Are invisible pink elephants a straw man?

[funflower]

I frequently lurk in this group, and generally find it, eh, enlightening (my highest praise for a discussion forum).

However, I am occasionally a bit troubled by what seems to me to be a comparison of all deism to belief in the tooth fairy or "invisible pink elephants." This comparison seems reasonable to me when applied to the belief in a very anthropomorphic deity, but it seems unfair and and oversimplification when applied to belief in any kind of higher power at all.

Can one be a "bright" and not throw out the possibility of an inexplicable, incorporeal supreme power (Fibonacci numbers and all)?

[trotsky]

1. If there is any sort of higher power,

where is the evidence?

On edit: I should add that there's no reason you can't be a "bright" (I hate that term) and/or atheist and still admit the possibility of something being out there. After all, a true skeptic will always consider new evidence and be willing to change their mind.

[funflower]

5. A true skeptic....

(snip)
After all, a true skeptic will always consider new evidence and be willing to change their mind.
(snip)

This seems to me to be the core of the issue (and is also an attitude with a healthy dose of humility). Thanks.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

2. It's not perfectly analogous

And perhaps it is a bit oversimplified, but a good argumentative device is more easily understood when simple. But, I personally don't think it's a very convincing argument for atheists to make. Christians are very sensitive about their belief, and to compare it to something so silly tends to shut them down.

I think, though, that it makes a good counter to the "you may not believe but show some respect for my beliefs" complaint that I hear often. Many of those people think it's utterly ridiculous that the Virgin Mary was seen weeping out of a rock in Mexico, but have beliefs that are equally unbelievable. If we as atheists can point out that the respect street runs both ways, then an educational opportunity was realized. Unfortunately, after years of being marginalized and downplayed, atheists tend to have an in-your-face attitude and more often than not lose those opportunities.

To answer your question about bright people also being believers, my dad has two Master's degrees and a PhD, all of which are in specialized scientific fields, and he is a True Believing Christian. Watching him compartmentalize all that cognitive dissonance is physically tiring. Luckily, he's a liberal (aren't all the smart ones? ;) ).

[funflower]

6. Yes. I also know a lot of highly educated people with rather specific

religious beliefs. I think the scientists who believe in the Mother Teresa cinnamon roll are working from two different parts of their brains.

[PinkUnicorn]

3. Yes and No

Yes - invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, Santa clause, etc, are extreme simplifications. But they do get the point across.

If someone wishes to believe in some sort of supernatural power, then it is no skin off my nose. I wouldn't care if they worshiped the dancing potato or left a bowl of milk out for the faeries. One's beliefs are their business and not mine. However, when someone tries to claim special privilege or use their specific belief as a reason for getting something - a line is drawn. Zealots command people to perform acts because it given to them by 'God', and they scorn any view to the contrary.

If I claimed I could flap my arms and fly to the moon, I would be asked for proof. By the same token if they claim a deity told them to do 'X', then without any proof of the claim, I am perfectly justified in claiming the invisible pixies told me to do 'Y'. Both are unseen, unprovable entities and hence both have the same 'authority factor'. By forcing them to back up their words and claims with a parody which claims the opposite they are forced to justify their original claim, which they invariably never do.

As for any sort of supreme power, the best that can be claimed is 'not proven'. There is no proof there is one, and no proof there isn't one. 'Not proven' is a perfectly valid position to take, as it keeps the door open for further examination.

[funflower]

7. I'm highly skeptical about the existence of God, but certain things, such

as the existence of Fibonacci number patterns in nature and string theory, make me wonder....

I certainly don't base my views on the subject on a lot of millenia-old "scripture" from any religious tradition.

Guess I still qualify as a "skeptic"....

[PinkUnicorn]

10. Patterns...

The Fibonacci sequences, the golden ratio, etc are interesting mathematical curiosities, but on a personal note I think they are simply part of the universe we live in. For the sequences not to occur in our current mathematical axiom structure, a lot of other equations wouldn't work either (cosmological constant, etc) which means we wouldn't be here to observe these interesting things in the first place. As we evolved within the context of the universe and by its rules, we are shaped by those rules. It's the proverbial puddle thinking how perfectly the hole it sits in, fits.

Again we have the problem with proof, as we cant step 'outside' the universe to have a look, so in the end we have no real way of telling with certainty.

As for what you call yourself, that's up to you. You decide for yourself what you are based on what you observe and reason, and damn anyone who uses dogma to demand you think otherwise. :) 'Skeptic' tends to be thought of a 'bad word' by many, but its not. You are suspicious about the guy selling a 'genuine rolex' for $2? You're a skeptic. "Get chicks via hypnosis"? You're a skeptic.

I cant remember who said it but, "Always have an open mind, but not so open your brain drops out".

[funflower]

16. So you don't think the hypnosis diet I just paid $5000 for will work?

;-)

[MindPilot]

4. For the record, I hate the term "bright".

But that said I think we are ALL agnostic in the sense that we are open to new evidence. I'm about as anti-believer as you will find, but if there were to suddenly be some new facts, real physical evidence, it would be intellectually dishonest to not change to incorporate the new information. If not you end up being one of those people who don't believe in real things...like evolution.

[funflower]

8. I hereby renounce the term "bright."

For me, I guess I can be an unbeliever without being "anti-believer." That would require me to be "anti" a lot of good people, including many in my family. I just appreciate that they aren't "anti" me!

[onager]

11. Lots of us are in this boat

My mother is in her 70's and works at a pre-school attached to a Southern Baptist church.

Fortunately, she doesn't ask about my lack o' beliefs much. Occasionally she'll throw in a comment like, "You don't believe in anything." But generally we leave each other alone on religion.

I think her and my equally devout aunt got the message when they visited me a few years ago and saw the bookshelf with all the atheistic books.

Well, that and the various Bibles filed exactly where they should be--on the same shelf with Bulfinch's Mythology, Extraordinary Popular Delusions... and The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft & Demonology.

You'd think my Mom wouldn't have any trouble at all with religion, being in a largely homogeneous white Protestant Southern area.

Not so. Weird crap is always happening. Not too long ago she had a little girl in her class who belonged to some Fundie sect that didn't celebrate Xmas or Easter with the usual stuff. The kid's mother insisted that she didn't want her kid being exposed to Santa or bringing home chocolate Easter eggs.

Oh, and the kid herself told the whole class...of 4-year-olds...that Santa wasn't real.

That went over really well.

[funflower]

17. What do you mean Santa's not real?

[Synnical]

9. FWIW - And why I use the "invisible" whatever analogy

There's as much evidence to support a belief in "god" as there is to support "invisible pink unicorns" or "purple dancing elephants".

I don't know what a "god" is, or is not. No one can universally, objectively define the bloody thing. So, how does one go about searching for evidence when there is no premise to begin with?

Which is why I start all discussions on the topic with, "Define 'god'". Otherwise, why even bother?

Sorry if this curt, or doesn't make sense - I think I'm experiencing GD overload.

:banghead:

[funflower]

14. Certainly a good point. You can't really discuss a lot of things without

first defining them.

[BiggJawn]

12. Bring me solid evidence of a "Higher Power"...

And I'll help you build a temple to It.

But till then, any variations on the Old Bearded One in the Clouds has the same validity as the "pink unicorn".

That's all we want, some kind of proof. What we're offered up is an insistence that we have to "Have FAITH".

Well, then, have FAITH that pink Unicorns exist, then. just because Ol Whiskers has a 2,000 year old book doesn't give him any more validity.

And I don't like the term "Bright", either. Brings up images of children's toys, "Light-Bright", "Rain-bo Bright", etc.

I've read "The Bright's" material, and frankly, I got the sense they were trying to rub the Mythist's noses in their over-the-top smug sense of superiority. Left me cold.

You don't have to form a special "Club" to get the Xians mad atchu, just dis their music..

[Az]

13. You seem to be asking two different questions

The direct question is does one have to actively deny all gods to be a "bright". Well not being one that thinks that term was a good idea I will construe it to mean a member of club atheist. I would say that an open mind is perfectly acceptable. In fact I would suggest that someone that proclaims to know there are no gods may not be applying logic or reason properly. At the very least there may be some confusion about what the word "know" means.

In the end the question is do you happen to believe there is a god or gods. Pure and simple. It's not a question of whether you can prove your supposition or if you have some formula that conclusively demonstrates the impossibility of it. Do you personally believe there is a god or gods? Answer that in the negative and you are in club atheist.

Now the second question that seems to be implied by your question. Are atheists that do not proclaim there are no gods or take a strong stand on the matter treated the same as those that do? This is not a directly logical issue. It is an emotional one.

Great differences in groups can be tolerated. The differences are often so great that each side does not worry about contamination. But in social groups when minor differences arise there is emotional turmoil. Fear that a particular custom or belief is being contaminated leads to the dominant position attepting to purge or drive out the weaker position.

Atheists are social creatures just like anyone else. Depending on the social structure of the group a Weak Atheist may be set upon by Strong Atheists. Conversely if a group is comprised of Weak Atheists they will turn on the Strong Atheist for their position. It is possible to overcome this attitude and tendency.

[funflower]

15. Wow! There are "weak" and "strong" atheists? My experience is more

with "weak" and "strong" Methodists!
;-)

[Synnical]

18. Oh, yes

May I suggest, "Atheism, The Case Against God" by George H. Smith.

I'm a hard, positive atheist. Others are soft atheists. Others are agnostic atheists. Others are . . . you get the idea. Just as there are variations of theists, there are variations of atheists.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[Az]

19. My self definition

I consider myself to be a virtual strong atheist. Specifically I have found cause to refute every example of god that I have come across to date. But as I have not heard all claims for god that will ever be I cannot say absolutely that there is no god. Thus I fall short of being a Strong Atheist.

Being an advocate of the scientific method I must remain open to any evidence presented to me on the subject. Thus I cannot close the book.

[funflower]

20. So, do you all have "a-theological" debates?

[Synnical]

21. No, atheists and ags are not theists

So, no.

[Synnical]

22. Seen any evidence?

How's it feel sitting on that fence?

Hugs and kisses,
Cindy in Fort Lauderdale