Principle of Analogy

I recently found the name for a simple and common sense idea that is often abused in apologetics circles, the Principle of Analogy.

Bob Price described it this way:

We don’t know that things have always happened the way they do now.  But unless we assume that, we can’t infer anything about the past.  If we don’t assume that physics and chemistry have always worked by the same laws, we’re just going to believe anything any nut says.  …

[Imagine being confronted with the claim,] “I met a guy today who turned into a werewolf when the full moon came out.”  Wait a minute—I know of no one who has ever seriously claimed to have ever seen that, so there is no analogy to current day experience to such a claim.  But … there are fictional stories and movies where that happens.  I bet this really is one of those.  (Source)

How do we categorize a miracle claim from history?  What’s it analogous to?  Does it look like the plausible activities of ordinary people or does it look like legend?  You can’t say for sure, of course, but which bin does this claim best fit into?

Did a winged horse carry Muhammad?  Did Joseph Smith find golden plates with the help of the angel Moroni?  Can faith healers cure illness that modern medicine can’t?  Science has no analogy to these claims, but mythology and legend do.

Incredibly, I’ve heard Christians reject this principle and argue that an atheist must bring positive evidence against their claims.  Say for example that the question is whether Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.  The Christian points to this story in John—that’s the evidence in favor.  And then he says, “So where’s your evidence against?”

Of course, I have no direct evidence against this particular event.  I have no direct evidence that Jesus didn’t raise Lazarus or that Merlin wasn’t a shape-shifting wizard or that Paul Bunyan didn’t exist.  The plausibility test that we all use helps ensure that we don’t simply believe everything we hear or read.  Well, all of us, I guess, except someone who’s eager to make exceptions to preserve a preconception.

Something can violate the Principle of Analogy only with substantial evidence.  The claim “I can see through opaque objects” properly fit into the magical category until Wilhelm Röntgen demonstrated x-rays.

Until we have an analogy to a miracle story, it properly belongs in the magical category as well.

Related posts:

Related links:

  • The Bob Price quote was from a 4/11/2010 interview titled “How to Study the Historical Jesus” from Common Sense Atheism.  The MP3 file is here (go to 13:30).

6 thoughts on “Principle of Analogy

  1. Hi Bob,

    If the REAL Random Function were there, he would reply to “Something can violate the Principle of Analogy only with substantial evidence.” saying that to the skeptic, there is never enough evidence, that the skeptic moves the target to fit his preconceived ideas. And he has a point. The principle “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is subjective. Because the word “extraordinary” is undefined with precision. In Antiquity, for instance, the existence of gods was so obvious to everyone that one felt ashamed to even consider proving their existence. Even the Book of Job and the Book of Qohelet don’t question God’s existence.

    • Some skeptics are closed-minded; some aren’t. Science needs to be conservative to avoid accepting every nutty idea that comes along but also skeptical of the status quo so that the good ideas get a chance to prove themselves. It’s a balancing act.

      I agree–RF would indeed have said (without evidence) that skeptics simply wallow in their preconceptions. Maybe, like a jester, it’s good to have crazy ideas like that tossed out, just to keep everyone on their toes.

  2. Pingback: Jesus and Aliens | Cross Examined

  3. Pingback: The Moon Isn’t Made of Green Cheese … Is It? | Cross Examined

  4. Pingback: The Moon Isn’t Made of Green Cheese … Is It? | Cross Examined

  5. You rreally makee it seem so easy wityh your prresentation but I find this matter to be actually something that I think I would never understand.
    It seemms too complicated and very broad for me. I aam looking forward
    for your next post, I’ll try to get thee hang of it!

Comments are closed.