The story is meant to be an analogy of how atheists see Christians' belief in God. It's clever in a couple of ways. First, Sagan predicts a few possible objections to his argument and attempts to address them in the story. This isn't necessarily novel since most apologists will try to consider possible objections to any point they make, but the fact that Sagan does it here shows that he thought through his analogy a little better than the ordinary critic.
The other clever thing that Sagan does in his story is refer to the reader as, “you.” By doing this, he attempts to put the reader in the shoes of the atheist, making him sympathetic to the atheist's plight. He's very complementary to the reader, making him feel very fair, open-minded, and inquisitive. The reader almost forgets that the skeptic in the story represents atheists! Sagan deftly paints atheists as being painfully open-minded and their skepticism as being healthy, ordinary, and rational. Also, since Sagan makes himself the keeper of the dragon, he is able to portray Christians as deranged or delusional without seeming to direct these insults toward them.
Consider these two quotes from the story:
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.
… 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.
Do you see what I mean? “You” (reader) = atheist = enlightened thinker; Sagan = Christian = loon. It's clever to the point of being maniacal. I can almost hear Sagan laughing as he wrote it, “bwa ha ha!”
I disagree with his characterization of atheists. It's been my experience that atheists in general aren't merely withholding judgment about the existence of God until they see more evidence. Instead, they reject a priori any possibility of there being a God. Any evidence for God, like miracles, is rejected in favor of a natural explanation – even in those instances where no natural explanation exists. Dawkins, for example, would rather believe that life on earth was planted by aliens than believe God created life. Some atheists go even further. Rather than simply not believing in God themselves, Dawkins, Myers, and others of that ilk openly mock and ridicule the idea of believing in God. They aren't anything like the friendly skeptic in Sagan's story, optimistically looking for any evidence for the existence of the invisible dragon.
Regardless of how clever the analogy is, it fails on the grounds that it doesn't accurately represent the way Christians believe in God. In other words, it's a straw man. There are several subtle ways the story is wrong but the primary error is this: Christians don't ask people to believe in God while offering excuse after excuse why there is no evidence that He exists. To the contrary, Christians offer many reasons why people should believe in God and it's the atheist, the supposed “open-minded” skeptic in the story, who rejects them one by one.
First, God is revealed in His creation. The simple fact that the universe exists strongly suggests there is a cause behind it. To believe that God is the First Cause seems far more reasonable than believing that the universe just poofed into existence without a cause. Furthermore, the universe doesn't just exist, it's also sublime. The enormity, the beauty, and the complexity all suggest design. Design always suggests purpose, purpose always suggests intent, and intent always suggests a designer. To believe that “uncaused” matter randomly, purposelessly arranged itself into the complex cosmos is far less credible than believing it was intended to be so by the design of an intelligent Creator. The existence of the universe and the design of the universe is evidence for God whether or not the skeptic wants to accept it.
But the greatest evidence for God is the Bible. While the universe might reveal there is a God, the Bible tells us Who He is. The Bible is a written record, the testimony of people who were first hand witnesses to God. These are the people who have heard His voice and seen His miracles. He is Jehovah of the Old Testament, the One Who spoke the universe into existence; He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; He is the One who delivered the children of Israel out of Egypt and made them a great nation. He is also Jesus of the New Testament, the I AM Who was before Abraham; He walked on water, calmed the storm, healed the sick, and raised the dead; He shed His blood on the cross as the payment for our sins and, three days later, rose from the dead; He now sits at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us.
The words and miracles recorded in the Bible bear witness that there is a God. Critics are welcome to suggest natural causes for the miracles. They're welcome to suggest the history of Bible is somehow not as trustworthy as other books of antiquity. However, they cannot credibly say the Bible cannot be considered by Christians to be evidence for God.
There are more things I could discuss as evidence for God but it really isn't necessary. The analogy fails. No matter how cleverly it was written, it doesn't accurately represent Christians, nor does it fairly depict how skeptics evaluate the evidence for God. It's a straw man. It has endured only because it is an amusing straw man.
If the only thing that would convince someone that God exists is that he saw Him with his own eyes, then perhaps he will be disappointed because that's not likely to happen. Even so, I suspect that even if it did, it wouldn't convince some people anyway. Regardless, there is plenty of evidence for God available to anyone who truly seeks Him.
The [Sagan's dragon] story is meant to be an analogy of how atheists see Christians' belief in God.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's more about Christian apologetics (and in the spirit of Antony Flew's Parable of the Gardener). As Flew put it, one starts with a "decent falsifiable hypothesis" and then proceeds to subject it to the death of a thousand qualifications. It escapes falsification by escaping falsifiability.
The simple fact that the universe exists strongly suggests there is a cause behind it.
A cause is not necessarily a personal, goal-directed Cause. Even a Designer is not necessarily God; a Designer might not be omnipotent, or omniscient, or indeed more concerned with either or welfare or our worship than a scientist is with the feelings of the bacteria in a petri dish. When one examines, e.g. the camouflage of many prey animals and the keen senses of many predators (cf. the mordant skeptic's remark: "it was so good of the Designer to give us immune systems to cope with the deadly pathogens and parasites He also gave us"), one sees apparent design at cross-purposes. Perhaps the more relevant and disturbing analogy is not "petri dish" but "video game" -- they have designers, but the designers care little for the hordes of characters slaughtered in the game.
But yes, I did note that you stated we needed the Bible to know the nature of the Designer.
The Bible is a written record, the testimony of people who were first hand witnesses to God.
Very little in the Bible actually claims to be a first-hand, eyewitness account. Two of the gospels (Luke and John) claim to be based on eyewitness testimony, but not actually by the eyewitnesses; Matthew and Mark make no claims about either their authorship or their sources. Genesis nowhere states how the writer or writers come by any of the information in it. Even the remaining four "books of Moses" don't claim, anywhere, that Moses actually wrote the words in the books. Never does the Pentateuch say "I, so-and-so, saw this miracle with my own eyes."
Some of the prophetic writings claim to be written by the prophet himself and to be, in effect, eyewitness accounts of his visions. Ezra, likewise, presents itself as the words of an eyewitness. Some of Paul's letters provide eyewitness accounts of various things, but only his vision of Jesus might count as a miracle; he says nothing of seeing people walk on water or heal the sick. Nor do any other first-person accounts in the Bible speak of witnessing miracles (unless you count visions, which have obvious natural explanations).
We don't need naturalistic explanations for miracles. We need naturalistic explanations for stories about miracles. The world is replete with such stories. Exaggeration and speculation conflated with third-hand reports, even human mythopoesis (e.g. Odin carving the first man and woman out of wood, after making the world out of a dead giant) will generally suffice.
If the only thing that would convince someone that God exists is that he saw Him with his own eyes ...
Presumably, if I decided that what I had seen was in fact God, I would be convinced, for the time being. Later, of course, I might decide that I had hallucinated, or misinterpreted some objective phenomenon. Paul was convinced that he had seen the risen Jesus Christ, even though the accounts in Acts (which, admittedly, does not in those passages claim to be an eyewitness account) make it clear that none of the people with him saw a human figure or heard an intelligible voice. His statement that at one time five hundred people had seen the risen Jesus is, basically, a claim that at one point five hundred people had such a vision, or at least, that's how he interpreted what he heard about the event (perhaps only a few people in the crowd, in an excited and expectant state, reported such a vision, and Paul extrapolated).
"If the only thing that would convince someone that God exists is that he saw Him with his own eyes."
ReplyDeleteNot even that. Unbelievers presuppose naturalism, and nothing will convince them of the truth of God or creation. There is always an excuse, a rescuing device. The problem is not about reason or evidence, it is a spiritual problem (Romans 1:18-23). Their minds are darkened, eyes are blinded. In a comment I made another time but was apparently lost, I urged you to read the book and watch the videos by Dr. Jason Lisle on The Ultimate Proof of Creation. It made a huge difference in my apologetic approach.
Bob Sorensen,
DeleteThanks for your comments.
You're right. I've heard some “skeptics” admit that, even if they knew 100% that Christianity was true, they still wouldn't be a Christian. Nothing, not even Jesus appearing to them, would be enough to persuade them. Remember that the Pharisees told Jesus on the cross that, if He would come down, they would believe in Him. Later, after He rose from the dead, they paid the guards to say that His disciples stole the body.
Such is the way of the irrational. Romans 1:19-20 says, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
Thanks for visiting and for your comments. Keep up all the good work, brother. God bless!!
RKBentley
After rereading again and before scheduling to post at The Question Evolution Project and on my Twitter feed, there are some other things I want to add. Not only do atheists presuppose naturalism (Christians must presuppose the truth of the Bible; everyone has an ultimate starting point), but their grasp of logic tends to be weak. Interestingly, I have encountered professing atheists who can give cogent arguments, but they fail when it comes to biblical matters. One was giving excellent responses to ChiComs who were justifying their invasion of Tibet, but when it came to God, his mind imploded.
DeletePardon me while I say some things you already know.
The genetic fallacy is when someone rejects something because of its source. I'll allow that it's not unreasonable to reject something from proven liars, such as scientists who have been caught committing multiple instances of peer review fraud — they are likely to be viewed with suspicion. Rejecting scientific material supporting recent creation and refuting evolution because it comes from creationists is a blatant genetic fallacy. On more than one occasion, I've seen misotheists rejecting creationist material because they are not "real" scientists (this mixes in an ad hominem as well.
As you said, Sagan presented atheists as open minded, but that is seldom the case. Some are compelled to essentially shout down whatever a st00pid dumb Xtian says, even if it means contradicting observations a Christian makes, quoting from an atheistic and evolutionary point of view. Then they portray themselves as noble victims, patiently dealing with theists.
The analogy also has numerous instances of the fallacy commonly known as moving the goalposts. It is also related to the no true Scotsman fallacy. They ask a question, we answer, the answer isn't good enough or another challenge is issued. (I am convinced most atheists on teh interwebs take joy in wasting our time.) One tinhorn demanded that I provide one instance of a creationist prediction coming true. After I gave several, he grumbled that he only wanted one.
In my line of work (so to speak), I have to discern between honest inquiries and obstreperous types who want to waste my time and contradict for its own sake. Contradictions and insults are not refutations. Nor are assertions or prejudicial conjectures forms of evidence.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
(1Cor 15:3-10)