Fight those doubts, PN! That’s just the evil invisible chartreuse dragon who’s trying to darken your mind.
You’re right, it is just that evil anti-pink dragon trying to deceive me.
And I think I can overcome that deception (although Ophelia is probably not going to like it); for if something can exist both outside of space and time (i.e. it’s supernatural and therefore undetectable—a.k.a. “invisible”) and it can also exist inside space and time (i.e. it’s natural and therefore can do stuff—like be “pink”), then my dragon can indeed be both pink and invisible.
And I think I can overcome that deception (although Ophelia is probably not going to like it); for if something can exist both outside of space and time (i.e. it’s supernatural and therefore undetectable—a.k.a. “invisible”) and it can also exist inside space and time (i.e. it’s natural and therefore can do stuff—like be “pink”), then my dragon can indeed be both pink and invisible.
Scientifically, however, we can disprove the existence of a pink dragon at a particular locale, regardless of whether it is transcendent or not. “Pink” has a scientific meaning, it refers to a range of radiation. To be “pink” is to reflect certain wavelengths. You can call an object that doesn’t do this “pink”, but that doesn’t make it pink. It just means that you can attach meaningless labels to imaginary things.
The reason that scientific thinking is appropriate for this kind of conversation is that, among other things, it prevents the meaningless use of words.
If anyone makes a testable claim about the universe (based on a book, a belief, a hypothesis--whatever) it can be tested and to the degree the results are substantial, the matter should be settled. If a Christian fundie says “the earth is 6000 years old”, well, that can certainly be falsified. If a Latter Day Saint claims one of the tribes of Israel came to America, that, too can be falsified.
Likewise, if someone claims that there exists a god who created the earth 6000 years ago, that’s a testable claim and science *can* be used to disprove the existence of that god.
Hal, you presented an example in an earlier post where you claim for sake of argument that Richard Dawkins is the author of “Vogon Poetry: So Beautiful It Hurts” (a book that doesn’t exist). You then use that hypothetical to make the point that evidence used to demonstrate that the Vogon poetry book does not exist is not evidence that Richard Dawkins himself does not exist. Here is where you go wrong - it’s a matter of defining your terms:
If you were to define “Richard Dawkins” as a popular author of “Vogon Poetry: So Beautiful It Hurts”, and I were to check all the worlds known publishers for Vogon poetry books authored by “Richard Dawkins” and found none, then YES!, that would be positive evidence that “Richard Dawkins”, as defined by you, does not exist. Some other “Richard Dawkins” might exist, but not the one you believe to exist.
Here’s another more relevant example:
If someone defines “God” as an extra-ordinary being who sends messages to guide humanity, that’s a testable claim. It would be a perfectly valid scientific approach to sample the population to determine whether or not any messages of extra-ordinary origin have been received by humanity. The results of such a scientific inquiry could determine the likelihood that there exists a god who is sending us guidance in messages. We might determine as a result of this scientific inquiry that such a god didn’t exist (with error bars and probabilities attached as part of that determination of course), such a determination would not rule out the possibility of some other god existing, it would only be relevant to belief in the existence of “God” as defined.
Scientifically, however, we can disprove the existence of a pink dragon at a particular locale, regardless of whether it is transcendent or not. “Pink” has a scientific meaning, it refers to a range of radiation. To be “pink” is to reflect certain wavelengths. You can call an object that doesn’t do this “pink”, but that doesn’t make it pink. It just means that you can attach meaningless labels to imaginary things.
The reason that scientific thinking is appropriate for this kind of conversation is that, among other things, it prevents the meaningless use of words.
True, but this pink dragon is special: it exists both in time and space and outside of time and space, therefore it can be both pink and invisible. It is invisible when it is in time and space and pink when it is outside of time and space. Did I mention it lives under my house?
Wow, I just go out to play 18 holes of golf and everything changes.
I knew there was something in what Hal was saying that would get some agreement!
Glad I didn’t give up on ya Hal.
Here is where you go wrong - it’s a matter of defining your terms:
If you were to define “Richard Dawkins” as a popular author of “Vogon Poetry: So Beautiful It Hurts”, and I were to check all the worlds known publishers for Vogon poetry books authored by “Richard Dawkins” and found none, then YES!, that would be positive evidence that “Richard Dawkins”, as defined by you, does not exist. Some other “Richard Dawkins” might exist, but not the one you believe to exist.
Wow, that’s some tortured logic! But, no, I mean the same Richard Dawkins that you mean—I just happen to be wrong about what he wrote. Or perhaps I was lying. But there’s no need (or justification) for invoking multiple “Richard Dawkins“‘s.
Scientifically, however, we can disprove the existence of a pink dragon at a particular locale, regardless of whether it is transcendent or not. “Pink” has a scientific meaning, it refers to a range of radiation. To be “pink” is to reflect certain wavelengths. You can call an object that doesn’t do this “pink”, but that doesn’t make it pink. It just means that you can attach meaningless labels to imaginary things.
The reason that scientific thinking is appropriate for this kind of conversation is that, among other things, it prevents the meaningless use of words.
True, but this pink dragon is special: it exists both in time and space and outside of time and space, therefore it can be both pink and invisible. It is invisible when it is in time and space and pink when it is outside of time and space. Did I mention it lives under my house?
No, it can be either pink or invisible. One, or the other. But not both. In which case we can demonstrate its state of pinkness at any given place and time. If it is pink, it is not (currently) invisible or transcendent in some way, and therefore its existence is a question that science can address.
I’m sure we can play this game all day. Eventually, you’ll get here “My dragon doesn’t exist at ALL! Hah! Address THAT with your ‘science’!”
Wow, that’s some tortured logic! But, no, I mean the same Richard Dawkins that you mean—I just happen to be wrong about what he wrote. Or perhaps I was lying. But there’s no need (or justification) for invoking multiple “Richard Dawkins“‘s.
And as I said, this reveals that you are not an authority on Richard Dawkins. Since all god claims are of equal value to the claim that Richard Dawkins is a noted critic of Vogon poetry, all god claims reveal that the claimant is shockingly ignorant of the nature of god. As all evidence for gods consists of such ignorant claims, there is no reason to accept them as having any validity. Therefore there is no reason to believe that there is a god.
And as I said, this reveals that you are not an authority on Richard Dawkins. Since all god claims are of equal value to the claim that Richard Dawkins is a noted critic of Vogon poetry, all god claims reveal that the claimant is shockingly ignorant of the nature of god. As all evidence for gods consists of such ignorant claims, there is no reason to accept them as having any validity. Therefore there is no reason to believe that there is a god.
Whoa! How did we establish that “all god claims are of equal value to the claim that Richard Dawkins is a noted critic of Vogon poetry”? That’s an assertion, not anything established. Perhaps some god claims are, in fact, true in an objective sense. Or not. But you can’t assume this as a given.
[Added]
Ah, wait, I think I see your point (possibly?) It may be true that some god claim is objectively true—but we would have no standard by which to establish it as such and therefore would have to leave all such claims out of the belief calculus. Do I have that right?
And as I said, this reveals that you are not an authority on Richard Dawkins. Since all god claims are of equal value to the claim that Richard Dawkins is a noted critic of Vogon poetry, all god claims reveal that the claimant is shockingly ignorant of the nature of god. As all evidence for gods consists of such ignorant claims, there is no reason to accept them as having any validity. Therefore there is no reason to believe that there is a god.
Whoa! How did we establish that “all god claims are of equal value to the claim that Richard Dawkins is a noted critic of Vogon poetry”? That’s an assertion, not anything established. Perhaps some god claims are, in fact, true in an objective sense. Or not. But you can’t assume this as a given.
No. I mean that I maintain that no claim of any god existing has ever stood up to any empirical scrutiny. All tested god claims reveal that the claimant has no idea what the nature of god is, because the things that they claim are simply not backed up by the nature of the universe. At best, people can define god down to the point where a universe with a god and a universe without a god are identical, but that’s as good as it gets for theistic claims.
I welcome new god claims, of course, that have not been tested, but so far the record is pretty bad.
So what I mean is: there are no known legitimate claims to knowledge about the nature of god.
Your edit is actually close to the mark, The analogy stacks like this: you might argue that Dawkins wrote the VPB, but hasn’t published it, burned the manuscript, and won’t reveal that he did it. This is about the quality of a transcendental god claim. Any claim that the book (or god) is extant is vulnerable to scientific scrutiny and all such claims have so far failed to show any truth.
The racism here (for those who still claim not to get it) is the depiction of the ‘enemy’ country’s rulers as uniquely fanatical, irrational, evil, and unconcerned with human suffering, when there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that this is the case. In fact, Iran - in stark contrast to the U.S. and Israel - has not waged a single offensive war against a neighbor over the last milennium or more (at least).
I’ll agree that these women’s rights activists are not “fanatical, irrational, evil, and unconcerned with human suffering.” But they are being jailed, intimidated, tortured, and silenced by those who you are defending.
And Harris & Co. would nuke these women right alongside their theocratic tormentors!
The U.S. rulers have a vastly higher proportion of their citizens imprisoned than any other country in the world—a large majority of those tortured in US prison hell-holes being black and hispanic. It is the only ruling class in world history ever, as OhioDoc pointed out, to use nuclear weapons—twice conscously and deliberately incinerating hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians at that. These same criminals have launched dozens of aggressive wars around the world, killing millions, for the purpose of enhancing their own power and wealth.
Yet I know of no-one, despite these gargantuan crimes, who would advocate ‘obliterating’ the U.S. itself. Trials for the ruling-class criminals in international courts of their victims? Absolutely! But that is a far cry from the racist genocide advocated by Harris & Co. for Muslims.
I also look forward to the day when the women, workers and minorities of Iran will put the reactionary mullahs and other oppressors in the prisoners dock. The difference here exposes the racist essence of the War Party’s blanket anti-Islamic crusade.
Balak - 05 May 2008 01:42 PM
The key for the racist is to make “the other” not simply different but “given what they believe” inherently subhuman - less rational, thoughtful, concerned for human welfare than “us” (who are magically exempt from similar scrutiny), in order to justify their extermination.
Yet I know of no-one, despite these gargantuan crimes, who would advocate ‘obliterating’ the U.S. itself.
Osama bin Laden, for one. Explicitly. Tens of thousands of Palestinians who chanted “Death to America” on September 11th and 12th. Lots of people, really.
No one is advocating a nuclear first strike against Iran. Chill.
Yet I know of no-one, despite these gargantuan crimes, who would advocate ‘obliterating’ the U.S. itself.
Osama bin Laden, for one. Explicitly. Tens of thousands of Palestinians who chanted “Death to America” on September 11th and 12th. Lots of people, really.
