I just learned (from D D'Souza) that Dawkins is the source of the "invisible spaghetti monster" version of the objection that theism is unverifiable.
What this example actually shows, however, is that the one who proposes it is thoroughly ignorant of the history of philosophy.
A similar display of ignorance is pointed out by Dawkins himself in his Greatest Show on Earth. He objects to those who object to the purported lack of links in the evolutionary record by saying, "Where is the fossil for a ..... [here I forget, but it is a hybrid name, like "chimp sapiens" or something like that]. Dawkins points out how the very act of positing such an objection is a ridiculous display of ignorance. And he does so by proposing hilarious intermediate species, mixing plant and animals in his names.
He is right to the silliness of his creationist opponents, but a very similar criticism could be made of his recourse to the "invisible spaghetti monster" in his debates with theists.
What this example actually shows, however, is that the one who proposes it is thoroughly ignorant of the history of philosophy.
A similar display of ignorance is pointed out by Dawkins himself in his Greatest Show on Earth. He objects to those who object to the purported lack of links in the evolutionary record by saying, "Where is the fossil for a ..... [here I forget, but it is a hybrid name, like "chimp sapiens" or something like that]. Dawkins points out how the very act of positing such an objection is a ridiculous display of ignorance. And he does so by proposing hilarious intermediate species, mixing plant and animals in his names.
He is right to the silliness of his creationist opponents, but a very similar criticism could be made of his recourse to the "invisible spaghetti monster" in his debates with theists.
Comments