Posted: Dec 18, 2011 10:56 am
by jlowder
Thommo wrote:
jlowder wrote:
"So-called 'new atheists' or 'brights' like Richard Dawkins like to compare believing in God to believing in flying spaghetti monsters or invisible pink unicorns But I reject these comparisons. Pastafarianism and unicornism are not even forms of supernaturalism and more generally do no important metaphysical work at all. Not to mention that pastafarianism is very specific and thus very immodest--why spaghetti instead of linguine or rigatoni or lasagna or macaroni? And unicornism is maximally incoherent--even ignoring the fact that there is significant tension between being pink and being invisible, unicorns are by definition imaginary creatures and so no existing thing could count as a unicorn. The intrinsic probability of unicornism, not to mention fairyism and leprechaunism, is zero."

Maximally uncharitable interpretation and definition of unicorns and the argument by Draper here.

Nobody would get away with the sloppy rebuttal of god(s) by asserting that god is defined to be "made up" and therefore cannot exist. The logic and uncharitability of this rebuttal are not improved simply because Draper likes debating gods but not unicorns.

I'll bite. You're correct about God, but then of course the majority of human beings believe in God whereas I don't know of anyone who belives in the IPU. Is there anyone who professes a belief in invisible pink unicorns? Isn't part of the history of the concept of the IPU that it was invented precisely to demonstrate the implausibility of supernatural claims?

The same can be said for a subjective opinion of unicorns or fairies not doing important metaphysical work.

What metaphysical work does the IPU or fairies perform?