The Warfare Is Mental

Huge, Flying Rocks In Space vs. Carl Sagan’s Dragon In The Garage

December 8, 2008

So, seasoned readers and veterans in philosophical, scientific, or religious debate are surely familiar with the astronomer Carl Sagan's famous and hypothetical dragon in the garage argument:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me", you say, and I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle – but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon", you ask.

"Oh, she's right here", I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon".

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea", I say, "but this dragon floats in the air". Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless", I say. You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, except she's an incorporeal (bodyless) dragon and the paint won't stick!"

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now what is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? You're inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

With all due respect to the late Mr. Sagan, although it contains an eminent truth, this argument is also eminently bunk. Now I agree that the inability to invalidate a hypothesis does not prove a competing hypothesis true. However, the following line is correct only in the extremely limited scope
of validating a scientific hypothesis (and even then can break down):

Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless..

I hear too many skeptics and atheists cite this passage
foolishly thinking it somehow counters religious claims or the
existence of God. There are several reasons this is incorrect, but first let me counter with my own little story, custom-tailored to address Mr. Sagan's area of expertise: Astronomy.

Is A Screwdriver Better Than A Ratchet? or, My Response To Evidence-Based Faith vs. Evidence-Free Faith

December 7, 2008

So I stumbled across this article in the blogosphere yesterday, which argued for the superiority of reason in formulating our worldviews. More specifically, the author was responding to claims that the validity of logic and reason have to be taken on faith. Apologists often criticize atheism as a faith-based worldview, which may be true in a trivial sense. However, such does not necessarily level the playing field and what the author of EBFVEFF correctly notes is that even in the restricted sense that atheism is a faith-based worldview, it's based on a different type of faith; faith that proceeds from empirical, observable evidence.

Even so, does this make evidence-based faith inherently superior to evidence-free faith?

Dead Things In Rocks!

December 5, 2008

Usually occurring in layers of sedimentary rock distributed around the world, a fossil is any geological imprint of a once-living life form and the study of fossils is known as paleontology.

Fossils can be found by deliberate searching but they are often discovered as a result of industrial mining, development, natural disasters or weathering. A specimen need not die to leave a fossil, but the best fossils occur when a specimen is buried alive or rapidly after death as in land-slides, tar-pits, volcanic catastrophe and river-bank sediments. This process can occur in land, water or even amber, a hardened form of tree sap, often resulting in unaltered preservation. Water-dwelling creatures comprise the most common fossils, and natural mineral growths are occasionally mistaken as fossilized organisms.

On The Argument From Scientific Foreknowledge

December 3, 2008

Quite a few apologists have written books and given speeches making various claims regarding scientific foreknowledge in the Bible. The scope and disparity of the claims varies from ultra-outlandish to fairly credible, but over-eager writers tend to exaggerate these claims, not only to their own embarrassment but also to that of anyone else who thinks there is legitimate scientific foreknowledge in the Bible.

I believe reasonable middle ground exists between the polarized positions that the Bible contains numerous examples of scientific foreknowledge, and that the Bible contains zero examples of scientific foreknowledge. I realize that by simply affirming my position, I risk being perceived with equal scorn as the incipient creationist whose sneaky techniques disrespect the basic rules of logic and reason. However, I think tactics like those prevalent in most creationist outfits actually show a lack of confidence in the Bible. If the Bible really is the word of God, should one have to contrive?

Out-Of-Scope Claims & Falsifiability: My Response To A Ghost In The Machine, III

November 27, 2008

In Part I & Part II I alleged that significant biblical oversights compromise the integrity of the arguments contained in A Ghost In The Machine (AGITM), unfortunately rendering the piece little more than an extremely well-written and well-researched strawman / either-or fallacy.

Now I’d like to address a few more of the author’s statements, aiming to show that even when facts themselves are completely authoritative, interpretations are surely not always so. Although I don’t expect to convince any skeptics of the ‘soul’ or ‘spirit,’ if any skeptic will concede that my tripartite interpretation is at least internally consistent, or at least that the following paragraph contains genuine difficulties, I would consider such a success.

The author begins the second section of AGITM with:

“The evidence shows that (aspects of consciousness) are completely determined by the physical configuration of the brain, and that a change to this configuration can alter or eliminate any of them. In short, I will show that, as the materialist position predicts, every part of the mind is entirely dependent on and controlled by the brain.” (paren. and ital. mine)

PE/QS vs. O^3 God: On The Problem Of Evil

November 23, 2008

Also referred to as the Question of Suffering, the Problem of Evil (PE/QS) is an axiom in philosophical and religious circles which claims the fact of evil existing in our world is incompatible with God as described by most Christians: a God that is at least all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing, also described as omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient (o^3). Also referred to as the Epicurean Dilemma, the argument itself has been around a few millenia, advanced 2400 years ago by Epicurus (341 – 270 bce). Epicurus offers three options:

“Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; Or he can, but does not want to; Or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how come evil is in the world?”

Factoring Intelligence Into Assessments Of Morality

November 18, 2008

I think there's a reason philosophy has remained unable to resolve certain problems, and by no means do I claim to have the definitive answers regarding the complicated question of morality. With that being said, I would like to comment on the role our access to knowledge plays in the formation of accurate moral judgments. In order to have this discussion, we need to assume at least the premise that a distinction exists between "good" and "evil" acts, and we'll touch upon our old pal Euthypro, and the question of whether morality is subjective or objective. The essential question is this: Is evil act X always evil? If so, then morality seems objective, but does that make it absolutely inflexible? If evil act X is not always evil, then morality seems subjective or relative.

Tax Churches For Christ’s Sake

November 11, 2008

The place to begin is by acknowledging the fact that religious exemption is not a Constitutional right, and that such exemptions are entirely the product of the legislative branch. As such, they can be amended or rejected outright, and amendment to our 501(c)3 tax-exemption laws as they apply to religious organizations is the place to start if we want to rid politics of religion.

Jesus Never Pooped: or, A Better Way To Conduct Exegesis

November 10, 2008

Excuse me for making a generalization here, but I've noticed that atheists tend to approach the Bible much like creationists tend to approach literature on evolution. Certain atheists (for example Richard Dawkins) are publicly fond of bashing creationists for dodgy scholarship, and rightfully so. For example, many of us know how some creationists are overly fond of emphasizing select passages from Darwin or Dobzhansky to support their arguments, while selectively de-emphasizing other passages that might weaken their argument. What's less recognized is the extent to which atheists and skeptics do the same thing (for example Richard Dawkins) when quoting the Bible or the Founding Fathers to support their cases for atheism.

Religious Shortcomings Can Warrant Skepticism

November 7, 2008

Particularly in the context of the atheism/theism debate, there are valid reasons skepticism is usually justifiable. Here are just two quick ones:

1. Many religions permit only a top-down transfer of information, with extra-churchicular programs devoted to 'deeper understanding of the faith' for those with further questions. Contrast this to the Bereans described in the book of Acts, who are described as "more noble" for their habit of "checking the scriptures" to see if what was being preached to them was supported or not. This is a sort of "skepticism" prevalent amongst believers; not as much a skepticism over whether God exists or not as a skepticism over the statements from religious authorities. Essentially, the habit of questioning and fact-checking the pronouncements of religious authorities is applauded in scripture. (Acts 17:11)

2. Many individual adherents of the various faiths either do not, can not, or will not defend most or even any of their beliefs. Contrast this to Peter who admonishes believers to "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." (1 Peter 3:15) Or the more obscure New Testament writer Jude: "Be merciful to those who doubt." (Jude 1:22) Not everyone can say their pastor or church conforms to these requirements, but these are requirements the Bible plainly states.

Since the shortcomings of so many religious institutions and believers fall into these and many other categories, is it any wonder people fond of reason often look upon the whole enterprise with an eye of suspicion?

← Newer Posts | Older Posts →