Good Dan demolishes DCP’s favorite apologetic tactic

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Sounds like it’s time for a court of love to sort him out. Wouldn’t want him missing out on Super VIP heaven for calling a spade a spade.

I think he is careful to only react and not actively engage until someone else makes a claim. But I agree that might not matter.

Well, it will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

I tend to think the Church will give McClellan a wide berth and will leave him alone. He has almost 1 million subscribers on TikTok with about 260,000,000 video views and 29 million "likes." On his YouTube channel (which he recently ramped up and started posting content) he already has 142,000 subscribers with over 25,000,000 video views. His book, "The Bible Says So" will be released next week, and based upon pre-sales, it looks like his book will debut on the New York Times Bestseller List.

The Church tends to leave people like McClellan alone. I can't think of a single excommunication the Church has done to someone with such a huge following and influence.

[Rivendale]

A follow up video explaining some questions Dan got. https://youtu.be/-xq8eHH7TMo?si=825OA4BXGfC9tB2C

[huckelberry]

A follow up video explaining some questions Dan got. https://youtu.be/-xq8eHH7TMo?si=825OA4BXGfC9tB2C

I enjoy and respect a lot of things that Dan presents. I think they're all worth thinking about. I found this one a little bit of a clarification of the puzzlement I had about the previous one about data for Angels. I don't know what data for Angels supposed to refer to. I keep suspecting or hearing a kind of subtle Mormon apologetics in Dan's approach to this and his approach to monotheism, all you believers in angels can't criticize Joseph Smith for his angel can you?

[Rivendale]

A follow up video explaining some questions Dan got. https://youtu.be/-xq8eHH7TMo?si=825OA4BXGfC9tB2C

I enjoy and respect a lot of things that Dan presents. I think they're all worth thinking about. I found this one a little bit of a clarification of the puzzlement I had about the previous one about data for Angels. I don't know what data for Angels supposed to refer to. I keep suspecting or hearing a kind of subtle Mormon apologetics in Dan's approach to this and his approach to monotheism, all you believers in angels can't criticize Joseph Smith for his angel can you?

If I understand your question correctly I think Dan says that there is robust data that explains why people think angels and demons exist but no data that explains if they exist. If they exist and have interactions with the natural world we would be able to detect it. His analogy of demon possession explains this.

[huckelberry]

I enjoy and respect a lot of things that Dan presents. I think they're all worth thinking about. I found this one a little bit of a clarification of the puzzlement I had about the previous one about data for Angels. I don't know what data for Angels supposed to refer to. I keep suspecting or hearing a kind of subtle Mormon apologetics in Dan's approach to this and his approach to monotheism, all you believers in angels can't criticize Joseph Smith for his angel can you?

If I understand your question correctly I think Dan says that there is robust data that explains why people think angels and demons exist but no data that explains if they exist. If they exist and have interactions with the natural world we would be able to detect it. His analogy of demon possession explains this.

Rivendale, I understand there are good ideas about why people may feel they have experienced angels or demons without them being real. I understand there is no solid evidence beyond uncertain reports about such things. Dan did admit there was no sure conclusion but data indicates no angels. I wince at the word data, what data? Are there measurements showing no angels? I cannot imagine how. Yes I see that if angels interact with the natural world they become theoretically detectable. But I do not see how they would be practically detectable. Interaction if it exists is clearly infrequent and unpredictable. I do not see how any test could be set up. Suppose an angel hit me upside the head yesterday at 3pm. I see no way I could be sure it was an angel and no way a ghost detector is going to show whether or not it was.

People experience stuff that they interpret as angels or demons sometimes. There is serious meaning in the experiences for the people. I am happy to accept that whether the experiences are all psychological or involve a spiritual dimension as well remains uncertain. I do not feel that the observation that people image these experiences for themselves or for the telling of them with culturally provided images is actual evidence that they do not entail real spiritual connection. The experiences may not come with images so people create or use available images.

I agree with Dan's primary point that to defend the idea of angels by downplaying science or proposing science is mere assumptions and prejudice is a poor way of thinking. To disrespect science and evidence is to corrupt one's own thinking by disabling key aspects of thought.

For people who believe in a creator God they have a picture of the universe which has space for angels and demons and perhaps other stuff. That of course is not data showing angels exists but it does not have the conflict with an overall picture of how things are that the question of angels presents for a person not believing in God. A universe without God appears to have less or no space for angels.

The problem of data and angels would've course apply to asking if there is a god. One might say that like for the question of angels there is no data. Well, people have reasons they believe God exists (and if so then angels are more likely) but do those reasons qualify as data? Perhaps qualifying as data requires that there are not plausible alternative interpretations of the adduced observations. If so people have reasons but no data to believe in God and angels.

[Rivendale]

If I understand your question correctly I think Dan says that there is robust data that explains why people think angels and demons exist but no data that explains if they exist. If they exist and have interactions with the natural world we would be able to detect it. His analogy of demon possession explains this.

Rivendale, I understand there are good ideas about why people may feel they have experienced angels or demons without them being real. I understand there is no solid evidence beyond uncertain reports about such things. Dan did admit there was no sure conclusion but data indicates no angels. I wince at the word data, what data? Are there measurements showing no angels? I cannot imagine how. Yes I see that if angels interact with the natural world they become theoretically detectable. But I do not see how they would be practically detectable. Interaction if it exists is clearly infrequent and unpredictable. I do not see how any test could be set up. Suppose an angel hit me upside the head yesterday at 3pm. I see no way I could be sure it was an angel and no way a ghost detector is going to show whether or not it was.

People experience stuff that they interpret as angels or demons sometimes. There is serious meaning in the experiences for the people. I am happy to accept that whether the experiences are all psychological or involve a spiritual dimension as well remains uncertain. I do not feel that the observation that people image these experiences for themselves or for the telling of them with culturally provided images is actual evidence that they do not entail real spiritual connection. The experiences may not come with images so people create or use available images.

I agree with Dan's primary point that to defend the idea of angels by downplaying science or proposing science is mere assumptions and prejudice is a poor way of thinking. To disrespect science and evidence is to corrupt one's own thinking by disabling key aspects of thought.

For people who believe in a creator God they have a picture of the universe which has space for angels and demons and perhaps other stuff. That of course is not data showing angels exists but it does not have the conflict with an overall picture of how things are that the question of angels presents for a person not believing in God. A universe without God appears to have less or no space for angels.

The problem of data and angels would've course apply to asking if there is a god. One might say that like for the question of angels there is no data. Well, people have reasons they believe God exists (and if so then angels are more likely) but do those reasons qualify as data? Perhaps qualifying as data requires that there are not plausible alternative interpretations of the adduced observations. If so people have reasons but no data to believe in God and angels.

I think it goes far beyond this. You seem to describe navel gazing. (no disrespect) The time to believe things is when you are convinced, not when you have motivated reasons that may include fear. Anecdotal evidence is not good evidence, especially in the wide swath of human experiences. If an angel hit you upside the head why would you not consider Roland the closet goblin? I think that is what Dan is getting at. We have data that supports why these ideas get propagated. We don't have data that shows the same thing with real angels. They appear to be culturally generated like how almond eyes appeared on alien abductions after the movie Close Encounters. Or how UFO sightings involved rockets after they were invented.

[drumdude]

I find one very strong correlation to be salient: the number of claimed angelic visitations and the amount of people carrying cameras.

In other words, if angels still interact with our world, it must be an absolute chore to do it in a way that isn’t recorded to be used as evidence. This applies to every miracle. They somehow never get recorded with one of the billions of cameras and microphones around the globe.

What is more likely, that angels are camera shy, or that they simply don’t exist?

[huckelberry]

I find one very strong correlation to be salient: the number of claimed angelic visitations and the amount of people carrying cameras.

In other words, if angels still interact with our world, it must be an absolute chore to do it in a way that isn’t recorded to be used as evidence. This applies to every miracle. They somehow never get recorded with one of the billions of cameras and microphones around the globe.

What is more likely, that angels are camera shy, or that they simply don’t exist?

Hi drumdude,

I on the other hand suspect it would very easy for an angel to act unobserved and undocumented. First, it does not have to be visible, l am not an expert but assumed not visible as a starting idea. It is possible appearing to someone is mental, not involving light for cameras.

If one thinks of angel as an agent for miracles then of course they are unproven. If a miracle happens at time A then a person subsequently becomes aware of the event moment B thinks to document and test at time C. The test is way too late, the event is over done and gone in time. Did a miracle occur? It's too late to know.

[huckelberry]

Rivendale, I understand there are good ideas about why people may feel they have experienced angels or demons without them being real. I understand there is no solid evidence beyond uncertain reports about such things. Dan did admit there was no sure conclusion but data indicates no angels. I wince at the word data, what data? Are there measurements showing no angels? I cannot imagine how. Yes I see that if angels interact with the natural world they become theoretically detectable. But I do not see how they would be practically detectable. Interaction if it exists is clearly infrequent and unpredictable. I do not see how any test could be set up. Suppose an angel hit me upside the head yesterday at 3pm. I see no way I could be sure it was an angel and no way a ghost detector is going to show whether or not it was.

People experience stuff that they interpret as angels or demons sometimes. There is serious meaning in the experiences for the people. I am happy to accept that whether the experiences are all psychological or involve a spiritual dimension as well remains uncertain. I do not feel that the observation that people image these experiences for themselves or for the telling of them with culturally provided images is actual evidence that they do not entail real spiritual connection. The experiences may not come with images so people create or use available images.

I agree with Dan's primary point that to defend the idea of angels by downplaying science or proposing science is mere assumptions and prejudice is a poor way of thinking. To disrespect science and evidence is to corrupt one's own thinking by disabling key aspects of thought.

For people who believe in a creator God they have a picture of the universe which has space for angels and demons and perhaps other stuff. That of course is not data showing angels exists but it does not have the conflict with an overall picture of how things are that the question of angels presents for a person not believing in God. A universe without God appears to have less or no space for angels.

The problem of data and angels would've course apply to asking if there is a god. One might say that like for the question of angels there is no data. Well, people have reasons they believe God exists (and if so then angels are more likely) but do those reasons qualify as data? Perhaps qualifying as data requires that there are not plausible alternative interpretations of the adduced observations. If so people have reasons but no data to believe in God and angels.

I think it goes far beyond this. You seem to describe navel gazing. (no disrespect) The time to believe things is when you are convinced not when you have motivated reasons that may include fear. Anecdotal evidence is not good evidence, especially in the wide swath of human experiences. If an angel hit you upside the head why would you not consider Roland the closet goblin? I think that is what Dan is getting at. We have data that supports why these ideas get propagated. We don't have data that shows the same thing with real angels. They appear to be culturally generated like how almond eyes appeared on alien abductions after the movie Close Encounters. Or how UFO sightings involved rockets after they were invented.

I'm not sure of what you are thinking of with navel gazing I believe that contemplation and introspection have their place of value. They shouldn't take the place of genuine action. We are perhaps thinking differently more with the idea of belief. I don't have any beliefs that I put in a box beyond questioning and beyond review. I view all beliefs as being hypotheses to work with and to act upon and able to be changed as evidence indicates.

[drumdude]

I find one very strong correlation to be salient: the number of claimed angelic visitations and the amount of people carrying cameras.

In other words, if angels still interact with our world, it must be an absolute chore to do it in a way that isn’t recorded to be used as evidence. This applies to every miracle. They somehow never get recorded with one of the billions of cameras and microphones around the globe.

What is more likely, that angels are camera shy, or that they simply don’t exist?

Hi drumdude,

I on the other hand suspect it would very easy for an angel to act unobserved and undocumented. First, it does not have to be visible, l am not an expert but assumed not visible as a starting idea. It is possible appearing to someone is mental, not involving light for cameras.

If one thinks of angel as an agent for miracles then of course they are unproven. If a miracle happens at time A then a person subsequently becomes aware of the event moment B thinks to document and test at time C. The test is way too late, the event is over done and gone in time. Did a miracle occur? It's too late to know.

If the angel is just an experience that someone has in their mind, then I concede that angels could be everywhere without detection.

It’s hard to differentiate that experience from schizophrenia, I think. If a criminal says “a demon made me do it,” do we take him at his word?