is no evidence against my apparently fantastic claims, most individuals would still be skeptical of them unless I presented empirical evidence of my alien abduction. Why? Because skepticism -- non-belief -- of unevidenced, apparently implausible claims is the rational default position. Lacking belief in implausible-sounding claims until presented with evidence for them is how the vast majority of people operate in their day-to-day lives.

The debate question is this: Why is it any different for religious claims? After all, the claim that, for example, a man bodily rose from the dead after being crucified is at least as implausible as alien abduction, yet many believe it without question. Do you think this is reasonable? If so, why? Why apply a different epistemic standard to religious or theistic claims than to other extraordinary claims?

If you applied that same skepticism to the more fantastic claims of science you might have a good point. When science makes its grandiose claims on the origins of the universe and the origins of life -- claims which lack true evidence -- there is no skepticism from the followers of science, just the normal lemmings to the sea mentality.

The fact is that you apply the epistemic standard to a guy wearing a white lab coat as I do to a guy wearing a chausible. No difference.

There are a variety of ideas about the origin of life but there is no widely accepted theory at this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

The Big Bang theory describes the early development of the universe and is well accepted due to a preponderance of evidence. But it makes no claims about the actual origin of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

As with abiogenesis, there are a variety of ideas concerning the origin of the universe but no widely accepted theory.
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~danr/ph367u/report.pdf

Compare this to your statement.

If you applied that same skepticism to the more fantastic claims of science you might have a good point. When science makes its grandiose claims on the origins of the universe and the origins of life -- claims which lack true evidence -- there is no skepticism from the followers of science, just the normal lemmings to the sea mentality.

It would appear that scientists make no grandiose claims about the origin of the universe or of life, just a variety of ideas that are not yet sufficiently supported by evidence to be accepted. The lemming label is clearly not applicable to scientists. But it might easily be applied to those who put forth the idea that God created the universe and life in ways inherently not explainable by science, yet provide no evidence to support that claim.

The grandiose claims made by science concerning the origins of the universe and life are this: that these are purely natural events. That is the claim that lacks all proof and for which I see absolutely no skepticism forth-coming from my atheist friends here. That these events are natural is, according to them, an unassailable dogma written in stone from which to dissent means loss of all privileges and a pronouncement of anathema upon the dissenter.

I would think that for someone who claimed skepticism as their default position, such a claim would not be so easily accepted as factual dogma.

But the fact of the matter is that science today is extremely dogmatic in its naturalism, and, as such, needs a serious reality enema.

[Bust Nak]

When the Christians claimed Jesus was risen from the dead, shortly after His crucifixion and burial, why didn't the Romans simply dig up His body and parade it through the streets and say "Here is your dead God?"

Donno, maybe because the Roman didn't feel the need to disprove what to them is clearly a crazy claim. A bit like what you are doing now, to the claim in the OP.

the Bible there were over 500 witnesses. How many people witnessed this alien abduction we are talking about?

I don't know, ask Haven. Would it be more believable if he had said there were 500 witnesses?