This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Rabbit is the question

Steve Zara's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by Steve Zara

But Miranda's Rabbit doesn't exist, as is clear from her piece.

Yes, but rabbits do exist! The whole point of the Armstrong position is that God isn't the kind of thing that does or need exist. In other words, there need be no connection between God and anything in the real world.

One of my favourite Escher drawings is of a 2-dimensional dragon attempting to drag itself into the real world by grabbing hold of its tail. But the dragon, and the tail, and the paper it is drawn on are all just drawings, and the dragon itself is a fictional being. This would not have worked if the beast in question was a lion, or a dog, or a rabbit, because they are not fictional.

Karen Armstrong is attempting to say that certain kinds of fictional being (her God) should be accepted has having a certain effect on reality. But her God is equivalent to a dragon. No amount of twisting and turning, or tail-grabbing will reify her mythical beast. Gods and dragons don't have the foothold in reality that rabbits do!

I guess I have to give up at this point. I'm a bit puzzled about the why the category problem with the use of a real type of object in the analogy isn't understood. It seems clear to me!

I guess flying goose and I are alone in this :)

Anyway, happy new year to everyone.

EDIT: As I have said, I congratulate Miranda for the publicity for her excellent blog. I hope she has more presence here. She is a thoughtful and intelligent blogger whose views deserve to be widely known.

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:23:00 UTC | #427240