UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 8 to Meditation 282
Good Analogies; Bad Analogies

by JT

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

I was going to stay out of the pink bunny dispute and let it die[1], having had my say on the analogous issue in Meditation 299. But Thomas has dragged me in.

I think Meditation 299 is quite clear that I understood that invisble pink unicorns, (and by extension, invisible pink bunnies) are intended to be an analogy to a god.

Use of an analogy can make a good point in logic. But it has to be a good analogy, an effective analogy, a relevant analogy, a meanigful analogy.

Invisible pink unicorns and invisible pink bunnies fail. Miserably.

The invisible pink analogy is equivalent to an analogy between a London transport bus and an apple - based on the sometime commonality of redness. (I'm making an analogy of bad analogies here.)

The invisible pink whatever analogy does not stand up to basic scrutiny.

Atheists and agnostics make a virtue of reason. Reason should tell us to abandon the invisible pink unicorn, the invisible pink bunny, and the invisible pink anything else.

Footnote:

  1. Rather than let it die, I'm going to subject it to a mercy killing. I will allow Thomas, Jorge, & Gabriel one more reply each, if they wish. Then the discussion on immaterial invisible pink bunnies (wherever in the universe they are supposedly situated) will be terminated. Further discussion on the general issue will be posted to the discussion to Meditation 299.