Posted: Dec 18, 2011 2:17 pm
Thanks!
The FSM and the unicorn do no metaphysical work at all? As opposed to whom or which? Why indeed spaghetti instead of linguine? Why Yahwe instead of Zeus, say? Unicornism is maximally incoherent? Unlike, let's say Christianity, with its "omnipotent" God at its heart? If invisibility and being pink create "significant tension", so does being omnipotent and omniscient.
Gods are by definition imaginary creatures... The intrinsic probability of gods is zero.
Mr Draper 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."
The FSM and the unicorn do no metaphysical work at all? As opposed to whom or which? Why indeed spaghetti instead of linguine? Why Yahwe instead of Zeus, say? Unicornism is maximally incoherent? Unlike, let's say Christianity, with its "omnipotent" God at its heart? If invisibility and being pink create "significant tension", so does being omnipotent and omniscient.
Gods are by definition imaginary creatures... The intrinsic probability of gods is zero.