Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism...

[TimG]

I don't. Can you formulate a scientific test to disprove the existence of leprechauns?

You would first have to come up with a scientific definition of a leprechaun (short guy in a green suit is probably not enough). You would also likely have to agree on a definition of the word 'existence' (i.e. do characters in animations 'exist'?) Edited July 8, 2010 by TimG

[August1991]

You would first have to come up with a scientific definition of a leprechaun (short guy in a green suit is probably not enough). You would also likely have to agree on a definition of the word 'existence' (i.e. do characters in animations 'exist'?)

Leprechauns don't exist and it is foolish to pretend that they do.

You might as well argue that, well, 3+2 equals 6.

----

We Westerners know that some things are true, but we question other beliefs - since maybe we're wrong. As Westerners, let us defend, teach our children to defend - and teach foreigners to understand - this Western belief, this scientific method to question.

[TimG]

Leprechauns don't exist and it is foolish to pretend that they do.

You can't make that claim unless you come up with scientific definition of a Leprechaun.

ex·ist   /ɪgˈzɪst/ Show Spelled[ig-zist] Show IPA

–verb (used without object)

1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.

2. to have life or animation; live.

3. to continue to be or live: Belief in magic still exists.

4. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur: Hunger exists in many parts of the world.

5. to achieve the basic needs of existence, as food and shelter: He's not living, he's merely existing.

I present a lucky charms commercial as proof of a Leprechaun's existence (as per def#2 + def#4)

[ToadBrother]

You would first have to come up with a scientific definition of a leprechaun (short guy in a green suit is probably not enough). You would also likely have to agree on a definition of the word 'existence' (i.e. do characters in animations 'exist'?)

Indeed. And the same problem applies to God.

[ToadBrother]

We Westerners know that some things are true, but we question other beliefs - since maybe we're wrong. As Westerners, let us defend, teach our children to defend - and teach foreigners to understand - this Western belief, this scientific method to question.

Considering how many Westerners will ignore methodological naturalism if it, for instance, challenges their beliefs (Creationism, naturopathy, etc.), I don't think the West is any better a model than, say, China.

[Shwa]

We all believe many ideas without absolute proof or complete understanding. However, evidence and probability plays a role.

For example I cannot say for sure that unicorns do not exist, however, evidence supports their lack of existence. It has never been found alive or dead, there are no fossils and there is evidence that animals like the Oryx or an old extinct rhino type thing may have lead to the unicorn myth, etc. So despite knowing that we have not searched every inch of the earth or uncovered every fossil, reason, evidence and probability let me believe with a great amount of certainty that unicorns are a myth.

Belief in a religion or superstition works in the opposite direction. The preponderance of evidence suggests that religion is a man made fairytale. The religious even take pride in their strong faith, which is just belief without evidence. In this case reason, evidence and probability must be thrown out the window in order to believe.

This is all well and fine if it were not for anagogy. How do you explain that?

Well you may explain it away as a function of some bio-electrical impulse that is a response to some stimulus. But you would be explaining it what it is, not it's effects which have had an undeniable profound influence on practically every single human being (and culture) since anything was ever recorded.

And anagogy is not restricted to religion, but shares it's profound effect with practically all literature and art.

Here is an example to help sort things out.

The words may indeed be a "man-made fairytale" but can you say the same for the effect of those words (or the images they invoke)? Because when we discuss religion, that is what it will all boil down to. And the effect appears to be as natural as any other long standing and cherished human feeling.

I know how you wish to use the existence of unicorns to make your point about religion and dieties. But unicorns DO exist - in literature and art, the medium from which they are known. The fact that you 'know' what a unicorn 'is' is enough proof don't you think?

[Michael Hardner]

I don't. Can you formulate a scientific test to disprove the existence of leprechauns?

You can't prove a negative, I think it goes.

But that doesn't mean the questions are equally valid. I can come up with a host of ridiculous questions that are unanswerable, all from my imagination. It doesn't mean that these are serious questions deserving of consideration.

[Michael Hardner]

Leprechauns don't exist and it is foolish to pretend that they do.

You will fall into a logic trap if you enter into the arena by answering the question.

The question isn't about the answer to the "Does this exist question ?" but about the quality of the question.

[Michael Hardner]

Considering how many Westerners will ignore methodological naturalism if it, for instance, challenges their beliefs (Creationism, naturopathy, etc.), I don't think the West is any better a model than, say, China.

Many Westerners may believe this or that, but our institutions tend to (I said tend to) enforce science as the basis for our common laws, with regards to naturopathy and the like.

[dre]

You can't prove a negative, I think it goes.

But that doesn't mean the questions are equally valid. I can come up with a host of ridiculous questions that are unanswerable, all from my imagination. It doesn't mean that these are serious questions deserving of consideration.

[Michael Hardner]

So you can say:

"It's philosophically equivalent to ask whether fairies, gnomes and god exists - there is the same basis."

Which is true, but it misses the point that asking the question basically says to any religious person:

"You are a ridiculous person that does not deserve my respect. Your beliefs are equal to anything I can think up in my head. Ha ha."

I'm sure some people think that it's clever enough to do that, but ignores the fact that humans can and do believe ridiculous things, and feel so strongly about them that their rights to live their beliefs are protected by law.

Why not laugh in a Sikh's face and say "you think your sword protects you from God ?". I guess if your purpose is to demean people while doing that, then you can still say it's a philosophical question you're posing. And if you're a xenophobe who just hates people of a certain religion, you can equally make fun of them and not be afraid of being called on it - just by saying "I'm only asking questions !".

Some other things I've heard that people use to rationalize this type of behavior:

- "such and such a religion has caused lots of problems throughout history." This is a good one. Get on the bus and start ripping crucifixes off the necks of the Italian widows then, screaming "Spanish inquisition ! Spanish inquisition !"

- "religion tries to control my world, so i'm just giving it back to them." Religious people are within their rights to ask for changes to our legal system, to ask for unreasonable things, or to be very rude and even contradict the principles of their own religion. When you're debating with them on web boards next time, why not ask "What would Jesus post ?". Also try to imagine what plug-ins Jesus has on his browser and report back to me.

[dre]

You will fall into a logic trap if you enter into the arena by answering the question.

The question isn't about the answer to the "Does this exist question ?" but about the quality of the question.

It only SEEMS like the Leprechan Question is less valid than the Magic Sky God question, because one of those myths is more popular. Its folklore VS mythology. We know the leprechan story isnt real because we made it! Sorta like Santa Clause.

However... you gotta be carefull in assertion... because we made up the various magic sky god mythologies as well.

[dre]

So you can say:

"It's philosophically equivalent to ask whether fairies, gnomes and god exists - there is the same basis."

Which is true, but it misses the point that asking the question basically says to any religious person:

"You are a ridiculous person that does not deserve my respect. Your beliefs are equal to anything I can think up in my head. Ha ha."

I'm sure some people think that it's clever enough to do that, but ignores the fact that humans can and do believe ridiculous things, and feel so strongly about them that their rights to live their beliefs are protected by law.

Why not laugh in a Sikh's face and say "you think your sword protects you from God ?". I guess if your purpose is to demean people while doing that, then you can still say it's a philosophical question you're posing. And if you're a xenophobe who just hates people of a certain religion, you can equally make fun of them and not be afraid of being called on it - just by saying "I'm only asking questions !".

Some other things I've heard that people use to rationalize this type of behavior:

- "such and such a religion has caused lots of problems throughout history." This is a good one. Get on the bus and start ripping crucifixes off the necks of the Italian widows then, screaming "Spanish inquisition ! Spanish inquisition !"

- "religion tries to control my world, so i'm just giving it back to them." Religious people are within their rights to ask for changes to our legal system, to ask for unreasonable things, or to be very rude and even contradict the principles of their own religion. When you're debating with them on web boards next time, why not ask "What would Jesus post ?". Also try to imagine what plug-ins Jesus has on his browser and report back to me.

Hmmmmm. Well I guess people COULD do all those things, and you could consider the leprechaun question to be disrespectfull.

But I think its actually a usefull and very on point response to the statement often used by religious people: "You cant prove that god doesnt exist". If its used in this context, I think it makes good sense.

[Michael Hardner]

It only SEEMS like the Leprechan Question is less valid than the Magic Sky God question, because one of those myths is more popular. Its folklore VS mythology. We know the leprechan story isnt real because we made it! Sorta like Santa Clause.

However... you gotta be carefull in assertion... because we made up the various magic sky god mythologies as well.

Right... but we made up philosophical questions about metaphysics too, since a lot of them can't be proven. I think we made up the sky god, and all the rest of it but the purpose of asking questions should be to get answers not insult people.

[Michael Hardner]

Hmmmmm. Well I guess people COULD do all those things, and you could consider the leprechaun question to be disrespectfull.

But I think its actually a usefull and very on point response to the statement often used by religious people: "You cant prove that god doesnt exist". If its used in this context, I think it makes good sense.

As a response to that point, it is a valid answer. But if they're only talking about a metaphysical concept, say, of another plane beyond the known universe then the comparison to leprechauns is weaker.

A sky god with a beard and a white hat can be pointed to as having trappings of human culture, as can a leprechaun. But the pure 'Does god exist ?' question is a different question, I think.

But I see your point, there are some cases where it's valid to point out that imaginings can equally not be disproven. I see the context of the discussion you set out as being more constructive, since you're talking about a debate wherein the participants are already discussing points of logic.

[dre]

Right... but we made up philosophical questions about metaphysics too, since a lot of them can't be proven. I think we made up the sky god, and all the rest of it but the purpose of asking questions should be to get answers not insult people.

But that question isnt used to insult people its used as a response when a religious person says "You cant prove that god doesnt exist!". The leprechan question in this case is intentionally designed to be absurd, for the purpose of countering the negative proof fallacy.

In this context I think its ok.

[Bonam]

A sky god with a beard and a white hat can be pointed to as having trappings of human culture, as can a leprechaun. But the pure 'Does god exist ?' question is a different question, I think.

The very concept of "god", no matter how unspecific an entity you mean by the term, is still a construct of the human imagination. Whether he is a man with a beard and a hat, or some metaphysical all-powerful force, or some being outside the universe, or some spirit on "another plane of existence" these are all just human imaginings, none of them being more valid than the others.

[ToadBrother]

You can't prove a negative, I think it goes.

But that doesn't mean the questions are equally valid. I can come up with a host of ridiculous questions that are unanswerable, all from my imagination. It doesn't mean that these are serious questions deserving of consideration.

The only reason questions about God's existence are more serious than question's about faerie creatures who can appear and disappear at will is because a lot of folks have higher emotional stakes in the latter rather than the former. In other words, the seriousness of the question is entirely subjective.

[ToadBrother]

But that question isnt used to insult people its used as a response when a religious person says "You cant prove that god doesnt exist!". The leprechan question in this case is intentionally designed to be absurd, for the purpose of countering the negative proof fallacy.

In this context I think its ok.

I suppose that's part of it. My larger point is that, epistemologically, both questions are pretty much identical. In both cases, the alleged beings have the power to hide themselves from us, and more generally, are supernatural in nature, and thus are quite beyond the bounds of any scientific test. If the supernatural can be measured, predicted and modeled, then it's not supernatural, otherwise, it's quite beyond science. The best tool we have at that point, and likely we will ever have is parsimony. While we can never really disprove the existence of any supernatural entity, we can find simpler explanations. Thor is said to cause thunder and lightning, and yet the more parsimonious explanation is natural processes. Nothing can entirely eliminate some unseen supernatural agent, but in applying Occam's Razor, we attempt to remove unnecessary entities.

[MightyAC]

This is all well and fine if it were not for anagogy. How do you explain that?

Well you may explain it away as a function of some bio-electrical impulse that is a response to some stimulus. But you would be explaining it what it is, not it's effects which have had an undeniable profound influence on practically every single human being (and culture) since anything was ever recorded.

And anagogy is not restricted to religion, but shares it's profound effect with practically all literature and art.

Here is an example to help sort things out.

The words may indeed be a "man-made fairytale" but can you say the same for the effect of those words (or the images they invoke)? Because when we discuss religion, that is what it will all boil down to. And the effect appears to be as natural as any other long standing and cherished human feeling.

I know how you wish to use the existence of unicorns to make your point about religion and dieties. But unicorns DO exist - in literature and art, the medium from which they are known. The fact that you 'know' what a unicorn 'is' is enough proof don't you think?

Granted, art, literature, music, etc have physiological effects on us. However, I am sure you will agree there is a difference between a fictional character in literature vs an actual being. The fictional character certainly does exist in text, drawings and in imagination however, using existence in this form is simply changing or expanding the intended meaning of existence from my previous examples.

The religious do not perform rituals, do charity work, kill abortion doctors, blow up building or send prayers to gods they believe are only real in literature or imagination; they do these things because they believe the gods and teachings are real.

Placebos can illicit physiological change in patients as well but again, only if they believe the drug was real.

So if we grant unicorns pseudo or fictional reality we must also grant religion fictional reality as well, but that is not what people have faith in.

[Michael Hardner]

But that question isnt used to insult people its used as a response when a religious person says "You cant prove that god doesnt exist!". The leprechan question in this case is intentionally designed to be absurd, for the purpose of countering the negative proof fallacy.

In this context I think its ok.

I think I said that above, yes. In the context of a point-by-point logical argument, it's not insulting to say "you can't disprove anything". This is why religious people should never try to argue the logic of their beliefs. It's a losing game. The most ridiculous cases happen when people try to bend scientific facts to agree with the bible.

[Michael Hardner]

The very concept of "god", no matter how unspecific an entity you mean by the term, is still a construct of the human imagination. Whether he is a man with a beard and a hat, or some metaphysical all-powerful force, or some being outside the universe, or some spirit on "another plane of existence" these are all just human imaginings, none of them being more valid than the others.

A personified god, yes. But the idea that there is some ghost in the machine of our bodies, or that there is another plane of energy or something is a little more nebulous.

[Michael Hardner]

The only reason questions about God's existence are more serious than question's about faerie creatures who can appear and disappear at will is because a lot of folks have higher emotional stakes in the latter rather than the former. In other words, the seriousness of the question is entirely subjective.

Of course. I'm always more interested in the human factor, and making progress on these things. I don't think we have to go much further than the architects of American democracy, who moved such matters out of the affairs of state.

That said, civil society needs to persevere - that's what will save us IMO.

[MightyAC]

Of course. I'm always more interested in the human factor, and making progress on these things. I don't think we have to go much further than the architects of American democracy, who moved such matters out of the affairs of state.

Their fantastic work is being eroded though. Things aren't any better at home either. Here in Ontario we still have a publicly funded Catholic school system and the name of a god in our national anthem. Unbelievable for this day and age. The problem is that, like labour unions, religious groups are easy to organize and made to vote in unison on single issues. Which makes them very unpalatable for politicians to touch. In contrast organizing non-believers or at least the religiously indifferent has been equated to herding cats.

I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem. My only idea so far has been a referendum. At least that way it becomes a single issue, separate from a politician's election platform.

In the meantime we have to continue to attack irrationality and erode religious certainty.

I think the criticism of irrationality just has to come from a hundred sides all at once. In the entertainment community, maybe it will just have people making jokes that are funny enough and true enough, so as to put religious certainty in a bad light. - Sam Harris

[bloodyminded]

A personified god, yes. But the idea that there is some ghost in the machine of our bodies, or that there is another plane of energy or something is a little more nebulous.

But every atheist I've ever heard, whether they are unhelpfully insulting or not, are arguing against a personified god, and never against a "plane of energy" or something.