Bertrandd Russell's China Teapot

[ThinkingSapien]

One cannot mock sincerely?

If one doesn’t have the conviction that a proposition is true and states her stance I don’t think the declaration of her position is necessarily mocking or ridiculing the proposition. While its possible to make expressions that mock or ridicule I don’t see anything that indicates that’s what was being done here.

 

[Bagheera]

That is a typical atheist argument, that there are no reasons the heart knows that the head does not also know.

The argument is that the number of people and their sincerity counts for nothing as evidence for the reality of their beliefs.

I take them all very seriously, especially the children who honestly believe in Santa Claus.

Do you also take seriously what they believe in? Because that is the point. I take the zillions of christians seriously, in the sense that I accept their honesty when then they profess their beliefs. But that does not translate into seriously considering what they believe in.

That would only be a good argument is you believe that God should be visible through a telescope!

Since God is supposed to interact constantly with the physical reality, it reasonable to demand objective, repeatable evidence for his existence.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Thinking

If one doesn’t have the conviction that a proposition is true and states her stance I don’t think the declaration of her position is necessarily mocking or ridiculing the proposition. While its possible to make expressions that mock or ridicule I don’t see anything that indicates that’s what was being done here. **

I think it is mocking to put Christianity in the grave with Greek and Scandinavian mythology.

Let’s agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Bagheera

Since God is supposed to interact constantly with the physical reality, it reasonable to demand objective, repeatable evidence for his existence. **

Yes, but not evidence subject to the strictures of science and scientism, which you suggest when you say “objective, repeatable evidence.”

The argument is that the number of people and their sincerity counts for nothing as evidence for the reality of their beliefs.

It doesn’t have to count as nothing unless you might be a victim of scientism. Cognitive experiences are not the only ones we have. We also exist with intuition and imagination and desire and hope. To say these count as nothing is not a holistic approach to knowledge and truth. As Pascal said, “The heart has reasons reason cannot know.”

**Do you also take seriously what they believe in? Because that is the point. I take the zillions of christians seriously, in the sense that I accept their honesty when then they profess their beliefs. But that does not translate into seriously considering what they believe in. **

Suppose you had your own theory about the creation of the universe. Suppose that theory went up against the tens of thousands of scientists who believe in the Big Bang, which contradicts your theory. Would you not be obliged to take seriously that theory of the Big Bang as possibly true, and your own theory as possibly false?

That might be the way an atheist should think about the zillions of theists. They have an experience of God that the atheist does not recognize as valid because he can’t quantify it or repeat it in some scientific laboratory. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. That might mean it’s possibly true and atheism is possibly false. You see, of course, that you cannot be certain that God does not exist. So if zillions of people say He does exist, and they worship him by different names and concepts, you needn’t think the very idea of the Christian God is preposterous as the pantheons of Olympus and Valhalla, which Russell does mock as absurd and no more real than a china teapot circling the planet.

 

[Bagheera]

Yes, but not evidence subject to the strictures of science and scientism, which you suggest when you say “objective, repeatable evidence.”

Anything and everything that happens in the physical reality IS subject to the rational method, which was adopted by science, since it is the only method to separate the true and false statements about the physical reality.

It doesn’t have to count as nothing unless you might be a victim of scientism. Cognitive experiences are not the only ones we have. We also exist with intuition and imagination and desire and hope. To say these count as nothing is not a holistic approach to knowledge and truth. As Pascal said, “The heart has reasons reason cannot know.”

Pascal’s statement is baloney. The “heart” which is just a dumb euphemism for emotions cannot be taken seriously if it opposes the “cold” logic and reason. Of course many people act on emotional impulses alone, the more fools they are. Intuition, imagination, desire and hope are perfectly fine, but they are not relevant in the face of opposing FACTS and they cannot be used to separate true and false statement about reality. Just read Hebrews 11:1 (Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see).

Suppose you had your own theory about the creation of the universe. Suppose that theory went up against the tens of thousands of scientists who believe in the Big Bang, which contradicts your theory. Would you not be obliged to take seriously that theory of the Big Bang as possibly true, and your own theory as possibly false?

If those thousands of scientists can substantiate what they say, then they must be taken seriously. But not until then. The point is that it does not matter, WHO said it, what matters is: “WHAT is being said”. Thousands of New Agers swear by the curative powers of pyramidal shapes, but of course they cannot bring up evidence to support their beliefs. The number of those believers does not lend credibility to their beliefs. The honesty of those believers does not lend credibility to their beliefs.

That might be the way an atheist should think about the zillions of theists. They have an experience of God that the atheist does not recognize as valid because he can’t quantify it or repeat it in some scientific laboratory.

They SAY that they had some mystical “experience” of God. The problem is that they cannot even tell us HOW to obtain that “mystical” experience.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. That might mean it’s possibly true and atheism is possibly false.

Maybe. But as long as there is no objective evidence, they have no “right” to contend that they are “right”. (Puns intended). Or that they should be taken seriously.

You see, of course, that you cannot be certain that God does not exist.

I can be absolutely certain that “married bachelors” do not and cannot exist. The problem is that your God is the epitome of “married bachelors” composed of logically contradictory attributes.

So if zillions of people say He does exist, and they worship him by different names and concepts, you needn’t think the very idea of the Christian God is preposterous as the pantheons of Olympus and Valhalla, which Russell does mock as absurd and no more real than a china teapot circling the planet.

Since the available evidence is exactly the same for the christian God and for Zeus, it is perfectly rational to place them into the same basket, which has the label of “mysticism”.

 

[anthonymarie]

The problem is he is not claiming this teapot is the logical cause of anything observable. Our claim is that God is the logical cause of something observable. Similarly he is not claiming to have had an encounter with the teapot, an encounter which many others claim to have had too. Many Christians do give witness to an encounter with our God, often Christians we know and trust. He claims there is no way to come to know this teapot because of the constraints he has put on the scenario but we claim there is a way to come to know our God. Hence the analogy does not hold.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Bagheera

Pascal’s statement is baloney. The “heart” which is just a dumb euphemism for emotions cannot be taken seriously if it opposes the “cold” logic and reason. Of course many people act on emotional impulses alone, the more fools they are. Intuition, imagination, desire and hope are perfectly fine, but they are not relevant in the face of opposing FACTS and they cannot be used to separate true and false statement about reality. Just read Hebrews 11:1 (Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see). **

Again, there is no way to confront God directly by scientific evidence. So if one is a victim of scientism, the dialogue with theists is over right from the get-go.

Pascal’s statement is not baloney. What’s baloney is that you can say God doesn’t exist because he is not subject to a scientific experiment.

If those thousands of scientists can substantiate what they say, then they must be taken seriously.

Many Christians can substantiate what they believe in by the effect of what they believe in on their lives. An atheist cannot see the evidence because he has shut his eyes to it.

**They SAY that they had some mystical “experience” of God. The problem is that they cannot even tell us HOW to obtain that “mystical” experience. **

As no one can tell you how to be a Shakespeare or an Einstein. There’s a genius in mysticism.

Maybe. But as long as there is no objective evidence, they have no “right” to contend that they are "right"

And if you have no objective evidence that God does not exist, you have no right to contend you are right.

I I can be absolutely certain that “married bachelors” do not and cannot exist. The problem is that your God is the epitome of “married bachelors” composed of logically contradictory attributes.

Light appears to be both particles and waves, logically contradictory … yet light exists.
We do not contend that God is a married bachelor. Nor do we contend that God is both Love and Hate. To which logically contradictory attributes do you refer? And why would God be subject to our principles of logic when he created them for us?
**
Since the available evidence is exactly the same for the christian God and for Zeus, it is perfectly rational to place them into the same basket, which has the label of “mysticism”.**

Why is it exactly the same? When explaining the first day of Creation, did Zeus say “Let there be light!” I don’t think so.

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[Lion_IRC]

The persuasive burden of proof rests on whoever wants to persuade.
Atheists are entitled to remain unpersuasive for as long as they wish.

 

[ccmnxc]

That is not assumed, nor it is exploited in the argument. It is enough that one part of the interaction happens in the physical realm.

This is not part of the assumptions. How is that interaction initiated by the “non-physical” agent is not important. It can be full “magic”, for all we care. But, since the interaction partially happens within the physical world, it can be “caught red-handed” at the interface level. That is why this is called the “interface problem”.

All I’ve been finding for the interface problem is an area of study in philosophy of the mind. Presumably, this is not what you are referring to, so I think you’ll need to unpack more what you mean by “interface problem” and why we out to actually “see” something.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My proposition is more serious than that. I say that the number of people, who honestly believe anything from the very bottom of their “heart” does not even count as the **flimsiest **kind of evidence (let alone any kind of “proof”).

So you think that the millions of New Agers, who honestly believe their propositions, or the many millions of Muslims, who fervently believe that Allah personally dictated the Koran to Mohammed, or the many millions of children, who honestly believe the Santa Claus story, should be taken seriously, just because all of then are very honest, and all of them fervently believe what they profess?

We have been listening to you for hundreds and thousands of years, and none of the “evidence” you can bring up is objective and can be verified independently.

You will know when you die. You will see the proof then. In the meantime, your presence here indicates more interest than you are letting on . Because if you didn’t have some doubt in your own mind, you wouldn’t bother with all of us irrational folks. After all, it is no skin off your nose if we are irrational in our beliefs - as long as we lead otherwise good and productive lives. Right? How does that harm you any? And hey, we have the same right to be irrational as anyone else, it is still a free country ( U.S.A.),

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Bagheera

We have been listening to you for hundreds and thousands of years, and none of the “evidence” you can bring up is objective and can be verified independently.**

Again, the evidence will never convince you. A miracle could happen, altogether in your favor, but you would not recognize it as such. It would be a stroke of luck, a coincidence, good timing, or something “science cannot explain now but eventually will be able to explain.”

I suspect that If you don’t want to see God with your heart, you will never see him with your head.

God wants our heads and our hearts together. He does not want a heartless head.

 

[Bagheera]

All I’ve been finding for the interface problem is an area of study in philosophy of the mind. Presumably, this is not what you are referring to, so I think you’ll need to unpack more what you mean by “interface problem” and why we out to actually “see” something.

It should be obvious.

1. Even theists understand that the one can gain knowledge about the physical world by performing the observation first. Anything and everything is subject to observation in the physical world - either directly or indirectly.
2. Theist also say that God constantly interacts with the physical reality. This interaction partially happens in the physical realm. “How” God does this is unknown and unknowable to us, because it does NOT happen within the physical world. That is not the question at this moment.
3. Conclusion: since everything within the physical world is subject to the scientific method (observation, etc…) and since the effect of God’s interaction happens in the physical world, therefore it is subject to the scientific method.

The theists usually attempt to “cop out” by saying that God is non-physical, and therefore not subject to physical proof / evidence. (Of course they conveniently “forget” that God allegedly manifested himself in the physical world, many times.) As explained above, the interface is partially physical, and as such subject to observation. That is all.

 

[Bagheera]

You will know when you die. You will see the proof then.

Gotta love these transcendental “warnings” or “threats”. You forgot to add a satanic laughter and the words: “of course it will be too late for you to do anything about it at that time, and you will burn in hell forever!”. Was it Augustine who said that part of the heavenly bliss is the joy of watching the suffering of the damned in hell?

In the meantime, your presence here indicates more interest than you are letting on . Because if you didn’t have some doubt in your own mind, you wouldn’t bother with all of us irrational folks. After all, it is no skin off your nose if we are irrational in our beliefs - as long as we lead otherwise good and productive lives. Right? How does that harm you any? And hey, we have the same right to be irrational as anyone else, it is still a free country ( U.S.A.),

Oh, I am simply collecting material for a study, to analyze the different ways and means of trying to rationalize the irrationality of certain beliefs. When I first read 1984, I was certain that Orwell has exaggerated, and there is no such thing as “doublethink”. When I started to look around on some religious boards, I found out that he was right, and I was wrong…

 

[Bagheera]

There’s a genius in mysticism.

Oh, brother !!!

And if you have no objective evidence that God does not exist, you have no right to contend you are right.

I do not contend that I am right. All I say that there is no evidence for God, which can be trusted. And you (again) committed the fallacy of demanding “proof” for a negative. Will you never learn?

Again, the evidence will never convince you.

Do I see your “omniscience” speaking here? There are lots of ways to convince me. However, if I would tell you, then the usual “cop-out” would follow: “God is not a vending machine!” and “how dare you to dictate what God should perform for you!”… and stuff like that.

I suspect that If you don’t want to see God with your heart, you will never see him with your head.

God wants our heads and our hearts together. He does not want a heartless head.

More examples of your “omniscience”? Well, it is his loss. Allegedly he wishes to see everyone “saved” and it would be child’s play to “cure” me of my skepticism, yet he does not life his imaginary little finger. Before some idiot jumps is and starts to babble about my precious “free will”, let me tell that having positive information about God’s existence would in no way compel me to “love” or “worship” him.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Gotta love these transcendental “warnings” or “threats”. You forgot to add a satanic laughter and the words: “of course it will be too late for you to do anything about it at that time, and you will burn in hell forever!”. Was it Augustine who said that part of the heavenly bliss is the joy of watching the suffering of the damned in hell?

Oh, I am simply collecting material for a study, to analyze the different ways and means of trying to rationalize the irrationality of certain beliefs. When I first read 1984, I was certain that Orwell has exaggerated, and there is no such thing as “doublethink”. When I started to look around on some religious boards, I found out that he was right, and I was wrong…

Sorry you misunderstood my comment. I was thinking of Mabel Brand in Lord of the World by Robert Hugh Benson. She had opted for euthenasia to end her despair. As she was loosing consciousness she had a vision in which " she understood. " You can read the novel here : readcentral.com/book/Robert-Hugh-Benson/Read-Lord-of-the-World-Online

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Bagheera

More examples of your “omniscience”? Well, it is his loss. Allegedly he wishes to see everyone “saved” and it would be child’s play to “cure” me of my skepticism, yet he does not life his imaginary little finger.**

He was lifted up on the cross for your sins and mine. You could stand to do a little lifting of your own?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**bagheera

I do not contend that I am right. All I say that there is no evidence for God, which can be trusted. And you (again) committed the fallacy of demanding “proof” for a negative. Will you never learn? **

This is your fallacy. If someone tells me there is a great bear outside my door, and someone tells me there is not a great bear outside my door, either way I want proof. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

If I told you there was life on other planets in the universe, you would say “Prove it.”.

If I told you there was life nowhere in the universe but on this planet, you would say “Prove it.”

You are free to believe either proposition without proof. You have chosen to believe the negative without proof. I have faith in God. You have faith in Nogod.

Atheist Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[Contarini]

**In 1952 the philosopher Bertrand Russell said this:

“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

In 1958 Russell said this.

“I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.”

This, Russell wants us to believe, is a reasonable rationale for rejecting the existence of God.**

What say you?

Well, I think the existence of the Christian God (as Pope Francis would say, there really isn’t any such being–there is just God, a point atheists almost never understand) is a lot more probable than the existence of the gods of Olympus and Valhalla. But I think the existence of the latter is a lot more probable than the existence of said china teapot. If you don’t think tradition and widely reported human experience (not to mention sheer beauty) have any evidentiary value, then you have standards of evidence that make it hard for me to have a serious discussion with you. (The “you” not being you the poster but Russell and those who think like him.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It should be obvious.

1. Even theists understand that the one can gain knowledge about the physical world by performing the observation first. Anything and everything is subject to observation in the physical world - either directly or indirectly.
2. Theist also say that God constantly interacts with the physical reality. This interaction partially happens in the physical realm. “How” God does this is unknown and unknowable to us, because it does NOT happen within the physical world. That is not the question at this moment.
3. Conclusion: since everything within the physical world is subject to the scientific method (observation, etc…) and since the effect of God’s interaction happens in the physical world, therefore it is subject to the scientific method.

The theists usually attempt to “cop out” by saying that God is non-physical, and therefore not subject to physical proof / evidence. (Of course they conveniently “forget” that God allegedly manifested himself in the physical world, many times.) As explained above, the interface is partially physical, and as such subject to observation. That is all.

Right. The phenomena are subject to observation. The cause isn’t. The best explanation for the observed phenomena of the physical universe is an eternal, non-physical, perfect cause “which all call God.” This is obscured for you and other modern non-theists by the cultural prejudice toward scientific explanation, which by definition only accounts for physical causes. When you ask the “ultimate cause” question, you necessarily get a theistic answer. The question is whether you should ask the question in the first place. And that’s a real question Buddhists and Jains, for instance, agree with Western atheists that there’s no need to.

Edwin

 

[Bagheera]

He was lifted up on the cross for your sins and mine. You could stand to do a little lifting of your own?

I wish you (both personally and generally) would stop quoting a story as if it were something to consider.

This is your fallacy. If someone tells me there is a great bear outside my door, and someone tells me there is not a great bear outside my door, either way I want proof. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

The existence of a bear cannot be properly used as an analogy. But, let’s contemplate it for a second. To ascertain the existence or the absence of a bear, all you have to do is: “look”. What method can I use to find out the existence of God? I asked for a method many times. There is no answer, only an evasion stating that God cannot be placed into a test tube, or God cannot be forced to become a vending machine… I am ready to perform an experiment, with a stipulated ending time. But NOT something open ended, like “pray, and eventually, if it pleases God, then he will manifest himself to you”.

If I told you there was life on other planets in the universe, you would say “Prove it.”.

If I told you there was life nowhere in the universe but on this planet, you would say “Prove it.”

Speak for yourself. Only you would demand the “proof” for nonexistence.