I didn't come up with this challenge, but I really like it:
Draw a bicycle.
Pretty much everyone has a concept of a bicycle... so draw it in as much detail as you can manage. Draw either a specific bike that you have in mind or a "generalized" bike that you dreamed up yourself.
Whenever you decide you're done, hit the spoiler button below.
We think in mental models. These models are not the entirety of the things they represent; they're only the details we think are important... and even then, only the details we recognize.
Just as your mental model of a bike isn't actually a bike "existing in your mind," your mental model of God isn't actually God existing in your mind, either. It's an action figure version of God. A Potemkin Village God.
The idea of God "existing as a concept" is a foundational part of the Ontological Argument. It also gets used occasionally for snark thrown at atheists ("what do you mean God doesn't exist? *I* believe in God, so God at least exists as a concept"... that sort of thing).
... but the whole idea of God - or anything - "existing as a concept" or "existing in the mind" is nonsense.
Thoughts?
Draw a bicycle.
Pretty much everyone has a concept of a bicycle... so draw it in as much detail as you can manage. Draw either a specific bike that you have in mind or a "generalized" bike that you dreamed up yourself.
Whenever you decide you're done, hit the spoiler button below.
All right. Now that you're done, look at it critically and ask yourself a few questions:
- would this bike actually function? Would the wheels turn? Would the pedals propel you? Would the brakes work? Would the gears shift properly?
- (if it was a depiction of a real bike): does this drawing look like the real bike? Are there any differences between the real thing and your drawing? Did you get the scratch on the fork or the scuff on the crank correct?
When asking yourself these questions, feel free to make reasonable allowances for your drawing ability (or lack thereof), but please be honest with yourself and don't pretend that you were conceiving of details that you really didn't.
- would this bike actually function? Would the wheels turn? Would the pedals propel you? Would the brakes work? Would the gears shift properly?
- (if it was a depiction of a real bike): does this drawing look like the real bike? Are there any differences between the real thing and your drawing? Did you get the scratch on the fork or the scuff on the crank correct?
When asking yourself these questions, feel free to make reasonable allowances for your drawing ability (or lack thereof), but please be honest with yourself and don't pretend that you were conceiving of details that you really didn't.
We think in mental models. These models are not the entirety of the things they represent; they're only the details we think are important... and even then, only the details we recognize.
Just as your mental model of a bike isn't actually a bike "existing in your mind," your mental model of God isn't actually God existing in your mind, either. It's an action figure version of God. A Potemkin Village God.
The idea of God "existing as a concept" is a foundational part of the Ontological Argument. It also gets used occasionally for snark thrown at atheists ("what do you mean God doesn't exist? *I* believe in God, so God at least exists as a concept"... that sort of thing).
... but the whole idea of God - or anything - "existing as a concept" or "existing in the mind" is nonsense.
Thoughts?