Parable about skepticism

I’ve been trying to think of a simple story to illustrate how so many people try to make use of “problems” or “holes” in knowledge in order to justify ignoring vast amounts of things that are explained or explainable in much simpler ways, even if still incomplete. Here is what I’ve come up with so far - feedback welcomed.

A parable about skepticism.

Imagine the following scenario. A principal walks into the building early one morning and finds a stack of chairs reaching nearly all the way to the ceiling! The first conclusion leaping to mind is that some students had too much time on their hands and were just having some fun – a prank as it were.

But someone else had some other ideas about this. It was noted that it would be very difficult for anyone to stack the chairs so high – indeed, it was quite the challenge to safely dismantle the stack. So the alternative explanation for this state of affairs was as follows. Space aliens must have visited the school during the night, and using special powers of theirs they stacked the chairs, perhaps as a kind of message or sign for us to consider. When others mocked this possibility, the proponents replied that actually, the alien hypothesis does explain how the chairs could have been put that way – because it would have been very difficult – maybe impossible, for any students to do such a thing. Besides, the janitor reported that the chairs had not been that way the night before, and the school was entirely locked and vacated when he left. So unless the others can explain just how all this was done, it is insisted that the alien hypothesis must be the right one.

But doesn’t this just raise more questions than it answers? Why would any space aliens be interested in performing such a bizarre feat? Isn’t there much more productive stuff they could have done if they had wanted to give a sign? Why were there no signs of forced entry into the building? Nothing else seemed to be out-of-place or amiss. Isn’t the simplest answer just that some creative kids got a collaborating adult with keys to let them in, and worked together to do this? But the alien enthusiasts reply that this “normal” kind of explanation has too many unexplained or speculative holes in it. None of us were there to see it, so how can we rule out the alien hypothesis? We can’t!

As the uproar of the day died down, the wise old Janitor just locked the school doors that evening and went on home, bemused be all that he heard. People haven’t changed much – in all their ‘skepticism’, they strain out the gnats only to swallow a camel.

4 Likes

Interesting. Maybe needs to be a bit more pithy to keep people’s attention in these days of Tik-Tok and such.
Here is my contribution in how I try to explain the difference in correlation and causation, with the Tylenol thing inspiring me to use it recently:

For Immediate Release:

In a study of fatal car crashes, it has been found that in a higher than expected number of accidents, there are multiple beer cans found in the floorboard of the cars involved.
We can assume the beer cans must be interfering with the operation of the brake and accelerator pedals, causing the crashes.
Therefore, we need to press forward with a plan to educate drivers to either throw their cans out the window, which has opposition from some fronts, or collect them in a refuse container rather than dropping them in the floorboard. To accomplish this goal, we will have a nationwide program to distribute refuse bags and a “Bag that Can” media blitz.

4 Likes

Fun, but

IMHO neither solution is plausible whcih leaves the rather ridiculous “miracle” as a third alternative. (Ridiculous because, like the aliens, there is no reason to do it)
However it raises one other thought
What if we cannot conceive, let alone see the solution?

Richard

Edit
“We don’t know” is a valid answer, but not when we think that we do.
(And that is the crux of the reactions of scientists on this forum to people like me who dare to question their answer)

1 Like

love the post Mervin…i will provide a real illustration in answer to your question there:

When my dad was in the Australia Air Force, a group of airmen (mostly mechanics) decided to pull a prank on the base commander.
They stole away his Vampire Jet in the middle of the night, took it over to a nearby flagpole on the base, removed the horizontal stabiliser, pushed the jet up to the flag pole such that its twin tail booms were now each side of the pole, then reassembled the jet in that location!

So, anyone who didnt know anything about aircraft might make a similar set of assumptions as your poem, however, sometimes the obvious escapes us because we just dont know.. Lets agree for the purposes of the illustration here, that we have to rely on one of at least two alternatives…someone reconstructed it around the pole or, it was an act of God and a whirlwind lifted the jet up into the air and it settled perfectly back onto the ground around the flag pole!

Now i can hear the naysayers laughing at the absurdity of the second theory there, however, let me just back that up by reminding everyone of the following:

Dilemma 1.
Christ was dead (after having been stabbed in the side when he seemed to die on the cross) and in the grave for 3 days

We know for a fact that after that amount of time being dead, it results in irreversible cellular death…a body cant come back to fully conscious life from that scientifically

Dilemma 2
Christ floated up into the sky against known laws of gravity…no one else around him was lifted up…so it clearly wasnt a tornado or twister that did it. Scientifically impossible for a man to do that!

Dilemma 3
Christ appeared to float out of sight and in reading further in the bible, we must form the conclusion he went bodily into outer space desspite survivng such a journey being a biological impossibility for a human…we cant survive the vacuum of space!

As we consider the Christ story, and remember the soldiers told Pilot that someone stole His body away…so the bible actually records the eyewitness of a group of Soldiers who were there by the grave as having stated His body was stolen…

In light of the above, what is more likely, that a fighter jet was caught up in a twister and then settled back down on the ground around a flag pole or a human body that had already suffered irreversible cellular death came back to fully conscious life?

Whilst you contemplate that question…what about Jonah in the belly of a whale? Is that easier to believe than a body coming back to life after being dead for 3 days?

Then theres the talking donkey…is that easier to believe than a dead body, which had also been stabbed with a spear, coming back to fully conscious life after 3 days.

The bible is full of scientific impossibities…the New Testament doesnt fix any of that…its even worse for the scientist than the Old Testament Creation, Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Exodus orJob stories are!

The New Testament is more of a scientific problem because what Christ did, and claims he will do in the future. The New Testament Gospel shakes the very core of all known Science tradition!

There is no way around that issue for those who demand science is right for the Old Testament perceived dilemmas!

The truth of the matter is this, given the huge scientific problem that the gospel presents, believing in a literal Exodus and Moses by comparison, is slam dunk no brainer!

What’s wrong with Adam’s argument

  1. False dilemma / stacked analogy.
    The jet story pretends there are only two options (human prank vs. tornado). Real inquiry canvasses all plausible human explanations first; invoking a whirlwind is a caricature to make “miracle” look absurd.

  2. Category error about science and miracles.
    “Irreversible cellular death” describes what happens absent special divine action. The resurrection claim is precisely that God overrode ordinary processes. Using routine regularities to disprove a miracle simply assumes miracles can’t occur.

  3. Textual misstatements.

    • He writes Jesus only “seemed to die”; the narratives present a real death (e.g., spear, burial).
    • He says “soldiers told Pilate the body was stolen.” In Matthew, the priests bribe the guards to say it was stolen—presented as a counter-story, not eyewitness truth.
    • Ascension ≠ “Jesus went bodily into outer space.” The text says he was taken up and hidden by a cloud; “outer space” is Adam’s inference, not scripture.
  4. Inconsistency charge misses the TE/EC position.
    Theistic evolutionists do allow exceptions (miracles) but ask for principled reasons to treat an event as special divine action. They use science for ordinary providence (earth’s age, geology), and historical/theological grounds for singular claims (resurrection). That’s not “science must always be right”; it’s different epistemic domains.

  5. Bayesian asymmetry.
    Ubiquitous, repeatable phenomena (radiometric clocks, starlight, stratigraphy) have massive, convergent evidence → very high prior for an old earth. A one-off miracle rests on historical testimony → not ruled out, but evaluated differently. Treating them the same is a mistake.

Paste-ready response (short)

Your jet analogy sets up a false choice and then ridicules the “whirlwind” option; real inquiry considers ordinary human causes first. More importantly, you’re turning descriptions of ordinary regularities (“irreversible cellular death,” gravity, vacuum) into a universal veto on miracles. That just assumes miracles can’t happen.

On the texts: the Gospels present a real death and burial; and in Matthew the guards are bribed to claim theft—hardly neutral testimony. “Outer space ascension” is your gloss, not what Acts says.

TE/EC doesn’t demand science rule everything; it distinguishes ordinary providence (where science applies) from special divine action (where history/theology weigh in). We accept old-earth evidence because it’s repeatable and convergent; we consider the resurrection as a singular divine act, not a lab process. Calling that inconsistent conflates two different kinds of claims.

2 Likes

Adam, Adam, why do you do this?

What is it about science that drives you to try and reconcile or twist it into Scripture? Let it Go! Scripture is about faith and God, science isn’t. There is no need to worry about human endeavour and thirst for knowledge, Science cannot find God, nor can it save you from sin and temptation.
If some scientists want to try and disprove or ridicule God with science let them! There seem to be a few here with other ideas. Science is not the enemy, but it is not your friend either, it is strictly cold and neutral.

Richard

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.