{"id":11116,"date":"2010-11-18T13:36:41","date_gmt":"2010-11-18T13:36:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/11\/18\/god-and-the-no-angry-unicorn-argument\/"},"modified":"2010-11-18T13:36:41","modified_gmt":"2010-11-18T13:36:41","slug":"god-and-the-no-angry-unicorn-argument","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2010\/11\/18\/god-and-the-no-angry-unicorn-argument\/","title":{"rendered":"God and the ‘No Angry Unicorn’ Argument"},"content":{"rendered":"

This from an astute reader commenting on the Hell post<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

'No angry unicorn on the dark side of the moon'<\/span><\/p>\n

Does this not refer to doxastic uncertainty rather than a fatuous equation of God with something material? This is how I interpreted it when I read it. More in the vein of: why venerate something tenuous in lieu of a Lucretian reality? Not a profound solution by any means, but an almost noble one if lived humbly– not sensually. Although , I suppose this is an agnostic take on the phrase. ( I've been reading too much of Montaigne!) <\/span><\/p>\n

Thanks for exposing me to Henryk Gorecki . Do you know of Arvo Part?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I love Arvo Part, and Montaigne too.  But onto the issue you raise. To quote Cactus Ed himself, "Is there a God? Who knows? Is there an angry unicorn on the dark side of the moon?"<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Angry<\/a> Now it would be foolish to try to discern in the scribblings of Ed Abbey anything very clear or precise or carefully thought-through.  But it seems clear to me that Abbey is likening God to an intramundane object much as Bertrand Russell likened him to a celestial teapot<\/a>.  In so doing, both demonstrate a profound ignorance of what sophisticated theists mean by 'God.'  They are not talking about a being among beings, let alone a material<\/em> being among beings. (Deus est ipsum esse subsistens, et cetera<\/em>.)  But you focus on the epistemic side, with justification, as the quotation shows.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Accordingly, Abbey is suggesting that, regardless of the nature of God, the evidence of his existence is no better than the evidence of the existence of an irate lunar unicorn, a lunicorn<\/em> if you will.    <\/span><\/p>\n

But please note that questions about the evidence for something are connected to questions about the nature of that something.  The existence of a lunicorn would be strongly disconfirmed were a a bunch of lunar modules to fail to detect the presence of any such critter.  But no number of space probes could disconfirm the existence of God.  Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin was surely talking nonsense when he reported that he saw no God during his famous suborbital flight.  The empirical undetectability of God no more tells against his existence than the empirical undetectability of the square root of pi tells against its existence. <\/span><\/p>\n

So while Abbey's remarks do have an epistemological flavor, they cannot be divorced from their metaphysical import.<\/span><\/p>\n

But there is also an axiological side to it, which may be even more important.  Abbey is implying that it doesn't much matter whether God exists or not.  He could have added 'Who cares?' after 'Who knows?' to his list of questions.  After all, it is of no great moment whether there are any lunicorns or celestial teapots out there.  My happiness cannot hang on that.  The meaning of life does not stand or fall with the existence or nonexistence of such things.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Abbey's aphorism sums up the atheist attitude quite well.  Does God exist?  Who cares? Who cares whether there is some weird extra object in the ontological inventory?  And how would you know anyway?  "Bartender, another round!"<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This from an astute reader commenting on the Hell post: 'No angry unicorn on the dark side of the moon' Does this not refer to doxastic uncertainty rather than a fatuous equation of God with something material? This is how I interpreted it when I read it. More in the vein of: why venerate something … Continue reading “God and the ‘No Angry Unicorn’ Argument”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[581,191,143],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11116","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abbey-cactus-ed","category-atheism-and-theism","category-god"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11116","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11116"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11116\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}