Pachydermist: I believe there are purple space elephants living on the planet Pluto.*
Apachydermist: Um, OK, what evidence do you have for that belief?
Pachydermist: I have the ability to sense them directly. Whenever I feel a tingling in my left little toe, I know that these elephants exist. I call this my sensus elephantiasis, because everything sounds more impressive in Latin.
Apachydermist: And you feel this tingling...?
Pachydermist: All the time.
Apachydermist: Riiight....
Pachydermist: Well, can you prove that there aren't any purple Plutonian pachyderms?
Apachydermist: I know I'm going to regret this, but here goes. Let's start off with the easy stuff. There can't be any elephants living on Pluto, because Pluto has no air and elephants need air to breathe.
Pachydermist: Ah, but you don't understand. These are space elephants, they don't need air to breathe.
Apachydermist: Well, they wouldn't have anything to eat or drink on Pluto.
Pachydermist: Space elephants! Space elephants! They don't need any stinkin' food or water!
Apachydermist: OK, but look: if these things don't eat or drink or breathe air, and they're not related to Earth elephants by descent or ancestry (how would they have gotten to Pluto from Earth, or vice versa?) then they can't in any meaningful sense be elephants, can they? I mean, if these things are so utterly different from anything we know as an elephant, then there's no sense in calling them elephants.
Pachydermist: Ah, but these are the true, essential elephants. Our Earth elephants are but a pale shadow of their perfect pachydermic nature.
Apachydermist: And you learned all of this from a tingling in your toe?
Pachydermist: Yes, and through pure logic.
Apachydermist: Uh, right, logic. I knew I was going to regret this. Well, just to prove you wrong, I'm going to build a spaceship and travel to Pluto and search for these elephants.
Pachydermist: OK, sure, but it won't do any good.
Apachydermist: Huh? Why not?
Pachydermist: You see, these space elephants are invisible.
Apachydermist: Invisible? You said they were purple!
Pachydermist: Yes, but they are the essence of true purple. The color we know as purple on Earth....
Apachydermist: ... is but a pale shadow, yeah OK I get it. But I'll make a huge cordon across the entire planet and corral the elephants...
Pachydermist: Sorry, they're not only invisible, they're intangible, too.
Apachydermist: Intangible, too? What are they made out of?
Pachydermist: An immaterial substance.
Apachydermist: Immaterial substance? It seems to me that translates as "immaterial material", or "substance which has no substance." I think I've finally found something we can agree on. Your pachyderms are oxymoronic!
Pachydermist: Actually, they're very smart. They have a level of intelligence compared to which human intelligence is just ....
Apachydermist: (Exits stage left, shaking his head sadly.)
Very silly, I know. But these are the same arguments theists use against atheists, as I will demonstrate over the next few posts. I don't know when I'll get to those posts, so in the meantime, you can try to guess whose arguments I'm thinking of. Have at it!
* Pluto is now considered a dwarf planet, but a dwarf planet is a planet, too, right? So no complaints about "Pluto is no longer a planet! Aaaugh!"
You're channeling Craig, I believe.
ReplyDeleteTo play the devil's advocate, though, we can extend the principle of charity to the theologians by assuming they are trying to articulate a concept (of god) in a language that does not fit it. Kind of like a physicist talking about a quantum particle being both a wave and a particle. I find that this approach often - tough by no means always - does allow for a more cogent view. This doesn't resolve all theological self-contradictions, nor does it make the positions more plausible - but it's at least some progress.
Yair Rezek
You need to at least tip your hat to Sagan.
ReplyDeleteOnly a Theistic Personalist who conceives of "god" as a being who exists alongside other lesser beings could or would use that argument.
ReplyDeleteOr someone with a 3rd grade education.
This is clearly a variation on Russel's Tea Pot
As Bill Vallicella points out both Russel & the modern Atheist critic assume the error of conceiving of God as an isolani. Which of course He is not.
see here:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2008/11/russells-teapot-does-it-hold-water.html
Oh Prof Rob when are you going to pick fights with real Gods instead of wasting your time with bit players?
BI: Did Sagan use this? Do you have a link?
ReplyDeleteBen: Thanks for the link to Vallicella. Bill manages to miss the point rather spectacularly. Whether "a reasoned case can be made for theism" is not the point of the analogy (Russell's or mine). The point is whether there is any EVIDENCE for theism.
I can make out a reasoned case for string theory, as unifying the known forces, providing an explanation for the patterns of elementary particles, and so forth. But until I have some actual EVIDENCE for string theory, I'm not going to accept it as fact.
Bill's link to "2 Dozen Arguments" by Plantinga looks very promising... lots more examples of the kind of silliness I'm complaining about here. Example: "Numbers exist. Numbers are ideas in the mind of God. Therefore God exists."
Huh? This guy is a philosopher?
No Prof I am afraid you missed the point.
Delete>The point is whether there is any EVIDENCE for theism.
What kind of evidence? Philosophical or empirical? God is prove via philosophy not empirical science. I thought you read TLS? Haven't you learned the problems with Postivism/Scientism yet?
You can't prove Positivism correct with science(therefore making it doubtful by it's own standards) & any attempted philosophical argument is question begging, contradictory and incoherent.
We need philosophy and science for general natural knowledge. If I was an atheist, reason alone tells me a Positivist assumption is bogus. Just as AG Flew at the height of his Atheism in the 50's correctly concluded.
Also the "god" you doubt exists because of a lack of "empirical evidence" is denied by Feser, Myself and I believe Bill.
>Whether "a reasoned case can be made for theism" is not the point of the analogy (Russell's or mine). The point is whether there is any EVIDENCE for theism.
Yes if you believe God by nature is an Isolani like Paley's f-ing stupid jerk wade "god" or some ID supporter's "god".
But what about those of us who are strong Atheists in regards to the existence of any sort of isolani "god"?
Classic Theists for example. You argument is meaningless to anybody who believes in the God of TLS, Aquinas, Scotus & or the Historic Judeo-Christian God.
Yours and Russel's argument is an argument against Paley's "god" who of course does not exist.
>Bill's link to "2 Dozen Arguments" by Plantinga looks very promising... lots more examples of the kind of silliness I'm complaining about here. Example: "Numbers exist. Numbers are ideas in the mind of God. Therefore God exists."
>Huh? This guy is a philosopher?
He reads Plantinga's philosophical arguments even ones he might disagree with as a philosopher. You are reading them as a Physicist. Stop it please before you give me an ulcer.
Prof Oerter don't disappoint me. You admit you don't understand philosophy. You need to learn more. Go after the small fry "gods" if you must but I think you should go back to reading more philosophy so you can tangle with the big boys.
Just saying.
Peace to you my friend.
>Immaterial substance?
DeleteYou cannot image how much a Classic Theist like myself hates Descartes' philosophy.
Everything Dawkins feels toward what he calls "god" would be loving piety compared to black apathy and contempt I feel toward the Theistic Personalist view of God.
It is just so wrong.
I'm sorry I should not have capitalized God & not put it in quotes when using that word in relation to Theistic Personalism.
DeleteMy bad.
RO: But where is the evidence for your God?
ReplyDeleteBen: Evidence? I don't need no stinkin' evidence!
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” - He Who Must Not Be Named
I would appreciate some help with the term "isolani", Ben. All I found out from Google was that is is Italian for Islands. It seems to me that you are the one who is asserting an isolani god, one who is pure philosophical abstraction, with no connection to the real world.
>All I found out from Google was that is is Italian for Islands.
DeleteBTW not to brag but I read the post carefully especially the part where Prof Bill called it a chess term. I just put "isolani chess" in google and it wasn't hard.
What can I say I am awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW4n2xY25vo
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRO: The only valid Evidence is what comes from empirical science.
ReplyDeleteBY: How do you prove that concept true with empirical science without
begging the question & if you can't then isn't it you who are in fact saying
"I don't need no stinking evidence"?
EO: Oh you reject evidence then?
That is your argument & it is weak sauce.
Prof Oerter if you believe in Postivism you might as well be a young earth creationist & be done with it. Neither view is intellectually respectable.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/
part 2
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184/
>I would appreciate some help with the term "isolani", Ben.
What does this nitpicking have to do with Prof Bill's argument?
He is another post of his on the subject.
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/02/does-the-atheist-deny-what-the-theist-affirms.html
To believe in God is not to believe "that there is a special object in addition to the objects we normally take to exist."
Why is that hard?
>I it seems to me that you are the one who is asserting an isolani god,
How can I believe in a God who is "a special object in addition to the objects we normally take to exist" when I am a self confessed strong Atheist in regards to any such "god"?
Feigning ignorance of the term after it has been explained in plain English by Prof Bill is not very convincing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_pawn
>one who is pure philosophical abstraction, with no connection to the real world.
Ironically I can dismiss what you just wrote above on it's own grounds. Because the claim philosophical abstractions are not real or connected to the real world is a philosophical not scientific claim and is therefore itself an abstraction and thus what you wrote above is not connected to the real world.
So why should I believe it without scientific empirical evidence? Can you use the LHC to show me the above claim about philosophical abstractions not being connected to the real world is true?
I'd like to see that.
Come on Prof! I know you are way better then this.
I think you are just trying to get a rise out of me or something.
Well I am in too good a mood for that.
Cheers.:-)
To add a slight twist to Professor Oerter's thought experiment: Let's suppose I spoke to a close reliable friend of Pachydermist, indeed a friend with impeccable credentials, a Nobel prize winner in science no less, who stated to me that she had, in her mind's eye, seen the immaterial purple pachyderms and can testify in full support of everything Pachydermist has said. When queried by Apachydermist, what empirical evidence had she of this sighting, she answered, "My mental impressions; just ask any of the others who have also seen said purple pachyderms, if you don't believe me." What do you make of this then, Mr. Apachydermist?
ReplyDeleteFascinating but at the end of the day a purple pachyderm is an isolani. It's existence if possible just means it's one more improbable entity in reality.
ReplyDeleteI apologize on "isolani" - Bill defines it quite clearly, and I just missed it. I thought it was your own term, or one in general philosophical use. (It was an honest question, not a nitpick, BTW.)
ReplyDeleteYour position seems to be that God is like the Pythagorean theorem: something that can be derived from some self-evident axioms and hence needs no empirical support.
But even mathematical axioms are open to question. Euclid's axioms might seem so obvious as to be impossible to question. And yet, we know (from General Relativity) that they are in fact false in the world we live in. The Pythagorean theorem is not true in our universe.
Likewise, any God that you derive from whatever axioms remains a purely theoretical conception, unless you can somehow show that this God actually exists in reality.
Your continual attempts to tar me with Positivism and to claim that my arguments are self-refuting are facile and they are getting annoying. If you offer no empirical evidence for your God, then my saying "You offer no empirical evidence for your God" is simply a statement of fact. It is not self-refuting.
Glad to hear you're in a good mood, tho. ;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSo you still hold too your Scientism/Positivism worldview unexamined and on Faith alone?
Delete>Your continual attempts to tar me with Positivism and to claim that my arguments are self-refuting are facile and they are getting annoying.
Translation: I don't have the slightest notion of how to answer them. So like the religious Fideist I am just going to go with the burning in my bosom.
>If you offer no empirical evidence for your God, then my saying "You offer no empirical evidence for your God" is simply a statement of fact. It is not self-refuting.
If I became an Atheist for whatever reason I would still on rational grounds reject Positivism. Can you offer any empirical evidence Positivism true? Then the basis of your own Atheism is itself still by it's own standards purely theoretical conception, unless you can somehow show that Positivism is true in reality.
>Your position seems to be that God is like the Pythagorean theorem: something that can be derived from some self-evident axioms and hence needs no empirical support.
That is how all good philosophy works. Your empirical science is based on axioms that are either self-evident or can be rationally deduced.
If you reject philosophy then I cannot on rational grounds accept any argument you have against any type of belief. Wither it be an inferior false Theistic Personalist God or the True God.
The only Atheism you can show me that is in any way rational or meaningful must be philosophically based.
Go big or gohome.
Interestingly, the second Valicella article you link to has a very different take on evidence than your own. Here's what Bill says:
ReplyDelete" Ryan also claims that there is no evidence for the God hypothesis. This strikes me as just plain false. There are all kinds of evidence. That it is not the sort of evidence Ryan and fellow atheists would accept does not show that it is not evidence. People have religious and mystical experiences of many different kinds. There is the 'bite of conscience' that intimates a Reality transcendent of the spacetime world. Some experiences of beauty intimate the same. There are the dozens and dozens of arguments for the existence of God. Add it up and you have a cumulative case for theism."
Do you agree that these things are evidence for God? Or do you think that evidence is irrelevant to the question?
No I doubt it. Bill rejects Scientism & on the basic level he believes in the necessity of philosophy.
Delete>Do you agree that these things are evidence for God? Or do you think that evidence is irrelevant to the question?
If you read Bill I doubt you will find he thinks arguments such as these are in and of themselves sufficient but added to philosophical arguments then they do serve as icing on the cake.
But like AG Flew or Feser & others I can believe in the Classic God purely on philosophical grounds without any sort of illuminism.
In addition to Positivism you also have to examine if you are a philosophical realist of some type or not.
You can be a philosophical skeptic but the trap of skepticism is you must be skeptical of you skepticism & ultimately reject it or trust in it and be inconsistent.
Not that one shouldn't have a healthy skepticism or be incredulous but as a philosophy I find it rationally problematic.
>Valicella article you link to has a very different take on evidence than your own.
ReplyDeleteLike I said to clarify I doubt that he does.
Anyway your The Purple Pachyderm Argument (aka Russell's teapot argument aka Dawkin's FSM etc) presupposes Positivism the view that all real knowledge is scientific knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of empirical science.
ReplyDeleteIt is a very good argument to generate valid skepticism towards belief an any and all "deities" of an Isolani nature. Which by definition also includes Theistic Personalist views of God.
But it is a meaningless objection to any classically conceived view of the Deity whose existence is established by philosophical argument.
Saying to me Classic Theism can't be true or real because it is not subject to empirical investigation is to presuppose positivism.
> If you offer no empirical evidence for your God, then my saying "You offer no empirical evidence for your God" is simply a statement of fact.
It is a statement of fact there is no historical evidence for biological evolution &
It is not self-refuting. Think about it? We don't have the historical records of near immortal or long lives super beings (Like Lorien from Babylon 5) who directly observed species changing over millions of years. Does that count as evidence against evolution? I think not.
It is an unremarkable objection to the evidence of biology just as the "no empirical evidence statement" which is a statement of fact is unremarkable in the face of the evidence of philosophy.
BY: I do not understand the modern need for negative polemics. Ed Feser states the polemical tone of his book, The Last Superstition, "is appropriate, indeed necessary, for the New Atheism derives whatever influence it has far more from its rhetorical force ... than from its very thin intellectual content." [p.25] I myself do not find mudslinging very helpful. I agree with RO that in fact it can get a bit "annoying," but if you are going to use polemics, at least go for the gold, such as this from Jeremiah 2:13 (KJV): "For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." Now there is a beautifully written polemic.
ReplyDeleteGeneral Comment: As best I can tell, the debate going on here is, on the one hand, what constitutes a valid cistern, and on the other hand, what constitutes proof of living waters.
Bill Vallicella (ty BY for the links to maverickphilosopher) discusses in his point 3 that there are a variety of philosophic arguments for the existence of God. He states, "these arguments give positive reason for believing in the existence of God. Are they compelling? No, but then no argument for any substantive philosophical conclusion is compelling."
So let me ask you, BY, do you agree with Vallicella on that point? Are philosophical arguments "compelling"? I am a little rusty on my Aristotle, and all I have available is a public domain copy of his Prior Analytics, but in that copy [Bk I, Sec.1] Aristotle states "a syllogistic premiss ... will be demonstrative, if it is true and obtained through the first principles of its science" ... and when a dialectician is syllogizing "it [the premiss] is the assertion of that which is apparent and generally admitted."
In the first case, the premiss in the argument (whether physical or metaphysical) has to be both "true" and grounded in the first principles of "its science" and in the second case (which is not really different, is it?), the premiss has to be an "assertion" of some thing which is both "apparent" and "generally admitted." So, does any of this change the nature of the debate here?
I for one do not mind being referred to as an illuminist (if that is what BY did). But I choose to advance my addition to the doc's thought experiment hypothetically, rather than confessionally. Have at it.
c Emerson
ReplyDeleteI recommend you read the links above where I link to Two of Feser's essays on Scientism/Positivism. You will find those enlightening as well.
You personal aesthetics regarding polemics don't really interest me since I don't share them. But different people have different tastes. The New Atheism is both arrogant and intellectually inferior IMHO. There are are better more respectable intellectual Atheistic approaches that argue using philosophy other then warmed over Postivism/Scientism. Also it's tedious how Gnus try to mate their Atheism to left wing politics. But I hate mixing philosophy and politics.
That having been said let me repeat what I have said about Prof. RO. in the past.
I don't classify Dr. OR as a Gnu Atheist since he has tried to the best of his ability to learn something about classical philosophy and make an argument. He has read the the book I recommended him in good faith TLS. He openly and honestly admits he has a minimal learning in classic philosophy. That wins mad respects.
Prof Feser also spoke of Dr. RO in friendly terms and others as well over at Feser's blog did the same.
>So let me ask you, BY, do you agree with Vallicella on that point? Are philosophical arguments "compelling"?
Well I am not too sure off the top of my head what he means by "compelling".
Where I to take an educated guess it could mean no argument can force you to accept it's conclusions. Arguments are based on an underlying warrent in which are put forth the various arguments. One can find fault with the arguments or the arguments might be solid & indisputible but in that case then one can always attack the warrent.
So until I investigate what Prof Bill mean here by "compelling" it would be prudent for me to withold judgement IMHO.
>I am a little rusty on my Aristotle, and all I have available is a public domain copy of his Prior Analytics, but in that copy [Bk I, Sec.1] Aristotle states etc......In the first case, the premiss in the argument (whether physical or metaphysical) has to be both "true" and grounded in the first principles of "its science"
I should add the ancients had a boarder view of what constituted science(in brief they say Philosophy as a Science) just has Aristotle and Aquinas had a broad view of motus and didn't just see it as mere locomotion from point A to Point B.
>So, does any of this change the nature of the debate here?
I am not sure what you are asking? I am just saying the Argument Prof RO gives doesn't by nature have any meaning to a Classic Theist. I have explained why & gave Prof Bill critique of the Teapot argument of which this is a variation. Now Prof RO can agree with me here without confessing a Classic God's existence. He can disagree with me and offer me reasons why or withhold judgement till he does some more homework.
But I am confident that Positivism is not a rational view & I am equally confident this variation of the Teapot argument is a non-starter criticism of a Classic View of God.
>I for one do not mind being referred to as an illuminist (if that is what BY did).
This is what I said "But like AG Flew or Feser & others I can believe in the Classic God purely on philosophical grounds without any sort of illuminism.".
I am merely saying I don't need arguments from relgious experience to believe there is a God in the Classic Sense. I can use philosphy alone. I am not saying those wouldn't be nice on top of the stronger philosophical arguments. I am not knocking religous experience. I have had religous experiences myself but I prefer to put them in their proper context when arguing about relgion.
>But I choose to advance my addition to the doc's thought experiment hypothetically, rather than confessionally.
As you said "have at it".
I've made my philosophical complaints known.
Peace to you.
c emerson
ReplyDeleteI did some digging & I found Prof Bill's definition of "compelling".
here:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/03/are-there-any-rationally-compelling-arguments-for-substantive-theses.html
QUOTE"I agree with your first conditional, but not with the second. Philosophers make reasoned cases for all manner of propositions, but their colleagues typically do not find these arguments to be compelling. So a reasoned case need not be a compelling case. But it depends on what exactly is meant by 'compelling.' I suggest that a (rationally) compelling argument is one which forces the 'consumer' of the argument to accept the argument's conclusion on pain of being irrational. I will assume that the 'consumer' is intelligent, sincere, open to having his mind changed, and well-versed in the subject matter of the argument. Now it may be that there are a few arguments that are rationally compelling in this sense, but precious few, and surely no arguments for or against the existence of God.
With this clarification I might tetatively agree with bill that for example someone who rejects the First Way of Aquinas isn't irrational for doing so. Now that doesn't mean I might not find certain individual arguments used against the First Way to be either irrational or just simply bad arguments.
But that doesn't mean disbelief in the First way makes you irrational.
I reserve the right to change my mind though if given a compelling reason to do so in my judgement.
BY: Thnx, you have clarified the lines of the debate for me very well. I appreciate the links you have provided for this post as well as other posts. Peace.
ReplyDeleteSagan made this argument in Demon Haunted World. Google "Dragon in my garage".
ReplyDeleteProfessor Oerter's analogy to string theory struck me deeply. To me it seems the analogy while supporting the lack of physical evidence for the existence of God, also supports a contrary position, namely the possibility of the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteI've expanded on that contrary argument on my own blog, and welcome everyone to read it there, along with some of the fine music I cited there. Feel free commenting on my God is Possible Argument either there or here, but commenting here is likely to reach a lot more readers.
My argument is in three parts:
I. Oerter's Purple Pachyderm, at this link, followed by -
II. God is Possible, here and -
III. Long-Legged Guitar Pickin' Man, here.
I hope those link codes work correctly. If not my blog is Randomwalk12.blogspot.com.
My hat is off to Prof Rob, and to Yachov and Oerter's other readers, who got me thinking again. Now I need to go play some music.
Sorry, I left the "com" out of each link. Try these:
DeleteI. Oerter's Purple Pachyderm, here
II. God is Possible, here, and
III. Long-Legged Guitar Pickin' Man, here
Hope they work now.
Well, the first and third are dead on. Last try for
DeleteII. God is Possible, here
Reminds me when I was a college freshman trying to enter my first Fortran programs on key punched cards. One typo = zippo on the results-o. Now you know why I didn't pursue empirical science.