Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

[Bear Wild]

No. The issue is not with what it is being claimed to exist The issue is that the humans claiming fairies, gods, and spirituality lack any ability to distinguish their claims from fantasy. It's not your the subjects that make your claims unbelievable, @Bear Wild. It is the fact that you are incapable of demonstrating a difference between your claims and your imagination. Your complaints about cultural context a pointless posturing. You avoiding the actual issue.

I feel so honored to be corrected by someone who is so knowledgeable about the subject we are talking about. So, spirituality is fantasy. It is not my claims but a rich history in the cultures that they are a part of. They are being inappropriately compared without understanding them. How long have you been studying Irish or Norse or Hindu mythology. You speak with such authority that you must fully understand and studied these areas. I would love to hear more about your wisdom of these entities.

 

[ppp]

I feel so honored to be corrected by someone who is so knowledgeable about the subject we are talking about. So, spirituality is fantasy. It is not my claims but a rich history in the cultures that they are a part of. They are being inappropriately compared without understanding them. How long have you been studying Irish or Norse or Hindu mythology. You speak with such authority that you must fully understand and studied these areas. I would love to hear more about your wisdom of these entities.

OooOoooh sarcasm. How original.

Do you want to try to respond to the words I actually said, or just stand there being butt-hurt? I am guessing the butt-hurt is going to be your preferred go to. If you decide to respond to my actual words - as oppose to how you feel about them - I will be happy to have an adult conversation with you.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The key issue in the outsider test for faith is level of support, not specific qualities and attributes (except to the extent that those qualities and attributes impact level of support).

For instance, two beings that have no measurable impact on the observable universe have the same level of support, regardless what the purported qualities of each one are supposed to be.

This is precisely my point. The variations in qualities and attributes do impact the level of support.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is precisely my point. The variations in qualities and attributes do impact the level of support.

In what way?

At first glance, all of things you listed in the OP - including gods - seem to have a similar level of support:

• The evidence for each is poor to none.
• What evidence we do have is consistent with other explanations.
• The evidence against each is also poor to none, but
• The claims are all unfalsifiable for practical purposes; we wouldn't necessarily expect positive evidence of non-existence if the claim is false.

Is there something on the list that doesn't fit this description?

 

[viole]

but that does not mean they do not exist.

Of course. But there is no rational reason to believe they do.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SalixIncendium]

In what way?

At first glance, all of things you listed in the OP - including gods - seem to have a similar level of support:

• The evidence for each is poor to none.
• What evidence we do have is consistent with other explanations.
• The evidence against each is also poor to none, but
• The claims are all unfalsifiable for practical purposes; we wouldn't necessarily expect positive evidence of non-existence if the claim is false.

Is there something on the list that doesn't fit this description?

Yes. The qualities and attributes of what you're comparing. If you are ignorant...devoid of any understanding of what makes a god a god, a leprechaun a leprechaun, a unicorn a unicorn, Bigfoot Bigfoot, and fairies fairies, then what's to compare? What's the point of the exercise?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. The qualities and attributes of what you're comparing.

This doesn't seem like it's an answer to my question.

If you are ignorant...devoid of any understanding of what makes a god a god, a leprechaun a leprechaun, a unicorn a unicorn, Bigfoot Bigfoot, and fairies fairies, then what's to compare?

Again: level of support.

Any two things can be compared, even if they are very different.

What do you think would be comparable to a god (besides a god, of course) in terms of level of support?

What's the point of the exercise?

The aim of using the outsider test for faith is usually to get the believer to empathize with the non-believer, or at least improve the believer's understanding of non-believers' points of view.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What do you think would be comparable to a god (besides a god, of course) in terms of level of support?

We appear to be going in circles here. Unless we can agree upon assigned qualities and attributes to that god, there is nothing to compare. So making a comparison would be an exercise designed only to diminish another's views.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We appear to be going in circles here. Unless we can agree upon assigned qualities and attributes to that god, there is nothing to compare.

There's no room in your worldview for the possibility that two things with different "qualities and attributes" can have similar levels of support?

Is this your approach to all things, or just gods? Take Bigfoot, since you mentioned it: when talking to people about whether cryptids exist, I've compared the evidence (or lack thereof) for Bigfoot to the evidence we used to determine that, say, the passenger pigeon is extinct.

Obviously, the "qualities and attributes" of a large solitary forest ape are very different to those of small flock-forming birds, but we can use lessons from the one case to inform our position on the other.

So making a comparison would be an exercise designed only to diminish another's views.

So you see the religious beliefs of others (e.g. fairies and leprechauns) as inferior to your own beliefs?

You can see no other reason to make these comparisons than to diminish the believer's views? Remember: I gave you one other reason already: to try to instill empathy in the believer for the non-believer's point of view.

 

[Bear Wild]

Of course. But there is no rational reason to believe they do.

Ciao

- viole

This comes to the question. Does the rational approach have all answers of truth for humans. Are there other phenomenal and expereincial ways of knnowing our world have truth in them even if they cannot be defined in rational ways?

 

[SalixIncendium]

There's no room in your worldview for the possibility that two things with different "qualities and attributes" can have similar levels of support?

Is this your approach to all things, or just gods?

You're making a false equivalency here. There is a significant difference between "different 'qualities and attributes'" and unknown unknown qualities and attributes. Let's use your example.

Take Bigfoot, since you mentioned it: when talking to people about whether cryptids exist, I've compared the evidence (or lack thereof) for Bigfoot to the evidence we used to determine that, say, the passenger pigeon is extinct.

There is an agreed upon set of qualities and attributes for each of these cryptids when making a comparison. Though different, we can agree upon the form of each. We can agree upon what sort of impact each would have on their environment.

Can we do either of these for gods? Are are we just making assumptions of these qualities and attributes based on our own preconceived notions?

So you see the religious beliefs of others (e.g. fairies and leprechauns) as inferior to your own beliefs?

I'm a bit forgetful these days, so please remind me. What are my own beliefs again?

You can see no other reason to make these comparisons than to diminish the believer's views? Remember: I gave you one other reason already: to try to instill empathy in the believer for the non-believer's point of view.

Even if that is the purpose, can you see how a believer wouldn't see it that way and would take exception to the comparison, especially in the way such comparisons are often presented here?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're making a false equivalency here. There is a significant difference between "different 'qualities and attributes'" and unknown unknown qualities and attributes. Let's use your example.

There is an agreed upon set of qualities and attributes for each of these cryptids when making a comparison. Though different, we can agree upon the form of each. We can agree upon what sort of impact each would have on their environment.

Can we do either of these for gods? Are are we just making assumptions of these qualities and attributes based on our own preconceived notions?

We can only believe in what we can conceive. A person's belief in a god is necessarily at least specific enough for the believer to decide that the thing they believe in is a god (whatever they understand "god" to mean) as opposed to something else.

If someone tells me that they "believe" in something with no defined qualities or attributes, then I'll say they don't actually believe in the thing at all.

Edit: gods in general are vague and amorphous. Any specific god that a person believes in has specific qualities, attributes, implications, etc.

I'm a bit forgetful these days, so please remind me. What are my own beliefs again?

You said that comparisons of a person's beliefs to fairies and leprechauns diminishes a person's views. The implication is that you consider religious beliefs featuring fairies or leprechauns to be inferior to other religious beliefs.

Even if that is the purpose, can you see how a believer wouldn't see it that way and would take exception to the comparison, especially in the way such comparisons are often presented here?

Sure. It can be used to ridicule or provoke. People get chauvinistic about their religious beliefs; the suggestion that someone's beliefs are just one example of a larger trend - especially when they view their beliefs as special and unique - is often not well-received, and a person can use this to elicit a reaction.

However, I disagree with your suggestion that it can't be used for anything but ridicule and provocation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This comes to the question. Does the rational approach have all answers of truth for humans. Are there other phenomenal and expereincial ways of knnowing our world have truth in them even if they cannot be defined in rational ways?

"Knowing" requires a rational approach. Without reason, it's impossible to have a valid answer to the question "how do you know what you believe is true and not false?"

There are almost certainly true things that can't be justified rationally, but a belief in anything beyond reason is just an unreliable, unjustified guess with no way to tell whether it's correct.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The qualities or attributes one's god(s) may not be comparable to those of fairies and leprechauns.

For the critical thinker, the qualities that all of these possess in common and which makes it appropriate to compare them is that people claim that they exist despite them having no clear referent or manifestation. They are all equal under Hitchen's Razor (and Sagan's). Whatever evidence if any that is offered in support of these claims doesn't support them, and so, the claims should not be believed.

The onus would be on you to learn from the person whose god(s) with which you want to make an analogy their god's qualities and attributes, because not all gods have the same ones.

Why would the skeptic be interested in the believer's theology? Whatever the believer chooses is of little interest to the unbeliever. Is it omnipotent or not? It doesn't matter. Does it judge us or not. Is it three gods in one or not? None of that matters. What matters is that these are all unfalsifiable claims and can be treated alike. It doesn't matter that fairies have wings and gods don't. It doesn't matter that vampires can allegedly be killed but not gods.

If you are ignorant...devoid of any understanding of what makes a god a god, a leprechaun a leprechaun, a unicorn a unicorn, Bigfoot Bigfoot, and fairies fairies, then what's to compare?

That they are all unfalsifiable claims that varies agents and creatures exist absent empirical support, and all such claims can be dismissed. That is not to say that they are wrong. Maybe gods exist but not leprechauns or maybe fairies exist but not demons. It doesn't matter until one of them manifests to the senses.

 

[Bear Wild]

"Knowing" requires a rational approach. Without reason, it's impossible to have a valid answer to the question "how do you know what you believe is true and not false?"

There are almost certainly true things that can't be justified rationally, but a belief in anything beyond reason is just an unreliable, unjustified guess with no way to tell whether it's correct.

Knowing can be experiential and may not come from reason. Or at least not be expressed in language. That is unless you are using the word reason as a neurologic process rather that of an intellectual process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Knowing can be experiential and may not come from reason.

How would that work, exactly?

Or at least not be expressed in language. That is unless you are using the word reason as a neurologic process rather that of an intellectual process.

I'm not sure I follow you.

 

[Bear Wild]

How would that work, exactly?

I'm not sure I follow you.

We experience things that cannot be adequately placed into words. They are felt more that translatable into language. Are they still a type of reason?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We experience things that cannot be adequately placed into words. They are felt more that translatable into language. Are they still a type of reason?

They're a starting point. To draw any conclusion from them, reason is necessary.

 

[Bear Wild]

For the critical thinker, the qualities that all of these possess in common and which makes it appropriate to compare them is that people claim that they exist despite them having no clear referent or manifestation. They are all equal under Hitchen's Razor (and Sagan's). Whatever evidence if any that is offered in support of these claims doesn't support them, and so, the claims should not be believed.

What about societies in which speaking with the dead is normative and expected among other members. There experiences are sharable and comparable in their society.

 

[Bear Wild]

They're a starting point. To draw any conclusion from them, reason is necessary.

If those experiences change the way to perceive the world or how you relate yet you are not drawing any conclusions is than still reason. Think of emotions that alter behavior yet do not seem to be based on what we would typically consider reason. Some seem unreasonable to others.