God & the Fairy Tree

Let's compare:Faith Delusion Faith, being a belief not based on proof, is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. Hell, just take a look at some of the debates on this very board. The ongoing Great Debate between Simple and RAZD is an excellent example.Certainly, fundamentalists and literal Creationists are an extreme example, and I certainly don't mean to paint all people of faith with the same brush I would apply to Simple. But, as the OP of this thread tries to make clear - to an outside observer, blind faith in the supernatural, be it in the Christian God or Zeus, is indistinguishable from belief in fairies, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Certainly, there may be some bit of evidence in a person's life that, to that specific individual, signifies the existence of the supernatural. But to those who do not already believe in such things, those personal stories are looked upon with skepticism - they never constitute real evidence, in the way of a photograph or reproducible event. Nothing that can be shown to be anything other than a coincidence, or a person's mind playing tricks in a traumatic situation, or some other such easily, naturally explained phenomenon.Case in point: my grandfather was a devout Christian fundamentalist. He was injured as a young man, and was unable to walk. Doctors told him his condition was likely permanent. He prayed, and within a matter of months, he was able to walk, and eventually to run as if nothing had happened.Obviously, he attributed this to a miracle, his prayers being answered by God, and grew to become a Christian educator at a religious school.But he already believed in God. The truth is, if he hadn't gotten better, he would have attributed that, too, to God's will - obviously, he had simply scared the fairies away.His position was exactly the same as a child who is convinced there are, in fact, fairies in the fairy tree. There is no evidence. Those who have faith, believing already, will continue to believe in God even when their prayers are not answered, and when events seem to deny the existence of a benevolent, all-powerful deity. Those who have faith, and believe in fairies, will continue to believe fairies exist and live in the tree even when they look for themselves and find nothing.To a person who has faith, the words of the neutral outside observer comparing their faith to a self-delusion are blatantly offensive. The defensive posturing of the faithful while obviously being unable to see what the neutral observer sees is similarly frustrating.Really coming eye-to-eye on the matter is next to impossible - we're talking about challenging a person's entire worldview. It's uncomfortable, insulting, and puts them immediately on the defensive even if no offense is meant. I remember how I felt during my own deconversion. The "your belief is ridiculous" approach may be valid, and it works for Atheists like Dawkins who aren't addressing the fundies they debate, but rather the fence-sitters in the audience, but it doesn't work very well if the goal is to actually have a meaningful conversation with someone of faith.

---

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

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.

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.

As I said twice in my examples, absence of evidence IS, in fact, evidence of absence if the evidence has been repeatedly sought and no sign has ever been found. This is why we don't believe in fairies, or Thor, or alien abductions, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.To believe that the Spaghetti Monster actually exists is delusional, because the evidence shows otherwise (someone would have noticed a giant, flying pile of spaghetti by now). To believe fairies live in the fairy tree is delusional, because the evidence shows otherwise (no matter how many times you look, no fairy is ever seen, and no other evidence of their passing is left). The lack of evidence in these cases IS the evidence that they do not, in fact, exist at all.The cases for the existence of fairies, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, trolls, goblins, and any other supernatural entities are all the same. Those who believe in any of them through blind faith directly contradict the evidence that the entities do not, in fact exist. The silly notion that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence even when the evidence has been repeatedly, thoroughly sought and never found is false. That same logic would force anyone of faith (regardless of what they have faith in) to believe in any unfalsifiable idea that comes to mind. If you believe in fairies despite a lack of evidence becasue they could have flown away, you should believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn simply stepped away from your hand, as well - the arguments are identical.The same applies to God, to the outside observer. No real evidence has ever been shown that any deity or other supernatural entity exists, and to someone who does not have faith, it seems equally preposterous that one should believe in, say, the Christian God but not Thor or Mustakrakish the Lake Troll. Golden mean fallacy. Both perspectives are not "equally valid." It is impossible to prove that God does not exist - you cannot prove a negative. Believing in an unfalsifiable position based on no evidence is irrational. The default position over whether any entity exists, from God to a magic invisible dragon outside your front door, is that it does not exist until it has been shown via evidence to exist. Any other position forces the assumption that the dragon must exist as well, along with the unicorn, the flying bowl of spaghetti, the fairies in their tree, trolls under every bridge, ghosts, alien abductions, the Scientologist Emperor Xenu, and every other supernatural, unfalsifiable entity ever conjured up by anyones imagination ever. This is an untenable, irrational, invalid position.And you see again why this will always result in an impasse. The supernatural entity of choice is given a different standard by the person of faith. While you and I would both say "anyone who believes in fairies is either a child or delusional," I would apply the same logic to the existence of God and you would not. You may have some event or perspective in your personal, subjective experience that you hold as evidence of the divine, but it is not objective and as such cannot convince the outside observer.

---

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

So you're saying that faith in god is based on an appeal to popularity fallacy.Sounds good to me.But it's not just about a joke vs belief in gods. This thread touches on why, if an individual is going to have blind faith in a supernatural entity for which there is no objective evidence, they choose a singular entity (ie the Christian god) and not any other supernatural entity for which there is an equal amount of evidence, and, in some cases, even an equivalent number of followers. I'm talking specifically about an ideas merits, though. I completely acknowledge the fact that the majority of humanity neither recognizes nor cares about their own logical fallacies.The fact is, when weighed solely on the facts, faith of any sort in a specific supernatural entity is logically inconsistent if the believer does not ALSO believe in the existence of every other unfalsifiable supernatural entity.

---

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

You cannot separate the "concept" of an electron from its defining properties...unless you mean a more generalized term like "some smaller building block of the stuff we actually see."How am I exaggerating, exactly? Please, explain how I have falsely represented faith in a god or fairies or anything else. If a person says they believe in X, X has basic attributes that distinguish it from the word "something." The Christian God, for example, is commonly referred to as all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent, and is supposed to be the creator of the universe. And he doesn't like to leave direct evidence of himself. Fairies (in the context of this thread) are supposed to be skittish little winged humanoids who conveniently fly away whenever you try to see them. Both of these supernatural entities are unfalsifiable, and have no evidence to lead to them. The inferences regarding electrons and planets were based upon actual evidence. Belief in supernatural entities is based on nothing objective whatsoever. It can easily be demonstrated that inferring that an intelligent supernatural entity created the universe is unnecessary, not founded on evidence, and based entirely on blind faith. One may as well point to a rock and say "an intelligent person made that rock, because it exists." Once again, continents, planets, and subatomic particles have actually been observed, and there was indirect evidence that led to their discovery. Saying there may be an additional continent when the entire world has not been explored is reasonable. Saying that there may be an as-yet unobserved supernatural giant troll living under the Sacramento bridge despite the fact that no one has ever seen it, and no indirect evidence of its existence has ever been seen to suggest there may be something there other than that the bridge does exist, is irrational and delusional.

---

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

Exactly.Your idea of what Something is.In other words, you're defining it yourself, not basing anything on objective fact.Once again - to a believer, the subjective personal experiences are counted as fact. The unbeliever, the outside observer, sees that the pattern of faith is identical to the pattern of delusion and rationalization. The patterns of belief in fairies and god and Santa are all identical.The difference is primarily in the popularity of the delusion, much like cults - once they have enough public support, we call them "religions."It's a fundamental difference in the way the world is approached.

---

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

...except to the outside observer, who has no existing faith, and does not count an individual's subjective experiences as evidence. To him, there is no difference.This is the impasse I've been talking about. Based on the merits of the arguments alone, there is no difference. For someone who already has faith in a particular supernatural entity, there is.

---

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

The topic of this thread specifically addresses fairies with a given set of attributes and God, which is typically assumed to mean the Christian deity. I'm not make strawmen, I'm addressing the topic of this thread. Again, you're making a false analogy. Indirect evidence led to the assertion that electrons and a ninth planet might exist - and at that point, the hypotheses became falsifiable.If you're referring to believing that electrons and a ninth planet exist BEFORE atoms or planets were ever observed, and before any indirect evidence was noted as to their existence, that belief would have been delusional at the time, as well. The ideas would have been pulled from thin air.If you're departing from the narrow topic of this thread (that is, what is the difference between belief in one unfalsifiable specific supernatural entity and another that allows fairies to be mocked and God to be worshipped), and mean simply to say "there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy," then I agree with you. But that's not our topic here.

---

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

You just described a set of properties. This is not the "concept of some undefined supernatural entity." You're specifically saying these things, which have never been observed or left evidence of their passing, like trees, fly, and are small. If you've never seen one or evidence of its passing, how can you tell it flies? That it's small? That it even likes trees? Likewise, if there is no evidence of such an entity existing, or any indirect evidence of anything it may have done, how can you say that it is "more powerful" than anything else? Define "power?" How can it have events or creations attributed to it without any objective evidence that it has ever existed?The ideas are identical. As soon as you attach a specific property, even a general one, to an entity without a reason based on objective evidence, that entity is essentially a figment of your imagination. Saying "the mere existence of the universe is evidence it was created, and thus the creator must exist" is false - there is no evidence that shows that the universe was created, and that it has not always existed in some form or another.For another example: attributing my grandfather's unlikely recovery to God is identical to attributing falling acorns to fairies. It is a person's own delusion to attribute events to supernatural entities where none are necessary or suggested by any evidence.But then, I'm not a believer. I used to be, but as an outside observer, I can not see the difference between claiming the existence of God and handwaving the lack of evidence as "He requires your faith, and if he gave specific proof, there would be no faith" and claiming the existence of fairies and handwaving the lack of evidence as "they just flew away."

---

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