…and this is a 
John Holbo has uncovered an old argument against atheists, one that might have oozed languidly from the fermenting brain of Ray Comfort. But no! This is from a 19th century book of poetry! I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ray steals it soon, though.
Basically, it's an invented disagreement. An imaginary atheist argues that in a well-designed universe, large oak trees ought to bear pumpkin-sized fruit, while little ground-hugging shrubberies out to have acorn-sized fruit. This is easily dismissed by the poet by having an acorn fall on the atheist's head.
Fool! had that bough a pumpkin bore,
Thy whimseys would have work'd no more,
Nor skull have kept them in.
It even has an illustration of a weeping atheist, which John thinks might look like me, back in my youth in 1792, when I hadn't grown the beard yet and was fond of tricorn hats, and was always being pelted with acorns by puritans.
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 17, 2009 11:48 AM
One answer: Coconut palm.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: DaveL | February 17, 2009 11:51 AM
Clearly a result of The Fall. ;)
Posted by: IST
|
February 17, 2009 11:54 AM
(insert obligatory Python reference in response to 1 and 2)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 17, 2009 11:56 AM
Pumpkin trees? pfffffft
I want Hog trees.
Posted by: JStein | February 17, 2009 11:57 AM
I love people who don't understand evolution. It makes me gleeful.
Posted by: Julian | February 17, 2009 11:58 AM
So the atheist says, "god isn't likely because the universe isn't proportional" and the puritan response, "the universe is perfect, shutup!"
Touche, puritan; touche.
Posted by: Holbach | February 17, 2009 12:02 PM
Ray Comfort can easily fit into the analogy of having a head as big as a pumpkin and a brain the size of an acorn. Now what can we make of this? He would probably rhapsodize that he needs all those layers of pumpkin pulp to protect the impenetrable skin of that acorn. But what the hell, how does he utilize this set-up in relation to what he can demonstrate with a banana?
Posted by: www.10ch.org | February 17, 2009 12:07 PM
"One answer: Coconut palm."
Not to mention the fact that trees themselves fall sometimes.
Posted by: Twin Ion Engines | February 17, 2009 12:13 PM
Coconuts have nothing on durians in the lethal falling object category.
Oddly, I know this story - I think probably from childrens' literary magazine 'Cricket'. I had either forgotten the atheism angle (or more likely) it had been completely glossed over.
Posted by: Tyro | February 17, 2009 12:15 PM
Durian.
They're like the poet's pumpkin except with whacking great spikes for extra damage points.
Posted by: Qwerty | February 17, 2009 12:17 PM
The bumpkin says, "The pumpkin's carved!
'Tis evidence of design.
God made it so convenient.
It hangs upon the vine."
The Atheist smashed the pumpkin
And made the bumpkin cry!
Along with twenty blackbirds
He baked it in a pie.
Posted by: Mike Caton | February 17, 2009 12:17 PM
Dammit Tyro, I was just about to post "durian" and you beat me by two minutes.
http://luckyatheist.blogspot.com
Posted by: Godandahalf | February 17, 2009 12:18 PM
And durians have a noxious gas attack if you get too close.
Posted by: jholbo | February 17, 2009 12:19 PM
Thanks PZ! In defense of the poet: she died in 1720, so at least her ignorance of Darwin is pardonable, if not her unreasoning hostility to pumpkin trees.
Posted by: Jack | February 17, 2009 12:21 PM
Why is it that religious arguments against atheism almost always seem to rest on putting words in atheists' mouths?
Posted by: prosaica
|
February 17, 2009 12:24 PM
My father taught me the following prayer:
Be blessed, Thou Creator of the Universe, for in Thy infinite wisdom Thou made cherries grow on trees and pumpkins on the ground, made pidgeons fly and cows walk.
This was usually mentioned whenever a family member was shat upon by a bird. My father is a very religious person, but he also has a sense of humour.
Posted by: E.V. | February 17, 2009 12:24 PM
What is a ideologue without a straw man?Posted by: BdN | February 17, 2009 12:24 PM
Jackfruit
Posted by: Kemist | February 17, 2009 12:27 PM
I know many farmers who would snicker derisively at that argument, asking that poor schlob to go and try to find a pumpkin growing on its own in nature.
Perfect universe, hey ?
I does not take one whole minute to refute that stuff, and then they have to resort to teh Falls of the coconutz (which, as we know it, were eating by T-Rexes), which makes the universe not so perfect anymore, meeester. (how can they even think these things without their brains crashing down with a "does not compute; initiating self-destruct sequence")
Would they make up their minds before opening their traps ? Is the universe perfect or not ?
Posted by: Sastra
|
February 17, 2009 12:29 PM
"Invented disagreement" indeed. Where the heck would a theist have gotten the idea that atheists think that a universe designed by a wise and loving God "should" have pumpkin trees? It's not like any atheist argument I'm familiar with, back then or now.
No, I take that back. I wonder if the writer thinks that The Argument from Evil -- that a universe designed by a wise and loving God would not have so many cases of apparently pointless suffering in it - is just like saying that pumpkins ought to grow on trees. But a world where innocent people (and animals) undergo horrendous evil for no apparent purpose is like pumpkins growing on the ground. If you just think the thing through, you can see that it's all done for our benefit.
You can't second guess God. He's always one step ahead of you...
Silly.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | February 17, 2009 12:30 PM
Methinks this “God” is strangely made
For something of such worth,
An introspective theist said
As plucked he up a single blade
Of grass, from off the earth:
Behold, quoth he, this tiny thing,
This single blade of grass,
Enough to make Walt Whitman sing—
They grow in millions every spring
Unnoticed as we pass.
But God counts every single leaf,
Each hair upon your head
(For bald men, he just counts their grief)
The reason that we know? In chief,
It’s what the Bible said.
But where is God when good men die
In wars, fought in His name?
He counts the grass—He can’t deny
He hears the wounded moan and cry—
He sits there, to His shame.
He mustn’t think; he mustn’t doubt,
This theist on the lawn;
His worship must remain devout;
One thought that he might do without
And poof—his God is gone.
He cannot help but smile and nod
It feels so good; so right.
He’d looked upon the face of God
And found it merely a façade—
And now he’s seen the light.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/02/theist-and-blade-of-grass.html
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 17, 2009 12:40 PM
Pumpkin trees. Somebody found the magic mushrooms.
Posted by: Ryk | February 17, 2009 12:46 PM
The funny part is that aside from the whole "gods will" thing it is more in character for a theist to think big pumpkins belong on big trees. Religion generally looks for casual connections like "big pumpkin belongs on big tree" or "thunder sounds like chariot wheels so thunder must be a gods chariot and that god must be throwing a lightning hammer." or "people who eat pork and shellfish sometimes get really sick and die therefore god must hate people eating these things."
Science looks for causal connections. For example "It is possible for pumpkins to grow large because they are on the ground and the vine doesn't need to support their weight." or "Pork and shellfish must in some cases carry pathogens that are harmful to humans."
Only a theist could have thought up the pumpkin in a tree bit. An atheist may have wondered why pumpkins don't grow on big trees but would not have expected that they should.
Posted by: rob | February 17, 2009 12:53 PM
'Twas brillig, and the slithy atheists
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware PZ Meyers, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jibjab bird, and shun
The frumious Dawkinsnatch!"
Holbo took his vorpal pumpkin in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Old Oak tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And as in uffish thought he stood,
PZ Meyers, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled Evo-Devo as he came!
One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal pumpkin went snicker-snack!
He left PZ perbafflexed, and with his vorpal pumpkin
He went galumphing back.
"And hast thou confuted PZ Meyers?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
And Halbo chortled in his joy.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy atheists
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Posted by: Brownian
|
February 17, 2009 12:56 PM
Geez, Cuttlefish. Go a little easier on God with respect to evil. Remember, He didn't make evil--it's somehow a necessary and logical result of our eating shellfish, wearing mixed fibres, and letting women have a say in household matters.
Then again, there's a real puzzler for the ID scientists--explain how it is that God so fine-tuned the universe that the smallest change in certain physical constants would've led to a universe incapable of supporting James Dobson and still he exists, yet get a tattoo or burn yeast or honey in a grain offering to God and it's total fucking chaos: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes.... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
February 17, 2009 1:28 PM
Let me see if I can parse this:
1. Atheist says the universe isn't well-designed.
2. Because there are wee acorns growing on huge trees and gigantic pumpkins growing on the ground.
3. Whereas, if there were a creator God involved, we'd have pumpkins hanging from oak trees and acorns growing on low shrubbery.
4. An acorn falls off its twig and lands in the atheist's eye, which hurts him.
5. Therefore, God.
You know, I actually think today's religious apologists make more sense.
The flow chart for this kind of thinking would look something like: head --> ass
The great irony in this kind of (il)logic is that I think it's much more sensible to have large fruit growing low to the ground, and small pods growing high on large trees. It just goes so much better with gravity.
Posted by: Grenangle | February 17, 2009 1:40 PM
We have the Bunya Bunya pine ( Araucaria bidwillii ) in Australia. They have to fence them off when they fruit as it's nut will kill pedestrians and damage cars.
Posted by: KI | February 17, 2009 1:49 PM
In Georgia, there are oak trees with acorns so big they leave dents on cars parked outside. Not quite the size of pumpkins, but as big as a small gourd.
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | February 17, 2009 1:55 PM
I fervently believe that the FSM, in all his noodly goodness, ate all the pumpkins from the pumpkin trees, thus rendering them extinct before we could discover them. This explains why his pasta is orange.
Posted by: Ryk | February 17, 2009 2:07 PM
Vine growing pumpkins on the other hand being better evolved to avoid the grasp of noodly appendages avoided being decimated and therefore prospered. It makes perfect sense now thanks.
Posted by: SteveM | February 17, 2009 2:09 PM
The argument is that God made acorns little so that they would not kill you when they fell. If it weren't for God's benevolence, pumpins would grow in trees and there would be carnage when they ripened.
I'm convinced.
Lisa: see this rock? I could tell you this rock repels tigers since you don't see any tigers around here.
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Posted by: arekksu | February 17, 2009 2:22 PM
well i'm convinced.
allah be praised!
Posted by: David Johnson | February 17, 2009 2:33 PM
"An imaginary atheist argues that in a well-designed universe, large oak trees ought to bear pumpkin-sized fruit, while little ground-hugging shrubberies out to have acorn-sized fruit. This is easily dismissed by the poet by having an acorn fall on the atheist's head."
Thus showing that the universe is at best *badly* designed and most likely not designed at all!
Or, IOW, not made by a god...
...this may not be the point he was trying to make.
Posted by: Die Anyway | February 17, 2009 2:43 PM
PZ sed: "An imaginary atheist argues that in a well-designed universe, large oak trees ought to bear pumpkin-sized fruit,..."
Puts me in mind of this quote:
"If there really was a God, pigeons would enjoy eating cigarette butts." - - Martin Willett
Besides, in a *well* designed universe, pumpkins would taste better and be edible without cooking.
Posted by: nothing's sacred | February 17, 2009 3:04 PM
The logic seems akin to saying that, if a drop of rain falls on an atheist, that proves that God exists because the atheist wasn't struck dead by lightning.
Posted by: Sili | February 17, 2009 3:05 PM
If there is no god, then explain this miracle:
We're using the Winter holiday to clean the shelves in the library at the community college (i.e. I have no holiday, myself). Which book do you think was the biggest one that I've had to handle today?
Yes! "Invertebrate Anatomy"!
If that is not a sign, then I don't know what is.
Posted by: plum grenville | February 17, 2009 3:05 PM
"Burbled Evo-Devo as he came!" That's beautiful, rob! I think Pharyngula could use 2 poets laureate.
Posted by: Daniel de Rauglaudre | February 17, 2009 4:13 PM
It comes from Jean de La Fontaine (1621-1695)'s fable "Le Gland et la Citrouille" (The Acorn and the Pumpkin). But in his version, it is not a question of an atheist, but of "un villageois" (a villager).
Posted by: Paulino | February 17, 2009 4:51 PM
Besides the coconut that poet never heard of the cannonball tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couroupita_guianensis
"Like coconut palms, the trees should not be planted near paths or near traffic filled areas, as the heavy nut is known to fall without notice"
nor of the jackfruit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackfruit
"The fruits can reach 36 kg (80 lbs) in weight and up to 90 cm (36 in) long and 50 cm (20 in) in diameter"
Posted by: Eyeoffaith | February 17, 2009 5:09 PM
To Sili @ #36. I bet your book on Invertebrate Anatomy had a spine!! :)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 17, 2009 5:20 PM
Young, punk kid.
Posted by: George | February 17, 2009 5:47 PM
Really!
Posted by: George | February 17, 2009 5:57 PM
I have another for #1 Glen D;
Durian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durian
Posted by: MH | February 17, 2009 6:05 PM
As the acorn bounced harmlessly off the atheist's head (thank you God!), a mosquito was injecting plasmodia into his bloodstream (damn you Satan!).If Ray Comfort ever uses the 'acorn argument', we'll know for sure that he's 'pulling a poe'.
Posted by: Defaithed | February 17, 2009 7:07 PM
Hey, PZ! I don't know if you noticed, but John Davison's "deadline" for the planetary discrediting of "prominent atheists" – he means you and Dawkins specifically! - has come and gone this month.
http://www.defaithed.com/blog/atheists_discredited
Are you feeling discredited? May we now all pelt you with acorns? Please? : )
Posted by: John Morales | February 17, 2009 7:14 PM
Defaithed @45, good one!
Posted by: Ramiro Quai | February 17, 2009 7:37 PM
My grandma taught me a better and shorter one, in Spanish. Basically, a sparrow soils a man hat, and the man thanks God for not having made oxen capable of flight.
Andando por un caminito
entre naranjos y flores
me ensuciaron el sombrero
los gorriones
en vez de haberme enojado
bendije de Dios las leyes
que si volaran los bueyes
como me hubieran dejado!
Posted by: Ty | February 17, 2009 7:57 PM
"Hey, PZ! I don't know if you noticed, but John Davison's "deadline" for the planetary discrediting of "prominent atheists" – he means you and Dawkins specifically! - has come and gone this month."
Has he moved to Australia yet?
BHO won the white house, and the Dems control both houses in congress.
Posted by: Smidgy | February 17, 2009 7:57 PM
Surely, if, as various theists argue, the world was designed by God for the convenience of humans, both pumpkins AND acorns would be on low-hanging shrubs - simply so we could harvest them easily?
Posted by: Ty | February 17, 2009 8:01 PM
"Surely, if, as various theists argue, the world was designed by God for the convenience of humans, both pumpkins AND acorns would be on low-hanging shrubs - simply so we could harvest them easily?"
To make it really convenient, there should be easy to harvest pumpkin pie trees.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 17, 2009 8:10 PM
Don't even joke about that. We managed to export Ken Ham; we certainly don't want the weapons-grade stupiditdy of JAD messing up our nice (if you don't count the burnt-to-a-crisp parts or the sodden, flooded parts) country.
Oh, they had those in Eden before the Fall. The T-Rexes used to enjoy a nice pumpkin pie after they finished eating the coconuts their huge teeth were obviously created to husk.
Posted by: ShadowWalkyr | February 17, 2009 8:57 PM
My wife and I both independantly summed it up the same basic way: "What a crappy poem."
Posted by: Abey George | February 17, 2009 11:37 PM
What about coconuts!
Posted by: SteveL | February 17, 2009 11:41 PM
Way to turn a phrase, Professor! You should seriously think about writing a pop science book. It will sell.Posted by: Menyambal | February 18, 2009 12:32 AM
I am reminded of a poem from the Ozarks:
"If a chigger was bigger,
as big as a cow,
with a digger as big
as a sub-soiling plow,
tell me, picnic-er,
where would you be now?"
I'm voting for durian as the scariest fruit--those spines are wicked. I once had a durian roll across my bare foot--taking one to the head would be fatal. (BTW, if you wait for durian to fall off the tree, the nasty taste is overpowering. Get ones that have been lopped . . . by an experienced, other person.)
Posted by: FrodoSaves | February 18, 2009 4:50 AM
Coconuts? Durians? Jackfruit? Ha! Remember when giant sloths used to grow in trees?
Posted by: lovable liberal | February 18, 2009 10:07 AM
A creationist koan! Atheist grasshopper was enlightened!
Posted by: Rrr | February 18, 2009 10:12 AM
#16 prosaica and #47 Ramiro Quai reminded me of this 14-minute movie
De Düva (The Dove). "1968 parody of Ingmar Bergman, with a young Madeleine Kahn in the cast, and co-directed by George Coe. Quite amusing." I must agree. It features a weird kind of Polish-Swedish Chef spoken dialogue, fortunately subtitled. B/W, of course, and a bit gloomy and shaky for realism. Brilliant!
Posted by: Yaacov | February 19, 2009 3:43 AM
"Birdy, birdy in the sky,
don't go doo doo in my eye,
boy I'm glad that cows don't fly!
birdy, birdy in the sky."
from my childhood, (back in the Cretaceous).
Posted by: Negi | February 19, 2009 2:16 PM
This reminded me of a talk I recently attended about the Banach-Tarski paradox. The lecturer said, "You have a pumpkin, you split it into six very specific parts and put them back together and then you have two pumpkins! Irrelevant but funny?