How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?

[GeoffP]

Au revoir, FSM. We scarcely knew ye, but probably too much anyway

Au revoir, FSM. We scarcely knew ye, but probably too much anyway

I did not mean at all that Sarkus is dumber than me. Even if I thought his argument was weaker (which I do not), that would not in any way imply that he was any less intelligent than I am. It's a pretty cheap tactic to stir the pot in such a way. I think an apology is in order.

I recall you called him "easier pickin's" prior. An apology might be in order, but that's his call.

Is your ego feeling any better? Can we maybe not presume too much about my failure to respond to Very-Important-JDawg? Thanks.

That would be fine, except that isn't what you were arguing against. You argued against its effectiveness as a parody. Do I need to go back and quote those posts, or can I trust you to be intellectually honest enough to own up?

Can I trust you to do the same? I don't know if you recall this or not, but I've been making two arguments over the course of the thread. Let's see if you can dig those up. So, to use your new, assassination-free dialectic here: is it memory or honesty? I do give you permission to jog my memory as often as it needs to go walkies.

You know what you were really arguing, and you know that I know it, and you know that I know that you know, and I know that you know that I know. You know?

No.

Busted.

Oh noes! I haz been struck with a straw man!

Before running for the goal line, maybe you could define how I was using "works". As in...

Unicorns. Aliens. The Loch Ness monster. FSM was a bad contrast to begin with and it hasn't got any better.

Le voila.

If I agreed with you, I'd be happy to say so.

Let me refresh you here, Columbo: your point there was that there were no unicorn-based religions, and I infer you meant this around the time the FSM was invented. (Which is probably wrong, actually, as I think My Little Pony enthusiasts and wannabe Wiccans capable of just about anything.) But there were no pasta-based religions at that time either, so your point is kind of moot; Henderson could have written up something else, but didn't, which is regrettable. You seem a little desperate to defend the FSM. Why? Surely we could replace it with something better?

It isn't used as a panacea attack on religion.

It is; internet, debate, in the halls. In the classroom actually less since my professor at the time was diligent about pointing out the practical implications. Now, that still makes it a bad contrast compared to unicorns and pixies and the like, but it did get around my second complaint, which I didn't mention, and wisely so I begin to think. Unfortunately, there's a tendency to slap the FSM around as a general attack on religion. This is stretching the initially badly chosen analogy too far.

This particular thread asks the question of how the FSM is more absurd than Yahweh, and for people who understand that Yahweh is an invention, we understand that they're essentially the same thing.

Well, I see that I'm arguing against a pre-conclusion here, which is my job done for me: your rejection of my modest proposal seems to be a little biased. I'm happy to stick with just "whether the FSM is more absurd than the Christian God" as per the title, but can you consider such a question in an unbiased way?

You're quite the linguistic gymnast! Will we be seeing you in London this year?

Yes. I compete in the "100 Yard Breaking Down Logical Filibusters" category. I expect a gold, based on previous achievement if nothing else.

If dogma is central in "essentially" all religions...

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Please to continue.

then you could say that Pastafarianism is an attack "essentially" on religion, rather than simply dogma (even though it is dogma being attacked, rather than the concept of religion, which does not necessitate dogma).

Ha. In that there's no empirical support of just about any given religion (excepting those few who will, no doubt, drop by the thread just to complain about how Buddha was a real guy, dude) then dogma is what's left.

As above, so below:

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities.[2] The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"[3] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".[4] Dogma came to signify laws or ordinances adjudged and imposed upon others by the First Century. The plural is either dogmas or dogmata, from Greek δόγματα. Today, It is sometimes used as a synonym for systematic theology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

Don't get too hung on the pejorative implications. Look, in no way was my premise with that point to imply that you attack God with such a concept - what, exactly, would it do? - but rather the concept thereof. I think I've been pretty explicit and fair about that, so stop this nonsense.

But to then say that Pastafarianism is an attack on the concept of god would be incorrect, because gods do not require religion. Deists, for example, believe in certain concepts of god that do not include any religion. So, to reiterate, Pastafarianism is a parody of religion, not an attack on god.

Nice try, though.

Note my use of the phrase as a concept, above. In the human sphere.

Nice try, though.

Oh, so we're back to admitting that you have a problem with FSM as it was originally intended? Well that certainly makes my past-quote of you above less dramatic.

Er, in the context, I can think of little less dramatic than your sequentially blinkered responses to my two points.

Anyway, you're wrong, and I suppose I'll have to restate my reasons, since the last effort didn't stick: The parody only works because the device is a known invention. You don't parody McDonalds with Wendy's, you parody McDonalds with McArches, or McGreasy, or anything that makes it not the thing itself but a familiar stand-in.

Ohh noo: cherry-picked examples in a fatuous setting. Well now whaddamigonnado? :bawl:

I don't know where you came up with the idea that FSM being cynically motivated works against it. Cynicism is the source of all parody, chief.

Cynicism in application, not in the source material. Tsk.

As to how the conversation is furthered by "such coloring" I can only say that you force my hand with your dishonest debating tactics.

Yes, yes: I force you into dishonesty. Dishonesty to fight dishonesty. This may sound a bit petty, but: so you're admitting to unethical bias because you think I'm debating dishonestly. That sounds strangely like the subject of the discussion: a false caricature versus an unknown. Does life parody art, or art life?

Tell me something here: do you understand what I mean by "contrast"? I've been using the word quite a lot, and I'd like to know you get what I'm saying.

It's a good attempt at a save, but no.

I'm giving it all I've got, but I can't force myself to care.

If you had actually punctured the FSM, I would thank you for doing so and compliment you on helping me learn something new. I tend to get a bit misty over Sciforum writers who teach me things, even when those ideas contradict ones I previously held. That's why I pretty much gush over anything Aqueous Id writes, and why Skinwalker was one of my favorite posters, way back when. If you were in the right on this topic, you'd be another one of my heroes here at Sciforums. Alas, you're completely wrong.

And I want your gushy support because....? :shrug:

How could it possibly be? The FSM is a parody of Intelligent Design. Raelianism, while claiming that we were intelligent designed by aliens, does not make junk scientific claims to support its theory. Instead, the founder claims to have found a crashed spaceship, and an alien inside who gave him the whole story, so it's not any sort of contrast at all for Intelligent Design. Mormonism maybe, but not ID.

The point is that the Raelians actually (as far as I can tell) do believe in their version of reality. It's not raised farcically. Now suppose Henderson had, instead, decided to suggest that the school board adopt a curriculum consisting of aliens taking the place of all religious figures with the intent of...guiding humanity to some kind of mental nirvana, apparently, so that the teaching of any kind of evolution was unnecessary, and religion too, while they were at it. That's not a perfect parallel, but it's right off the top of my head; substitute in "aliens made humans out of goo" and you'd be on the money - an alternative explanation for life with about as much intellectual weight and support as ID yet still a more parsimonious parallel than the FSM. If you feel Raelism doesn't make sufficiently strong empirical claims about the reality of nature, pick the above. Simple.

 

[Sarkus]

It cannot be discussed any other way than in regard to a specific religion.
Because "God" cannot be discussed without regard to a specific religion.

That generic, general, neutral, abstract concept of "God" that you aim at and aim to discuss,
is actually empty, it has no qualifiers, because all actual qualifiers of "God" are religion-specific.

That is also the point of the parody of Pastafarianism.
But one can also discuss God without reference to religion... merely as an unfalsifiable concept that is at the root of religions.
One need have no more than that. The key is that it is unfalsifiable.
If this doesn't apply to the God of one specific religion or another, then those are clearly outside the scope of comparison.

That generic, general, neutral, abstract concept of "God" is the "God of philosophers" and it is an invention of philosophers.
No theistic religion ever claimed that that "God of philosophers" exists or has this or that quality.
Whether "God" indeed has the qualifiers ascribed to him by philosophers - that is something the philosophers cannot establish.

Such a god has but one attribute - that it is unfalsifiable.
On that the concept of "God" can be discussed.

What we should be discussing is whether we as humans can deal in falsifiable and unfalsifiable concepts at all.

We can. We do. We are.

Moreover, we should be discussing what it is that we try to accomplish by presuming ourselves to be able to discuss "God" without regard to existing theistic religion.

Because we're discussing one specific attribute that does not need religion to give it context: the attribute of unfalsifiability.
We're not discussing any other attribute of God here.

True, Pastafarianism does introduce what the FSM looks like - and it is here that we would discuss God in the context of religion. But that is not what this current line of this thread is discussing.

 

[GeoffP]

Where is your FSM now?

Whether there are alternatives that get a similar point across does not diminish the purpose and intent of a parody. Parodies help highlight in humour what others may miss in more serious discussion.

Accurately chosen parodies certainly makes the contrast more worthwhile and reasonable. Creationists can make the same argument I just did, and they'd be effective in doing so - or would in some kind of sane world - because the comparison is poorly chosen.

And all these were used specifically to contrast against ID, or to raise the issue with unfalsifiable claims? Yep, archaic indeed.

Allow me to explain here: you could use them thusly. They have not been so used yet. The FSM is archaic because it's wrong. It's an embarrassment to naturalistic process, and to evolutionary science.

I'm referring to the title of this thread (FSM v Christian God).
And I have not mentioned deism in this thread: ID is a claim held by deists and theists alike.

That's not really the point, but I'm past caring. Onward.

It's not a veiled personal shot: it is an explicit criticism that you do not appear to understand what it means to be falsifiable.

Well, I'm sorry, but I've demonstrated that I do, and that it is. By "falsifiable", I have to presume from your extremely reductionist argument below that you think there's some supernatural distribution for falsifiability also. I wasn't aware this was the case. Or are these the kind of explicit criticisms that get trotted out when you disagree with someone?

As said - the FSM may exist and put the concept into someone's head, that someone "creating" the concept of the FSM for humanity... with the idea that in 2000 years the FSM is accepted as a recognised deity.

Wow. That seems awfully reversed, since their initial precept is that it's a load of crap.

First,

Prove that the FSM does not exist.
Yes, you can (as mentioned several times) go back to discover man's first thought of the concept, but you can not prove that this was not planted in Bobby Henderson's head by the FSM Himself.
The FSM is unfalsifiable.
If you think otherwise PROVE THAT THE FSM DOES NOT EXIST.
It is insufficient to prove that Man's first notion was seemingly conceived in parody.

I was most impressed with your block lettering, but nonetheless, the author and initial usage illustrates that it's fake. It's an admission. I think your thresholds for acceptance would be a little more empirical themselves if you could somehow produce a single author for the Abrahamic religions and get him to say "yes, I faked the lot". Sarkus, this is reductio ad absurdum expressed as a legitimate argument: if we cannot admit the sheer naturalistic evidence that Henderson faked it, then how can we possibly admit any naturalistic evidence of anything? I personally feel it's very unlikely that science and religion should mix, and that they should occupy entirely different fields of inquiry, but there's a limit of naturalistic credulity to my position: we know the FSM was false. It's designed explicitly thus: it's falsity is the point that it's making, by sheer admission. Thus, it's a bad example, since religious faith is generally not an expression of cynicism in belief.

So you are left in the same position as with the FSM now. The only difference might be the relative infancy of the religion.

I'm not sure how or WRT what I'm in the same position as the FSM now. Or perhaps I, too, am only a figment of your imagination. You could argue that, except that I don't think anyone has claimed to invent me. Oh, sure, they might wish it, but it isn't so.

You can certainly prove that our first awakening to the idea of the FSM was through a human conceiving the idea.
But this does not mean that the FSM definitely does not exist.
If you want to try to prove the FSM does not exist, feel free.

It's definitive enough for sanity, and I'm happy with that.

Your argument is relying on the years that Christianity has existed, and the longer time that God has been conceived of, as authority to separate it from other unfalsifiable concepts.

Mmm...no, actually. I've said it a dozen times: I don't know if Christianity or Judaism or Islam was founded on a knowing falsehood. I do know that the FSM is false, and - ironically to your point as written - was falsifiable and falsified from the get-go. I don't think you have a clear grasp of falsifiability, accusations to the contrary.

Your view of the underlying principles and issues are clouded by matters of practice, of what might be more reasonable to believe etc, when these have no bearing on the issue.

Clouded by what matters of which practice? I think reasonability bears very strongly on the issue. Is there a reason that it shouldn't?

And you dismiss based on what you see as better concepts to make the same point, all of which miss the key point that the FSM is a deity... and it seems to be this that irks you the most... that someone is daring to raise a comparison to God, or to ID, or to other unfalsifiables that are so clearly held in such high esteem.
And no, these are not veiled personal attacks - they are explicit criticisms of the position you have documented in this thread.

Actually, with the exception of your first point, that was all wrong.

I do think there are better concepts to make the same point, and I have no idea why this troubles you so. Do you have any counter-argument to that? So far, what I'm seeing is a series of emotional reactions when someone kicks the FSM in the crotch, followed by a little wildly inaccurate assertion about personalities. The FSM is a farcical concept, as stated, because I have to conclude at some point that reality is as observed; the author has admitted by action that it's fake, and so it's done.

I don't think raising a comparison to ID is objectionable, although ID is better just refuted mathematically, which it is. I do object to using the FSM as a contrast to the Abrahamic God, because as a factorial the FSM is completely unrooted. Once again: unicorns, aliens, the Loch Ness Monster. All good contrasts, aliens being the best; i.e.: "aliens bred all humans, and you should teach that, Bible-thumpers. It has as much natural evidence as God, and we didn't just make it up."

Now that I've made it utterly explicit, can you see the difference? The FSM is a childishly presented farce. Let it go. Pick something else. That's about the best one is going to manage in this situation, frankly, but for crying out loud can it at least be the best-selected parallel model?

"Daring to raise an objection to ID and God" is one of the sadder phrases I've ever had to see on this forum. I must presume - and I will do so absolutely - that you think I'm a creationist. I'm not. I'm an evolutionary biologist and geneticist.

Oh...sorry. Did I not make that clear?

You know... maybe this is too much to ask. Maybe I expect too much. But maybe the people on my side of the aisle could think real hard about subjects instead of falling into the same sad old dialectical traps. Real sorry I made fun of the poor little FSM as the result of a half-assed thought process with a contrast so bad that a four-year-old would balk at it.

 

[Balerion]

I recall you called him "easier pickin's" prior. An apology might be in order, but that's his call.

Ah, another misrepresentation of the truth, a King Geoff specialty! Here's what I really said:

I see GeoffP has moved on to what he thinks are easier pickin's.

Oops! Your nefarious plot to set Sarkus and I against each other so that you might pack up your fallacious and ill-considered arguments and sneak out the back door have been foiled!

Take it like a man, Geoffy.

Is your ego feeling any better? Can we maybe not presume too much about my failure to respond to Very-Important-JDawg? Thanks.

You were running away from a superior argument without even giving the perfunctory "Let's agree to disagree" that always comes in lieu of "I'm right but you won't admit it/I'm defeated but don't want to admit it". I called you out on it, you came back. All's right with the world.

Can I trust you to do the same? I don't know if you recall this or not, but I've been making two arguments over the course of the thread. Let's see if you can dig those up. So, to use your new, assassination-free dialectic here: is it memory or honesty? I do give you permission to jog my memory as often as it needs to go walkies.

Yes, you argued two points, and were wrong on both. No one is denying this. But that does not make it any less true that one of these points was FSM's ineffectiveness as a parody of Intelligent Design. Oh, did you not want to talk about that now? Is your tactic "Keep saying I made two points so I don't have to talk about either of them?"

No.

Yes. You very much do.

Oh noes! I haz been struck with a straw man!

Before running for the goal line, maybe you could define how I was using "works". As in...

Le voila.

No you weren't. The passage I quoted was a direct response to my point about it being a satire, which in turn was a response to your questioning why we even needed the FSM. My reply was "That's like asking why we need satire. C'mon." Cue the quote I provided in the last post. Now you're telling me you didn't mean it like that?

Let me refresh you here, Columbo: your point there was that there were no unicorn-based religions, and I infer you meant this around the time the FSM was invented. (Which is probably wrong, actually, as I think My Little Pony enthusiasts and wannabe Wiccans capable of just about anything.) But there were no pasta-based religions at that time either, so your point is kind of moot;

Ah, I see. You know, I've spent about ten minutes here trying to find the cause of my comment, and I'm coming up empty. What I should have said, and what was indeed my point, was that unicorns and aliens didn't work as well as FSM, because unicorns and aliens are not knowing inventions, even though you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who might say unicorns are real. Of course, that isn't to say a Flying Unicorn Monster or Roarchomp the extradimensional alien wouldn't have worked at all, but both unicorns and aliens come with baggage that could distract from the main point, which is simply to argue for the existence of an absolutely absurd skydaddy with irrefutable claims based on junk science. For that purpose, FSM is perfect.

Henderson could have written up something else, but didn't, which is regrettable. You seem a little desperate to defend the FSM. Why? Surely we could replace it with something better?

Better? I suppose he could have thought up something more provocative, or perhaps more vulgar. The flying Cock-and-Balls, for example. But is that really better? As long as it's an invention and totally absurd, then it works.

Why do you think aliens or unicorns would be better?

It is; internet, debate, in the halls. In the classroom actually less since my professor at the time was diligent about pointing out the practical implications. Now, that still makes it a bad contrast compared to unicorns and pixies and the like, but it did get around my second complaint, which I didn't mention, and wisely so I begin to think. Unfortunately, there's a tendency to slap the FSM around as a general attack on religion. This is stretching the initially badly chosen analogy too far.

I see two problems here. One, while I can understand how FSM itself (as opposed to Pastafarianism) is a less effective attack on religion in general than it is upon ID, I don't see how unicorns or pixies are better. If you could help me understand that, perhaps we'd find some common ground here.

Two, maybe that's true at your local university, but that's not what's happening here. Sarkus has not argued the FSM as an attack on religion in general.

[qutoe]Well, I see that I'm arguing against a pre-conclusion here, which is my job done for me: your rejection of my modest proposal seems to be a little biased. I'm happy to stick with just "whether the FSM is more absurd than the Christian God" as per the title, but can you consider such a question in an unbiased way?[/quote]

But the topic's question rests on one's opinion of the Christian God. The FSM is absurd no matter what, because we know it's an invention. If I believe the Christian God exists, then the Christian God isn't absurd. But if I believe it doesn't exist, then there's really no difference. Just in general, is a dimensionless, timeless, humanoid creator really less absurd than a floating lump of sgettis and meatsaballs? Now if you call that dimensionless, timeless, humanoid creator "Yahweh," then some people are going to find him less ridiculous, but only because they believe he really exists.

Yes. I compete in the "100 Yard Breaking Down Logical Filibusters" category. I expect a gold, based on previous achievement if nothing else.

High marks for style, at any rate.

Ha. In that there's no empirical support of just about any given religion (excepting those few who will, no doubt, drop by the thread just to complain about how Buddha was a real guy, dude) then dogma is what's left.

Okay, my mistake. So let's say that Pastafarianism is a parody of (or attack on--whichever you prefer) religion.

Don't get too hung on the pejorative implications. Look, in no way was my premise with that point to imply that you attack God with such a concept - what, exactly, would it do? - but rather the concept thereof. I think I've been pretty explicit and fair about that, so stop this nonsense.

Where is the facepalm smiley? God as a concept does not require religion, so Pastafarianism parodying religion does not mean that it is parodying the concept of god. It's simply parodying religion.

Note my use of the phrase as a concept, above. In the human sphere.

Nice try, though.

See above.

Er, in the context, I can think of little less dramatic than your sequentially blinkered responses to my two points.

I've dismantled both of your points, mate. Don't whine about it now.

Ohh noo: cherry-picked examples in a fatuous setting. Well now whaddamigonnado? :bawl:

How were they cherry-picked? And what were the cherry-picked from?

Cynicism in application, not in the source material. Tsk.

Okay, so what's the big deal about it being cynical in application, then?

Yes, yes: I force you into dishonesty. Dishonesty to fight dishonesty. This may sound a bit petty, but: so you're admitting to unethical bias because you think I'm debating dishonestly. That sounds strangely like the subject of the discussion: a false caricature versus an unknown. Does life parody art, or art life?

Woah, I never said I was being dishonest. When you said "such coloring" I thought you were referring to me calling you out on being a bit too elastic with your terminology. I said you forced my hand by using such a dishonest tactic.

Geez.

Tell me something here: do you understand what I mean by "contrast"? I've been using the word quite a lot, and I'd like to know you get what I'm saying.

You've been using it where I have used the term "parody," so I can only guess what you actually mean by it. Just like I can't quite figure what you think you mean by "parsimonious."

And I want your gushy support because....? :shrug:

Wow, Wynn, put up a sign before that sharp left turn, wouldja? All I did was express to you how wrong you were about me being loathe to admit I'm wrong. I really do like learning new things and having new ideas change my mind.

The point is that the Raelians actually (as far as I can tell) do believe in their version of reality. It's not raised farcically. Now suppose Henderson had, instead, decided to suggest that the school board adopt a curriculum consisting of aliens taking the place of all religious figures with the intent of...guiding humanity to some kind of mental nirvana, apparently, so that the teaching of any kind of evolution was unnecessary, and religion too, while they were at it. That's not a perfect parallel, but it's right off the top of my head; substitute in "aliens made humans out of goo" and you'd be on the money - an alternative explanation for life with about as much intellectual weight and support as ID yet still a more parsimonious parallel than the FSM. If you feel Raelism doesn't make sufficiently strong empirical claims about the reality of nature, pick the above. Simple.

Well, listen, if you think the goal of the letter was to actually get FSM taught as an alternative to ID and evolution, then something with the weight of Raelianism might have done the trick. Or not, but it would have gotten quite a bit closer than FSM.

But that wasn't the point of the letter. The letter wasn't to trick them into a Gotcha moment, it was to lampoon the crap they just signed on for. Do I really need to explain the object of satire?

 

[GeoffP]

"People like Geoff and scifes sez"

Take it like a man, Geoffy.

I shall shelter myself behind your enormous ego.

You were running away from a superior argument without even giving the perfunctory "Let's agree to disagree" that always comes in lieu of "I'm right but you won't admit it/I'm defeated but don't want to admit it". I called you out on it, you came back. All's right with the world.

I was forgetting a forgettable post, apparently. You didn't register. But I'm right here now, so what have you got? You seem to have a real rage on for this issue.

Yes. You very much do.

Haw! This is excellent. OK, OK, I'll play: what is it? Come on, don't be scaired. Say what you want to say. Just come right out, and say it, like a man. Come onnn.

No you weren't. The passage I quoted was a direct response to my point about it being a satire, which in turn was a response to your questioning why we even needed the FSM. My reply was "That's like asking why we need satire. C'mon." Cue the quote I provided in the last post. Now you're telling me you didn't mean it like that?

LOL. Let's examine that post:

Eh. I'd use it as a point of satire to ridicule FSMologists, because I just don't agree it works in its originally intended niche. If you disagree, then we just disagree.

I've only said it a dozen times or more. It's a bad contrast. It's a bad contrast. I don't think you should read the tea-leaves for my intent without following the syntax of my responses.

Ah, I see. You know, I've spent about ten minutes here trying to find the cause of my comment, and I'm coming up empty. What I should have said, and what was indeed my point, was that unicorns and aliens didn't work as well as FSM, because unicorns and aliens are not knowing inventions, even though you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who might say unicorns are real.

Your prevarication is backwards. The point of parody is to make a kind of parallel; I've been calling the whole thing that or a contrast throughout. Now, parodies work well if they fit well. But if the two things diverge in what must surely be the most central point, the contrast doesn't work. It's not funny. It's embarrassing, and uncomfortable to watch. This is the reaction I get watching the FSM get tossed around.

Better? I suppose he could have thought up something more provocative, or perhaps more vulgar.

When one uses the word "better", it's generally meant to imply...well, better.

Why do you think aliens or unicorns would be better?

We've been over this, again and again. Let me back you up further here: I've outlined what better is to me. What do you mean by 'better'?

But the topic's question rests on one's opinion of the Christian God.

Not in this debate. The issue is as much FSM as Christian God; and the FSM fails the ol' ANCOVA. Badly.

The FSM is absurd no matter what, because we know it's an invention. If I believe the Christian God exists, then the Christian God isn't absurd.

?? Sorry, but in what possible universe is that true? Because you believe it, it isn't absurd? This is going way off-topic for such a narrow focus.

But if I believe it doesn't exist, then there's really no difference.

Umm, in your head, yes, there's no difference. But what you're telling me is to go soak empiricism, effectively and run for nihilo. As tough as the whole unspoken problem is, I think I'll pass on that suggestion.

High marks for style, at any rate.

They like the shorts also.

Okay, my mistake. So let's say that Pastafarianism is a parody of (or attack on--whichever you prefer) religion.

Let's stop and smell the language for a second here: if the parody is internal, then it's not much of an attack. If you're gleefully handing it out, then it kind of is.

Where is the facepalm smiley? God as a concept does not require religion, so Pastafarianism parodying religion does not mean that it is parodying the concept of god. It's simply parodying religion.

:facepalm: I just said that. Holy leaping Fisher. I had to review the thread to see where you started sticking this in, and I think you're somehow fixated on Wynn's posts, which I avoid... 'religiously'. Let's try another approach here: why or from where do you think I believe that the FSM, or Henderson, or Pastafarianism, is an attack on God, per se? The most you could say is that as God resides for all naturalistic purposes in the head, some of the above attack the concept of god as envisioned by humans. This would, in many cases, be called religion. I have no idea whether there is an actual God and I don't know why you're bringing this in.

I've dismantled both of your points, mate. Don't whine about it now.

Heh. Right, right. Did you dismantle them in the place you keep God in?

How were they cherry-picked? And what were the cherry-picked from?

Because your choices are real-world restaurants versus sheer imagination. Should I interpret that you think God is as real as McDonald's? Come on, find a useful parallel. No, I'm not going to do it for you.

Okay, so what's the big deal about it being cynical in application, then?

Because you're comparing something that never was with something that no one knows if ever was.

Woah, I never said I was being dishonest. When you said "such coloring" I thought you were referring to me calling you out on being a bit too elastic with your terminology. I said you forced my hand by using such a dishonest tactic.

OK: forced your hand to - what? What is it I forced you to do, then?

You've been using it where I have used the term "parody," so I can only guess what you actually mean by it. Just like I can't quite figure what you think you mean by "parsimonious."

Contrast: as in, FSM vs. God. A second - and better - contrast would be Unicorns vs. God. It's amazing how difficult it is to move some people on that small, simple change.

 

[Sarkus]

Accurately chosen parodies certainly makes the contrast more worthwhile and reasonable.

Yes they do. And in this case it did. That you seem to misunderstand the nature of the parody of the FSM itself (not the religion, but the FSM) through what appears to be a lack of understanding of what constitutes falsifiability in a concept would probably explain your position.

Allow me to explain here: you could use them thusly. They have not been so used yet. The FSM is archaic because it's wrong. It's an embarrassment to naturalistic process, and to evolutionary science.

So now wrong = archaic??
And how is the concept of the FSM "an embarrassment to naturalistic process, and to evolutionary science"??

That's not really the point, but I'm past caring. Onward.

So your point is to raise strawmen and hope they remain uncontested?

Well, I'm sorry, but I've demonstrated that I do, and that it is.

Thus again showing that you have no real concept of falsifiability.
For (hopefully) the last time: someone claiming to have made up a concept does not mean that they have falsified it.
They can no more disprove the existence of an actual FSM than you can. They may just have hit it lucky and conceived of something that actually does exist... such is the mysterious way in which the FSM might work.
You can not disprove the existence of the FSM... period.
And waving a letter saying "Look - here is the first mention! It was an artifical conception!" is not demonstrating falsifiability.

Wow. That seems awfully reversed, since their initial precept is that it's a load of crap.

You dismiss the logic of the possibility through mere personal incredulity and emotion. :shrug:

I was most impressed with your block lettering, but nonetheless, the author and initial usage illustrates that it's fake. It's an admission.

Despite your claims to the contrary, to continue down this line of reasoning to show how the FSM is falsifiable is doing nothing but demonstrating your lack of understanding of the concept of falsifiability.

I think your thresholds for acceptance would be a little more empirical themselves if you could somehow produce a single author for the Abrahamic religions and get him to say "yes, I faked the lot".

Yet doing so would still not alter the unfalsifiability of the Abrahamic God.

Sarkus, this is reductio ad absurdum expressed as a legitimate argument: if we cannot admit the sheer naturalistic evidence that Henderson faked it, then how can we possibly admit any naturalistic evidence of anything?

We can admit that the concept of the FSM popped into his head, sure.
But that is a far cry from the FSM thus being a falsifiable concept, something which you repeatedly seem unable to grasp.

It's definitive enough for sanity, and I'm happy with that.

And again you fail to understand what unfalsifiability actually means.

Mmm...no, actually. I've said it a dozen times: I don't know if Christianity or Judaism or Islam was founded on a knowing falsehood. I do know that the FSM is false, and - ironically to your point as written - was falsifiable and falsified from the get-go. I don't think you have a clear grasp of falsifiability, accusations to the contrary.

:wallbang:
For the last time (I should have known my previous hope in this matter would be dashed before this reply was done): someone saying that they conceived of a concept does not mean that the reality is falsified. It just means that they conceived of a concept that possibly matches an actually existing object/entity/thing. And the actual existence of this object/entity/thing is unfalsifiable.

Clouded by what matters of which practice? I think reasonability bears very strongly on the issue. Is there a reason that it shouldn't?

The practical matters of belief... and assessing what to believe in etc... when such matters have no bearing on the falsifiability or not of a concept.
However, the same should not be true in reverse... i.e. the unfalsifiability of a concept should very much influence your position with regard to belief in it.
If you're reasonable.

Actually, with the exception of your first point, that was all wrong.

I do think there are better concepts to make the same point, and I have no idea why this troubles you so. Do you have any counter-argument to that?

They make the same point with regard falsifiability (or lack thereof) - but none are deities.
Even Russell's teapot is merely a matter of practical unfalsifiability rather than absolute, and thus is inferior.

So far, what I'm seeing is a series of emotional reactions when someone kicks the FSM in the crotch, followed by a little wildly inaccurate assertion about personalities. The FSM is a farcical concept, as stated, because I have to conclude at some point that reality is as observed;

It's not your efforts to kick that evokes the emotion - it's the blatant inability you display in understanding the key issue of unfalsifiability...

...the author has admitted by action that it's fake, and so it's done.

... QED.

I don't think raising a comparison to ID is objectionable, although ID is better just refuted mathematically, which it is.

ID can not be refuted. Period. It can merely be shown to be less "believable" by those inclined to believe in one unfalsifiable over another yet who have a grasp of mathematics. But the maths merely provides a reason not to believe... not proof.
And ID proponents equally use mathematics to argue for their side.
But ID is unfalsifiable.

I do object to using the FSM as a contrast to the Abrahamic God, because as a factorial the FSM is completely unrooted.

You mean it doesn't yet have 2,000+ years of backing?
Your objection here is noted, and deemed to be nothing but an argument from emotion and ignorance (of what it means to be unfalsifiable).

Once again: unicorns, aliens, the Loch Ness Monster. All good contrasts, aliens being the best; i.e.: "aliens bred all humans, and you should teach that, Bible-thumpers. It has as much natural evidence as God, and we didn't just make it up."

It is no better or worse with regard the key aspect - unfalsifiability. And the point of the FSM is that it is absurd and thus highlights the issue.
It is also a deity.
How many of your other examples are?

Now that I've made it utterly explicit, can you see the difference? The FSM is a childishly presented farce.

Yet it succeeded. Go figure.

Let it go. Pick something else. That's about the best one is going to manage in this situation, frankly, but for crying out loud can it at least be the best-selected parallel model?

It's not intended to be the best-selected parallel model!
Noone has ever said it is, or that it intended to be.
It was merely put forward as an unfalsifiable deity.
Period.
You seem to be hung up on the idea that it is espoused as some sort of pinnacle of alternative to the Abrahamic God, or ID, or Scientology etc.
It isn't.
It is just highlighting that if you wish to teach one unfalsifiable concept... well... there are an infinite number out there that should get equal billing!

"Daring to raise an objection to ID and God" is one of the sadder phrases I've ever had to see on this forum. I must presume - and I will do so absolutely - that you think I'm a creationist. I'm not. I'm an evolutionary biologist and geneticist.

I don't think you're a creationist, and I have no idea of your a/theistic bent. You do seem to be emotionally protective of one or the other... and perhaps it would have been better if I had put "ID and/or God".

Oh...sorry. Did I not make that clear?

Frankly it's irrelevant. Should I be impressed? Should I somehow take your words to mean something different? :shrug:

You know... maybe this is too much to ask. Maybe I expect too much. But maybe the people on my side of the aisle could think real hard about subjects instead of falling into the same sad old dialectical traps. Real sorry I made fun of the poor little FSM as the result of a half-assed thought process with a contrast so bad that a four-year-old would balk at it.

Four year-olds also wouldn't grasp the concept of unfalsifiability.

 

[Sarkus]

Oops! Your nefarious plot to set Sarkus and I against each other so that you might pack up your fallacious and ill-considered arguments and sneak out the back door have been foiled!

I agree! CaptainUgly and I can quite happily set against each other without GeoffP needing to lend a hand!

 

[GeoffP]

Yes they do. And in this case it did.

Sad.

So now wrong = archaic??

This is too funny. Yup, archaic. Time for the scrap heap. Sorry about that.

And how is the concept of the FSM "an embarrassment to naturalistic process, and to evolutionary science"??

I've outlined that 'un.

Thus again showing that you have no real concept of falsifiability.
For (hopefully) the last time: someone claiming to have made up a concept does not mean that they have falsified it.

You've never made this point before, and I falsified it. Moving on.

They may just have hit it lucky and conceived of something that actually does exist... such is the mysterious way in which the FSM might work.
You can not disprove the existence of the FSM... period.

Just did. Anything else?

And waving a letter saying "Look - here is the first mention! It was an artifical conception!" is not demonstrating falsifiability.

Oh, it totally is.

You dismiss the logic of the possibility through mere personal incredulity and emotion. :shrug:

Well, when presented with crap, one does become increduluous.

But that is a far cry from the FSM thus being a falsifiable concept, something which you repeatedly seem unable to grasp.
And again you fail to understand what unfalsifiability actually means.
:wallbang:

No, no, I get you: unfalsifiability is reducing everything to a thought experiment and claiming equivocality.

Yet doing so would still not alter the unfalsifiability of the Abrahamic God.

Excuse me? It utterly would. You are attempting to tell me that if some git cops to it, we should just blow him off, naturalistically speaking. Similarly then, when a mad Scotsman rises up from the waters of Loch Ness and claims to have been all the invocations of Nessie, displaying completely convincing arrays and arrays of pictures and wooden-mock-ups, we should just say "Suuuuure you faked Nessie all those years, Jocko. Can't fool us twice." Do you see the utter ludicrousy implicit in your reductionism?

For the last time (I should have known my previous hope in this matter would be dashed before this reply was done): someone saying that they conceived of a concept does not mean that the reality is falsified. It just means that they conceived of a concept that possibly matches an actually existing object/entity/thing. And the actual existence of this object/entity/thing is unfalsifiable.

And - hopefully for the last time - Henderson invented his concept for the explicit purpose of challenging ID being injected into education. As such, it was directly and deliberately false. It doesn't even get off the starting block. Or: tell me, which actually existing object/entity/thing is he meant to have tried to describe here? The being he made up? Which phenomenon was he trying to explain? The bad brain-fart he'd just had? I suppose I could almost believe that one.

The practical matters of belief... and assessing what to believe in etc... when such matters have no bearing on the falsifiability or not of a concept.

I think I said "reasonability", not "belief". Reason is involved in falsification. We may have different thresholds, mind.

ID can not be refuted. Period. It can merely be shown to be less "believable" by those inclined to believe in one unfalsifiable over another yet who have a grasp of mathematics. But the maths merely provides a reason not to believe... not proof.
And ID proponents equally use mathematics to argue for their side.
But ID is unfalsifiable.

Excuse me? Do you have the slightest appreciation of statistics or hypothesis setting?? I can refute model after model after model as constructs for hypotheses... but now effectively you're telling me I don't have that ability at reasonable probability thresholds. ID is unfalsifiable. The FSM - which is actually false - is unfalsifiable. Maybe this thread is unfalsifiable. The hypothesis for that test I just ran in batch mode? Unfalsifiable. It was a waste of processing power. I should repay the state for the electricity it used just now.

Holy crap. Are you serious? Tell me, what is falsifiable? Is anything falsifiable? Clearly I've been on the wrong side of analysis for many, many years. I should just say well, maybe at the conclusion of every Abstract. Surely that should be good enough, if it passes the likes of this thread.

I can't fisk this post any more. I just can't. Let the barbarians win, let Oxford burn, let Rome fall and the Taj Mahal crumble. There is too much, too wrong. May the FSM go with you. I will consign myself to this general societal comment:

Yet [the FSM] succeeded. Go figure.

Well, a lot of people will accept a lot of pap.

 

[wynn]

That is also the point of the parody of Pastafarianism.
But one can also discuss God without reference to religion... merely as an unfalsifiable concept that is at the root of religions.

And you believe that the evil Stone Age men thought "Okay, what is an unfalsifiable concept? Aha, God. So let's build a religion on it!" ?

The key is that it is unfalsifiable.

Why do you think that is key?

Such a god has but one attribute - that it is unfalsifiable.

And what does it have to do with actual theistic religions? Nothing.

Because we're discussing one specific attribute that does not need religion to give it context: the attribute of unfalsifiability.
We're not discussing any other attribute of God here.

You're also discussing a concept of God that no existing theistic religion ever taught about.
So what is your point?

True, Pastafarianism does introduce what the FSM looks like - and it is here that we would discuss God in the context of religion. But that is not what this current line of this thread is discussing.

Oh? The line is discussing itself ...

 

[wynn]

The practical matters of belief... and assessing what to believe in etc... when such matters have no bearing on the falsifiability or not of a concept.
However, the same should not be true in reverse... i.e. the unfalsifiability of a concept should very much influence your position with regard to belief in it.

That seems to assume that it is only reasonable to believe something if we have some evidentiary reason to do so, and that this is the only basis for belief.

But reality is far from that. Most things in life we take on faith. Most things in life we take on faith that those who told us about them have spoken the truth. Most of the things we hold as true, we have not tested ourselves, nor is it within our scope to do so.

ID can not be refuted. Period.

Which makes it a good candidate for truth.

Yet it succeeded. Go figure.
It's not intended to be the best-selected parallel model!
Noone has ever said it is, or that it intended to be.
It was merely put forward as an unfalsifiable deity.
Period.

I think that the only real problem around this was that the Christians who then took part in those negotations were not very skilled in the art of philosophical and political debate, this is why the thing with the FSM turned out the way it did and why Henderson seemed to manage to get his point across.

Here's an idea: We could revisit the original debate, but with different arguments!

It is just highlighting that if you wish to teach one unfalsifiable concept... well... there are an infinite number out there that should get equal billing!

The Christians made the mistake of letting Henderson define the terms of the debate.

 

[Sarkus]

Excuse me? Do you have the slightest appreciation of statistics or hypothesis setting?? I can refute model after model after model as constructs for hypotheses... but now effectively you're telling me I don't have that ability at reasonable probability thresholds. ID is unfalsifiable. The FSM - which is actually false - is unfalsifiable. Maybe this thread is unfalsifiable. The hypothesis for that test I just ran in batch mode? Unfalsifiable. It was a waste of processing power. I should repay the state for the electricity it used just now.

Any model that can be refuted by an observation that fits outside the model can be refuted and is thus falsifiable.
Now, tell me, what observation can you think of that would prove the existence of the FSM false? You seem to think that someone saying they made up the FSM makes it falsifiable. I have given you an example, no matter how unlikely you think it, that would mean that such an observation is merely the FSM "working in mysterious ways", and thus the observation fits within expectation of the "theory" that the FSM exists.

But for some reason you don't seem to understand this.
It is not a matter of odds, or likelihood, or what is reasonable to believe.
It is purely a matter of whether an observation exists that proves the "theory" false. None exist for the Abrahamic God. None exist for the FSM.

Holy crap. Are you serious? Tell me, what is falsifiable? Is anything falsifiable?

Yes - and you would know that if you understood what it meant to be falsifiable and unfalsifiable.
Your disbelief in this regard is merely a measure of your inability to understand what it means to be (un)falsifiable.

Clearly I've been on the wrong side of analysis for many, many years. I should just say well, maybe at the conclusion of every Abstract. Surely that should be good enough, if it passes the likes of this thread.

What you are analysing, if it is scientific, should be falsifiable. But the FSM, nor God, nor ID, are scientific - because there are no tests or observations that can demonstrate them undeniably false.
Yes, you'll argue that the letter from Henderson shows the FSM false... but one could argue (as I have previously done for the sake of demonstration) that this is merely the FSM "working in mysterious ways". And this shows exactly why the FSM is unfalsifiable - because any test you come up with can be countered with such as "it is the FSM working in mysterious ways" - and you can't disprove it.

I can't fisk this post any more. I just can't. Let the barbarians win, let Oxford burn, let Rome fall and the Taj Mahal crumble. There is too much, too wrong. May the FSM go with you. I will consign myself to this general societal comment:

Despite your diatribe, the singular point you continually fail to understand, and a lack of understanding that you continually feel happy to display, is what constitutes (un)falsifiability.

Hey ho.

 

[Sarkus]

And you believe that the evil Stone Age men thought "Okay, what is an unfalsifiable concept? Aha, God. So let's build a religion on it!" ?

No. Nor do I see the point of the comment?

Why do you think that is key?

Because the school wished to teach an unfalsifiable concept (ID) on a par with evolution... and the FSM was raised as one of the infinite other concepts that are unfalsifiable. I.e. the key to the introduction of the FSM is its unfalsifiability.

And what does it have to do with actual theistic religions? Nothing.

Can you think of a deity that is falsifiable?
If not then it has everything to do with actual theistic religions. Not with the religion per se but with the deity from which they stem.

You're also discussing a concept of God that no existing theistic religion ever taught about.
So what is your point?

Name a deity that is currently believed in that is falsifiable?

Oh? The line is discussing itself ...

Apologies - I was rather caught up in the discussion with GeoffP.

There are two aspects to consider when one raises the FSM: the first is the FSM itself as an unfalsifiable concept. This is what I took the current line of discussion to be.
The second is the religion Pastafarianism, and how it attempts to parody other religions. In this regard you are right in that we can not discuss the accuracy of the parody without discussing the specific deities and importantly the religions in question.

But I have currently only been discussing the first aspect, so apologies for any cross-over in that regard.

 

[Sarkus]

That seems to assume that it is only reasonable to believe something if we have some evidentiary reason to do so, and that this is the only basis for belief.

This is my position, but I am generally an empiricist. I don't believe anything without evidence... and the best my "belief" can generally stretch to is an assessment of probability based on that evidence.

But reality is far from that. Most things in life we take on faith. Most things in life we take on faith that those who told us about them have spoken the truth. Most of the things we hold as true, we have not tested ourselves, nor is it within our scope to do so.

But most of this is what I would possibly see as being an assessment of probability based on evidence.
And there is a difference between taking things on faith for practical reasons, and actually believing them to be true.
If you offer me just two options, for example, and I have to choose one, then I will weigh up the risks/rewards and select one... but I won't have to believe that the option is the truth.

Further, much of what you "take on faith" from people is from people with whom you have plethora of experience/evidence for telling you worthwhile information. If someone consistently tells me something that I find I can rely on then I will be more likely to "believe" them... but that belief is again an assessment of probability. From a practical point of view it might seem that I am "believing" them, but from a philosophical point of view it is more that their answer is acceptable as a working answer, without needing to commit to it being the absolute truth of the matter.

Which makes it a good candidate for truth.

No - there are infinite concepts that can not be refuted. The truth, from a practical point of view, is generally falsifiable. And we can be more comfortable in the "truth" the longer it remains unrefuted despite numerous attempts to do so.
Put up a building with the intention of building the strongest, and which would you prefer: one that has withstood numerous attacks from the winds and artificial means of testing its strength... or one that can not even be tested?

I think that the only real problem around this was that the Christians who then took part in those negotations were not very skilled in the art of philosophical and political debate, this is why the thing with the FSM turned out the way it did and why Henderson seemed to manage to get his point across.

How would you suggest they did debate it?
And if by magic...

Here's an idea: We could revisit the original debate, but with different arguments!

The Christians made the mistake of letting Henderson define the terms of the debate.

Did he? Or did he merely respond to an existing debate, started by those wishing to promote ID within the school curriculum?

 

[Bells]

It really is that simple I'm afraid..

But the topic's question rests on one's opinion of the Christian God. The FSM is absurd no matter what, because we know it's an invention. If I believe the Christian God exists, then the Christian God isn't absurd. But if I believe it doesn't exist, then there's really no difference. Just in general, is a dimensionless, timeless, humanoid creator really less absurd than a floating lump of sgettis and meatsaballs? Now if you call that dimensionless, timeless, humanoid creator "Yahweh," then some people are going to find him less ridiculous, but only because they believe he really exists.

This^^..

This is the crux of this discussion.

And this is what many do not understand about the FSM issue in and of itself.

It is absurd. It is entirely made up. We also know the reason behind it.

God is only less absurd to those who believe a God exists. But to those who do not believe in God, then yes, the whole God premise is as absurd as the FSM.

Hence why:

"the gift of faith in Pastafarianism is essentially belief in a set of extraordinary claims which (deliberately) lack extraordinary evidence"​

We know FSM is made up. Without a doubt. There is no proof that there is a flying ball of pasta and meatballs somewhere in the universe guiding our every move. The whole premise is absurd. There is no evidence that it exists and we know it. Hence why it is absurd. Now apply that to God. And read the quote comment..

There is no evidence, hence why it is not more absurd than a Christian God for those who do not believe in God..

Which is why FSM is frigging hilarious. I even have some of their t-shirts. Very soft cotton.. wears well too.

 

[NMSquirrel]

OMG!..
I have heard about the Flying Spaghetti Monster only here on sciforums..i thought it was only you guys being sarcastic..i did not realize it was such a worldly attitude..had to google it cause i didn't realize what you meant by FSM...

i can only refer to sarkus's avatar..
<FacePalm>

 

[wynn]

Any model that can be refuted by an observation that fits outside the model can be refuted and is thus falsifiable.
Now, tell me, what observation can you think of that would prove the existence of the FSM false? You seem to think that someone saying they made up the FSM makes it falsifiable. I have given you an example, no matter how unlikely you think it, that would mean that such an observation is merely the FSM "working in mysterious ways", and thus the observation fits within expectation of the "theory" that the FSM exists.

All scientific hypotheses and theories can be considered unfalsifiable as well - simply by relegating all contradictory evidence into the domain of "abnormalities," "human errors in observation," and "flukes." Which is often enough precisely what happens.

This is why the focus on falsifiability in the FSM debate is so problematic.

No. Nor do I see the point of the comment?

I'm trying to understand why you focus on falsifiability as the core of your line of reasoning.

Why do you think that is key?

Because the school wished to teach an unfalsifiable concept (ID) on a par with evolution... and the FSM was raised as one of the infinite other concepts that are unfalsifiable. I.e. the key to the introduction of the FSM is its unfalsifiability.

But this is not what the Christians there used as an argument for why ID should be taught, did they? They didn't say "ID is unfalsifiable, this is why it should be taught in public schools."

Falsifiability was Henderson's focus, not of the Christians.

Can you think of a deity that is falsifiable?
If not then it has everything to do with actual theistic religions. Not with the religion per se but with the deity from which they stem.
Name a deity that is currently believed in that is falsifiable?

Theists do not preach that "God is unfalsifiable, therefore, you should believe in Him."

It's true that most traditional concepts of God are unfalsifiable, but this point is, to the best of my knowledge, never the focus of theistic preaching.
It's also never an issue there.

The underlying dynamics of this all seems to be the question "Why should people believe in God?"
And not rarely, both theists and atheists approach this question with quite a bit of hostility and defensiveness. And that doesn't help anyone.


Atheists have a poor approach to understanding religion, and I think this is in part the fault of the religious.

This is my position, but I am generally an empiricist. I don't believe anything without evidence... and the best my "belief" can generally stretch to is an assessment of probability based on that evidence.

But most of this is what I would possibly see as being an assessment of probability based on evidence.
And there is a difference between taking things on faith for practical reasons, and actually believing them to be true.
If you offer me just two options, for example, and I have to choose one, then I will weigh up the risks/rewards and select one... but I won't have to believe that the option is the truth.

Further, much of what you "take on faith" from people is from people with whom you have plethora of experience/evidence for telling you worthwhile information. If someone consistently tells me something that I find I can rely on then I will be more likely to "believe" them... but that belief is again an assessment of probability. From a practical point of view it might seem that I am "believing" them, but from a philosophical point of view it is more that their answer is acceptable as a working answer, without needing to commit to it being the absolute truth of the matter.
No - there are infinite concepts that can not be refuted. The truth, from a practical point of view, is generally falsifiable. And we can be more comfortable in the "truth" the longer it remains unrefuted despite numerous attempts to do so.
Put up a building with the intention of building the strongest, and which would you prefer: one that has withstood numerous attacks from the winds and artificial means of testing its strength... or one that can not even be tested?

God isn't meant to be tested.

I think that belief in God is an epistemologically unique phenomenon, and I think that both theists as well as atheists are sometimes trying to mold it into standard/other epistemological approaches - and thereby they both miss the point.

How would you suggest they did debate it?

I think the Christians there overstepped their competencies, in the mundane and in the spiritual/religious sense.

By calling upon the secular State to defend their right to religion (in that they requested that ID should be taught in public schools), they have degradingly presented religion as a mere cultural phenomenon, thus shooting themselves in the foot. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" should have been their guideline there.
One can't consistently claim to have divine knowledge and divine authority - and then nevertheless demand secular protection.

I'm not sure there is a way that Christians could win that debate - other than by actually displaying divine authority.

It could be interpreted as unconstitutional to point out that one can't consistently claim to have divine knowledge and divine authority - and then nevertheless demand secular protection.
Perhaps there is a way to reformulate this so that it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

Did he? Or did he merely respond to an existing debate, started by those wishing to promote ID within the school curriculum?

I don't know all the things that went on there, but given the public echo, I think Henderson could have gotten more out of it all.
Focusing on falsifiabilty was a quick and sure way to win the debate, but there could be more. Such opportunites do not arise often, and need to be seized when they do.

My worry is that children at shools are now presented with more relativism under the guise of certainty than they can manage, and that this is bad for their development. The problems that the adults couldn't resolve, they just threw on the shoulders of children, while all along demanding that the children trust them.

 

[Balerion]

All scientific hypotheses and theories can be considered unfalsifiable as well - simply by relegating all contradictory evidence into the domain of "abnormalities," "human errors in observation," and "flukes." Which is often enough precisely what happens.

This is why the focus on falsifiability in the FSM debate is so problematic.

Wow. That's completely wrong.

 

[Sarkus]

All scientific hypotheses and theories can be considered unfalsifiable as well - simply by relegating all contradictory evidence into the domain of "abnormalities," "human errors in observation," and "flukes." Which is often enough precisely what happens.

No they can't.
Whether the scientist adopts that attitude or not, it is merely the ability to falsify the theory that is important in this regard.
If I claim that a normal chair is in room X... then this is falsifiable because the room can be searched for the chair. The lack of chair is an observation that would falsify the claim.
If I claim that an invisible and ethereal chair is in room X... then this becomes unfalsifiable because the claim has no possibility of being shown to be false. This is not to say it is false, but it lacks the attribute of being falsifiable.

"Flukes" and "abnormalities" are merely the attitude of the scientist... and their reluctance or otherwise to protect their theory. But the fact that one recognises such "flukes" and "abnormalities" as being outside the fit described by the theory would suggest to me that observations exist that can falsify the theory.

This is why the focus on falsifiability in the FSM debate is so problematic.

It's not problematic if you understand what falsifiability actually means.

I'm trying to understand why you focus on falsifiability as the core of your line of reasoning.

Because this is the core argument put forth with regard the FSM... that it is an unfalsifiable entity / "theory" for the creation of the earth... and so should be given equal time in the classroom as other such unfalsifiable theories... such as ID. i.e. if you're going to teach ID (as was intended at this school) then teach the FSM... and other unfalsifiable "theories".

But this is not what the Christians there used as an argument for why ID should be taught, did they? They didn't say "ID is unfalsifiable, this is why it should be taught in public schools."

No - but it is the unfalsifiability that should prevent it being taught, other than perhaps in a "Religious Studies" course, alongside Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc.
But they were trying to teach it alongside evolutionary studies, and it is simply the unfalsifiability of ID that should result in it not being taught there.

Falsifiability was Henderson's focus, not of the Christians.

And it is precisely the lack of falsifiability that should prevent it being taught. That the Christians did not focus on this was because the Christians have little/no answer to it.
Some believe that ID actually IS falsifiable, and thus a valid theory... and that is where the debate should have gone if they were more rigourous.

Your argument here is much like a lawyer defending an accused murderer and not raising the issue that he was caught in the act. "It's only the Lawyers for the Prosecution that raised this issue... not the Defence."
The point being that in this regard the (un)falsifiability is the issue, regardless of who raised it.

Theists do not preach that "God is unfalsifiable, therefore, you should believe in Him."

Of course not. And this is more to do with the religion and peoples' willingness to believe, and why some do and some don't.
If you promote a key reason not to believe in someone, it's generally not a good recruitment process.

It's true that most traditional concepts of God are unfalsifiable, but this point is, to the best of my knowledge, never the focus of theistic preaching.
It's also never an issue there.

Of course it isn't. Theists believe. They have already gotten over, or been convinced of, the lack of falsifiability - whether they are aware of such an issue or not.
Many just simply do not question it - they accept what they are told, and many focus on what they perceive as the evidence for God (which is a separate matter from being falsifiable or not).

The underlying dynamics of this all seems to be the question "Why should people believe in God?"
And not rarely, both theists and atheists approach this question with quite a bit of hostility and defensiveness. And that doesn't help anyone.

Agreed. Possibly because each are what they are because of incompatible thought processes.

Atheists have a poor approach to understanding religion, and I think this is in part the fault of the religious.

It's a bit of a generalisation. Many atheists have sufficient understanding to know why they don't follow a religion.

God isn't meant to be tested.

And thus you reinforce that message of unfalsifiability!

I think that belief in God is an epistemologically unique phenomenon, and I think that both theists as well as atheists are sometimes trying to mold it into standard/other epistemological approaches - and thereby they both miss the point.

How is it unique? How does belief in God differ from belief, epistemologically, in any other unfalsifiable concept?

I think the Christians there overstepped their competencies, in the mundane and in the spiritual/religious sense.

By calling upon the secular State to defend their right to religion (in that they requested that ID should be taught in public schools), they have degradingly presented religion as a mere cultural phenomenon, thus shooting themselves in the foot. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" should have been their guideline there.
One can't consistently claim to have divine knowledge and divine authority - and then nevertheless demand secular protection.

I'm not sure there is a way that Christians could win that debate - other than by actually displaying divine authority.

It could be interpreted as unconstitutional to point out that one can't consistently claim to have divine knowledge and divine authority - and then nevertheless demand secular protection.
Perhaps there is a way to reformulate this so that it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

...

I don't know all the things that went on there, but given the public echo, I think Henderson could have gotten more out of it all.
Focusing on falsifiabilty was a quick and sure way to win the debate, but there could be more. Such opportunites do not arise often, and need to be seized when they do.

My worry is that children at shools are now presented with more relativism under the guise of certainty than they can manage, and that this is bad for their development. The problems that the adults couldn't resolve, they just threw on the shoulders of children, while all along demanding that the children trust them.

All interesting stuff, but maybe better suited to another thread?

Personally I don't know the detail of the debate... but the case was "won" (depending on your point of view) and the publicity gave rise to the subsequent religion.
Perhaps the religious side of the argument realised rather quickly that they wouldn't win (short of divine intervention, as you suggest) and didn't dispute it with too much vigour.
But it is a debate (teaching ID in classrooms) that I think has raged in the US for a while.
As for the constitutional aspect: http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/Intelligent_Design_White_Paper.pdf... bit heavy but lays out the situation.

 

[Gustav]

this monster is made out of sentient semolina?

 

[wynn]

No they can't.
Whether the scientist adopts that attitude or not, it is merely the ability to falsify the theory that is important in this regard.
If I claim that a normal chair is in room X... then this is falsifiable because the room can be searched for the chair. The lack of chair is an observation that would falsify the claim.

A skeptic could always claim that you didn't search thoroughly enough, that you lied etc.

If I claim that an invisible and ethereal chair is in room X... then this becomes unfalsifiable because the claim has no possibility of being shown to be false. This is not to say it is false, but it lacks the attribute of being falsifiable.

That is not the case with God.

"Flukes" and "abnormalities" are merely the attitude of the scientist... and their reluctance or otherwise to protect their theory. But the fact that one recognises such "flukes" and "abnormalities" as being outside the fit described by the theory would suggest to me that observations exist that can falsify the theory.

By considering them "abnormalities" and "flukes" is precisely why they are dismissed from being relevant observations that could falsify the theory.

Because this is the core argument put forth with regard the FSM... that it is an unfalsifiable entity / "theory" for the creation of the earth... and so should be given equal time in the classroom as other such unfalsifiable theories... such as ID. i.e. if you're going to teach ID (as was intended at this school) then teach the FSM... and other unfalsifiable "theories".

It's not a valid analogy. More below.

No - but it is the unfalsifiability that should prevent it being taught,


But they were trying to teach it alongside evolutionary studies, and it is simply the unfalsifiability of ID that should result in it not being taught there.

And it is precisely the lack of falsifiability that should prevent it being taught.

No. The reason for not teaching it in public schools should be the separation of State (which is secular) and religion.

Apparently, Henderson missed out on that too. As well as the Christians.

That the Christians did not focus on this was because the Christians have little/no answer to it.

No. The Christians failed because they overstepped their competencies.

Your argument here is much like a lawyer defending an accused murderer and not raising the issue that he was caught in the act. "It's only the Lawyers for the Prosecution that raised this issue... not the Defence."
The point being that in this regard the (un)falsifiability is the issue, regardless of who raised it.

Duh.

Of course it isn't. Theists believe. They have already gotten over, or been convinced of, the lack of falsifiability - whether they are aware of such an issue or not.

No. This is what you project into them.

They themselves probably conceive of the whole matter quite differently. Perhaps some of them are just not sophisticated enough to articulate it.

Many just simply do not question it - they accept what they are told, and many focus on what they perceive as the evidence for God (which is a separate matter from being falsifiable or not).

Again, projection on your part.

It's a bit of a generalisation. Many atheists have sufficient understanding to know why they don't follow a religion.

And from what I've seen, those reasons often have little or nothing to do with religion.
Atheists are often fighting a strawman of their own creation.

And thus you reinforce that message of unfalsifiability!

No. I wonder though why you see it that way.

How is it unique? How does belief in God differ from belief, epistemologically, in any other unfalsifiable concept?

Because God is defined as unique. He is defined as omnimax, and logically, there can be only one entity in that position.

While there are numerous unfalsifiable concepts, there is only one entity that can be omnimax, namely God. That separates God from all the other unfalsifiable concepts.

God being defined as omnimax, there is also no threat to expect from him. So when some people in some way or another try to force upon others the belief in God, as if there would be a threat to be expected from God, they are actually enforcing a false image of God. It is justified to call them on this.

(As long as Christians believe in eternal damnation, there will be this problem with their approach to belief in God and teaching it to others.)

All interesting stuff, but maybe better suited to another thread?

No. As always, I am interested to look into the psychological motivations of participants in a debate - that often helps to clarify the arguments they put forward.