I just got back from my yearly week as a counselor at Camp Quest Michigan, and as always I’m back with a story to tell. This year, I was tried for heresy.
You see, the Camp Quest Cannon states clearly (or so I am told) that there are two invisible undetectable unicorns at Camp Quest. They leave no traces and cannot be seen, heard, or felt. Any kid who proves this to be untrue gets a pre-1954 “godless” $100 bill. This leads to many discussions, but alas, so far no child has been able to prove the unicorns aren’t there.
But I had a vision. In my vision, there was a “holy duality.” Two unicorns that are really one. Two that are one, but neither two nor one. Both male and female, but neither male nor female. Both invisible and pink, but neither invisible nor pink. Got that? If not, pray more or just take it on faith.
Unfortunately, the powers-that-be didn’t like dissent, and I was tried for heresy. Elder campers acted as defense attorneys, prosecution attorneys, and judges. There were eye-witnesses to my corruption of children — and my association with Satan.
I was found guilty and sentenced to death. However, I was allowed to live on condition of my recanting of my heresy, which I did in earnest, since one the campers had been assigned to be my exectutioner.
My big secret: I didn’t mean it when I recanted. I just went underground. Next year, I will resurface, stronger than ever, and launch a full scale reformation. Bwoo hah hah hah….
(Whispers) And yet… it moves!
It would be just as perplexing if they said that the unicorns DO leave traces and CAN be seen, heard, and felt, but only when they choose to!
Reminds me of the argument about how we’re supposed to be agnostic about any claim that is self-defined as unverifiable. Theists will claim that only belief in a god’s existence could fit this criteria, but I’ve never heard a logical distinction between their god and something like your unicorn duality.
-
Hopefully the take-home message for the campers is that one’s epistemological methods must be consistent across various claims. Unless one’s default opinion for all unverifiable, evidence-less claims that violate the laws of physics is disbelief, then one risks believing in something ridiculous. Consistency, on the other hand, is a consequence of the empirical method and an attitude of vigilant skepticism.
It sounds a lot like religious indoctrination going on there… Heresy trials and death sentences? Wow, why not teach the kids logic and epistemology and let them figure things out for themselves? Then maybe they can understand why the question seems difficult. It all hinges on “prove” and “untrue”. Are you talking untrue in a bivalent or trivalent logical system? And as for proof are you looking for an absolute deductive proof or a more forgiving inductive proof?
Chris B: How can you use an empirical method on something that by definition cannot be experienced? Empiricism is centered in the experienceable…
If you want to see indoctrination go here : http://ellerslie.com/Home.html
This is a xian retreat and a religious relative of mine sent me a letter from a young woman who gladly went there. It was all jesus this and jesus that. Instead of the hours the site publishes, she spoke of 20 hour days and going to bed at 4 in the morning. It was all to guruish, or ghoulish, for my taste.
Ned_ludd I don’t disagree there is a lot of messed up indoctrination people do to their kids and even to themselves when they are adults…. It’s nuts… I think that the tools, critical thinking and logic, that enable one to choose for themselves is more often than not never really taught to people.
The easiest solution to the problem of the Unicorn, look at http://www.scifidimensions.com/Dec01/unicorndebate.htm to see the indoctrination these kids face would be this: (I will probably be accused of sophistry though)
A Unicorn by definition is a material object, it is a four legged physical creature, similar to a horse, with a singular horn on its head. To call for an immaterial unicorn is to call for a material object that is also immaterial at the same time, which is a contradiction. Based on the law of non-contradiction, you cannot have something be and not be at the same time, there cannot be an immaterial unicorn.
You can also pull a Clinton and get caught up on what you mean the definition of “is” is when you say there “is” an immaterial unicorn. Because in his statement in the linked webpage he denies dualism, so I would think that makes him a monist and therefore for something to be it needs to be physical.
But anyways, i like philosophical debates like this it really shows you what presuppositions people choose to live under.
Is that it doesn’t exist. & that link was stupid.
No, it’s made-up, it doesn’t exist, which is the whole point.
Who, Clinton?
That is correct.
Krystalline: Why do you need to be so abrasive? First off, the web link was to the Camp Quest webpage that’s what I was looking at. Yes, Unicorns are made up creatures, but if someone said that there are unicorns and says they will take you to them, you would be looking for a physical thing wouldn’t you? I would think so… So when someone says that there exists a physical thing which isn’t physical then there is my argument. Because that is where it starts with someone making the claim that there exists a immaterial unicorn. Not that unicorns are mythical but there is a thing that we call a unicorn at the camp and it is immaterial. I believe they are using a stipulative definition of unicorn not the dictionary’s.
I dunno…why do you need to be so obtuse?
That’s called a contradiction, for those who aren’t knowledgeable about logic.
1. of no real importance; inconsequential
2. not formed of matter; incorporeal; spiritual
We’re going w/definition #2, then. By that definition, said unicorn is massively unprovable, & unless evidence can be produced, it’s a moot point.
Like most faitheists, you put too much stock in word manipulation.
Regardless, unicorns are mythical, they don’t exist, & your efforts @ a gedankenexperiment are fairly useless.
Still missing the point by a country mile.
Krystalline:
I really don’t understand what is your problem…. Here is what I said:
“To call for an immaterial unicorn is to call for a material object that is also immaterial at the same time, which is a contradiction. Based on the law of non-contradiction, you cannot have something be and not be at the same time, there cannot be an immaterial unicorn.”
What’s your response to me:
“‘So when someone says that there exists a physical thing which isn’t physical then there is my argument.’
That’s called a contradiction, for those who aren’t knowledgeable about logic.”
“…Regardless, unicorns are mythical, they don’t exist, & your efforts @ a gedankenexperiment are fairly useless.
Still missing the point by a country mile.”
So you basically repeat what I just said and then try to insult me, and I am the one being obtuse? I don’t know what your problem is but you need to grow up and get over it…
Here is my problem:
A. I understand everything you’ve written – understanding does not result in agreement.
B. You are deliberately redefining the meaning of unicorn to suit your own purposes.
C. NOT EVERY OPINION IS VALID – otherwise we should entertain all the ‘gawd is an alien’ crazies, the bigfoot crazies, the YECs, the Truthers, the mormons, etc.
D. If you actually READ THE POST, it was illustrating a response to an individual’s departing from the mass’s delusion to create his own special version. The ‘metaphysical’ discussion of not being able to ‘un-prove’ (hopefully that illustrates how stupid that argument is) was a back story/sub plot, not the heart of the tale.
No, I did a simple deconstruction & showed how your opinion floundered.
Sorry, you have a right to your opinion even if it’s wrong, likewise I have the right to call it foolish if I deem it so.
KA: This quote seems appropriate to you. Let me know how he is wrong…
“New Atheists also fume against the anti-intellectualism of religion. Yet when it comes to making their own case, these ‘brights’ don’t just mimc their fundamentalist opponents; they go them one better. Most people of faith harbor some doubt. But the supposedly open minds of New Atheists are so settled and sure that there is nary an opening in their invective for genuine conversation. Every refusal of a person of faith to come over to the atheist side is viewed not as a principled disagreement but as evidence of stupidity or malice or worse.” (Stephen Prothero, God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World)
Well, it’s not.
How is he wrong? Let me count the ways…
1. I’m not a ‘new atheist’ or an ‘old atheist’, I’m just an atheist.
2. ‘New atheist’ is a coded label roughly translating to “those big meanies who won’t dance to our delusional tune’
3. I want evidence of your claims. I can’t repeat this often enough: bring proof. People lie & prevaricate.
4. People constantly confuse ‘open-mindedness’ w/the wide-eyed thickness of childhood innocence – “Oh REALLY?!?! Coooool…..tell me more.”
5. The title declaims presuppositionalism. (look up the definition and understand it this time)
6. Since religion is garbage, a professor of religion is a professor of garbage. So why should I listen to the sanitation engineer? Oh wait…I’m talking to the doof who willfully refuses to understand the Courtier’s Reply, & who insists that any opinion is an actual intellectual claim w/spine.
I could go on, but I’m actually running out of concern here…