Question:

Suppose someone suddenly gets sick, pulls off the road, and witnesses a three-car pile-up that he would have been involved in otherwise.  Would he betray confirmation bias if he concluded that his guardian angel had assisted him?

Reply:

It is not unusual to pull off the road because of sudden illness, it is not unusual for three-car collisions to take place, and there would be nothing at all surprising in both occurrences happening together.  So such an incident would not constitute proof of angelic intervention.

On the other hand, if one already has good reason to believe in guardian angels on other grounds, there is no fallacy in believing that this may have been an instance of angelic intervention.

So if you were thinking you had proof of angelic intervention, think more clearly.  But if you thought you couldn’t believe in it, you can stop worrying.

Concerning climate change, here is another lesson, which has stuck with me ever since the days when I thought I wanted to be a mathematical modeler in another field.

You can always build a model that predicts everything that has already happened.  That doesn't mean you can predict what is going to happen.

I would advise any young Christians who are considering a career in government, irrespective of branch, at any level, from low to high, that before any other study they read the first six chapters of the Book of Daniel:  Thoughtfully, very carefully, and in the context of the Exile.

Mutatis mutandis, of  course:  Making the necessary changes.  Paganism is not the same as neo-paganism; the times before Christ were not the same as the times after.  And the literary genre of the book is strange and difficult for us.  But the times for which it was written are very like the ones we are in.

An acquaintance tells me that in his part of the world, which would normally be warm this time of year, the weather is unusually cold.

If it’s shivery where you are, this may amuse you:  The next time someone comments on the cold, quietly murmur “Climate change,” then watch for the reaction.

I don’t claim to know whether the globe is getting warmer.  I do know that for scientists who live on money from the government, it’s a beautiful hypothesis.  No conceivable evidence can disconfirm it.  Hot weather or cold, rising global average temperatures or stable ones, favorable data, unfavorable data, or no data at all – it’s all good.

Philosophical hedonists think that in the final analysis, the good is nothing but what we desire, and the only thing we actually desire is pleasure.   Did you think you desired love, knowledge, meaning, friendship, or friendship with God?  No, you only desire the pleasure of those things.

Most of my students find this argument irresistible.

They have all seen movies like The Matrix, so to provoke them to look deeper, I used to pose this puzzle:  “Suppose someone invented a system of illusions you could be plugged into, with sights, sounds, sensations, and memories so photo-perfect that you thought you loved real people, you thought life was meaningful, you thought you were enjoying friendship with God – in fact, whatever you want -- but actually all these impressions were being fed into you by electronics.  The inventor offers to plug you into his device for the rest of your life.  Do you accept the offer?”

Over the years, the number responding “No, it wouldn’t be real” has declined, and the number responding “Sure!  What’s real anyway?” has increased.

So I’ve upped the ante.  I’ve dropped the distraction of virtual reality.  Now I say, “Suppose a surgeon offers to strap you onto a gurney and implant a tiny electrode implanted into the pleasure center of your brain.  You will stay on the gurney forever, but with just a few microvolts of carefully monitored current, you will experience the greatest possible pleasure, and a glucose drip will keep you alive so it goes on and on until you die of old age.  You won’t think you are loving someone.  You won’t ask whether anything has meaning.  You won’t think you enjoy friendship with God.  The only thing you will be aware of is all that pleasure.  Now do you accept the offer?”

Fewer answer “Yes” than before.  But you’d be surprised by how many still do.

All sorts of philosophical fallacies are wound up in that reply, for every pleasure implies a good different than itself – the pleasure is the experience of repose in that particular good.  Hallucinating pleasure is not the same as experiencing it, any more than hallucinating a cat is the same as seeing it.  In one case, the cat isn’t there; in the other case, the good isn’t.

Yet I can’t help but think that the problem is not just an error in reasoning.  What kind of society have we made, that comfortably brought-up young people can prefer death-in-life to life?