Who's behind all of this exactly....?
Back to some familiar philosophical stomping grounds for this week's thought experiment.
---------------------------------------------------
Stanley and Livingston had been observing the picturesque clearing for over two weeks, from the safety of their makeshift hideout.
"We've seen no one at all," said Stanley, "and the clearing has not deteriorated in any way. Now will you finally admit that you were wrong: no gardener tends this site."
"My dear Stanley," replied Livingston, "remember I did allow that it might be an invisible gardener."
"But this gardener has made not even the quietist of noises nor disturbed so much as a single leaf. Thus, I maintain, it is no gardener at all."
"My invisible gardener," continued Livingston, "is also silent and intangible."
Stanley was exasperated. "Damn it! What the hell is the difference between a silent, invisible, intangible gardner and no gardener at all?"
"Easy," replied the serene Livingston. "One looks after gardens. The other does not."
"Dr. Livingston, I presume," said Stanley with a sigh, "will therefore have no objection if I swiftly dispatch him to a soundless, odourless, invisible, and intangible heaven."
From the murderous look in Stanley's eye, he was not entirely joking.
Source: "Theology and Falsification" by Antony Flew, republished in New Essays in Philosophical Theology, 1955.
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 133.
---------------------------------------------------
So, do you side with Livingston on the question of invisible gardeners, or like Stanley, do you think such ideas should be out of sight, out of mind? I'll be back on Friday with a response you can probably see coming a mile away.
---------------------------------------------------
Stanley and Livingston had been observing the picturesque clearing for over two weeks, from the safety of their makeshift hideout.
"We've seen no one at all," said Stanley, "and the clearing has not deteriorated in any way. Now will you finally admit that you were wrong: no gardener tends this site."
"My dear Stanley," replied Livingston, "remember I did allow that it might be an invisible gardener."
"But this gardener has made not even the quietist of noises nor disturbed so much as a single leaf. Thus, I maintain, it is no gardener at all."
"My invisible gardener," continued Livingston, "is also silent and intangible."
Stanley was exasperated. "Damn it! What the hell is the difference between a silent, invisible, intangible gardner and no gardener at all?"
"Easy," replied the serene Livingston. "One looks after gardens. The other does not."
"Dr. Livingston, I presume," said Stanley with a sigh, "will therefore have no objection if I swiftly dispatch him to a soundless, odourless, invisible, and intangible heaven."
From the murderous look in Stanley's eye, he was not entirely joking.
Source: "Theology and Falsification" by Antony Flew, republished in New Essays in Philosophical Theology, 1955.
Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 133.
---------------------------------------------------
So, do you side with Livingston on the question of invisible gardeners, or like Stanley, do you think such ideas should be out of sight, out of mind? I'll be back on Friday with a response you can probably see coming a mile away.
