EPIC CURIOSITY

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
--Epicurus, Greek philosopher (341-270 BCE)


Suppose you are tasked with deciding between two people which of them is good and which is evil, as if this represented good versus evil in the world. How would you go about determining this? To start, you may create a list of good things and bad things, and see how each person measures up. If you were to make such a list, murder would likely be near the top. Indeed, it is safe to say, that most people would put murder at the very top of their list. This is a universal concept which has been found in virtually every single civilized community for as long as we have records. Therefore, if one of the two people you are examining were to commit murder, it would be very difficult, indeed, to say that the killer is the good one of the two. If both had committed murder, then we might be able to say that they are both evil. But let's suppose that you have to make a definitive decision that one is evil and one is good. Well, then you would need to consider other factors like the number of murders committed, methods of death, and the reasons behind them. If one person committed a great many more murders than the other, used torturous or painful methods, and did so for petty or jealous reasons, that person would likely be deemed the evil one of the two.

Now, let's say that these two people are god and Satan (who didn't see that coming?). Of the two, which one has killed millions of people (i.e. Noah's Ark and the First-Born's in Egypt) through magic and various plagues and natural disasters, all because they wouldn't do what he had asked? Which one killed a single family (i.e. Job 1:12,19) because the other gave him permission, just to prove a point?

Given the death counts indicated in the Bible, if you believe god and the devil exist, how do you know god is the good one?


BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is the Atheist Experience tallying up Bible deaths:

Continuing...

THIS IS AFRICA

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem."
--Pope Benedict XVI on condom use as a means of mitigating the spread of HIV in Africa (2009)


In the 80s, HIV and AIDS scared the piss out of everyone. No one knew what it was, how it worked, how it spread, or how to save yourself from it. Public restrooms were viewed as death traps. It was even potentially unsafe to kiss your lover. Now things have mellowed a bit, as we have a good understanding of HIV and AIDS. We know how it spreads, which allows us to take measures to prevent exposure. We even know of many treatments which can prolong life; although, we don't have a cure, yet. Most of the world is still developing and has limited access to proper education. But the most effective methods of preventing the spread of this disease are easy to teach and easy to understand. So why are 1 in 5 people in southern Africa infected with HIV?

Religiously, Africa is split into two factions: Muslims and Catholics. The northern region, being Muslim, has strict penalties for adultery and premarital sex; namely, death. This is quite an effective deterrent. As a result, the entire population is forced into abstinence before marriage and fidelity during marriage (at least, for women). The southern region is mostly Catholic, and, although, they do not employ capital punishment for sexual promiscuity, they do also advocate abstinence and fidelity. Yet, the south is plagued with HIV, while the north is not.

In the fight against HIV/AIDS, there is a motto among doctors and nurses, known as the ABC's: Abstinence from sex, Be faithful to your partner, and Condom use. These three things are universally accepted by health-care professionals as the most effective methods against the spread of HIV. Abstinence and Being faithful are pretty straight forward, and both Muslims to the north and Catholics to the south agree on these two methods. But condom use has been condemned by the Catholic Church for as long as there have been condoms.

Catholic opposition towards contraception stems from the same line of reasoning they use against abortion and masturbation. They hold that all life is precious, and that semen is, in a sense, the beginning of life. I apologize for the crude way I put this, but according to Catholics the only appropriate place for a man to ejaculate is inside his wife's vagina. Anything short of this is a sin. Furthermore, some have said that AIDS is god's punishment for transgressors, as if the threat of Hell wasn't despicable enough. They also say that children born with this disease carry upon their heads the sins of their fathers. Now, there's a just god.

As I quoted at the top, the current Pope is against condom use; since most people in southern Africa are Catholic, they adhere to his advice. The Pope has even said that condoms make matters worse, and people have taken this to mean that condoms will actually increase your chance of contracting HIV. Africa is one of the most poorly educated areas in the world, making people there susceptible to lies and superstition. Nothing could do more harm than telling an ignorant, superstitious group of people that if they use a condom they will die. But this is the message of the Catholic Church. As a result of this utmost evil preachment, HIV is rising. In some areas, like South Africa, HIV rates are as high as 36%. That's as high as the Black Plague!

Tell me, Pope Benedick, how is the prevention of "spilling semen" more ethical than doing everything you can to save the lives of millions of people?

Teaching Abstinence and Being faithful as the only methods of preventing the spread of HIV has failed; this technique seems to only work, perhaps ironically, upon threat of death. The only thing left to try is proper use of condoms. Until the Catholic Church stops spreading lies and changes their stance on condom use, HIV will continue to kill millions of people every year in Africa. As Christopher Hitchens said, during a debate with an African Catholic Cardinal: "...I think it will one day be admitted with shame that it might have been in error to say that AIDS is bad as a disease--very bad--but not quite as bad as condoms are bad. Or not as immoral in the same way."

WOOD WORK

"...the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other."

--Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist

Let's suppose that you believe termites have infested your home. You start looking around your back porch, as this is a favorite location for termites. You do not see any termites, and there is neither rot nor holes in the wood. So you check the siding of your house; same result. Not to be outsmarted by the little buggars you continue your search inside your house, checking all the walls and doors, the basement, the attic, and even your bed. But you still find no signs that termites are, in fact, taking over your home. Would it be safe to say that there are no termites in your home?

There is a common argument against this sort of investigation: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Meaning, just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there. This is a favorite for UFO abductees, bigfoot/Nessie witnesses, and theists--as if this will make their claims more believable.

In a general sense, the argument has a point, but it is incomplete. It is true that not seeing something doesn't mean anything by itself. Unless, of course, you should see something. If you have reason to believe that if something exists it would manifest in some way, then not seeing a manifestation decreases the probability that it exists. As with the termites, if you look thoroughly and see no signs of an infestation, then the odds are that there are no termites. Furthermore, the more extensively the search is conducted, the more places you look, and the more time you spend looking, the less likely you are to find something affirmative in the places you have not yet looked. If you look over 50% of your house, there is still a pretty good chance that termites might be in the remaining 50%. But if you look over 95% of your house and find not a single trace of termites, it becomes unlikely that you will find anything in the remaining 5%.

Now, there is a chance that you may have over looked parts of the house, or failed to notice something. This is a possibility, but still, as you continue to look and see nothing, the odds of finding termites continues to drop. At this point would you be reasonable to believe your house is infested with termites? No.

Let's change the scenario slightly. Let's say an exterminator knocks on your door, claims you need his services, yet finds absolutely no evidence of termites, would it be reasonable to pay him to spray your house? No.

As with claims of mythical creatures, as more studies and searches are conducted, the absence of evidence, at the very least, implies evidence of absence. In the case of god, such searches have been going on for hundreds, even thousands of years, and still we see no conclusive evidence that a god exists. Indeed, it is more reasonable to believe in UFO's, Bigfoot, Nessie and the Flying Spaghetti Monster than an unsubstantiated god claim which has been around since the Bronze Age. 

Some might refute this line of reasoning with a proclamation that the god they believe in doesn't manifest because it is timeless and immaterial. Ok, let's look at this a different way. Based on this claim, there are three different possible types of gods: a god that exists and manifests, a god that exists and doesn't manifest, or a god that doesn't exist. Tell me, how do you tell the difference between a god that exists and doesn't manifest, from a god that doesn't exist? If a god doesn't manifest, whether it exists or not, then it is inert, and, therefore, useless. If it does manifest, we are back to looking for such manifestations, and basing our beliefs on the evidence we do find. If a god exists we should expect to find evidence supporting that; if we don't find evidence, then there is probably no god.

BORN AGAIN, AGAIN

"Everyone is born an Atheist."
--common sense

While attending BYU, I was in a conversation with a group of about 10-12 fellow students. We were discussing which religion we would join if we weren't Mormon. An interesting exercise, to be sure. Most said something about various Protestant denominations like Methodists or Seventh-Day Adventists. A few mentioned Baptists or Evangelists. I think someone on the fringe even said Buddist. No Catholics, though. Every response was met with comments like, "Oh ya, I like them," or "They really try to follow the Bible." That is, until they got to me. My response was: "If I wasn't Mormon I would probably be an Atheist, because I can't take any other religion seriously." This is one of the few times that an entire group of people has actually boo'd an idea of mine. Some one even said, "Atheists are dumb."

The reason I bring this up is not to refute the statement that atheists are dumb, or to rub my atheism in their faces--that would be dumb. I mention this is because, to me, in order for any religion to be viable, it has to be consistent with reason and science (at the time, I believed Mormonism did exactly this). Any religion which defies science rather than seeking reconciliation is unjustified, and, therefore, "dumb." I didn't know of any other religion which sought such reconciliation. Every protestant I grew up with vehemently opposed evolution and the big bang, so I couldn't take them seriously. Besides, speaking in tongues is just too silly. So, when asked which religion I would join, if not Mormonism, I was at a loss. They all seemed equally ridiculous to me. And since dis-belief is the default position, that is where I fell.

Because I hadn't really considered Atheism in depth, yet, I didn't think to ask my fellow students why they thought it was "dumb." I wouldn't miss such an opportunity now.

Evangelists are among the fastest growing Christian denominations in America, with estimates as high as 7% growth per year. Mega-churches (2000+ weekly attendence) have become more common, especially in Southern states. I find it fascinating that people will flock to watch charismatic preachers run around a stage, perform "miracles," utter some passages of scripture, and ask for donations every 15 minutes. How do they not see the obvious scam? Perhaps this is similar to how Joseph Smith gained members in the mid-1800's. People long for leadership. Charismatic people are often thrown into these positions at the request of those looking to be lead. Others just take advantage. I suppose this is normal.

One of the most notorious (i.e. "popular") Evangelists is Ted Haggard. I don't want to dwell too much on him, but he has been on quite a rollercoaster the last few years by being on President Bush's speed-dial, condemning gays, being caught with a male prostitute, going to "therapy" and claiming to be "cured," admiting to be a "heterosexual with issues," admiting to be bi-sexual (baby steps), starting a new ministry, and somehow keeping his wife (a book deal may have helped). So, here are some of my favorite and most revealing Ted Haggard clips:

Richard Dawkins interview:

 Haggard's response to the Richard Dawkins interview:

Gay-Bashing:

On sex:

After the sex-scandel:

And finally, I showed you all of that, so I could show you this:

DING-DONG

"Which is more likely? That the whole natural order should be suspended in your favor, or that you are under a misapprehension?"

--Christopher Hitchens

When I was a missionary, many of my colleagues used the following clip from "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" to illustrate a leap of faith: 

I thought it was clever, but I never used it myself. The idea was simple: plant the seed of the Holy Spirit, show them the video, let them put two and two together, and "leap" into church membership by being baptized. The trick was, of course, convincing people to let you "plant the seed" in the first place. People were often hesitant to even talk to us, since they thought we were a blood cult which coerced teens to jump from windows or sacrifice babies (I'm not making this up). But every once in a while we found someone willing to listen. These curious people are commonly referred to as "investigators" within Mormon circles.

So let's look at this from the perspective of a typical investigator from my mission (Eastern Europe):

You, the investigator, have lived your whole life believing in Christian Orthodoxy because of tradition, or family and social ties; never really thinking too much about your beliefs, or questioning things because you have no need to. Everyone around you pretty much believes the same things, so why bother? Besides, this many people can't be wrong, right?

Along comes a couple of nicely dressed, smiling young foreign men, armed with a rebuttal to many of your core beliefs. You are forced, possibly for the first time, to think critically about your beliefs, and you start to wonder if they are justified. So you agree to meet with these young men again.

Later that week, you meet with these boys in their modest church (again, this is for my mission), and they start to tell you this fantastic story of an other young boy who prayed to find out which church is true. God and Jesus appear to him and tell him that he is to start a new or restored church. But how can this be? This story sounds too good to be true, or maybe just a little far fetched. Well, the boys continue.

This young man also found some ancient records of a Native American tribe which originated from Jerusalem. These "Indians" wrote a book similar to the Bible, and, guess what? Here is your own personal copy of this book. A generous offer, certainly. The boys recommend a few passages and offer to say a prayer with you before you leave. One of the boys offers the prayer. You sense sincerity and passion in his voice as he prays. You are touched by the prayer offered on your behalf by this young man.

A few days later, you meet with the missionaries again. Having read the recommended passages, you feel good, and confident that this meeting will be as uplifting as the first one. The boys continue talking about their church, the other boy who founded it, and the book you hold in your hand. Everything these sincere boys say sounds so positive and inspiring. It is clear that they truly believe this message, as evident by their being in your country. Conviction is a good thing, is it not? And faith--doubly so. But is their message true?

Finally, one of the boys asks you to say a prayer to close the meeting. Before you begin, he adds that you can also pray to find out if the message that they are sharing and the book you are holding are truly inspired by God, as these boys profess. Indeed, if you ask, God will tell you in your heart. You are taken aback by the power of this message as you begin your prayer. You have never heard such an offer before. Could it be possible? Could God communicate with you in this way? Before you leave, more passages are recommended; one of which is Moroni 10:3-5.

At home, you decide to try this experimental prayer right away. You open to the passages, and read them as quickly as you can--each one more beautiful than the last. Finally, you come to Moroni, which reads:

"3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."

You have never read such a thing in scripture before. This is wonderful! A real test which could verify the existence of God and validate the message shared by those nice young men. So, you instantly drop to your knees and pray. You keep it simple and to the point:

"God, are you there? Are these young men really telling me the truth? Is this book truly your inspired word?"

There it is. You have asked God the most important questions you can think of. All you can do now is wait.
Several minutes go by and you are still waiting. What is wrong?

At the next meeting you burst through the church doors and cry foul. How could these nice young men have been so deceptive? You are outraged that your prayer didn't work and demand an explanation. After calming you down, one of the missionaries reviews the passage in Moroni with you. Citing verse 4, he explains that you must "ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ." Therefore, if it didn't work, you need to try again with more sincerity and real intent. You need to convince god that you mean it. He adds that the feelings of the Spirit are like a burning in the bosom--an overwhelming sense of inner peace and warmth. You reflect upon this for a minute and agree to pray again. This time with the missionaries present.

The boys have been very gracious so far, and you feel a connection with them. You recall the vigor and conviction they had when explaining all this before, and you wish you had that in your life, too. So you begin your prayer, same as before:

"God, are you there? Are these young men really telling me the truth? Is this book truly your inspired word?"

And, you wait.

Suddenly, you feel overwhelmed with love and peace of mind. You break down crying. This is it! This is the answer from God you have been looking for. It is so powerful and wonderful. The young missionaries also feel overwhelmed and embrace you as you all cry together. You have never felt such a connection with another human being before. This is all so new and glorious; you wonder why it has taken you so long to find these young boys. As the meeting draws to a close, one of the young men asks you if you would like to be baptized into their church, where you will continue to feel this same sensation with more people who have also experienced it. Emphatically, you say, "Yes."

End scenario.

OK. This is more or less how Mormon missionaries wish things would occur. Myself and many others have had encounters with investigators similar to this one. So, let's examine what happened.

You, the investigator, meet some nice young men. You are drawn in with a message of faith and you pray about it. Eventually, you feel a sensation which you attribute to God. This seems consistent with what the missionaries told you would happen, so they must be telling the truth (well, it sounds lame when you say it like that).

Let's suppose that you really did feel this overwhelmingly wonderful sensation. Would you be justified in believing these missionaries? No. On some level, you are still taking their word for it. What justification do you have to say this feeling came from God, other than that these young boys said this was the case? They would have you believe it is a leap of faith; but ultimately it is an argument from ignorance. All the missionaries did was predict a feeling you wanted to experience, and asserted that it was God talking to you.

Did you notice the response you got when it didn't happen the first time? "You weren't sincere enough." What the missionaries are proposing is not a real test. It is a test which can only be confirmed, not denied. If you don't get an answer, well, the fault is on your end--not God's. They will continue to tell you to keep trying over and over again, until you eventually affirm their message. This is standard Mormon missionary procedure. I tried this test for over a decade and never received an answer. Yet, I always got the same response from church leadership: "Pray harder, read more, fast longer and try again." This is the same reply homosexuals get while going through church-sponsored reparative therapy (i.e. "pray away the gay").

In psychology there is a phenomenon called "Confirmation Bias," which is a fancy way of saying you see what you want to see (aka, wishful thinking). Confirmation Bias has been exposed and studied for many years and scientists know a great deal about it. Now, a person who prays and feels a sensation similar to the "burning in the bosom" described above is not necessarily a victim of Confirmation Bias, but how do you distinguish between the two? Which is more likely to occur? What if this technique confirms something demonstrably wrong or evil? How do you go from this seeming affirmation of faith to proclamations of knowledge of the supernatural?

One of the key phrases in verse 4 is having "real intent." This means you need a desire to believe, before you will receive an answer. In light of the possibility of confusing a genuine spiritual experience with Confirmation Bias, I say, "Well, isn't that convenient...?"

Some might say it takes a leap of faith, as shown in the video above. But why is faith of this kind a good thing? Why would a god who gave us our reasoning faculties make the most important questions only knowable through such a subjective experience? How is faith anything more than just throwing in the towel intellectually, and stubbornly holding on to your beliefs just because you want to? As Matt Dillahunty has said, "Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason for their beliefs." Hope, optimism, and empathy are all worth-while virtues; faith is a cop out.

BONUS MATERIAL:
 

Here is the Atheist Experience talking with a "Mormon Investigator:"

THE HARDER THEY FALL

"The truth has nothing to fear from discussion."

--someone smart

"Popular ideas do not need to be protected by free speech laws."

--someone else smart 

One of my closest friends is just about the most avid supporter of Ron Paul as you would care to find. Personally, I don't care much for Ron Paul, so we have had a number of debates about his policies and the effects that they might have on our current system of government. Every time we argue (i.e. "discuss"), we end up on the point that Ron Paul, a doctor, doesn't believe in evolution, and whether or not this will affect his policies on education. I firmly believe that beliefs inform our actions, and this unsupported belief, which runs contrary to modern biology, will undoubtedly influence Ron Paul's actions. My friend disagrees.

To my friend's credit, however, he acknowledges that this is an area where he doesn't agree with Ron Paul. This is important. I find it hard to take seriously someone who believes someone else implicitly, or who agrees with someone else on every point. To do so would be to claim infallibility of the other person. This is how demigods and tyrants (and prophets) come about.

The mentality of infallibility by virtue of the divine is inherent in religion. One might say it is where religion begins. Unquestioning obedience is flaunted as a virtue. My Mormon youth leaders made this very clear. It is OK to ask questions, but to persist after receiving a mediocre answer is pushing it. This devotion to leadership is reiterated in "temple-recommend" interviews, prior to admission into Mormon temples. In fact, they take it one step further and inquire about affiliations outside of the church, which may run contrary to the church's teachings (i.e. activist groups, gay support groups, etc.).

To speak out about injustices towards a community facing discrimination within the church, such as homosexuals, is to bring chastisement upon yourself. Even trying to bridge gaps between seemingly hostile communities, like disgruntled "ex-Mormons," can call your loyalty and testimony into question, or even call for disciplinary action.

Fraternizing with ex-Mormons can expose you to anti-Mormon literature (i.e. "anything that contradicts the church"), and this can challenge your testimony or lead you to sin. Religion is no stranger to censorship. After all, religion takes the saying "beliefs inform our actions" one step further by saying that "thoughts inform our actions." Merely thinking something can send one down a perilous road to iniquity and damnation.

Indeed, thoughts can be as dangerous as actions according to some religions. This is why the Bible and the Koran condemn disbelief and apostasy with eternal torture and death, respectively (I'll let you decide which is the greater punishment). In fact, Jesus himself employs censorship, by stating that uttering certain things is unforgivable. In Mark 3 Jesus is accused by the Pharisees of being possessed by an evil spirit, and Jesus responds by laying out the law of blasphemy. According to Jesus it is forgivable to speak ill of a person, but speaking ill of the Holy Spirit is not:

"28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit."

Nothing wins arguments like "eternal damnation."

In past posts I have referred to videos and sites from John Dehlin, although I don't think I properly credited his name. He started a group called "Mormon Stories" which tries to network active Mormons with ex-Mormons. Dehlin believes that in order to truly help ex-Mormons come back to the church or deal with a loss of faith, etc., active Mormons should try to genuinely understand their concerns and why they left the church. Sounds reasonable in principle, but as I mentioned above, many people feel that associating with ex-Mormons will put them in a bad position spiritually, and thus are hesitant to come anywhere near an ex-Mormon forum.

Now, I'm not convinced that such a bridge is necessary, but I do admire Dehlin's efforts to open the dialog. However, not everyone is on board with this; some church higher-ups have attacked Dehlin and condemned his efforts. This is shown in an article addressing the position Mormonism has taken in the mainstream. The article points out that one such person had intended to release a "100-page take-down of Dehlin," but someone even higher-up than he stepped in, and, fearing that a smear campaign would look bad for the church, stopped the report. You may be tempted to say "crisis averted," but it doesn't end here. Dehlin's son has recently turned eight years old and, per Mormon custom, is going to be baptized into the church. Normally, the father would conduct this rite of passage. But, in the case of Dehlin, his bishop has denied him this privilege simply because of his podcast. By opening a discussion, Dehlin has become the face of censorship in the Mormon Church today.

BONUS MATERIAL:

And now, the KKK speaks out against the Westboro Baptist Church:

BILLION WITH A "B"

As I have mentioned before, I am not much of a reader. But there are lots of books out there which have caught my attention, and if I were to have a "to-read" list, they would be on it. "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, "Hitch 22" by Christopher Hitchens, "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris, as well as the "Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" by Bobby Henderson, would all have to be included in this invisible, immaterial list. Interestingly, all of these authors have something in common--they were all influenced by Carl Sagan.

Carl Sagan (1934-1996) was an astrophysicist who wrote many science books and produced many documentaries about the cosmos and rational thinking. Challenging cultural norms and traditions, he was among the most outspoken atheists prior to 9/11. And yet you wouldn't think it to listen to his voice.

Pale Blue Dot:

On god:

On evolution:

And, just for fun, the real reason for his fame:



Lastly, one of my favorite refutations of a supernatural immaterial god, which is outside of space and time (a common view in mainstream Christianity), is from one of Sagan's last books, "The Demon-Haunted World." This excerpt illustrates how one should rationally approach outlandish or otherwise extraordianry claims:

“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage”

Suppose (I’m following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) 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. 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.”

You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

“Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal 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’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. The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don’t outright reject the notion that there’s a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you’re prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it’s unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative—merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of “not proved.”

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons—to say nothing about invisible ones—you must now acknowledge that there’s something here, and that in a preliminary way it’s consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it’s not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you’re pretty sure don’t know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages—but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we’re disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I’d rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren’t myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they’re never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon’s fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such “evidence”—no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it—is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.