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

[ppp]

Not all claims are identical.

I agree. And I would hope that you might have noticed that I very distinctly did not say or imply that all claims are identical. At all.

but there are those who claim to have had experiences of a god first hand.

You say that like that is a distinction that matters, but do not explain why you think that distinction matters.

Do you think personal experience is a good methodology for knowing?

Personal experience is not a methodology. When someone has a personal experience, they have methodologies for interpreting that experience, evaluating that experience, and coming to conclusions about the nature and causes of that experience. I have yet to see a consistently robust suite of methodologies applied to the question of an experience with a god or a pixie where the resulting conclusion is affirmative.

What reason would I, one who has not experienced a god nor makes any claims about any gods, perceive such a comment to be insulting to one who has?

I do not know what your reasons might be. But you brought up empathy. It is not uncommon to want to protect people for whom we feel empathy.

Is empathy special pleading?

Special pleading is an informal fallacy in reasoning claiming that some event or phenomenon is an exception to a general rule without providing a justification for that exception. Empathy is a state of mine where one takes on the perspective on another, and possibly shares, responds or feels their experience to some degree. These seem like entirely separate things to me.

I do know that when I feel empathy for another, especially when I am in a protective role, that I can experience informal fallacies in reasoning. Among my fellow humans, this tendency does not seem to be limited to me.

 

[SalixIncendium]

A theist's conception of God is often well-developed. Whereas an atheist is looking more at the brute force truth-value of a claim. Both approaches are valid.

You can't fault the atheist for bringing in examples of other "mythical" beings (like fairies and such) because they are asking for evidence that such entities exist. The say-so of some tale or legend does not qualify as evidence in their eyes, nor should it. So, the example of fairies or Bigfoot is apt. The problem isn't atheists making misleading metaphors. It's theists claiming that written legend is valid support for a thing.

What are your thoughts on theists that have had a personal subjective experience of God? Is it reasonable for an atheist to still compare the subject of that experiences with such "mythical" beings?

 

[SalixIncendium]

You say that like that is a distinction that matters, but do not explain why you think that distinction matters.

Evidence is why it matters. I can read about something that another claims to have an experience of in a book, and believe and have faith that that person's experience is valid. However, if I personally have such an experience, I then have subjective evidence that such an experience is valid.

Personal experience is not a methodology. When someone has a personal experience, they have methodologies for interpreting that experience, evaluating that experience, and coming to conclusions about the nature and causes of that experience. I have yet to see a consistently robust suite of methodologies applied to the question of an experience with a god or a pixie where the resulting conclusion is affirmative.

You're right. Poor wording on my part. Personal experience is the cause for a methodology.

Applying the scientific method is certainly a methodology that validate one's experience. I can observe the experience, research the experience, form a hypothesis, test that hypothesis by repeating the conditions that brought about the experience, analyze the experience, and report my conclusions...only to have that report compared to Bigfoot, leprechauns, unicorns, etc.

I'm not saying that all theists do this, but I'm confident there are theistic mystics that have based on things I've read and equating them to my own experiences.

 

[PureX]

The whole point of making these kinds of false equivalents is that they are false. If I can't prove that your God doesn't exist I'll equate it falsely to something that I can prove doesn't exist. The whole point is to create a false equivalence that I can then defeat because I can't defeat the original premise. And if it insults my antagonist, all the better to distract them while I replace their God with my phony equivalent.

 

[ppp]

Evidence is why it matters. I can read about something that another claims to have an experience of in a book, and believe and have faith that that person's experience is valid. However, if I personally have such an experience, I then have subjective evidence that such an experience is valid.

You are still conflating the experience with the explanation.

You're right. Poor wording on my part. Personal experience is the cause for a methodology.

Sort of. But thanks for the acknowledgement.

Applying the scientific method is certainly a methodology that validate one's experience. I can observe the experience, research the experience, form a hypothesis, test that hypothesis by repeating the conditions that brought about the experience, analyze the experience, and report my conclusions...only to have that report compared to Bigfoot, leprechauns, unicorns, etc.

At no point in that paragraph did you once separate the experience from the cause of the experience. Not the first time I have pointed out that distinction. Not the first time you have pointedly ignored it.


I am not going to lower my epistemological standards just because you take offense at them. I apply them universally . So, yes. As long as you refuse to incorporate the distinction between experience and explanation into your process. Pixies.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I see God as being love, not an actual being. I don't think those other things are actual beings either.

 

[AppieB]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence, the purposes of these concepts are entirely different. One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form. I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

Is it reasonable to compare Bigfoot with fairies?

Explain to me why this is not a false analogy

 

[MikeF]

I see God as being love, not an actual being. I don't think those other things are actual beings either.

Doesn't that complicate communication though? If the label 'God' has a very long history of being defined in a particular way, and you create a new and unique definition for the label, how do you avoid talking past other people if you do not constantly preface or follow your use of the label with your unique definition?

Since love already has a label 'love' that is also somewhat universally understood and accepted, why not simply use the label 'love' when speaking of love instead of coopting a label that is extensively used with other meanings?

 

[AppieB]

Believe it or not, there are atheists here that compare gods to Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie, etc. Shocking, I know.

Now that you've overcome the shock of this news and are settled back down in front of your screen, I have a question...

Personally, I find this to be a logical fallacy: a false analogy, because while there is no objective evidence of their existence,

What is the "objective evidence"? I saw footage of Bigfoot. Is that objective evidence?

the purposes of these concepts are entirely different.

What is the purpose of the concept of God? And what is the purpose of the concept of a fairy?

One, in making the analogy, is also applying form to something that doesn't necessarily have form.

It's not about the form. When making the analogy I think it relates to the available (or lack thereof) evidence to justify believe. People are making claims about the existence of something (whether it is God, Bigfoot or fairies) and the reply is: what/where is the evidence?

I also find the comparison rather insulting to those who have had an experience of a god.

Somebody finding something insulting is not a measure stick whether an analogy is bad or good.

So I put it to you. Do you think it's reasonable to compare gods to these creatures? Why or why not?

No, the analogy is about the available evidence, not about a comparison of concepts.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I am not going to lower my epistemological standards just because you take offense at them.

Why do you assume I took offense to your standards?

 

[ppp]

Why do you assume I took offense to your standards?

You said you find the comparison "insulting".

 

[Sand Dancer]

Doesn't that complicate communication though? If the label 'God' has a very long history of being defined in a particular way, and you create a new and unique definition for the label, how do you avoid talking past other people if you do not constantly preface or follow your use of the label with your unique definition?

Since love already has a label 'love' that is also somewhat universally understood and accepted, why not simply use the label 'love' when speaking of love instead of coopting a label that is extensively used with other meanings?

There are lots of different definitions, depending on the deity. The Bible says God is love, so who am I to argue?

 

[SalixIncendium]

You said you find the comparison "insulting".

I take exception to the analogy and find it insulting to those that have an experience of a god. That doesn't mean I took offense to it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe a lot of the evidence for bigfoot is based on footprints. Lord know the evidence for evolution can be based on less than that but the fact is God has left footprints also in the form of His words and in the form of His incarnation as Jesus.

Well, the Lord would be wrong in this case, given that there are mountains of evidence for evolution from multiple different fields of science collected by multiple independent groups of researchers across the world over the last 160+ years. Biology doesn't make sense without evolution.

That's a tad more evidence than some supposed bigfoot "footprints."

 

[ppp]

I take exception to the analogy and find it insulting to those that have an experience of a god. That doesn't mean I took offense to it.

I think that taking offense is entailed in finding something insulting. That should answer your question. Whether or not you agree, that should answer your question.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The whole point of making these kinds of false equivalents is that they are false. If I can't prove that your God doesn't exist I'll equate it falsely to something that I can prove doesn't exist. The whole point is to create a false equivalence that I can then defeat because I can't defeat the original premise. And if it insults my antagonist, all the better to distract them while I replace their God with my phony equivalent.

Nope. You cannot, in fact, prove the non-existence of Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, Nessie and so on. You can point to the fact that you have no evidence except the unverified claims of those who say they have encountered these creatures, and use that to suppose that, for that reason they do not exist. But that is not proving they don't exist. They may be, for example, much better at hiding than most other critters -- it's possible.

And for many of us, we make the same argument for gods: we have no evidence except the unverified claims of those who say they have encountered gods, and use that to suppose that for that reason, they do not exist. The arguments are identical, not false equivalencies at all.

 

[Koldo]

There are lots of different definitions, depending on the deity. The Bible says God is love, so who am I to argue?

That's cherry picking though.

 

[MikeF]

There are lots of different definitions, depending on the deity. The Bible says God is love, so who am I to argue?

Well, you have now indicated that your use of the term is the same term used in the Bible. The Bible lists many other attributes to the label 'God'. Are we to understand that you reject all other characterizations other than the attribute 'love'? I'm personally having trouble conceptualizing that in light of the full text of the OT and NT.

 

[Sand Dancer]

That's cherry picking though.

It's hard not to cherry pick when there are many different messages in it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Well, you have now indicated that your use of the term is the same term used in the Bible. The Bible lists many other attributes to the label 'God'. Are we to understand that you reject all other characterizations other than the attribute 'love'? I'm personally having trouble conceptualizing that in light of the full text of the OT and NT.

I can't jive with a violent, jealous, impulsive and vindictive deity, so I will choose the positive messages over the often contradictory negative ones.