Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Received]

The argument goes like this.

You can't prove or disprove (offer empirical support for) God's existence.
You can't prove or disprove the FSM's existence either.
Therefore, they're comparable as an analogy; one is as good as the other.

The problem is that you're equating two different things based on a single quality, here being an epistemological problem in that neither can be proved, which shuffles away any other differences between these two things. Anyone can take two completely different things and unfairly equate them given a single quality. I have an arm. A chair has an arm. Therefore, I'm analogous to a chair. Meh.

But notice what else should be included in this.

You can't prove or disprove (offer empirical support for) science's existence.
You can't prove or disprove the FSM's or God's existence either.
Therefore, science, the FSM, and God are all as good as one another.

Or add another one: the phenomenology of any person's experience other than your own. You can't prove or disprove that; the best you have is a biological correlate in terms of brain functioning, but that's only a correlate, and you can't jump the infinite gap between objective neural stuff interacting and the consciousness that results "from the inside."

So God, science, the FSM, consciousness are all equally the same. Part of you would probably be like, "no, science is NOT AT ALL like something ridiculous such as the FSM." But from the criteria implicit in the argument (that only stuff that can be proven empirically is worth considering, and if not it's no different than imaginary stuff), this is by necessity where the road leads.

All this stuff rests on the nebulous assumption of positivism or scientism. Hume, who is a marvelous philosopher, put it like this:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.​

Thinking like this provides the presuppositions for considering the FSM as good as God or science or anything else that can't be proven empirically or mathematically. Except the problem here being...Hume's very statement fails the criteria he demands.

So what? The FSM analogy is flawed.

 

[Chesterton]

So what? The FSM analogy is flawed.

Agreed the analogy is flawed. First, it's a monster. "Monster" implies abnormality, so there must be something normal for it to be abnormal in relation to. Second, it's made from wheat. Where did the wheat come from? (As far as flying, that part doesn't seem to have much to do with anything AFAICT.)

Anyway, it's abnormal (implying something else existing before or along with it, same problem as polytheism, I suppose), and it's made of some matter which already exists (again, same problem as Zeus). The analogy indicates nothing, it's just childish flippancy.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Science isn't a belief. It is a process. It can definitely be shown to exist by showing all things that science has produced. What you are claiming is analogous to saying mathematics doesn't exist. Uh.... Yes it does.

But the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Yahweh, The divinity of Christ, unicorns and Santa Claus cannot be shown to exist in the same way math or science can. One gives results that can be verified, the others are just beliefs that people don't want to let go of.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You can't prove or disprove (offer empirical support for) science's existence.

Science is an activity carried out by human beings. I've seen it with my own eyes.

(Science is not a thing like a skateboard, but rather an activity, like skateboarding. You can offer empirical support for the existence of skateboarding and you can do the same for science.)

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Science is an activity carried out by human beings. I've seen it with my own eyes.

(Science is not a thing like a skateboard, but rather an activity, like skateboarding. You can offer empirical support for the existence of skateboarding and you can do the same for science.)

You said what I tried to but yours was in far fewer words.

 

[Received]

Science isn't just an activity; it's essentially a philosophy, a set of ideas that are believed in which are acted out. You might as well say God is an activity, given that people relate to him and "see it with my own eyes." Same phenomenological thing we're talking about here.

Either way, you can't prove or disprove science (or the existence of other consciousnesses, for that matter), and the reason the FSM is postulated is because you can't prove or disprove him, just like God. God, science, and the FSM are identical here with regard to being impossible to prove or disprove, in their unfalsifiability. God is an idea, the FSM is an idea, science is a set of ideas which are carried out. Same thing.

And you sure as heck don't know that the ideas and philosophical presuppositions of science (induction, uniformity, etc.) are true because you "see them with my own eyes." Those things are assumed to be true because of an intuitive sense that they must be true.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Science isn't just an activity; it's essentially a philosophy, a set of ideas

that are written down in books. Typically not science books, but philosophy of science books. Nevertheless, it is obvious these ideas exist (in the sense that any idea exists) since they can be explicitly enumerated.

Similarly, the rules for Euclidean geometry can be written down in a book, and people can do Euclidean geometry. And the rules for NON-Euclidean geometry can be written down in a book, and people can do non-Euclidean geometry. These are all things that exist as much as science does.

Sure, they are just applications of ideas that were invented by human beings, but that's okay. So are skateboarding, chess, and cooking.

You might as well say God is an activity, given that people relate to him and "see it with my own eyes."

If you want religion (or gods) to be an application of ideas that were invented by humans, I'm fine with that, too.

Those things are assumed to be true

Obviously. They are axioms, just as in Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry.

 

[variant]

Science isn't just an activity; it's essentially a philosophy, a set of ideas that are believed in which are acted out. You might as well say God is an activity, given that people relate to him and "see it with my own eyes." Same phenomenological thing we're talking about here.

No, religious metaphysics must posit that God exists independently of human thinking.

Science is a set of human ideas and activities, we don't have to show it exists independently of us.

If you would like to concede that God is all in the mind of humanity, I will gladly grant you that and welcome you as a fellow atheist.

 

[Received]

So with science you can just assume there's uniformity, induction is valid, etc., but with God you can't assume...because?

 

[variant]

So with science you can just assume there's uniformity, induction is valid, etc., but with God you can't assume...because?

I don't think those are base assumptions first (rather they would be logical extrapolations from our experience) but..

We've been over this.

We should only partake in the assumptions that are absolutely necessary.

I also think it's a bit funny that you are committing the same thinking sin as your OP is addressing by equating science and religion because they both share the quality of needing at least one assumption.

Maybe you should apply your own logic and look at the bigger picture.

To show your God is not analogous to the FSM you should focus on why those ideas are significantly different in their justification.

 

[Davian]

The argument goes like this.

You can't prove or disprove (offer empirical support for) God's existence.
You can't prove or disprove the FSM's existence either.
Therefore, they're comparable as an analogy; one is as good as the other.

Indeed, by all objective measures to date.

The problem is that you're equating two different things based on a single quality, here being an epistemological problem in that neither can be proved, which shuffles away any other differences between these two things. Anyone can take two completely different things and unfairly equate them given a single quality. I have an arm. A chair has an arm. Therefore, I'm analogous to a chair. Meh.

But notice what else should be included in this.

You can't prove or disprove (offer empirical support for) science's existence.
You can't prove or disprove the FSM's or God's existence either.
Therefore, science, the FSM, and God are all as good as one another.

Science does have the better track record. How's that internet working out for you?

Or add another one: the phenomenology of any person's experience other than your own. You can't prove or disprove that; the best you have is a biological correlate in terms of brain functioning, but that's only a correlate, and you can't jump the infinite gap between objective neural stuff interacting and the consciousness that results "from the inside."

So God, science, the FSM, consciousness are all equally the same.

Define "consciousness", in this context. I might agree with you.

Part of you would probably be like, "no, science is NOT AT ALL like something ridiculous such as the FSM." But from the criteria implicit in the argument (that only stuff that can be proven empirically is worth considering, and if not it's no different than imaginary stuff), this is by necessity where the road leads.

All this stuff rests on the nebulous assumption of positivism or scientism. Hume, who is a marvelous philosopher, put it like this:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.​

Thinking like this provides the presuppositions for considering the FSM as good as God or science or anything else that can't be proven empirically or mathematically. Except the problem here being...Hume's very statement fails the criteria he demands.

So what? The FSM analogy is flawed.

All analogies are flawed, incomplete.

It is, however, successful. It has you creating threads like this, where you demonstrate that you are unable to elevate your deity out of the unfalsifiable.

 

[Received]

Is truthfulness the same thing as workability, Davian?

 

[Deidre32]

Science isn't just an activity; it's essentially a philosophy, a set of ideas that are believed in which are acted out. You might as well say God is an activity, given that people relate to him and "see it with my own eyes." Same phenomenological thing we're talking about here.

Either way, you can't prove or disprove science (or the existence of other consciousnesses, for that matter), and the reason the FSM is postulated is because you can't prove or disprove him, just like God. God, science, and the FSM are identical here with regard to being impossible to prove or disprove, in their unfalsifiability. God is an idea, the FSM is an idea, science is a set of ideas which are carried out. Same thing.

And you sure as heck don't know that the ideas and philosophical presuppositions of science (induction, uniformity, etc.) are true because you "see them with my own eyes." Those things are assumed to be true because of an intuitive sense that they must be true.

Reality just is, though. Science seeks to discover it, not create it.
Further, reality doesn't change even if I choose to disbelieve it.

Faith in something that offers no objective proof is the essence of religion. The essence of believing in a god to begin with. This is why the idea of god changes from religion to religion, because it's not based on objective reality.

You and I can both agree that 2+2 = 4, but if you disagree...it doesn't change the fact that 2+2=4.

I somewhat understand your point, but it's not quite accurate to compare science and the concept of god, as being similar.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So with science you can just assume there's uniformity

The assumption of uniformity can be tested, and has been tested. Can it be proven? No. Nothing in science is proven.

induction is valid

Induction is clearly invalid as a method of proof. Fortunately, nothing in science is proven.

but with God you can't assume...because?

You can, but I am not obliged to make the same assumption.
If you want to play chess, you have to assume the rules.
If you want to play Euclidean geometry, you have to assume the rules.
If you want to play non-Euclidean geometry, you have to assume the rules.
If you want to play science, you have to assume the rules.
If you want to play religion, you have to assume the rules.


When you play science, you learn about things called electrons. They do not exist because science exists. They exist, because there is empirical evidence of them.

When you play religion, you learn about things called gods. They do not exist because religion exists. Their existence should be predicated on some sort of evidence. Or assumed. If assumed, others may make different assumptions.

 

[Davian]

Is truthfulness the same thing as workability, Davian?

No.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think those are base assumptions first (rather they would be logical extrapolations from our experience) but..

We've been over this.

We should only partake in the assumptions that are absolutely necessary.

I also think it's a bit funny that you are committing the same thinking sin as your OP is addressing by equating science and religion because they both share the quality of needing at least one assumption.

Maybe you should apply your own logic and look at the bigger picture.

To show your God is not analogous to the FSM you should focus on why those ideas are significantly different in their justification.

I think this is a great point...the differences between the concept of god and the concept of science have been rather well explained here and could just as easily be demonstrated. This shows why most analogies between the two are poor.

Exactly what are the differences between F S M and your notion of god that you would be able to demonstrate?

Because without that I'd say the analogy still stands.

 

[Chesterton]

To show your God is not analogous to the FSM you should focus on why those ideas are significantly different in their justification.

You don't have to go that far. It's the wheat and the monstrousness.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The mods don't like it when "that which must not be posted" is mentioned. People get temporary bans just for posting pictures of it.

 

[Received]

No.

So when you say science has a better track record, what do you mean?

 

[Received]

The assumption of uniformity can be tested, and has been tested. Can it be proven? No. Nothing in science is proven.

I think it's other other way around: testing (particularly replicability and generalization from experimental findings) presupposes uniformity, without which results would be useless, especially in the social sciences.

Induction is clearly invalid as a method of proof. Fortunately, nothing in science is proven.

Precisely because science is an inductive method of finding things out. My point is that science presupposes induction, the legitimacy of which is presupposed as a philosophical starting point for science, without which you can't even have science.

You can, but I am not obliged to make the same assumption.
If you want to play chess, you have to assume the rules.
If you want to play Euclidean geometry, you have to assume the rules.
If you want to play non-Euclidean geometry, you have to assume the rules.
If you want to play science, you have to assume the rules.
If you want to play religion, you have to assume the rules.


When you play science, you learn about things called electrons. They do not exist because science exists. They exist, because there is empirical evidence of them.

When you play religion, you learn about things called gods. They do not exist because religion exists. Their existence should be predicated on some sort of evidence. Or assumed. If assumed, others may make different assumptions.

And science rests on philosophical presuppositions that can only be assumed. The reason this is relevant goes back to the OP: FSMs are as good as God or science (as a set of principles based on philosophical presuppositions before they're put into action) or other consciousnesses because they can't be proven or disproven. So the FSM analogists propose.