God & the Fairy Tree

Quite true. However, to believe in something despite a complete lack of evidence, even if the lack of evidence may be due to insufficient means of detection, is delusional (again, so long as the evidence has been sought with what means are available, and continues to be re-examined as new instrumentation and techniques are created).Lets take the previously mentioned Columbus example. At least Comlumbus knew that such things as islands and continents existed. To say "x and y have been observed elsewhere in the world. There may be another x, or another y, in my intended path" would be a reasonable idea.However, to say "neither x nor y has ever been seen, anywhere, at any time. Neither has there ever been observed any indirect evidence of their existence. There may be an x, or a y, in my intended path" would be unreasonable. In this case, x and y have an equal probability to exist as the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, Santa Claus, or any other figment of the human imagination...as well as the possibility that none of these things exists. Parsimony requires that if something has an equal probability of not existing at all, we should assume that it does not. 1+1=2. There may be an extra variable or fifty hanging around that equasion, but as they would all be equal to 0, we assume they do not exist."Maybe" is certainly a logical conclusion if you accept all possible imaginary entities as equally possible. "Really, probably not" seems to be the more reasonable response, however.The point of this thread, however, is that people of faith very rarely allow for the possibility of all other supernatural ideas existing. They use the argument for their chosen deity, but scoff at the possibility of any other supernatural entity. To believe in God despite a lack of evidence is identical to belief in the fairies in the fairy tree to the outside observer.

---

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

If you were to provide me with evidence that fairies are in some way implicated in the creation of the universe and that the evidence precedes the scriptures on the timeline then I would certainly change my views on that.factoid: King James was never the author of any bible. He more or less authorized the translation.Regardless if someone wrote a bible 'about' fairies instead of God then it might work. But it would have to stand the test of time and scrutinity and that would become the back breaker.

I'd say the OP is asking: When we choose which invisible, untouchable entity to believe in, why do we feel a need to ridicule all the others? I'd say the answer is: There is no "reason".Reason doesn't enter into it. It's faith.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I agree. Sadly the world is filled with people who 'settle' for 'hand me down faith' and 'I'll take your word for it' faith and 'It suites me fine' faith. And to this I say, good luck with that. Because these people will be the ones impairing their abilities grow in knowledge and reason. Insecurity is the primary culprit which drives people into denial.It raises an interesting question also, do these people behave this way deliberately or are they 'incapable' of facing the implications of reasoning the existence of God the none physical entity? - I personally believe we are dealing with a little of each.So I will re-enforce your final statement saying "To believe in God despite a lack of evidence is identical to belief in the fairies in the fairy tree to the outside observer."Edited by pbee, : typo

EXACTLY my point. TO an outside observer, it looks patently ridiculous. The "double standard" effect demonstrated by the faithful is a reaction to non-objective evidence that works for them but not for anyone they could share the evidence with.The outside observer will find this to be identical to any delusional rationalisation. The person of faith considers it evidence.Let's take the biblical literalists as an example.To the outside observer, and even more sensible Christians like the majority on this board, the Bible is identical to any other collection of books of myth and legend so far as historical accuracy goes (as Jar pointed out regarding the flood, exodus, etc).To the literalist the Bible is, in and of itself, evidence.It's an imapsse brought on by a fundamentally different outlook on what is or is not considered evidence.

---

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

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that "there might be something in my path that has never been observed before". I don't see how you can assign a probability to the unknown. I agree.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The ridicule is bound by our own personal assessment and logical implications of the belief in question.We reject and ridicule what we do not understand, it is our nature.

Easy. Take whatever evidence you have, erase the word "God" and insert the word "fairies".And "scriptures" have no bearing whatsoever on the accuracy of a belief.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

In this case, I would believe in fairies. Not sure what you are implying by this.

Clarification: It only becomes unreasonable when "something" is specifically named to the exclusion of other "somethings." IE, saying "there might be an abominable snowman in my path that has never been observed before." Not the unknown in general. Specific supernatural entities for which there is no evidence. There is an equal probability that any crazy, meaningless, unfalsifiable entity I dream up some day actually exists. That likelyhood is also identical to the possibility that none of them exist whatsoever.Saying "there might be something out there we haven't detected yet" is reasonable. Defining "something" and saying "there might be a purple dragon with green polkadots that lives on human suffering and is undetectable due to magic" is delusional.

---

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

I get what you're saying but I don't think its identical. But there aren't any people claiming that fairies actually exists. There are lots of people claiming that god exists.That makes it obvious that the sign is a joke, while the same claim for god is not obviously a joke.So, even to an outside observer, belief in god should be viewed differently than belief in fairies. They're certainly not identical.

Like, say, an "electron"? Or a planet beyond Uranus?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Many, many people USED to believe in fairies.The popularity of an idea is irrelevant to its merits.Belief in God is unfalsifiable and based on no objective evidence.Belief in fairies is unfalsifiable and based on no objective evidence.A joke may have been used to illustrate the incredulity of the Atheist towards the beliefs of the Theist, but don't read too far into the analogy.To the outside observer, these ARE identical. The fact that you don't like the comparison, that you don't see it that way (being a person of faith), and that the fairy tree is an obvious joke are all irrelevant red herrings.

---

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

If you claimed the existence of electrons, complete with even a basic set of their properties, before we had even the barest mathematical model for subatomic particles, yes, that would be delusional.The Pluto example is a false analogy. A proper analogy would be claiming the existence of a specific planet complete with a set of properties like mass and orbit before any planets had ever been observed.Inferring the existence of something based on observable properties like mass, charge, gravitational effects, etc, is NOT delusional, as they are based on objective evidence.Claiming the existence of a specific entity with NO such properties to lead to the inferrence and defining it with completely made-up properties (they HAVE to have been made up if the entity has never been observed nor evidence suggesting its possible existence exists)IS delusional.Saying "I think there may be another planet out there, beyond what we've seen. We have measured gravitational effects that suggest either our model of gravity is wrong, or there is an additional body acting on the ones we have observed" is rational.Saying "There is an invisible, magic pink unicorn standing next to you. I base this on absolutely nothing" is delusional.Saying "I think there may be something in the universe that we simply haven't been able to detect as of yet" is rational.Saying "I think there is a supreme intelligence that has created the entirety of the universe, and plays an active role in human affairs, and these are its basic properties. I base this on absolutely nothing." is delusional.The properties of ANY unobserved entity, be it a fairy or god, MUST by definition be completely made up - you can't observe the properties of the entity objectively without even having objective evidence the entity exists.

---

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

That's what I'm sayin'. Back in the day, belief in fairies might have been seen as identical to belief in gods. But today, belief in fairies is a joke while belief in gods isn't.This thread is on why the one is a joke but not the other when they are the same at face value.I think it is because a lot of people still believe in god, ie the popularity of the idea. But ideas are not weighed on their merits alone.The popularity has an effect on how the idea is viewed by outside observers, even if it doesn't effect the actual truth of the idea.