From the Reader Mailbag: Is God in the Same Category as a Lucky Ball?

Reader Question: Apologetic Professor, if you could be any superhero, which superhero would you be?

My response: Don’t be ridiculous.  I am a superhero: Font Boy, with his awesome power of font recognition!  (My favorite catchphrase: Don’t be afraid, ma’am, that’s clearly a sans serif 11.5).  There is one thing, and only one thing, that can destroy Font Boy (kind of like kryptonite can destroy Superman)…the Wingdings font.  I mean, seriously, what evil genius made that font? 

[Editor’s note: As any true fan of the Font Boy comic strip knows, Font Boy is in reality also susceptible to both the Cherry Chapstick of Doom and the evil villain Italica. We apologize for the error. Font Boy Rocks! Be Bold!]

Reader Question: The question is how any system of reasoning could say definitively that something doesn’t exist? Like you said correctly it can’t be done 100% for sure, because it could very well be that we just haven’t seen the evidence. BUT! And it is a big but for a reason – that statement in itself provides absolutely no more weight to the existence of miracles as to the existence of other cultural phenomena. I could say millions of people have experienced and would attest to the reality of ‘lucky objects’ for instance. Is there any evidence for these lucky objects? Not so far aside from easily turnable and interpretable personal experience. But so far as our trusted techniques of testing go that have unveiled untold knowledge about the natural world, there so far appears to be no evidence of lucky objects actually conferring skewed chances for people.

My response: A very fair and clever argument containing an honest question.  And written in the classic Courier 12 font – a Font Boy favorite.   So much to like!

Actually, this reader comment reminds me of the whole debate about the ontological argument (which, you may recall, I gave a rather poor grade to on this prior post).  The ontological argument suffers in part because one can use it to prove the existence of infinitely high mountains as much as God.  If one can use a line of reasoning to prove the existence of ANYTHING, including things that probably aren’t real, then it isn’t a very good argument for that purpose.  Well, if one can use my line of reasoning to say that one should be open-minded about things that, for all reasonable purposes, we ought to probably be closed-minded about (like the effects of lucky balls), then it probably isn’t a very good argument.

First, let’s establish some common ground.  Yes, I do agree with you that in some sense, there are some negations one can be more confident about than others.  That’s clearly accurate.  I’m pretty confident that trees are not going to actively attempt to eat me as I walk through the forest, even though I technically can’t prove that they won’t.  Well, my fearless attitude towards flesh-eating trees as I walk the Rattlesnake is based on evidence-by-absence…and I’m perfectly fine with that, so am I selective in my use of the criteria?

Undoubtedly – but not irrationally selective.  Let’s distinguish between two categories: (A) Flesh-Eating Tree Category: Things that seem implausible that essentially nobody believes.  These are things for which there is no prior reason to believe in them; because there is no positive evidence for them.  I’m perfectly happy joining the rest of humanity in considering them likely false until I am suddenly and tragically eaten by an Ent.  I reserve some small amount of possibility for it when I think about it, but mostly I live my life as if it is not going to happen.  (B) Miracles/Lucky Ball/Ghosts Category:  These are things for which there is some prior reason to consider them as valid due to some positive evidence in their favor.  In this case, the reason we even talk about them is because lots and lots and LOTS of people believe in them.
levitra india price Dry vagina causes painful sex, which can be very upsetting and distressing. Experts often recommend a cyclist online levitra tablet to stand out of saddle for at least every 15 minutes of sexual activity. Because the patients need to remain still buy viagra line all through the duration of the remedy, a light anesthetic is given. There are a number of lowest prices on viagra benefits, associated with online purchasing of this medicine.
And now, assuming as I do that eaten-by-trees experiences are not ubiquitous in human experience, I turn to the cultural argument the reader actually made.  What of things that are more commonly-held beliefs (such as those in category B above) but may be false – such as the lucky ball or belief in ghosts?  Is it ok to use evidence-by-absence in such cases?

I’d like to make two points in response to this question.  However, it turns out that this post is already egregiously long, and thus I’ll have to hold off on point 2 until next week. At any rate, here’s point 1:

Before pursuing the overlap of the lucky ball with God, I’d like to point out that it is a little dangerous to rule out the validity of a common human experience without carefully considering all the evidence, and without keeping an open mind about it even if “scientific” research seems against it.  And yes, that includes the power of the “lucky ball” when you putt at golf.  You seem to be kind of smug about the “evidence” against lucky balls, but it is a good case study to figure out why do you disbelieve in lucky balls?  Is it because of scientific evidence (not a perfect reason – science has dismissed many things only to find evidence for it at a later date) or personal experience (which puts you in the category you said you are trying to avoid – “untested personal experience”) or because you read in the newspaper that some famous scientist said so (authority)?

In a sense, your lucky ball argument partially illustrates my original point. In my opinion, you too quickly dismiss the possibility of lucky balls, and it is precisely because you are relying too heavily on evidence by absence.  Science can’t find evidence of a lucky ball, therefore there isn’t any to be found.  Well, maybe science can’t find the evidence because it hasn’t used the right tool yet; maybe it is looking for a sub-atomic particle through a pair of binoculars. 

Consider this: A few years’ ago, most social psychologists (almost all of whom are atheists) would have similarly dismissed the idea of pre-cognition – being aware of something before it happened – as being “hokey.”  Lots of studies – plenty of scientific evidence – showed that it didn’t exist.  And yet, the most influential journal in the field just published a 9-study package arguing that people DO have the ability to predict things right before they happen.  So, when you throw around the word “evidence” as if there is “evidence” against lucky balls and miracles, I distrust it quite a bit.  “Evidence” in this sense is uncertain, when used to disprove the possible existence of something.  And it is often is based on a not-very-thought-out faith in the scientific method.  (If science can’t find an effect of the lucky ball, then it must not exist.  Well, I’m a huge fan of science – but an educated fan.  As a knowledge-gathering device, it, too, has its limitations).

Now, before I get all sorts of nasty e-mails from the anti-lucky-stuff-crowd, let me immediately say that I myself do not believe in lucky objects, and one day hope to write a book (currently existing only in my head for the last 20 years) called Beyond Superstition to explain exactly why.  (Actually, the first research study I ever designed was to help explain why people believe in lucky objects, so I’ve thought about that issue quite a bit). But my reason for not believing in them is more because of Christian philosophy and only partially because of a lack of “evidence” in their favor.  Christianity actually argues against a superstitious belief system.  All the same, my worldview would not come crashing down if lucky balls existed, and I think you dismiss too quickly the possibility of their existence.

Don’t get me wrong: I think your argument has merit, and indeed is a quite useful intellectual parallel.  Next week, I’ll continue this discussion of the lucky ball by discussing more specifically what happens if we grant the assumptions that (a) there is no real effect of a lucky ball, (b) people believe in the lucky ball anyway, and (c) the lucky ball overlaps conceptually with God.  All those assumptions are at least partially true, and next week we’ll discuss in more detail what that means for a belief in God as it pertains to evidence-by-absence. Stay tuned!