As a motivating example, I have in mind the minimal facts argument for the resurrection of Jesus, espoused by Christian apologists such as Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, and William Lane Craig. The argument is based on a few historical data points widely accepted by scholars, both skeptical and believing, regarding the events surrounding Jesus's death and post-death appearances. These facts typically include:
- The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans.
- The empty tomb where Jesus was buried.
- Post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups.
- The sudden and profound transformation of the disciples, moving from fear and desolation after Jesus's death to a bold proclamation of his resurrection.
Christian apologists argue that these minimal facts demand an explanation. Alternative hypotheses challenging the resurrection of Jesus include the hallucination theory, suggesting post-death appearances were hallucinations; the stolen body hypothesis, proposing the theft of Jesus's body to fake resurrection; the swoon theory, which argues Jesus didn't die but merely lost consciousness; and the legend or myth theory, positing that resurrection accounts evolved through myth-making over time. Christian apologists argue that each of these theories faces challenges in explaining the combination of accepted historical facts—such as the crucifixion, the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the disciples' drastic transformation—unlike the hypothesis of Jesus's resurrection, which is argued to provide a more cohesive and comprehensive explanation for these collective data points.
With that said, a big problem with the resurrection hypothesis is that resurrections, for all we know, are extraordinary events, as their occurrence would challenge all our current scientific understanding of human biology and, for all we know, they do not happen very often (if at all). In other words, the apologists are putting forth an extraordinary hypothesis as the best explanation.
More generally, and in principle, can an extraordinary hypothesis ever be the best explanation for a (minimal) set of historical facts?