How Sagan shot himself in the foot

Many atheists dismiss miracles on the grounds that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There are different ways of responding to Hume, Sagan, and their imitators in that regard, but atheism is ironically self-referential in that regard. Suppose we grant the principle for the sake of argument. As I've often remarked, naturalism posits a universal negative about miracles. So it only takes a single miracle to falsify atheism. But in that event it's the atheist who is making an extraordinary claim. It's extraordinary to dismiss every reported miracle as a false report. Consider the sheer number of reported miracles. Not to mention the sheer number of unreported miracles. Few things could be as extraordinary as the claim that every single report is false, given the incredible volume, by witnesses of every stripe under different circumstances. 

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary explanations

Carl Sagan famously asserted that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That's Hume in a nutshell. Sagan wasn't a philosopher, so his criterion is vague and dubious. And the maxim targeted miracles, among other things.

But suppose we turn his criterion around. Suppose we've verified an extraordinary claim. An implication is that extraordinary claims, if true, demand extraordinary explanations. We don't demand extraordinary explanations for ordinary claims. Ordinary explanations will suffice for ordinary claims. If, however, an extraordinary claim has been verified, then that calls for a special explanation for why it is the case. Explanations that are too unnatural, too implausible, too farfetched to be reasonable explanations for ordinarily claims may be warranted or rationally necessary in the case of verified extraordinary claims. The ironic upshot of Sagan's maxim is that it points to a supernatural cause if the claim has been established. 

Do UFOs demand extraordinary evidence?

Carl Sagan famously stipulated that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Many unbelievers treat his axiom as unquestionable. Recently declassified military footage of UFOs has caused quite a buzz. And these are't completely isolated incidents. Here's another I read about:

During training exercises, a carrier fleet monitored multiple objects over a period of days. The objects not only hovered for days at a time, but were tracked moving from 80,000 feet to just above sea level in .74 seconds—an impossible feat by all physical standards. They were witnessed by eye as well as on multiple imaging systems.

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/eond7n/topsecret_ufo_files_could_cause_grave_damage_to/fef2tav/

An acceleration rate that's impossible by all physical standards surely meets the definition of an extraordinary event. Indeed, it's almost the definition of a miracle, except that if it happened in this situation it was the result of highly advanced technology. 

What I'd like to point out as is that secular skeptics and debunkers who discount reported miracles but believe in reported UFOs of this kind don't apply Sagan's standard of evidence to UFOs. On the one hand, the UFO reports involve extraordinary claims. On the other hand, the evidence is ordinary. Imaging systems and eyewitness testimony. 

In fairness, I don't think Reddit is the most reliable outlet for information, and I haven't been able to track down the original source of the quote. However, the same incident has been reported in mainstream sources:

https://www.history.com/news/ufo-sightings-speed-appearance-movement

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a14456936/that-time-the-us-navy-had-a-close-encounter-with-a-ufo/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/12/18/former-navy-pilot-describes-encounter-with-ufo-studied-by-secret-pentagon-program/

My immediate point is not to vouch for the report but to note that many unbelievers have contradictory rules of evidence. They apply Sagan's criterion to reported miracles but ditch his criterion when it comes to UFOs and ETs. 

Betting on a dark horse

There are different approaches to Christian apologetics. One approach is evidential. I don't mean in the brand name sense of evidential apologetics. I just mean in the generic sense of stressing the evidence for Christianity in contrast to the evidence against atheism or other religious options. And that's a that's a very important approach. There's much more direct and indirect evidence for Christianity than the average Christian (much less the average atheist) is aware of.

But suppose we turned that around. Suppose for argument's sake that Christianity appeared to be false while atheism appeared to be true. Suppose the apparent evidence for atheism was overwhelming. In that case, would it not be irrational to continue to preach, pray, go to church, sing hymns, read the Bible, and so on?

Consider an analogy: Suppose the odds are 30-1 that if I bet on Secretariat, I will win. The more money I put on Secretariat, the larger my winnings. Would it not be irrational for me to bet on a dark horse rather than a proven winner? 

All things being equal, that would be irrational. If it's just a comparison between the odds of Secretariat winning in contrast to a dark horse, I'd be crazy not to bet on Secretariat.

But here's a wrinkle. The owner of the race track loses money if I bet on Secretariat. The payout isn't cost effective for the owner of the race track. So he abducts my kid brother and threatens to cut his toes off if I bet on Secretariat. If, on the other hand, I bet on a losing horse, he will release my brother unharmed. 

Is it still crazy for me to bet on a dark horse? If I'm really pissed off at my kid brother, that might be a dilemma. But seriously, I'd put my money on the long shot because the basis comparison isn't the odds of me losing but the odds of my kid brother losing his toes. Let's shift to a real life example:

I had a disease I had never heard of before: myelodysplasia. Its origin is unknown. If I did nothing, I was astonished to learn, my chances were zero. I’d be dead in six months...There was only one known means of treatment that might generate a cure: a bone-marrow transplant...Even with the perfect compatibility, my overall chances of a cure were something like 30 percent. That’s like playing Russian Roulette with four cartridges instead of one in the cylinder. But it was by far the best chance that I had, and I had faced longer odds in the past...One after another, I popped 72 of these pills. It was a lethal amount. If I was not to have a bone-marrow transplant soon after, this immune-suppression therapy by itself would have killed me. It was like taking a fatal dose of arsenic or cyanide, hoping that the right antidote would be supplied in time. Carl Sagan, “In the Valley of the Shadow,” Parade Magazine (March 10 1996).

Sagan bet on the dark horse. On the one hand, if he let nature take its course, he'd be dead in six months. Even even if he underwent aggressive cancer therapy, he might die from immunosuppressant drugs, and the bone marrow transplant only had a 30% chance of success. Not to mention the excruciating pain of the medical procedures.

Was it not irrational for Sagan to gamble on the long shot? Was it not irrational for him to undergo what was in all probability a futile course of treatment? But of course, that wasn't the basis of Sagan's comparison. Sagan wasn't making an abstract comparison between the chances of cancer treatment succeeding or failing. Rather, he was making an existential comparison between life and oblivion. He didn't believe in life beyond the grave. For him, this life is all you get. For Sagan, the existential criterion overrode the evidential criterion. 

By the same token, the choice between Christianity and atheism isn't a disinterested choice between different alternatives. For these have drastically different consequences, if true. Even if atheism was the odds-on favorite, it would still be irrational–supremely irrational–to be personally invested in that alternative. Sometimes it's foolish to bet on a winning horse. You're better off if you bet on a dark horse. If there's a slight chance that the underdog will win, there are situations in which the long shot is far the shrewder bet. 

In the shadow of death

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.

The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.

Many of them have asked me how it is possible to face death without the certainty of an afterlife. I can only say that it hasn’t been a problem. With reservations about "feeble souls," I have the view of a hero of mine, Albert Einstein: "I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I—nor would I want to—conceive of an individual that survives his physical death. Let feeble souls, from fear for absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoting striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." Carl Sagan, “In the Valley of the Shadow,” Parade Magazine (March 10 1996).

That's boilerplate secular humanism. But was Sagan really that nonchalant about oblivion? 

Some aspects of the treatment were extremely painful, but there’s a kind of traumatic amnesia that happens, so that when it’s all over you’ve almost forgotten the pain. The Hutch has an enlightened policy of self-administered anti-pain drugs, including morphine derivatives, so that I could immediately deal with severe pain. It made the whole experience much more bearable.

"I’m afraid I have some bad news for you," the physician said. My bone marrow had revealed the presence of a new population of dangerous rapidly reproducing cells. In two days, the whole family was back in Seattle. I’m writing this article from my hospital bed at the Hutch. Through a new experimental procedure, it was determined that these anomalous cells lack an enzyme that would protect them from two standard chemotherapeutic agents—chemicals I hadn’t been given before. After one round with these agents, no anomalous cells—not one—could be found in my marrow. To mop up and stragglers (they can be a few but very fast growing), I’m in the midst of two more rounds of chemotherapy—probably to be topped off with some more cells from my sister. Once more, I have a real shot at a complete cure.

In fact, he underwent three bone marrow transplants, despite the excruciating pain of his treatment. Isn't that the behavior of someone terrified of death? Someone desperately clinging to life? His brave words say one thing, but his actions send a different message. 

Sagan's wet candle

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. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (Ballantine 1997), 171. 

That's Sagan's uncredited knockoff on parables by John Wisdom and Antony Flew. I've commented on this before, but since it cropped up again, I'll revisit the issue.

This is Sagan's attempt to debunk the supernatural and paranormal. But there are several problems with his comparison:

i)  In medieval lore, dragons are part of the natural world. Yet dragon's are naturally impossible. It's naturally impossible for an animal that size to fly. It's naturally impossible for an organism composed of protoplasm to generate and exhale fire. That, in itself, is a reason to discount their existence.

ii) If they did exist, dragons are supposed to be physical, empirical objects. So they're supposed to be detectable in principle. Therefore, Sagan's thought-experiment artificially redefines the concept.

iii) The problem with Sagan's comparison is that he acts as though there's no evidence for supernatural or paranormal reports, so it's a matter of concocting face-saving explanations to account for the lack of evidence. But that's a straw man. There is prima facie evidence for certain kinds of paranormal or supernatural phenomenon. So the real question at issue is not the absence of evidence but whether the prima facie evidence is defective. 

iv) The fact that there's no Aston Martin DB5 in my garage doesn't imply or presume that there's no Aston Martin DB5 in your garage. If, moreover, when I peer into your garage, I sometimes see an Aston Martin DB5 but at other times the garage is empty doesn't mean the misses cancel out the hits. Likewise, the absence of miraculous healings or answered prayer in some cases doesn't cancel out the evidence for miraculous healings or answered prayer in other cases. 

Don't Extraordinary Claims Need Extraordinary Evidence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HgRWvqf-wM

Sagan's slogan

Recently I debated an atheist on Facebook. Here's part of the exchange:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

Simply parroting Sagan's slogan doesn't make it true or even meaningful. Once again, you don't get to take intellectual shortcuts.

It's funny how atheists imagine that just repeating Sagan's slogan automatically shifts the onus onto the Christian. What they fail to appreciate is that Sagan's slogan is, in itself, a claim, and therefore, when they quote the slogan, they themselves are assuming a burden of proof to defend his claim. You need to define what you mean by "extraordinary claims" and "extraordinary evidence." 

You then need to defend the assertion that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to justify your slogan. 

What does it even mean? By what standard of comparison is the supernatural extraordinary? If we're living in a world where the supernatural exists, then in what respect is it extraordinary that the supernatural exists in a world where the supernatural exists?

Likewise, if God exists, is it extraordinary that God would make his existence manifest through miracles, or answered prayer? Is that unexpected, or is that to be expected?

The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is needed to back it up.

If supernature exists, then nature is contingent on supernature. Supernature is more fundamental, more ultimate than nature. So it's counterintuitive to demand that we need more evidence or extraordinary evidence for something fundamental, on which other things depend.

McGrew on "extraordinary" claims

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Gv8Fw_fFE&feature=youtu.be

Pale blue dot

Some atheists believe in human rights, although they increasingly exclude certain classes (e.g. babies, the senile, the developmentally disabled). They wish to believe that humans have value. 

However, consider this famous statement by Carl Sagan–which is representative of the secular outlook. How can human life have any intrinsic worth given his description? Sure, some humans can be valued by other humans–just like some people cherish diamond rings or celebrity memorabilia (e.g. Elvis Presley's used sweatbands). But that's projecting value onto intrinsically worthless objects. It's a recipe for moral and existential nihilism: 

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam. 

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. 

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. 

http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/earth/pale-blue-dot.html

Aliens among us

One popular storyline in SF involves an advanced alien civilization that makes first contact with primitive humanoids. By definition, it has to be technologically advanced to be capable of deep space travel.

In one variation on this theme, first contact is the origin of humanoid religion. To primitive humanoids, the alien technology is magical. Godlike.

Continuing with our storyline, suppose humanoids passed down a traditional record of first contact in folklore. They recorded the appearance of the spacecraft. The appearance of the aliens. What they aliens did. 

The folklore might reflect a degree of legendary embellishment. Because the primitive humanoids lacked the scientific categories to describe first contact, they'd resort to mythopoetic categories. But it would still bear witness to a real event. 

Suppose ufologists appeal to this ancient folklore as evidence of first contact. Along come the debunkers. The counterparts to Carl Sagan, Martin Gardner, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Michael Shermer, and PZ Myers in our SF scenario.

Now even though, in our scenario, aliens really did make first contact, the debunkers would dismiss that out-of-hand. 

Another variant on this theme involves alien/humanoid hybrids. Say they use molecular cloning to create hybrids. Then the aliens leave the hybrids behind.

Some humanoids never interbreed with hybrids. Other humanoids interbreed with hybrids, but because the humanoids outnumber the hybrids, the alien DNA is steadily diluted until only trace elements remain.

Suppose geneticists discover some humanoid specimens with residual alien DNA. The ufologists cite that as scientific confirmation that the folklore about first contact was authentic.

But the debunkers dismiss that as genetic anomalies, the same way they explain away evidence inconsistent with Darwinism–even though, in our scenario, this really is evidence of first contact. 

The same mindset which causes atheists to discount miracles, irrespective of the evidence, would cause them to discount first contact, irrespective of the evidence.

Happily never after

Ann Druyan has written the following about Carl Sagan:

When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me - it still sometimes happens - and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous - not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance....That pure chance could be so generous and so kind....That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time....That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it’s much more meaningful....The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.

Also:

Now Carl's fever raged. I kept kissing him and rubbing my face against his burning, unshaven cheek. The heat of his skin was oddly reassuring. I wanted to do it enough so that his vibrant, physical self would become an indelibly etched sensory memory....I sit surrounded by cartons of mail from people all over the planet who mourn Carl's loss. Many of them credit him with their awakenings. Some of them say that Carl's example has inspired them to work for science and reason against the forces of superstition and fundamentalism. These thoughts comfort me and lift me up out of my heartache. They allow me to feel, without resorting to the supernatural, that Carl lives.

Given Druyan's worldview, love itself is a sort of illusion foisted upon us to achieve the continuation of our species. Shouldn't she refuse to take "refuge" in such an "illusion"? Shouldn't she face the truth head-on, flinty-eyed and stone-faced?

Given Druyan's worldview, not to mention Sagan himself saying stuff like we are nothing more than a collection of atoms, how is Druyan's panegyric for Sagan substantively different than a little child mourning the loss of a sandcastle as the tides wash it away?

What's telling is how Druyan's words expose her longing for that which is lasting and everlasting. She lives knowing all things must end, yet she yearns for more.

Some may think there's an achingly beautiful, enchanting quality to Druyan's words. But to me her words are at best like moss decorating dead wood. Or worse like sirens calling to Odysseus. Where's the allure when the truth steals away life and love? Fairy tales tell of princesses kissing frogs that turn into Prince Charming to wed and live happily ever after. That's enchanting. But how would it be enchanting to learn we're all just frogs, and there's no Prince Charming?