Consistency is Key

"There's a homeless man in our attic!"

"What?"

"It's true! He's been thumping around up there all morning!"

"All morning? How'd he get in there? Didn't we lock up last night?"

"I don't know but he's probably going through all our stuff looking for valuables."

"I'm sure we locked up, did you see him?"

"No, I just heard him."

"Well, how do you know it's a him then?"

"Okay okay, a homeless person. But it's probably a him, just statistically speaking."

"Well, if you only heard the noise, how can you be sure it's a homeless person and not a raccoon or something?"

"I KNOW it's a person. A raccoon couldn't possibly make that much noise."

"Now wait a second, how can you say that you KNOW it's a person when you said yourself that you didn't see anyone?"

"I KNOW it's a person. I'm 100% sure of it. My instincts are spot on on this type of thing."

"Hold on a sec..."

"It's a hairy homeless man who wants soup. He's probably a war vet and wants to find his old war medals which he drunkenly believes reside in our attic. He got in by taking a crowbar to the back door. We should call the cops because he's armed and dangerous and wanted in three counties."

"..."

"What?"

"You can't possibly know all that if the only evidence you have is that you heard something. I didn't hear anything. For all I know you didn't either."

"Just because the truth is frightening doesn't make it not the truth. Don't worry, we'll call the cops. We can hide in the bedroom and lock the door and turn the lights off and I'll cuddle you under the covers to keep you safe. We should probably take our clothes off too because the soup-craving veteran criminal is said to be afraid of naked bodies."

"...in that case, I'll take my chances with the homeless man."


At what point do we stop taking the claims of this person seriously? And for what reasons? Are those reasons consistent with the way we handle claims made by everyone?

Examine your reaction to the dialogue. Were you skeptical right away? Or did it take the claimant making a statement of knowledge that was not apparently available to him?

I don't ask that people convert. I just ask that they be consistent. If it is not okay to accept this persons claims on faith, then why would it be okay to accept the claims of a priest, pastor, rabbi or mullah on faith? Each make claims about reality, with 100% certitude, to which they can not apparently know the answer.