When 'skepticism' is the mark of a closed mind

The waving statue conversation reminds me of the BC cartoon where BC looks up to the heavens and cries out: "Is anybody up there?" Immediately a marquee sign falls from the heavens and lands in front of him which says "I'm up here."

Could BC reasonably conclude that this was an answer to prayer? It seems rather obvious to me that he could conclude this. Such evidence is not an ineluctable "proof" for anything, but it is evidence worth noting nonetheless.

AnAtheist.net wrote of the waving statue. "So while I would be very intrigued by such evidence I would still wish for it to be carefully investigated. Maybe the statue is a practical joke. Maybe you were hallucinating. Maybe you are lying."

Sure. Investigate. I am heartened that AnAtheist.net would at least be intrigued. Most other atheists appeared rather dogmatic in their dismissals of waving statues.

Now back to BC's sign. Let's say that we did investigate the incident and discovered that an airplane flying over head dropped the sign by accident. (It was being flown at the time to London for the debut of "I'm Up Here", a new Andrew Lloyd Webber musical.)

Would that investigation mean that we could now dismiss the evidential force of the sign? To think this is to miss the point of the discussion. (More on that in a moment.)

Felkor provided us with the following case:

"Some friends of mine awhile back found out they were completely broke, out of food, and were quite a ways until the next paycheque. They immediately prayed for God to intervene. The next time they opened their front door, there were several bags of groceries sitting on the doorstep. They did not tell anyone about their predicament, and had only just found out themselves moments before. They considered this a miracle and an answering of prayers."

Sorceror replied:

"What Rauser is proposing are things that aren't just unlikely, but that the odds against them are so Enormous that they are effectively impossible. Unlikely things happen all the time. A million-to-one shot happens eight times a day in New York City. Do effectively impossible things happen? That's the question we're dealing with now."

As with some others, I was left wondering what it means for something to be "effectively impossible". Really what we just have is various shades of unlikely. But to talk about probabilities of events alone misses the point. The point is emphatically not whether, or how often, extraordinarily unlikely events occur. As Sorceror notes, they happen all the time.

Let's say a child's limb regenerates or a statue waves at you (or seems to). This is not in itself evidence for the supernatural. It only becomes evidence when it occurs within a particular context like the man in the park or BC asking for a sign, or some friends needing groceries. To focus on the probabilities alone misses the point. It is the context of the event that gives it its evidential force.

And that's what is so disturbing about Shermer's fundamentalism. He doesn't care how improbable the event (e.g. a limb regenerating) or how rich and suggestive the background context in which it occurs (e.g. immediately following a prayer meeting). He would never conclude that it was miraculous.

It is interesting to note how dismissive some of the responses to Felkor's example are. Silver Bullet for instance calls it an urban legend and poppycock. (Poppycock? Perhaps SB could toss in a balderdash and bunkum for good measure.) 

Lynn's Case (not poppycock or an urban legend)

A couple years ago my student Lyn Beddoes was going through a difficult time. Her husband was recovering from a heart attack and they had faced some financial challenges. Then her son came to her and asked her if they could go to West Edmonton Mall's Waterpark. "Mom, I really want to go. Please!"

But Lyn had to say they just couldn't afford it. (A family of four would pay about eighty bucks for a day pass.) Still, it greatly pained her to say no given all the family had experienced.

About an hour later, a person from their church came to their door and said "I have this family pass to West Edmonton Mall Waterpark and thought you and your family should have it."

On any other day that would have been merely a notable act of good will. But in the context, and given the temporal proximity to the son's request, it becomes something else entirely.

A waving statue it is not. But neither is it an urban legend or poppycock. Events like this happen to people of faith. Unlikely events within an explanatory context. They are not ineluctable proofs for the existence and providential care of God. But they surely have some evidential force. And it is the mark of a truly closed mind that will dismiss all such testimony with a facile wave to chance and circumstance.