I want to hear peoples opinions regarding the justification/evidence for factual claims.
When should factual claims be justified?
a) All the time, because they are factual claims, and therefore claims about reality.
b) Only certain times, based on the use of the factual claim. i.e. the factual claim that Jesus rose from the dead is not treated by theists in the same way they would treat the claim "the breaks on my car cause it to stop"; it isn't used for the same purpose, so the Jesus resurrection claim really doesn't need to be accurately describing reality, and it would be wrong to insist it should.
I hold that A is correct. To say something is factual is to say it is objectively true, and therefore applies to everyone, so it must be justified. We should seek to hold true information about reality as apposed to false information, and that alone is enough reason for why all claims about reality should be assessed to ensure they are accurate.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan