An atheist once asked me about Carl Sagan's dragon in the garage analogy. The analogy goes something like this: Two people are talking in a garage. As we often do on this ministry, let us call them Bill and Ben:
Bill: I have a dragon in here.
Ben: I can't see it.
Bill: It's invisible.
Ben: Ok, let's pour some flower on the floor and see its footprints.
Bill: It's a dragon, it can fly!
Ben: Ok, let's turn on a thermal camera.
Bill: It won't show up, it's capable of disguising its heat signature.
The story goes on as Ben proposes a number of tests that could prove the dragon exists, and Bill shoots those tests down with excuses for why they would not demonstrate the dragon's existence. Eventually, the dragon becomes indistinguishable from that which does not exist, and one has to ask why Bill even thinks he has a dragon. The atheist, of course, wanted to claim that this is comparable to not just Christianity, but to all supernatural beliefs. God, in his mind, is also indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist. Therefore, allegedly, God doesn't exist.
There are so many things wrong with this comparison that it's actually rather difficult for me to write this article. The first problem, which applies to all analogies of its kind, is that Sagan approaches the issue with the assumption that belief in God and the supernatural is necessarily stupid. Thus, he made up the most stupid thing he can think of, then tried to make it comparable to Christianity. The apologist in the analogy ends up demanding blind faith, only making excuses for why the evidence does not fit his view.
Tell me, do you know any Christian apologists like that? I certainly don't. Sure, while I spend a certain amount of time explaining why atheistic attempts to test God are flawed (i.e. correcting straw man fallacies...), I also spend a lot of time providing evidence for the truth of Christianity. By contrast, Bill's dragon is so devoid of evidence, one would have to ask how bill knew about his dragon in the first place. But how do we know about Christianity? From the Bible. The Bible is a historical document, which is why a large portion of evidence for Christianity is historical in nature.
Which brings us to the next point. Most atheists don't seem to understand the concept of evidence. They often mistake a lack of specific evidence for a lack of evidence full stop. To illustrate this, consider that I once knew an atheist who said he would only believe in Jesus if we found His body. Although I am sincerely hoping I don't need to explain the flaw in this, I will do so anyway: Christians believe Jesus is alive. If we could find His body, that would instantly disprove Christianity. It is perfectly ok to say that we don't expect to find Jesus' body. It's not an ad hoc excuse for why a certain test wouldn't work. Disarming straw men is not the same as making excuses.
Let's consider the dragon's invisibility. In the case of a dragon, one would have to wonder how it could be invisible. Camouflage is not unthinkable, but complete invisibility? Probably not. But what about air? Can you see that?
The answer is no, you cannot see air. And we can be grateful for that, because if we could see air, we couldn't see anything else, since air is constantly right in front of, and on, our eyes. Is "I can't see the air" a valid argument against the existence of air? Of course not. Air, by its very nature, is technically invisible. What about God? God is also invisible. In fact, in Romans 1:20, we read that the invisible attributes of God are clearly seen from creation. Which brings me to the next point. Let's join Bill and Ben back at the garage.
Bill: Someone built this garage.
Ben: Oh yeah? Show me the builder.
Bill: Well he's not here right now! In fact, he died in the 90s.
Ben: So let's see his body.
Bill: He was cremated, and his ashes were scattered in the Thames.
Ben: Then your builder is indistinguishable from that which does not exist, so I can say there's no such thing as builders.
Suddenly, things are flipped on their head. The burden of proof is no longer on the one making the claim, but the one denying the claim. The claim itself is self-evident, whereas denying it is irrational. Even with no immediate evidence that the specific builder exists, the building itself remains as testament to a builder.
Similarly, creation exists as testament to God. It is unreasonable to deny Him, simply because it is impossible for the world, as we know it, to come into existence without something that fits His description. It is actually more likely an explosion created Bill's garage than our universe.
But obviously, proving a builder does not prove the builder. Just because a god exists does not mean it is the Lord God of Israel. So God further proved His identity in various ways throughout history, chief among which is the resurrection of His Son. As I like to say, "I'd rather believe the testimony of one man who rose from His grave than a billion men who are heading to theirs". Coincidentally, this is also the central claim of Christianity. If you believe the historical fact that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the grave, you will be forgiven of your sins and inherit eternal life in Heaven. Alternatively, you can continue in a philosophy that is as absurd as "lacking belief" in the guy who built Bill's garage.
Comments