The Dragon In My Garage

by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) 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!

"Show me," you say.  I lead you to my garage.  You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely.  "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."  And so on.  I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

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.  What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.  The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head.  You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me.  The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind.  But then, why am I taking it so seriously?  Maybe I need help.  At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.  Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded.  So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage.  You merely put it on hold.  Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you.  Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise.  The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch.  Your infrared detector reads off-scale.  The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you.  No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me.  Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive.  All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence.  None of us is a lunatic.  We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on.  I'd rather it not be true, I tell you.  But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported.  But they're never made when a skeptic is looking.  An alternative explanation presents itself.  On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked.  Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath.  But again, other possibilities exist.  We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons.  Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling.  Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

There has been a lot of airtime, both on the internet and news, lately about abortion and abortion rights. Because of this, I’d like to review some key points in Roe v. Wade’s opinion that was delivered by Justice Blackmun.

“We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views… One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.”

Here is a very astute, if obvious, observation.

“Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection.”

This is an attitude that is all too rare in today’s world.

“We bear in mind, too, Mr. Justice Holmes' admonition in his now-vindicated dissent in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905):

‘[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.’”

This is what I think is sorely lacking in the abortion debate. This is especially true amongst the anti-abortion set. Pro-choice inherently allows choice, whereas, amongst anti-abortionists or ‘pro-lifers’ there is no room for choice, in their minds.

“…reason is the State's interest -- some phrase it in terms of duty -- in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception.”

This is, arguably, the most powerful argument against abortion.

“Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.”

There are many risks, costs and difficulties associated with pregnancy, birthing and raising children. All citizens possess inherent rights and liberties that are laid out in our constitution. A woman is not deprived of her rights, simply because she becomes pregnant.

“Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to ‘person.’ The first, in defining ‘citizens,’ speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. ‘Person’ is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators…

…the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented.   McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F.Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F.Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State,     Ind., at    , 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom.  Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P. 2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971)”

In my opinion, a fetus cannot be considered a “person” simply because it does not have self-consciousness and is not an independent being. Once birthed, the baby is an independent being, although the question of self-consciousness during the first year after birth is contentious.

“It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. The Aristotelian theory of ‘mediate animation,’ that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this ‘ensoulment’ theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from the moment of conception. The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church.”

Here is a very interesting overview of the history of the “when does life begin” question. It demonstrates why there is so much disagreement on the subject. I must say, though, I find the Catholic view of “ensoulment” to be both laughable and pathetic. There is not the slightest evidence for a soul and they appear to be nothing more that wishful thinking.

“In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes ‘compelling.’”

I agree with almost all points and believe they fit well within our constitution. Yes, the state does have an interest in the life, health and welfare of its citizens. However, this does not trump the personal liberties of one person when it comes to the forced martyrdom of their body for the lives of another. At the latter portion of pregnancy, the fetus becomes viable and, simultaneously, the risks of an abortion become nearly as significant as the risks of the birthing process. Until this changes, the argument that unrestricted late-term abortion appears injudicious.

All quotes from:

ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY

No. 70-18

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

410 U.S. 113; 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159

December 13, 1971, Argued 

January 22, 1973, Decided

This is the first installment of a short series on why I do not find any modern or pre-modern religion convincing. Because I am exposed more to Christianity and the OT is the basis for the three of the big five religions, you may find that I bias my responses to Christianity. The reasons that I cite are applicable to most religions, though.

I will begin with several philosophical arguments.

The first is generally termed the argument from evil. The essence is that if god is all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing then evil could not exist. The logical formulation can be found rather easily via google and these are more about my thoughts on the subject rather than formal logic.

I find this argument to be very powerful against the idea of a personal god, mainly because of several examples. The first of which is the pain and suffering of innocents. Cancer and other diseases and injuries of the very young are antithetical to a loving personal god but fits perfectly with what we know of nature and evolution. The other example of the evil that would be illogical for a personal loving god is the animal world. Are animals worthy of punishment for some odd reason? Why would a loving god make the world in such a way that animals must be forced to prey on one another or lead their lives trying to avoid predation?

The next philosophical argument is the illogicity of omnipotence and omniscience. It is illogical that a being could be either or both. An omnipotent being is limited by its own abilities and is, therefore, not omnipotent. The easy example of this is the ‘can god make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it’ statement. An omniscient god could not be omnipotent because it could not alter the future, thereby ruling out omnipotence. There are numerous fine points that could be delved into with this argument, but these are the basics.

These are some primary arguments against the notion of a loving and all-powerful god. There are many more philosophical arguments but for me it is the multiplicity of available information that has swayed me against any type of god belief. That is why there will be more to come.

 

The history of abortion is long, indeed, having been found in documents dating back over 3000 years. Today, there is still much contention whether abortion is an 'immoral' act. What I’d like to explore is not whether it is immoral or not but should abortion be permitted in a nation that maintains freedom and liberty to be its highest ideals.

I remember when I went from pro-life/anti-abortion to pro-choice/pro-abortion rights. It occurred when I was in undergrad, taking a course in philosophy. The question was posed whether it was a right act to force somebody to remain physically connected to another person against their will in order to save the first persons life. Add to this that they’d be connected for nine months and that there was a very real chance of death and 26% chance of complications and my opinions toward the legality of abortion quickly changed.

This debate nullifies the argument of a fetus as a human. Of course, a fetus possesses human DNA, but then so do those millions [about 42 million] of skin cells that we shed every day. Using modern science, we can convert any one of those skin cells into an embryo. After all, every cell in our body contains the same genetic material, the only thing that differentiates cells is what parts of the genetic material is active.

Whether or not you consider a fetus a human being or a person is moot in this argument for one simple reason…

No one can command another person’s body. If I am dying of liver failure, I cannot demand that you give me a piece of liver. Nor can I demand a kidney or even a pint of blood. The reason is that our bodies are our own and no one can use our body to serve their purposes without our express permission.

In conclusion, the ability of a woman, or man for that matter, to control her reproduction and her body is a basic fundamental liberty.

What is going on here? Over the last several weeks, I've noticed several violent acts directed towards liberals. The most recent was the murder of Arkansas Democratic Chairman, Bill Gwatney and before that the shooting in a Unitarian Church in Knoxville, TN. What is the cause of these acts?

These are the types of actions that we are used to seeing with fundamentalists of various stripes. Are we seeing a new type of fundamentalist, the political party fundamentalist?

Honestly, I think the violence that we are seeing are just the actions of several mentally ill and, possibly, delusional individuals who would have found a reason for violence, whether political, religious or simply random.