The Dragon in My Garage

{{bronze}}{{skepnav}}{{books}}
'''"The Dragon in My Garage"''' is a chapter in [[Carl Sagan]]'s 1995 book ''[[The Demon-Haunted World]]'',<ref>''The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark'' by Carl Sagan (1995) Random House. ISBN 0345409469.</ref> which presents an analogy where the existence of [[God]] is equated with a hypothetical insistence that there is a [[dragon]] living in someone's garage. This is similar to [[Russell's Teapot]] in the way it forms an apt analogy for the concepts of the [[burden of proof]] and [[falsifiability]]. The main thrust of how Sagan develops the garage-dwelling dragon example is that the proponent employs increasingly ''[[ad hoc]]'' reasoning to describe their belief in the face of further questions. Eventually, the [[moving the goalposts|goalposts are moved]] in such a way as to render the initial assertion practically unfalsifiable. In a more general sense, this part may be done during the initial definition of the belief, or as when replying to critical examination of the belief in question.

Dragon-style arguments originate in what [[Daniel Dennett]] terms "[[belief in belief]]":<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/16/daniel-dennett-belief-atheism The folly of pretence] (Daniel Dennett, ''Guardian'', 2009-07-16); detailed further in his book ''Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon''.</ref> rather than actually holding a belief, you think you ''should'' hold the belief — or "fake it till you make it".{{efn|The phrase "fake it till you make it" was popularized by {{wpl|Glenn W. Turner||,}} a [[Florida]]-based [[conman]] who ran [[multilevel marketing]] and [[pyramid]] schemes.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/27/fake-it-phrase-american-con-man/ This all-but-forgotten con man sold America on ‘fake it till you make it’] by Helaine Olen (February 27, 2023 at 7:00 a.m. EST) ''The Washington Post''.</ref>}} The ''post hoc'' justifications come from [[cognitive dissonance]] between what the believers think they should believe and how these beliefs would actually manifest in practical terms. While such justifications need to be made quickly on an ''ad hoc'' basis, someone declining all these tests must, somewhere in their head, have a model that makes them ''not'' expect to see this sort of [[evidence]] at all.<ref>[http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/ Less Wrong - Belief in belief]</ref> This is tantamount to not really holding the belief (since you'd expect to see ''something'' if you really did believe), but just thinking that they do, hence "belief ''in'' belief". This is often [[Rationalisation|rationalised]] away in much the same manner that the metaphorical dragon is, by changing the rules to say that the dragon doesn't ''really'' need to have a real effect on our lives to have a real effect on our lives. ''What''? Exactly.

In the case of the dragon, we expect footprints and flames, in the case of [[miracles]] and [[prayer]] we expect the ability to test them — and proponents subsequently attempt to hide these things from [[experiment]]al scrutiny.

==Overview of the analogy==
Sagan described the discussion as follows:<ref>Sagan, Carl.  ''The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark'' Ballantine: New York, 1996.</ref>

{{quotebox|'''"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"'''

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin<ref>Franklin, Richard L. (1994). "Overcoming The Myth of Self-Worth: Reason and Fallacy in What You Say to Yourself". ISBN 0963938703</ref>) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
<br><br>
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle&nbsp;— but no dragon.
<br><br>
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
<br><br>
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
<br><br>
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
<br><br>
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
<br><br>
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
<br><br>
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
<br><br>
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
<br><br>
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
<br><br>
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
<br><br>
<u>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?</u> 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. <u>What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.</u>}}

==How do I do this?==
The process is comparable to the [[God of the gaps]] argument. In this argument, gods are claimed to be responsible for the creation or day-to-day running of aspects of the [[Universe]]. As scientific knowledge expands, the gods are not found where [[theist]]s expect them to be. For example, none of our observations of the [[Sun]] and the [[Moon]] have revealed the presence of {{wpl|Apollo}} and {{wpl|Artemis}} and their chariots.<ref group=note>In [[Classical mythology|Greek mythology]], the Sun god Apollo and his sister Artemis (or {{wpl|Helios}} and {{wpl|Selene}} for that matter too, before these two deities were syncretized with the two mentioned siblings) were said to ride their chariots across the sky with the sun and the moon, towing them in the way a car may have a trailer hitched-up to it.</ref> Because of this, believers in Apollo's and Artemis' purported roles would either have to abandon the belief that both tow the sun and the moon around, or redefine parameters of the belief. For example, one could claim that Apollo and Artemis are invisible to our eyes and instruments.

It's easy to create your own unfalsifiable belief. Just follow these steps:
# Express a belief
# Someone proposes a way in which the belief can be tested
# Add or change an attribute of the belief to render the proposed test invalid, and simply reiterate step 1

Similarly, early Christians, including [[Paul of Tarsus]], identified [[Heaven]] with other [[planet]]s. However, now that we know that other planets are uninhabitable by humans — and do not have [[angels]], [[demons]], and God — Heaven has moved to an invisible dimension.

==Examples==
===Catholicism===
{{main|Catholicism}}
Catholicism traditionally postulates a just and all-loving God, but this is not consistent with a [[Infant damnation|God who would send unbaptized babies to Hell]]. Some Catholics employ ''ad hoc'' reasoning to invent a less nasty place, named [[Limbo]], although this has never been part of official doctrine, and has no scriptural support. With [[Pope Benedict XVI]]'s 2006 renunciation of Limbo, Catholics have to either accept that babies burn in [[Hell]], or employ yet more ''ad hoc'' reasoning to save babies from damnation without causing [[baptism]] to be unnecessary for [[salvation]]. It would seem a terrible world in which people can make their own peace with God, thus bypassing the clergy and their collection bowls — the latter perhaps being the greater loss.

===NOMA===
{{main|Non-Overlapping Magisteria}}
[[Stephen J. Gould]]'s concept of "Non-Overlapping Magisteria", which separates the world into a material realm that can be explained by science and a non-material realm that can be explained by religion, effectively turns the entire concept of religion into one big garage-dwelling dragon. While in practice NOMA is used by [[apologists]] to ignore scientific evidence when they want to and to claim that "alternative interpretations" of evidence are still valid, a literal application of NOMA removes religion from having any observable qualities — as observable qualities ''must'' be material. Sagan's dragon analogy becomes apt here as strict adherents to NOMA would have to ensure that their religious beliefs make no predictions, make no observable effects on the world, and produce no substantial effect on our lives, much like a man who opens his garage door and can quickly come up with a thousand excuses why his friend can't detect the magic dragon, because he doesn't actually ''expect'' to see a dragon in there.

This strict view of NOMA throws out much of the use religion might have; divine revelations can be tested against fact, miracles can be observed to violate physical laws (though some would suggest these simply constitute ''new'' physical laws), and prayer ''can'' be tested if you expect it to have a particular effect. It's perhaps because of this that apologists never really take the strict NOMA view and follow it through consistently. (Or, more cynically, one might say they follow NOMA only when it suits their needs by avoiding having to provide evidence for their beliefs.)

===Prayer===
{{main|Prayer}}
Prayer has been the subject of several [[Randomized controlled trial|controlled trials]].<ref>[http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1849/have-studies-proven-that-prayer-can-help-heal-the-sick The Straight Dope - Have studies proven that prayer can help heal the sick?]</ref><ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all New York Times - Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer]</ref> One would expect — given that individuals have well-formed beliefs and a rational approach to them — that the empirical demonstration of prayer to have no effect would alter their opinion of its empirical effect. [[Backfire effect|Not so]]. As Bob Barth of Silent Unity explains in response to one trial funded by the [[Templeton Foundation]]:
{{cquote|… but we've been praying a long time and we've seen prayer work, we know it works, and the research on prayer and spirituality is just getting started.}}

Of course, this is straight-up [[cognitive dissonance]] — rejecting the results, or putting off accepting their conclusions in order to twist reality to fit an existing view. However, other theological positions have been to [[moving the goalposts|reject the concept that prayer can even be tested at all]], perhaps going so far as to reject that direct petitions to God and [[intercessory prayer]] are what prayer is actually for. The Catholic Church, for instance, focuses on "acts of reparation"<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12775a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia - Reparations]</ref> to address individual [[sin]], and this cannot, by definition, be tested empirically because there is no possible control.

===Psychics and mediums===
{{main|Psychic}}
In a 1989 [[American]] TV show ''Exploring Psychic Powers Live!'', self-proclaimed psychic [[Sylvia Browne]] failed miserably in her attempts to demonstrate psychic abilities. Rather than consider the possibility that she, like the rest of us, is bound by the physical laws of our Universe, she chose to redefine her abilities and the variables in the test.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150714232723/http://www.stopsylvia.com/articles/exploringpsychicpowerslive.shtml Stop Sylvia Browne] This website describes Sylvia's failure in greater detail (archived from July 14, 2015).</ref> Browne claimed that the audience was [[German]], when in fact only one member of the audience was German, and he spoke fluent English, and during the show she expressed no concerns while speaking to the German audience member.

==See also==
*[[Apologetics]]
*[[Invisible Pink Unicorn]]
*[[Logical fallacy]]
*[[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]

==External links==
*[http://digitalcommons.imsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=nature_sci There’s a Dragon in my classroom]
*[https://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/fact-vs-opinion/ Spherical Bullshit coverage]
*''{{wpl|Pete's Dragon (1977 film)|Pete's Dragon}}'', a Disney musical with a similar premise (except here there's an actual dragon, this being Disney) and a subsequent {{wpl|Pete's Dragon (2016 film)|non-musical remake}}

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dragon in My garage}}
[[Category:Skepticism]]
[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Existence of gods]]
[[Category:Books]]

Categories: Skepticism, Arguments, Existence of gods, Books