Ep. 104: Hand warmers and dragons

[Emery]

Rock stars Mitch McKain and Dr. Mundo join our illustrious constellation of guests this week to discuss this pesky "nature of proof" business. I think I finally get Mitch's position, but wonder why a benevolent God would be so coy? Thanks guys for coming on the show, you were awesome.

[mitchellmckain]

Using the question of hand warmers as an analogy for the question of God's existence is a poor one and if anything makes my own case that we could never believe in a God that is like a hand warmer, because hand warmers are tools with a physical function and God is neither physical nor a tool. Such a tool with a physical function should by definition be demonstrable. So the question is whether everything that exists should also be treated as a tool with a physical function? This very question should highlight the sense of horror that most people feel in reaction to this kind of argument at the implicit dismissal of so much that is centrally important to human life and is exactly why I have said that if I didn't have other reasons to believe in God then for the reason of defiance alone against such dismissive attitudes I would be strongly motivated to believe in God. Our existence is not reducible to tools with a physical function, let alone to what is demonstrable on demand.


So my points are three.
1. As a good reason for not believing, I certainly give Carl Sagan's argument a pass. Likewise, I can understand and accept that many Christians feel that the order and beauty of the universe or the existence of morality suggest to them the existence of God. But in both cases I deny that these subjective reasons have any objective validity for a conclusion on this issue.
2. However, to say that there is no difference between what is not demonstrable and nothing at all, must rely on the premise that everything that actually exists should in principle be demonstrable. Since I cannot accept that premise and in fact think that it is an unreasonable one to hold, I must reject the conclusion that is based on that premise.
3. I likewise must disagree with comparisons of God to inventions of rhetoric like spagetti monsters and Sagan's invisible dragon because these are NOT something that people actually believe in, or to what are primarily storybook characters like Santa Claus. The belief in God just doesn't play the same role in the mind of believers as any of these other things and that makes it something that is completely different. Thus these comparisons are culturally and personally arrogant, disrespectful and intolerant whether we are talking about the beliefs of Christians or those of Hindus or Native Americans. SO, however, what you may indeed justly compare a belief in God to, are beliefs in ghosts, alien abductions, past lives and the gods or spirits of other religions because these are things that people do sincerely believe in which they cannot objectively demonstrate.

[Keep The Reason]

Dr. Mundo, as to your first foray on the podcast, I must say, well done!

Mitchell, who has done it before, was okay too though as might be expected, I disagree with his positions.

Comments:

MM truncates Sagan's statement on the conclusion of the Invisible Dragon in the Garage. Here it is verbatim:

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

Now, what's 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? Your 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.

Mitchell then goes on to say that he agrees with Sagan's conclusion. But what matters in the above section is broken out in Red (what Mitch focused on) and what's Blue, which is what Sagan's analogy is focused on.

Sagans says what's the difference between such a dragon and no dragon at all? Well, there is none. And indeed, claims that CANNOT be tested and immune to disproof, are verdically worthless.

So what does "verdically" mean?

1. Truthful; veracious: veridical testimony.
2. Coinciding with future events or apparently unknowable present realities: a veridical hallucination.

In terms of it's objective worth (the assertion itself), saying it's worthless is appropriate. Subjectively speaking it may be a different story. But the theist is hopelessly trapped in nver being able to demonstrate their bleief has any worthwhile gravitas, and just because the atheist cannot prove otherwise, does not validate the assertion made by the claimant.

Then Mitch talks about "talking to the dragon every day". My question to him is this: It's one thing to talk to the dragon. But does the dragon talk back? If no, then of what worth is your claim that you converse with your dragon "every day"? If yes -- then we are back to you having to demonstrate how this is not a hallucination.

It was interesting to hear Mitch totally choke back his words when he said, "There's a number of reasons to believe in god or to stop beliving in... the -- ughhhh... wrong god". Interesting that he did some sort of detour away from saying "Or to drop belief in gods at all." That he cannot bring himself to say it seems (and yes, it seems -- I'm basing this on what I heard and the context in which he was saying it, without insisting I "know what he was thinking") interesting to me because if its true, it exposes a deeper perspective mitch has towards non-believers -- and it sure sounds biased and intolerant to me.

Mitch then goes on to try to correct it by saying that it's okay to NOT believe in god when YOU define god incorrectly, and god doesn't want you to believe in such a god (a god you can blame things on). It's very much a red herring argument; one cannot hewlp but asking oneself hoiw it is that mitchell believes in the RIGHT kind of god, which is really what his entire position boils down to.

And BAM! Mundo nails him on it! DM asks him outright-- how is it you know your interpretation is the right one? And Mitch's response is, "It's the one I can believe in." But now we open up a huge can of worms because anyone can then make the exact same claim -- in fact, one can make the claim that the right god to believe in wants to support a holocaust (which the god of the OT certainly had little problem with).

What is odd is the suggestion MM makes that "no one believes in the spaghetti monster" While this is true, it can also be said of gods, Jesus, and Xenu. So what "no one believes in the SM"? Watch what happens to it in a couple of decades. I'll bet some people will believe in it.

Finally, the issue here is that theists-- and often atheists -- approach these discussions as if this or that argument is the ONE SOLID argument against belief. It's not. There are lots of reaosns to discard belief in Christianity, some of them philosophical, some of them sociological (mythmaking) some of which are secular (the sciences) and ONE of which is its lack of demonstrability.

[Keep The Reason]

Dr. Mundo, as to your first foray on the podcast, I must say, well done!

Mitchell, who has done it before, was okay too though as might be expected, I disagree with his positions.

Comments:

MM truncates Sagan's statement on the conclusion of the Invisible Dragon in the Garage. Here it is verbatim:

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

Now, what's 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? Your 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.

Mitchell then goes on to say that he agrees with Sagan's conclusion. But what matters in the above section is broken out in Red (what Mitch focused on) and what's Blue, which is what Sagan's analogy is focused on.

Sagans says what's the difference between such a dragon and no dragon at all? Well, there is none. And indeed, claims that CANNOT be tested and immune to disproof, are verdically worthless.

So what does "verdically" mean?

1. Truthful; veracious: veridical testimony.
2. Coinciding with future events or apparently unknowable present realities: a veridical hallucination.

In terms of it's objective worth (the assertion itself), saying it's worthless is appropriate. Subjectively speaking it may be a different story. But the theist is hopelessly trapped in nver being able to demonstrate their bleief has any worthwhile gravitas, and just because the atheist cannot prove otherwise, does not validate the assertion made by the claimant.

Then Mitch talks about "talking to the dragon every day". My question to him is this: It's one thing to talk to the dragon. But does the dragon talk back? If no, then of what worth is your claim that you converse with your dragon "every day"? If yes -- then we are back to you having to demonstrate how this is not a hallucination.

It was interesting to hear Mitch totally choke back his words when he said, "There's a number of reasons to believe in god or to stop beliving in... the -- ughhhh... wrong god". Interesting that he did some sort of detour away from saying "Or to drop belief in gods at all." That he cannot bring himself to say it seems (and yes, it seems -- I'm basing this on what I heard and the context in which he was saying it, without insisting I "know what he was thinking") interesting to me because if its true, it exposes a deeper perspective mitch has towards non-believers -- and it sure sounds biased and intolerant to me.

Mitch then goes on to try to correct it by saying that it's okay to NOT believe in god when YOU define god incorrectly, and god doesn't want you to believe in such a god (a god you can blame things on). It's very much a red herring argument; one cannot hewlp but asking oneself hoiw it is that mitchell believes in the RIGHT kind of god, which is really what his entire position boils down to.

And BAM! Mundo nails him on it! DM asks him outright-- how is it you know your interpretation is the right one? And Mitch's response is, "It's the one I can believe in." But now we open up a huge can of worms because anyone can then make the exact same claim -- in fact, one can make the claim that the right god to believe in wants to support a holocaust (which the god of the OT certainly had little problem with).

What is odd is the suggestion MM makes that "no one believes in the spaghetti monster" While this is true, it can also be said of gods, Jesus, and Xenu. So what "no one believes in the SM"? Watch what happens to it in a couple of decades. I'll bet some people will believe in it.

Finally, the issue here is that theists-- and often atheists -- approach these discussions as if this or that argument is the ONE SOLID argument against belief. It's not. There are lots of reaosns to discard belief in Christianity, some of them philosophical, some of them sociological (mythmaking) some of which are secular (the sciences) and ONE of which is its lack of demonstrability.

[mitchellmckain]

Dr. Mundo's question about how do I know that my version of Christianity is the correct is no different that the fundie Christians asking the atheists how they know that they are not going to hell because they don't believe in the "God" that the fundies are saying that they must believe in or else, and to that I can give all the same answers that the atheists do. I can add an additional answer that it really doesn't make any difference because regardless of whether there is an immoral "God" obsessed with power and control and his "right" to our obedience or not, I am NOT going to worship such a God and I will GLADLY share the fate of the atheists in that case because I share the same moral objections to that kind of despicable religion and the monster that they worship.

Thus there are indeed lot of reasons to stop believing in a "God" that is wrong for you because rather than helping you live your life to the fullest it is opposed to all the elements of life such as creativity and passion that is waiting within you to be expressed if it wasn't for this oppressive system of beliefs that you may have been raised to believe. As I explained we know for a fact that there are people who are mentaly ill where their belief in God plays a central role in their psychopathology, and thus I think there is no doubt whatsoever that a belief in God is not any kind of universal anodyne but that for some people the reasons to stop believing are far better than any reasons to believe. I certainly know what kind of God is worth believing for me and what kind of God is not worth it to me to believe in and to which I must share all the same reactions as any of the atheists.

[yjoeyh]

Finally, the issue here is that theists-- and often atheists -- approach these discussions as if this or that argument is the ONE SOLID argument against belief. It's not. There are lots of reaosns to discard belief in Christianity, some of them philosophical, some of them sociological (mythmaking) some of which are secular (the sciences) and ONE of which is its lack of demonstrability.

Very well said. I have to agree with you 100% for a change. It's important to remember that people come to their conclusions based on a variety of different reasons. We often loose sight of that. Thanks for the reminder.

[mitchellmckain]

Very well said. I have to agree with you 100% for a change. It's important to remember that people come to their conclusions based on a variety of different reasons. We often loose sight of that. Thanks for the reminder.

A point which I made myself in the podcast.

[mitchellmckain]

I think I finally get Mitch's position, but wonder why a benevolent God would be so coy?

So my answer to Emery's question, which I thought I explained in the podcast, is that God is "so coy" because He is governed by what is in our best interest. Since it is so easily demonstrated that a belief in God is NOT in everyones best interest, not to mention the outrageous behavior that we already see in religious radicals, we have more than sufficient reasons why God may not be so forth comming with regards to demonstrating His existence to everyone. I explained that I think that this is, in fact, related to the nature of the seperation between man and God that began with Adam and Eve.

[mitchellmckain]

After listening to the podcast, I suggest the following to think about.

What do you mean that you cannot go faster than the speed of light?
How can light be made up of waves and made up of particles at the same time?
How do you prove things in mathematics?
How does science discover the truth about things?
What is the origin of the species and how do we know that?

Answers to any of these questions take pages and pages. There are books written to explain the answers to such questions. As a teacher in math and physics I know all too well that the solution to a problem is usually much much longer and more difficult than the statement of a problem.

So my point is that we must not be fooled by the tactic where someone responds to every answer given to a question with 20 more questions. So Dr. Mundo asked a lot of good questions and frankly led the discussion willy nilly. But however important it is to ask questions and find the right questions, it is ALWAYS takes far less time to state a question than to answer it, and so the fact that Dr. Mundo asked many questions in rapid fire that were not answered no more proves his case or the inadequacy of answers given than any of the unanswered questions by creationists can possibly demonstrate any inadequacy of the theory of evolution -- ESPECIALLY in a spoken discussion where Dr. Mundo frankly took the lion's share of the time speaking.

Upon reflection it may be a bit unfair to call this a tactic on Dr. Mundo's part. Not only do I have no reason to believe that the questions asked are anything but sincere and well intentioned, but also half the time what seems like questions to me, are simply objections that raise a host of other issues, all of which there just isn't enough time to cover in an hour long podcast. Perhaps a good way to look at such podcasts is that they are a good introduction to the discussions we are having in the forum for that it certainly was.

[Keep The Reason]

So my answer to Emery's question, which I thought I explained in the podcast, is that God is "so coy" because He is governed by what is in our best interest. Since it is so easily demonstrated that a belief in God is NOT in everyones best interest, not to mention the outrageous behavior that we already see in religious radicals, we have more than sufficient reasons why God may not be so forth comming with regards to demonstrating His existence to everyone. I explained that I think that this is, in fact, related to nature of the seperation between man and God that began with Adam and Eve.

Which is diametrically opposed to his stated plan of salvation for his "beloved children".

Frankly, I just don't get this kind of argument. God purposely wants some people to not believe in (their version) of him so he REMAINS UNSEEN in order to CONFIRM they will make up shit about him and wind up believing in the wrong version of him!

This all could be so easy. Just because Adam and Eve were acting on their lack of knowledge of good and evil and fumfered through their stupid moves doesn't mean all humans would do so. All this entity needs to do is appear, and make himself known in a clear cut way -- in short, be demonstrable -- and he'd win a lot more honest converts. But apparently that's just too complicated an approach.

So out comes this "best interest" "explanation", way is just so absurd that it stinks to high heaven of being "Here's my excuse for why my god isn't demonstrable". It's just another one of those oh-so-convenient arguments that fit alongside the litany of "well what about...?" arguments the dragon skeptic asks the dragon asserter and is told, "Well, nope, it doesn't work that way either."

Yes, we get it. All avenues are closed off. There's always another excuse awaiting in the wings. Cheers!

[yjoeyh]

Very well said. I have to agree with you 100% for a change. It's important to remember that people come to their conclusions based on a variety of different reasons. We often loose sight of that. Thanks for the reminder.

A point which I made myself in the podcast.

Sorry for dissin' you there Mitchell and giving my respect exclusively to KTR alone. I hadn't listened to it yet... just downloading now actually.
Sounds like a very interesting topic and lineup. I'm exceited

[Dr Mundo]

Using the question of hand warmers as an analogy for the question of God's existence is a poor one and if anything makes my own case that we could never believe in a God that is like a hand warmer, because hand warmers are tools with a physical function and God is neither physical nor a tool. Such a tool with a physical function should by definition be demonstrable. So the question is whether everything that exists should also be treated as a tool with a physical function?

I like that analogy, I was obviously very nervous on the podcast and listening to it now I wish I would have made my point faster and more concise, but I still think its a valid analogy because its just used to highlight my instability to understand where the concept or ideas are coming that are going to be associated to non-demonstrable (any)things. I think you are focusing to much on the object that is being referenced, its not meant to compare God to hand warmers, its meant to illustrate the disconnect I see in believing anything about anything for which you have no demonstrable evidence for.

2. However, to say that there is no difference between what is not demonstrable and nothing at all, must rely on the premise that everything that actually exists should in principle be demonstrable. Since I cannot accept that premise and in fact think that it is an unreasonable one to hold, I must reject the conclusion that is based on that premise.

There simply is no difference to me whether your non-demonstrable God exists or not. That does not mean that I know your God does not exist. Could you please provide an example of where a non-demonstrable God makes a difference in my life? If it does make a difference does that not in fact turn into a demonstration of the existence of this God?

[Dr Mundo]

Dr. Mundo, as to your first foray on the podcast, I must say, well done!

Thanks KTR, after doing the show I have a new found respect for the hosts, and for the guests that have been on in the past. It was so nerve wrecking, and I normally speak in public a lot. I have done sales almost all my life and I go into peoples homes and I feel comfortable and relaxed as I do my presentation. I have been the president of 3 student organizations and hosting meetings and setting up work groups has been rather easy. But this podcast had me very nervous and tongue tied.

Mitchell, who has done it before, was okay too though as might be expected, I disagree with his positions.

I think he did well also. Its better to talk to him than type with him that is for sure.

In terms of it's objective worth (the assertion itself), saying it's worthless is appropriate. Subjectively speaking it may be a different story. But the theist is hopelessly trapped in nver being able to demonstrate their bleief has any worthwhile gravitas, and just because the atheist cannot prove otherwise, does not validate the assertion made by the claimant.

I agree with you there. I don't think you mean to say that you know for a fact that this dragon does not exist nor do I think Sagan would make that claim either. Rather we are looking at what it even means to say that this dragon does exist, and if there is no impact on our reality does it even make sense to say that it does exist? That is what I think is the most important part of that analogy.

Then Mitch talks about "talking to the dragon every day". My question to him is this: It's one thing to talk to the dragon. But does the dragon talk back? If no, then of what worth is your claim that you converse with your dragon "every day"? If yes -- then we are back to you having to demonstrate how this is not a hallucination.

Yes I think that is something that should have been addressed on the podcast. As Mitch points out though I did take up the lions share of the discussion, I should have pointed that out though. It just seemed like I was hogging the mic.

Finally, the issue here is that theists-- and often atheists -- approach these discussions as if this or that argument is the ONE SOLID argument against belief. It's not. There are lots of reaosns to discard belief in Christianity, some of them philosophical, some of them sociological (mythmaking) some of which are secular (the sciences) and ONE of which is its lack of demonstrability.

I think if you ultimately care about things that are true. There technically can be one argument that can be used against, not just Christianity but, Theism as a whole. That would be this : "If you have no demonstration that can lead to the validity of your claim, you are unjustified in holding a positive belief in such a proposition." That argument alone would inhibit me from being a theist. I do have plenty of reasons why I am not a Christian or a Muslim though, and I think those reasons are vastly more "entertaining" to talk about than just Verification and Demonstrability. Just because of the passion associated with them. Personally I like discussions that take into consideration all of the scientific terminologies that we brought up, but people are far less interested in that than I am, so the conversations tend to be a bit one sided.

[mitchellmckain]

Using the question of hand warmers as an analogy for the question of God's existence is a poor one and if anything makes my own case that we could never believe in a God that is like a hand warmer, because hand warmers are tools with a physical function and God is neither physical nor a tool. Such a tool with a physical function should by definition be demonstrable. So the question is whether everything that exists should also be treated as a tool with a physical function?

I like that analogy, I was obviously very nervous on the podcast and listening to it now I wish I would have made my point faster and more concise, but I still think its a valid analogy because its just used to highlight my inability to understand where the concept or ideas are coming that are going to be associated to non-demonstrable (any)things. I think you are focusing to much on the object that is being referenced, its not meant to compare God to hand warmers, its meant to illustrate the disconnect I see in believing anything about anything for which you have no demonstrable evidence for.

Alright, you asked for it. I shall employ my own analogy.

A beautiful girl in the town of Noplace Ohio, is admired by two men and both come to her and declare their love for her. She asks what is this "love" you are talking about, show it to me. The theist takes the girl out on a picnic and they have a very enjoyable day together talking about all the things that they like and their hopes for the future. The next day atheist says, "the theist has spent a day distracting you from your question because the truth is that he cannot show his "love" to you at all because this "love" that he believes in has no measurable properties and therefore it does not exist. The "atheist" says follow me and brings her to this pool of red liquid and says, "Here is my love for you. See how large this pool is and how beautiful the color and touch it and you will see how pleasing the feel of it is. " The question I guess is whether the girl is stupid enough to buy the "atheist's" argument and thus to sell herself to him for a pool of red liquid.

You may indeed not be able to see the difference between undetectable handwarmers which cannot by definition fulfill their purported function and a God who is not demonstrable because He is not subject to the laws of physics and is thus beyond all their limitations. After all, how can we blame a girl who is dumb enough to sell herself for the pool of red liquid for she can only use what intellegence she has been given. But not everyone is confused by the kind of argument you are making and they do understand that there are physical things with measurable properties and there things which are not physical and thus you must learn about them in a different way. But if you are happy with your pool of red liquid because it is something you can see and touch and measure then who am I to say that you should not sell yourself for such a thing?

2. However, to say that there is no difference between what is not demonstrable and nothing at all, must rely on the premise that everything that actually exists should in principle be demonstrable. Since I cannot accept that premise and in fact think that it is an unreasonable one to hold, I must reject the conclusion that is based on that premise.

There simply is no difference to me whether your non-demonstrable God exists or not. That does not mean that I know your God does not exist.

No. You also do not know that there is no difference to you either. Remember the two drinks which taste exactly like coffee in JustJim's analogy? There may be consequences from drinking the thing which is not coffee that you never connect to what you drank and you are never able to make such a connection. So, the most that you can say is that you have no reason believe that an undemonstrable God exists. But just because God is not demonstrable, it does not neccessarily follow that His existence makes no difference to you. As to whether you can see a difference, it may indeed be true that you cannot, but I don't think that this necessarily follows from being an atheist. I have known atheists who are perfectly capable of seeing what difference such a God would make in their lives if He did in fact exist, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't see any reason to believe that He does exist.

Could you please provide an example of where a non-demonstrable God makes a difference in my life? If it does make a difference does that not in fact turn into a demonstration of the existence of this God?

If the God I believe in exists then the very fact that you exist is a difference that this God makes. God is not a physical tool like a handwarmer -- not my tool or anyone elses -- and so no I cannot dictate God's "function" in your life as if He were. What God has done in your life is something that only He knows and is something that only He can reveal to you if He chooses to do so. Christians everywhere are ready and enthusiastic to tell you all about what difference this God has made in their life. But I deny any claim that they might make about knowing what difference that God does or will makes in your life. It is, of course, entirely appropriate and reasonable for you to decide you have no reason to believe that there is any such God until such a time as He does choose, if He does indeed exist, to reveal to you what difference He has made in your life. But that must wait upon Him and cannot upon me.

[Keep The Reason]

A beautiful girl in the town of Noplace Ohio, is admired by two men and both come to her and declare their love for her. She ask what is this "love" you are talking about, show it to me.

The theist takes the girl out on picnic a and they have a very enjoyable day together talking about all the things that they like and their hopes for the future. The next day atheist says, "the theist has spent a day distracting you from your question because the truth is that he cannot show his "love" to you at all because this "love" that he believes in has no measurable properties and therefore it does not exist. The "atheist" says follow me and brings her to this pool of red liquid and says, "Here is my love for you. See how large this pool is and how beautiful the color and touch it and you will see how pleasing the feel of it is. " The question I guess is whether the girl is stupid enough to buy the "atheist's" argument and thus to sell herself to him for a pool of red liquid.

Lousy analogy, but since you floated it, the atheist wouldn't show her the pool of red liquid, if it were demanded of him that he demonstrates love.

Rather, he would behave in precisely the same way as the thest. But when tasked to show evidence that this is love, he could further demonstrate that he has physiological changes in his make up that shows a consistent pattern in all people who claim love. Certain biological functions, like euphoria which is induced by chemicals could be tracked (remember, he is being cornered on demonstrating what his "love" is in this analogy). Brain waves would change as well.

And of course, your one-off example is meaningless because love incorporates a lot more than one picnic. Does he show a pattern of connectedness to her, and she to him? Is he loyal to her, nurturing, protective on an ongoing basis. These are the things that demonstrate love-- not your paltry example of a date.

Your god-thesis is all one sided. You guys can show all sorts of love and devotion to gods, but it's like the love and devotion that one might offer to an unreachable idol. It's like seeing a rendering of Cleopatra and deciding you love her. You can do all sorts of crazy shit to demonstrate your love, but you can't demonstrate she's even there to accept it.

If the God I believe in exists then the very fact that you exist is a difference that this God makes. God is not a physical tool like a handwarmer -- not my tool or anyone elses -- and so no I cannot dictate God's "function" in your life as if He were

And this is the litany of counters that the dragon-asserter offers. All these "reasons" which you cannot demonstrate are true expected to be taken as reasons why the demonstration request is inappropriate. I don't accept them from the drain asserted, and I don't accept them from the god asserted either.