keyser_soze

So I'm reading a book today, and a chapter's intro section reminds me strongly of the IPU argument, but I've seen few IPU arguments that are as concise.


The passage is as follows:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose(I'm following a group therapy approach by psycholigost 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, and 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, bu the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray paint the the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, except she's in 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 veriditically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exceiting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so." --Carl Sagan THE DEMON HAUNTED WORLD, Random house 1995 p171


I posted it, as one would post the IPU puzzle, because I am constantly amazed at the people who wish to win an argument using the exact same proof of non-disproof as that shown above. It seems to be such a widespread practice among theists, that I wonder that it does not come as an addendum to every bible these days. So what do theists think about this? Does it help to give shape to our frustration? Does it help you to see why your beliefs seem so shallow and ridiculous?

Elvithriel

"That is so stupid, enough your pseudo-intellectual talk."

Is the the response you may get. At least, I did.

keyser_soze

I know, but I am hopeful that one day, someone like a magus will actually think to put himself on the other side of a single argument and then truly see why his beliefs are held to be ridiculous.:banghead:

Magus55

Don't hold your breath. I'll follow Jesus to the grave.

Paul2

God forbid magus thinking for himself.

keyser_soze

Actually, one might easily interpret the bible to say EXACTLY that. Remember, reason is the enemy of faith.

diana

Oddly enough, I would argue at this point that Magus does think for himself. [removed personal remarks] But within the assumptions upon which he has built his philosophy, he does think. And the emotional pull of that philosophy has thus far overridden any desire on his part to seek truth irrespective of what he wants to believe.

But he does think. It's just within such restrictive confines so as to appear to the outside observer as though he is not, in fact, thinking at all.

d

Jinto

Another excellent example of a claim that cannot be tested.

Did you mean to do that?

keyser_soze

Well, so far I have one theist's viewpoint "I refuse to think about it damnit", and several viewpoints on that particular theist. But as to the topic, what does everyone think? To me this is the way I see theology as it's represented by it's members....is this the way you see it as well?

diana

If one views it as a claim, I guess it's right up there with the assertion that Magus doesn't think for himself. Seems fair to me.



I meant it more as food for thought than an outright claim, really. Obviously, I have no way of knowing whether Magus' gears are running or not. I have, however, spoken with many Christians (and believers of all stripes) who exhibit clear indication of thought, however misguided I may think it is. With Magus, I've seen the occasional indication that something has sunk in, and I have a hard time writing those instances off as sheer magic.

It seems to me that Magus does think with what he has. He simply does not question what he's told (unless an atheist tells him so, in which case he usually doesn't question so much as begins with the assumption that we're just wrong, on account of we're atheists).

I responded to the comment because it strikes me as presumptuous and downright counterproductive of anyone to assert that his opponent "does not think." I understand the frustration that would provoke such an insult, but still...what's to be gained?

d