Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gravitybow · 04-10-2003, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Rod Thomson:
Interesting example by Carl Sagan, a very smart man who I nonetheless obviously thought was wrong. Let's dissect the situation more than I had an opportunity to do in the Herald-Tribune column confined by space limitations. By the boundaries of the example of the pink dragon, no they are not equal. But let's modify that example, and say that there are traces of an unknown pink substance that shows up in the garage. That occasionally there are burnt objects (mom said the dragon is fire-breathing) and that when you talk to the invisible dragon and make requests, they often come true (although not always) even though he does not talk back. Now we have the basis for a more equal act of faith in accepting or denying. Now, let's add the fact -- in this case yet another analogous fact -- that 2 billion other people also believe in the pink dragon in their garage and see evidences, and it would become clearly a contest of unproveable faiths.

That, I believe, is the closer analogy.

How can a man who makes his living as a writer make so many logic errors in one paragraph?

...let's modify that example, and say that there are traces of an unknown pink substance that shows up in the garage...

Traces? Unknown? The admittedly unexamined evidence could be applied to anything. Yet without any analysis, he appies it to his pink dragon.

...That occasionally there are burnt objects....

False Cause. There are no other causes of burnt objects in a garage? Is little sister a pyromaniac? Fireplace coals in a box? Faulty hot water heater? Bad wiring? Improperly stored oily rags? etc.

BTW, many years ago, my next-door neighbor's house burned to the ground. The fire started mysteriously in the garage. I suppose I should explain the cause to my neighbor, now that Thomson has enlightened us.

...(mom said the dragon is fire-breathing)...

Genetic fallacy (established by irrelevant history). Mom says so, so it must be true because Mom doesn't lie.

...and that when you talk to the invisible dragon and make requests, they often come true (although not always)...

Biased Sample (sample not chosen randomly from the population, ie., remembering the hits and forgetting the misses). The people who pray to the hot water heater say their requests often come true and the people who worship the right front tire say that their requests often come true.

...even though he does not talk back....

...or has ever been seen.

Now, let's add the fact -- in this case yet another analogous fact -- that 2 billion other people also believe in the pink dragon in their garage and see evidences, and it would become clearly a contest of unproveable faiths.

Wow, he has a fact that elevates his argument to a contest of the unprovables. I'm convinced, aren't you?

I think ad Populem is about the stupidest argument an educated writer can make, especially when it comes to arguing about gods. If he applied ad Populum to all his religious beliefs, he would probably have to change religions, which he is not likely to do. As Amaranth points out:
This is a wonderful display of an ad populam argument. Remind him that an idea that is popular is not necessarily correct. If he insists, you could also note that 4 billion people are not Xians.

And it is an argument that he wouldn't be convinced by. So why introduce the appeal if he himself is not swayed by it?

That, I believe, is the closer analogy.

I would agree 100%: a perfectly flawed analogy.
He's going to have to try harder to outdo Sagan.

lisarea · 04-10-2003, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gravitybow
He's going to have to try harder to outdo Sagan.

To be fair, whoever wrote that letter presented a pretty incomplete and relatively unconvincing version of Sagan's Invisible Garage Dragon analogy. To be better appreciated, you'd really have to quote the whole thing.

The problem with analogies, though, is that they all fall apart eventually. (In this parenthetical, I point out in a circular and almost postmodern fashion the example of the whole god analogy.) Pattern seeking creatures that we are, though, we just keep making them. The problem arises when we drag them out too far. All analogies start to lose their elegance at some point, and I think it would behoove us to move beyond them before they do.

Because the IGD analogy is an invented one, we could draw it out to include a history of oppression, of power-grubbing, of central tenets of the IGD myth twisted and modified to fit irrefutable evidence to the contrary, but why? The analogy kind of falls flat when it becomes simple word replacement, so at some point, I think you just need to toss it out and start talking about what you're talking about.

Now, I have to admit, I had a big headache yesterday when I said I wasn't ever going to try to explain the difference between belief and non-belief again. I took some painkillers and wrote him an email this morning, the bulk of which is quoted below:

Quote:

I, too, am an atheist, but that doesn't say much. Essentially, the only conclusion you can accurately reach about all atheists is that they do not believe in gods. There is, in fact, a distinction made between 'weak atheists,' who simply do not believe in gods; and 'strong atheists,' who affirmatively disbelieve in gods. The distinction is not as minute as it might seem at first glance.

To be honest, I probably wouldn't protest the placement of religious signs in my community (as I have seen several, and haven't been offended or otherwise concerned about it). However, Mr. Cheve has a point. If the city has granted variances or waived fees due to the nature of the signs, it would indicate preferential treatment for certain types of free speech, which would constitute a violation of the separation clause.
Personally, I would prefer that Mr. Cheve simply insist on equal treatment for signs of his own, but that opens up a whole new can of worms. It could easily result in a sort of ideological version of the Tragedy of the Commons, in which individuals make decisions by weighing their personal gains in light of the relatively minor costs to the community, resulting in the destruction of community resources. In other words, once you let something like that take hold, your city could easily end up littered with signs proclaiming views on religion, politics, war, and anything else you can think of. Everyone's got an opinion, after all.

But my primary concern with your article is your assertion that atheism requires faith. Obviously, I can't speak for all atheists, and I'm sure there are some out there who accept the non-existence of gods on faith. However, that is not the case with me, nor with any of the other atheists I know. I consider myself a strong atheist--that is, I disbelieve in gods, rather than simply not believing in them. However, I am and always have been willing to look at evidence that would challenge my conclusions. TThus far, though, not only have I seen evidence that disproves hthe existence of gods, not only have I not seen evidence that proves the existence of gods, but I have also seen plenty of evidence of motive for those who have perpetuated religion throughout human history. Deuteronomy, for example, was discovered by a high priest for the King Josiah, during the process of 'cleansing' the culture of pagan influence. Coincidentally, the teachings in Deuteronomy contain the Bible's strongest endorsements of King Josiah's policies and tenets, and its strongest arguments for such 'cleansing.' Throughout human history, religion has been used by humans to gain money and power. There are a lot of people with great investment in religion, and a vested interest in keeping their particular religions intact.

Throughout history, religious leaders have slowly adapted their beliefs about gods as science has proven them wrong. When we first peeked up above the clouds and saw no great spectral thrones, God became invisible. When religious leaders were no longer able to deny that the earth wasn't flat, that part of religious teaching was bent and contorted as the facts could no longer be actively denied; but still, religious leaders refused to admit that their teachings had been in error. Right now, we can see Christian churches in the US in a state of upheaval, some sects tentatively accepting current scientific knowledge of how the universe came into existence during the Big Bang, and how life evolved; and other sects actively seeking to discredit this research--to explain it away with a combination of ignorance and magic and the inevitable catch-all, faith.

It requires no more faith on my part to disbelieve in gods than it does for anyone to disbelieve that the universe is literally part of some giant alien schoolchild's science fair project. If credible evidence were presented that any of these things were the case, I'd be happy to approach that as I approach any evidence--with an open mind to the possibilities, and a healthy dose of skepticism.

As someone who has never been religious myself, I often find it difficult to image that anyone truly believes in gods and religion. But I've learned to accept their word that they do, as I've learned to accept many things about people that I can't fully understand. I also don't understand how anyone can stand to watch those reality shows like "The Bachelor" and "Married by America." I don't understand how anyone could enjoy eating a Big Mac. But I've learned to simply take them at their word. In the same vein, whether you can fully understand it or not, I'd like to ask you to take me at my word that there is no faith whatsoever involved in
my atheism. I am open to all possibilities, and will be the first to examine and accept any compelling evidence showing that I'm wrong. I honestly don't mind being proven wrong. I have no illusions of infallibility.

Man, I am SO long-winded sometimes.

No wonder the headaches.

dimossi · 04-10-2003, 11:26 AM

All,

Thanks so much for all your responses and critical analysis of Rod's argument.

I have responsed to him with the help of many of the points you all have brought up, as well as my own. Thanks again.

I concluded my response to him with this summary:

Atheism - based on logic, reason, and simple lack of belief due to absence of proof and logical justification.

Theism - based on blind faith. Usual source(s) of this belief based on faith: tradition, appeal to authority, perceived revelation, wishful thinking, fear.

Biff the unclean · 04-10-2003, 11:42 AM

Am I miss-remembering or isn't the Herald Tribune owned but the Unification Church, Rev. Moon's people?

Amaranth · 04-10-2003, 12:02 PM

Owned by the New York Times.

http://www.epinions.com/news-Places-...ay_~full_specs

JerryM · 04-10-2003, 12:18 PM

I think the columnist was perhaps confusing atheism and metaphysical naturalism. As all the above writers have correctly pointed out, it requires no faith not to believe something. But naturalism (and I believe in that, myself) is a positive statement about the nature of the universe. And, to be honest, we cannot say that this has been conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (though can absolute epistemological certainty exist about anything?) So I think it would be fair to say that naturalism requires a degree of faith. But I think that faith is certainly well-grounded in centuries of observation, experimentation, and theoretical study. It is vastly more based on fact than belief in supernatural deities.

Biff the unclean · 04-10-2003, 12:46 PM

Owned by the New York Times

Thank you my mistake-middle age moment. They once ran a paper with a similar name. It's the Washington Times that they own now.

dimossi · 04-10-2003, 01:34 PM

Rod's latest reply:

Quote:

David,

I am surprised at the emotional display in someone so dedicated to logic. This may well be a discussion we cannot have because neither of us is really open to the other side. But let me say regarding your first paragraph and Sagan: You wanted to be the one who set the parameters of the analogy of the pink dragon and then force me to respond. Well anyone can set up a straw man to knock down, but it is hardly a reasonable or convincing debate. Therefore, I choose not to be assigned a box and forced to respond how I like the box. The fact that you bristled at my changing you neat package is telling.

Secondly, your responses to the my modifications actually is helpful in making my point. I am sure you will be pulling your hair out at the roots about now, but you offered up alternatives for each of my modifications. Of course. All are very possible, the elitist intellectualisms aside, and indeed there are often explanations for actions in the world that people of faith believe to be of God. If there was a God, could He not work through his own creation to answer prayer? And would he not then allow people to either believe in His hand or simply in cosmic chance? If there is a God, He has clearly given us free choice, and we exercise it.

Finally, your Latin references and web citations suggest a fair amount of indoctrination into atheism, as much or more than most Christians I know pursue the faith. It may be all voluntary and a search for truth of your own volition, but can you see that you (like most of us in this humankind) sift information to find what corresponds with what you already believe, oops, I mean, think (know???) to be true? Or are you in the situation of being so completely confident that you are right that anyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong but necessarily lacking intelligence and rational thought? That is considerable chutzpah, which, to my vague recollection, not Aristotle, Plato, Augustine or Locke ascribed to -- although it is possible Sagan may have.

Question: Does calling it "blind faith" make you feel better? Surely by your own Vulcan-like logic, that is redundant.

I do appreciate this dialog, because it has helped me hone my position better. For that, I am grateful.

your faithful correspondent,

Rod

Biff the unclean · 04-10-2003, 04:02 PM

Elitist intellectualisms? Well at least it's better than the old effete intellectualism they used to bitch about.

Shadowy Man · 04-10-2003, 07:27 PM

Quote:

If there was a God, could He not work through his own creation to answer prayer? And would he not then allow people to either believe in His hand or simply in cosmic chance? If there is a God, He has clearly given us free choice, and we exercise it.

So, uh... does he answer prayers, or do we have free choice?

I don't really see how those two are compatible.

04-10-2003, 11:26 AM	#13
dimossi Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sarasota, FL Posts: 243	Thanks for all your responses All, Thanks so much for all your responses and critical analysis of Rod's argument. I have responsed to him with the help of many of the points you all have brought up, as well as my own. Thanks again. I concluded my response to him with this summary: Atheism - based on logic, reason, and simple lack of belief due to absence of proof and logical justification. Theism - based on blind faith. Usual source(s) of this belief based on faith: tradition, appeal to authority, perceived revelation, wishful thinking, fear.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-10-2003, 11:42 AM	#14
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Am I miss-remembering or isn't the Herald Tribune owned but the Unification Church, Rev. Moon's people?

04-10-2003, 12:02 PM	#15
Amaranth Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kansas City Posts: 279	Owned by the New York Times. http://www.epinions.com/news-Places-...ay_~full_specs

04-10-2003, 12:18 PM	#16
JerryM Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO. Posts: 1,100	I think the columnist was perhaps confusing atheism and metaphysical naturalism. As all the above writers have correctly pointed out, it requires no faith not to believe something. But naturalism (and I believe in that, myself) is a positive statement about the nature of the universe. And, to be honest, we cannot say that this has been conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (though can absolute epistemological certainty exist about anything?) So I think it would be fair to say that naturalism requires a degree of faith. But I think that faith is certainly well-grounded in centuries of observation, experimentation, and theoretical study. It is vastly more based on fact than belief in supernatural deities.

04-10-2003, 12:46 PM	#17
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Owned by the New York Times Thank you my mistake-middle age moment. They once ran a paper with a similar name. It's the Washington Times that they own now.

04-10-2003, 04:02 PM	#19
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Elitist intellectualisms? Well at least it's better than the old effete intellectualism they used to bitch about.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.