God & the Fairy Tree

Huh? Did you really hope for this? Why on earth would you hope for this?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Divided we stand, united we fall.

For the same reason a child will still believe in the fairy tree.Confronted with the evidence that there are, in fact, no fairies in the tree, the child believes that they have flown away.Confronted with the evidence that there is in fact, no Invisible Pink Unicorn, a believer simply retorts that he's invisible, and stepped away.Confronted with evidence that prayers have no measurable effect, the believer simply says that it was not God's will to answer them, or that they were insincere, or that God specifically will not answer prayers if they are measured.Confronted with the fact that there is no measurable or reproducible evidence that shows the existence of anything supernatural, the believer simply states that the supernatural works to be undetectable, as that is the point of faith.To the outside observer, someone with no faith themselves, these are all the same, which is the point, I believe, of the OP. To the already faithful, they are not.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Not very convincing.Let's look at the original statement ... and then your current assertions.Note that actual facts are mentioned in the definition of delusion. Where are the actual facts in your assertion?By definition, the supernatural is NOT subject subject to reproducibility since it is an act of will of something which is not natural.Let me try to give some examples.There is actual evidence that there has never been a world-wide flood.Those who believe in a world-wide flood in spite of the factual evidence, could be defined as delusional.There is factual evidence that there was no literal Adam and Eve.Those who believe in a literal Adam and Eve in spite of the factual evidence, could be defined as delusional.There is factual evidence that the Exodus did not happen as described in the Bible.Those who believe in the Biblical Exodus in spite of the factual evidence, could be defined as delusional.There is factual evidence that there was never a Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua.Those who believe in the Biblical Conquest of Canaan in spite of the factual evidence, could be defined as delusional.But so far no one has presented factual evidence that there is no supernatural or that there is no God.Faith that there is a God does not fall under the definition that you presented as "delusion".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Indeed - atheists. Sure. But just saying "we shouldn't generalize" doesn't prove that it's reasonable to assert that people are acting independently when they come to exactly the same conclusions as everybody else around them. Yes, but it's relatively rare for someone in the middle of one faith community to abandon that faith completely and live some other faith. I don't think anybody said anybody was a drone. But it's abundantly obvious that humans are actually quite terrible at developing truly independent reasoning. The influence of the "mob" is always upon us.

No, the supernatural is that which does not obey natural laws. That doesn't mean it gets a free pass on evidence. Your statement is identical to saying "By definition, finding fairies is NOT subject to reproducibility since they fly away when you look - an act of will."Hows this:Assertion: Fairies exist in the fairy tree.
Fact: When you look, there are no fairies.
Delusion: If you don't see them, you obviously scared them away.If, after repeatedly looking and never seeing any sign that the fairies were ever there, you still believe they exist, you are denying the evidence. Believing in fairies despite a complete lack of any evidence whatsoever (they all flew away) is delusional. Lack of evidence IS, in fact, evidence of absence if the evidence has been repeatedly sought and never found.Assertion: There is an Invisible Pink Unicorn standing next to you.
Fact: When you look, you see nothing, and no sign of its passing. When you reach out your hand, there is nothing there.
Delusion: He's invisible. And he's magic, so he doesn't have tracks or anything. And when you moved your hand, he stepped aside.If you believe that the unicorn is still there, despite seeing absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is, you are denying the evidence. Believing in an Invisible Pink Unicorn despite a lack of any evidence whatsoever (it stepped aside when you moved your hand, and its magic so it doesn't leave tracks)is delusional. Lack of evidence IS in fact, evidence of absence, if evidence is repeatedly sought and never found. Partially true. My entire point in this is that, to the outside observer, to someone who does not already have faith, believing in a god despite a complete and total lack of any solid evidence despite multiple attempts to find some looks exactly the same as the above examples. To someone who already believes in a god, the picture is wildly different.The simple fact is, someone who already has faith will accept as evidence that which the unbeliever will not. This can manifest as a general "feeling of a presence," attributing answered prayers to a deity (along with unanswered prayers), attributing the "beauty" of the world to a deity, etc.It's a fundamental difference in the way the question is approached, and it makes really understanding the other side difficult at best.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Exactly. We have two possible outcomes:1. You see fairies, and thus you conclude fairies exist.
2. You don't see fairies, and conclude that fairies exist, but you have scared them away.Either way, you end up with fairies. And so, because there is no way to falsify the belief, it is evidently not based on sound evidence, but on faith.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Of course, the evidence may exist. But whether evidence exists but we don't have access to it, or it doesn't exist at all, it makes no difference for the question whether or not it is reasonable to believe something without it. Without evidence (whether inaccessible or non-existent), where does the mental picture of a fairy come from? How do we know they have wings? That they are usually small and green? That they flit about in a spray of magical dust?The answer is that all this "knowledge" purely comes from our imagination. The question then becomes: is it reasonable to believe that what we purely imagine to exist, really exists? My answer to that question is "no". And it's "no" in all such cases. But for a lot of people, it's "no" in the case of fairies, but "yes", or at best "maybe", in the case of God.The question of this thread is not about the existence of, or evidence for, God or fairies, but about why many people apply double standards when assessing the validity of claims regarding fairies on the one hand and God on the other.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

quote:

---

Either way, you end up with fairies. And so, because there is no way to falsify the belief, it is evidently not based on sound evidence, but on faith.

---

Since faith is trust, who is the trust in?The children trust adults. Who do adults trust?It makes one wonder how many mythical creatures were created as pranks.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

That's an interesting question. Perhaps adults trust other adults. Adults may still keep faith in the beliefs that their parents had. Or they may trust priests, scientists or others who are supposed to know more of the truth than they are. Or, they may even just trust their own delusions, such as those who believe firmly in alien abductions and out-of-body experiences.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

quote:

---

Adults may still keep faith in the beliefs that their parents had. Or they may trust priests, scientists or others who are supposed to know more of the truth than they are.

---

Those raised in a religion are influenced by parents and the adults around them. I feel that adults also trust those who they feel have more authority, more experience, or more knowledge or expertise than themselves. I feel that adults are also influenced by dynamic individuals and emotions. And yes, sometimes it is our own imagination or fear that guides our trust.We probably think way too much.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

because people apply double standards to everything. i was under the impression that that's what people do. in fact, i'd say that's where this idea of subjectivity vs objectivity came from. if one person "knows" something, and someone else tries to tell him differently, the second person clearly couldn't be as smart as the first... so he has to prove himself with better evidence.

It depends on the basis someone has for "knowing" something. If what someone thinks they know is based on independently verifiable facts, then no telling them differently will alter those facts. The facts can be checked and it can ultimately be ascertained whether what they think they know is true or not. Reasonable people will acknowledge the result.But if their knowledge is based on an emotion, or a feeling, or simply their imagination, then there is no objective way of testing that knowledge. (Incidentally, this also pertains to knowledge for which checking the facts is possible in theory, but impracticable in reality.) For example, if you tell me that you "feel" God's presence, then how can I ever justifiably say that you don't?The first form of knowledge is objective, the second subjective. Generally, you could, if you wished, apply double standards to subjective knowledge and get away with it, although this would be ethically dubious. But you cannot apply double standards to objective knowledge, because the facts provide the ultimate universal standard, available to anyone who wants to expose your attempt.This thread tries to expose the use of double standards in assessing the validity of certain religious claims. The fact of logic that ad hoc reasons do not provide valid explanations exposes people who jokingly use ad hoc reasons to fool children, but who demand respect when doing the same in order to seriously convince others.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

you missed the point. my point was that the ideas of subjectivity and objectivity are born out of the double standards we apply to everything. you keep telling me what the thread is about. but if the whole thread is about this, then there's no point in it being a thread. a sinlge post of "nyah nyah fairies are supposed to be invisible and they don't exist!" would have been sufficient. but instead, you made a thread. and since no one is idiot enough to take your moron bait and go off about how one one-dimensional invisible thing is more defendable from another indivisible thing which you've defined as one-dimensional, there's no thread and you're all disappointed. as such, we have to invent our own thread. i've attempted to do that and all you can reply with is restating the op and this crap about defining objective knowledge. but everyone who studies knowledge knows that it's inherently subjective because we can only know by perception, and human perception is screwy. this isn't a reason to throw out the search for verifiable facts, but rather to temper the idea that we "know" anything.in any case, you don't seem to be interested in responding to me, but rather in presenting your positions again, which have nothing to do with what i said.

I said: To which you replied: No one said it gets a free pass on evidence. Correct. Now for it to be a delusion, according to the definition you supplied, if I continued to believe that after factual evidence was presented that they did not fly away, I would be delusional.Aren't you confusing the presence of evidence with a lack of evidence. And that is fine, at least from my perspective. I really think it is a reasonable and acceptable position for someone to not believe in God until factual evidence is presented that God exists. But that works both ways. To believe in God until factual evidence is presented that God does not exist is equally valid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion