Invisible Pink Unicorn

Last updated
A depiction of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, in the style of a heraldic animal springing Invisible Pink Unicorn.svg
A depiction of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, in the style of a heraldic animal springing

The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is the goddess of a parody religion used to satirize theistic beliefs, taking the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink. [1] The IPU is a rhetorical illustration used by atheists and other religious skeptics as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot, sometimes mentioned in conjunction with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. [2]

Contents

The IPU is used to argue that supernatural beliefs are arbitrary by, for example, replacing the word God in any theistic statement with Invisible Pink Unicorn. [3] The mutually exclusive attributes of pinkness and invisibility, coupled with the inability to disprove the IPU's existence, satirize properties that some theists attribute to a theistic deity. [4]

History

Russell's teapot is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. [5] Russell wrote that, if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the ground that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

The IPU seems to have become notable primarily through online culture: in addition to alt.atheism, where IPU frequently came up in discussions, there are now a number of web sites dedicated to her. An early documented reference to the IPU was on July 7, 1990, on the Usenet discussion group alt.atheism. [6] Other sources concerning IPU state that she was "revealed to us" on alt.atheism.

The concept was further developed by a group of college students from 1994 to 1995 on the ISCA Telnet-based BBS. The students created a manifesto that detailed a nonsensical (yet internally consistent) religion based on a multitude of invisible pink unicorns. [7] It is from this document that the most famous quotation concerning IPUs originated:

Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.

— Serah Eley [8] [9] [10]

Concepts

Blank images have been humorously presented as depictions of the Invisible Pink Unicorn in order to highlight her invisibility. (In this image, alpha compositing makes it transparent.) Invisible Pink Unicorn.png
Blank images have been humorously presented as depictions of the Invisible Pink Unicorn in order to highlight her invisibility. (In this image, alpha compositing makes it transparent.)

It is common when discussing the Invisible Pink Unicorn to point out that because she is invisible, no one can prove that she does not exist (or indeed that she is not pink). This is a parody of similar theistic claims about God: that God, as creator of the universe, is not subject to its laws and thus not physically detecting him tells us nothing about his existence or lack thereof. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is an illustration which attempts to demonstrate the absurdity of citing attributes and a lack of evidence as proof of a deity's existence. Her two defining attributes, invisibility and color (pink), are inconsistent and contradictory; this is part of the satire. The paradox of something being invisible yet having visible characteristics (color) is reflected in some East Asian cultures, wherein an invisible red string is said to connect people who have a shared or linked destiny.

There are humorous mock debates amongst her "followers" concerning her other attributes, such as whether she is completely invisible or invisible to most, but visible only to those who have faith in her (bearing similarities to "The Emperor's New Clothes"). [7] Some arguments are quite elaborate and tortuous, satirizing the disputatiousness and intricacy of the theological debates that occur in many religions. [7]

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is also used to de-deify religious texts. The goal is to have the reader experience the text without heavily loaded concepts that many readers will associate with omnipotence, or will read with an unquestioned faith. It is argued that when someone re-reads the same text with all direct references to God replaced with the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the reader may see the text in a new and more critical way:

In the beginning the Invisible Pink Unicorn created the heavens and the earth...and the Spirit of the Invisible Pink Unicorn was hovering over the waters. And the Invisible Pink Unicorn said, "Let there be light," and there was light. The Invisible Pink Unicorn saw that the light was good, and she separated the light from the darkness.

—  Genesis 1:1 (modified) [9] [10]

Similar concepts

A parody motivational poster depicting the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The meeting of day and night in a mountain valley with invisible pink unicorn.jpg
A parody motivational poster depicting the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

In 1996, a unicorn that no one can see was adapted as a teaching device at Camp Quest, the first free-thought summer camp for children established in the United States, by Edwin F Kagin and the Free Inquiry Group of Cincinnati. As reported years later in the July 21, 2006 Cincinnati Enquirer, "Campers must try to prove that imaginary unicorns—as a metaphor for God—don't exist." [12] Richard Dawkins alluded to unicorns in this connection in his 2006 book The God Delusion , writing that "Russell's teapot, of course, stands for an infinite number of things whose existence is conceivable and cannot be disproved. [...] A philosophical favorite is the invisible, intangible, inaudible unicorn." [13]

Further reading

Related Research Articles

Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Parry</span> American Usenetter

James Parry, commonly known by his nickname and username Kibo, is a Usenetter known for his sense of humor, various surrealist net pranks, an absurdly long signature, and a machine-assisted knack for "kibozing": joining any thread in which "kibo" was mentioned. His exploits have earned him a multitude of enthusiasts, who celebrate him as the head deity of the parody religion "Kibology", centered on the humor newsgroup alt.religion.kibology.

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology that seeks to provide arguments for theological topics based on reason and the discoveries of science, the project of arguing for the existence of God on the basis of observed natural facts, and through natural phenomena viewed as divine, or complexities of nature seen as evidence of a divine plan or Will of God, which includes nature itself.

Philosophy of religion is "the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions". Philosophical discussions on such topics date from ancient times, and appear in the earliest known texts concerning philosophy. The field is related to many other branches of philosophy, including metaphysics, epistemology, logic and ethics.

IPU may refer to:

Nontheism or non-theism is a range of both religious and non-religious attitudes characterized by the absence of espoused belief in the existence of God or gods. Nontheism has generally been used to describe apathy or silence towards the subject of gods and differs from atheism, or active disbelief in any gods. It has been used as an umbrella term for summarizing various distinct and even mutually exclusive positions, such as agnosticism, ignosticism, ietsism, skepticism, pantheism, pandeism, transtheism, atheism, and apatheism. It is in use in the fields of Christian apologetics and general liberal theology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parody religion</span> Constructed mock religion

A parody religion or mock religion is a belief system that challenges the spiritual convictions of others, often through humor, satire, or burlesque. Often constructed to achieve a specific purpose related to another belief system, a parody religion can be a parody of several religions, sects, gurus, cults, or new religious movements at the same time, or even a parody of no particular religion – instead parodying the concept of religious belief itself. Some parody religions emphasise having fun; the new faith may serve as a convenient excuse for pleasant social interaction among the like-minded.

The existence of God is a subject of debate in theology, philosophy of religion and popular culture. A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God or deities can be categorized as logical, empirical, metaphysical, subjective or scientific. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God or deities involves the disciplines of epistemology and ontology and the theory of value.

Agnostic theism, agnostotheism, or agnostitheism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of one or more gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god or gods that they believe in.

Antitheism, also spelled anti-theism, is the philosophical position that theism should be opposed. The term has had a range of applications. In secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to the belief in any deity.

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Criticism of atheism is criticism of the concepts, validity, or impact of atheism, including associated political and social implications. Criticisms include positions based on the history of science, philosophical and logical criticisms, findings in both the natural and social sciences, theistic apologetic arguments, arguments pertaining to ethics and morality, the effects of atheism on the individual, or the assumptions that underpin atheism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">God</span> Principal object of faith in monotheism

In monotheistic belief systems, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith. In polytheistic belief systems, a god is "a spirit or being believed to have created, or for controlling some part of the universe or life, for which such a deity is often worshipped". Belief in the existence of at least one god is called theism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Religious satire</span> Satire referring to religious beliefs

Religious satire is a form of satire that refers to religious beliefs and can take the form of texts, plays, films, and parody. From the earliest times, at least since the plays of Aristophanes, religion has been one of the three primary topics of literary satire, along with politics and sex. Satire which targets the clergy is a type of political satire, while religious satire is that which targets religious beliefs. Religious satire is also sometimes called philosophical satire, and is thought to be the result of agnosticism or atheism. Notable works of religious satire surfaced during the Renaissance, with works by Geoffrey Chaucer, Erasmus and Albrecht Dürer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Implicit and explicit atheism</span> Types of atheism

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are types of atheism. In George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God, "implicit atheism" is defined as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it", while "explicit atheism" is "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists, though they do not themselves maintain a belief in a god or gods, have not rejected the notion or have not considered it further.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to atheism:

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and are agnostic because they claim that the existence of a divine entity or entities is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

An ontological argument is a philosophical argument, made from an ontological basis, that is advanced in support of the existence of God. Such arguments tend to refer to the state of being or existing. More specifically, ontological arguments are commonly conceived a priori in regard to the organization of the universe, whereby, if such organizational structure is true, God must exist.

Articles related to philosophy of religion include:

References

  1. ↑ Angeles, Peter A. (1992). Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy. Harper Perennial, New York. ISBN   0-06-461026-8.
  2. ↑ Maartens, Willie (2006-06-01). Mapping Reality: A Critical Perspective on Science and Religion. iUniverse. p. 191. ISBN   0-595-40044-2.
  3. ↑ Narciso, Dianna (2004-03-01). Like Rolling Uphill: Realizing the Honesty of Atheism. Media Creations. p. 5. ISBN   1-932560-74-2.
  4. ↑ Andrew Stuart Abel; Andrew Schaefer (2010). "Seeing Through the Invisible Pink Unicorn" (PDF). Journal of Religion and Society. Rabbi Myer and Dorothy Kripke Center for the Study of Religion and Society. 12. ISSN   1522-5658. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-12-30. Retrieved 2012-07-25.
  5. ↑ Fritz Allhoff, Scott C. Lowe. The Philosophical Case Against Literal Truth: Russell's Teapot // Christmas - Philosophy for Everyone: Better Than a Lump of Coal. — John Wiley and Sons, 2010. — Т. 5. — P. 65–66. — 256 p. — (Philosophy for Everyone). — ISBN   9781444330908.
  6. ↑ Scott Gibson (1990-07-17). "'Proof' of God's Existence". Newsgroup:  alt.atheism. Usenet:   3704@qip.UUCP. Archived from the original on 2009-07-14. Retrieved 2007-04-10. how about refuting the existence of invisible pink unicorns?
  7. 1 2 3 Alex Tufty Ashman (2007-02-08). "The Invisible Pink Unicorn". h2g2 . BBC. Archived from the original on 2009-10-08. Retrieved 2008-05-08.
  8. ↑ "Episode 058 : Serah Eley by Evil Twin Podcast - #EVLTWN". Podchaser. Retrieved 2022-03-10.
  9. 1 2 Judson Poling; Garry Poole; MS Debra Poling (2003). Do Science and the Bible Conflict?. Zondervan. p.  20. ISBN   978-0-310-24507-0.
  10. 1 2 Jack Huberman (2006). The Quotable Atheist. Nation Books. p.  103. ISBN   1-56025-969-8.
  11. ↑ Kenneth (2005-07-23). "Portrait of the Invisible Pink Unicorn". the klog. Archived from the original on 2016-12-05. Retrieved 2007-01-15.
  12. ↑ Clark, Michael D. (2006-07-21). "Camp: "It's Beyond Belief"". The Cincinnati Enquirer . Archived from the original on August 13, 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-16.
  13. ↑ Dawkins, Richard (2006). "The God hypothesis: the poverty of agnosticism". The God Delusion (Trade paperback ed.). Kent: Bantam Press. pp. 52–53. ISBN   978-0-593-05825-1.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.