Destroying Russell's Teapot (With Lasers!)

[CatholicWhovian]

Anyone who has encountered arguments for and against the existence of God has encountered Russell’s Teapot. I know the argument is complete balderdash but how can I disprove - or the more appropriate word “destroy” it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot

 

[polytropos]

Well, as Peter van Inwagen has pointed out, the argument (at least as it is often uses) makes use of some epistemological principles that we would not extend elsewhere.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Anyone who has encountered arguments for and against the existence of God has encountered Russell’s Teapot. I know the argument is complete balderdash but how can I disprove - or the more appropriate word “destroy” it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot

The point is that no one can prove God does not exist. Therefore there are no atheists who know, beyond doubt, that God does not exist. And Russel should have acknowledged this. Atheism is thus reduced to a faith.

The proofs of God’s existence, as Thomas Aquinas pointed out in his Five Ways, are absolutely certain - once one truly understands the arguments. Indeed, even Aristotle’s proof for the existence of God is certain once one eliminates his Celestial Mechanics and goes directly to the Unmoved Mover, and once one has tweaked the rest of the argument to allow the Unmoved Mover to move beings composed of potency and act.

Linus2nd.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Anyone who has encountered arguments for and against the existence of God has encountered Russell’s Teapot. I know the argument is complete balderdash but how can I disprove - or the more appropriate word “destroy” it?

Russell’s teapot isn’t an argument that disproves God. It’s an argument of burden of proof and remaining agnostic on a matter until convinced by other information. If you happen to encounter some one that is an agnostic atheist they won’t tell you that God is disproved or known to not exist. Rather they will tell you in some way or another that they have not yet been convinced of a god-proposition.

 

[ngill09]

The point is that no one can prove God does not exist. Therefore there are no atheists who know, beyond doubt, that God does not exist. And Russel should have acknowledged this. Atheism is thus reduced to a faith.

The proofs of God’s existence, as Thomas Aquinas pointed out in his Five Ways, are absolutely certain - once one truly understands the arguments. Indeed, even Aristotle’s proof for the existence of God is certain once one eliminates his Celestial Mechanics and goes directly to the Unmoved Mover, and once one has tweaked the rest of the argument to allow the Unmoved Mover to move beings composed of potency and act.

Linus2nd.

And this is why Russell’s Teapot is invoked. Atheism thus takes the same “faith” that it takes to not believe there’s a teapot floating around in space.

The way to “destroy” it is to prove it a poor analogy by providing a good argument or evidence for God’s existence. Russell’s Teapot is invoked simply to illustrate that it doesn’t take much to disbelieve things for which there is no evidence.

And just saying “Aquinas’ arguments prove God with absolute certainty” is not actually an argument in itself.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And this is why Russell’s Teapot is invoked. Atheism thus takes the same “faith” that it takes to not believe there’s a teapot floating around in space.

The way to “destroy” it is to prove it a poor analogy by providing a good argument or evidence for God’s existence. Russell’s Teapot is invoked simply to illustrate that it doesn’t take much to disbelieve things for which there is no evidence.

And just saying “Aquinas’ arguments prove God with absolute certainty” is not actually an argument in itself.

Brave words. Thomas’ arguments are the proof. Of course not everyone is capable of understanding them, it does require a great deal of knowledge and understanding of both Aristotle and Thomas. But there are many other sound arguments which can lead one to God’s existence. In all of these arguments one must have an opern mind. And it is my experience from the atheists and agnostics who show up here that they do not have an open mind. Most of them have an " ax " of some sort to grind and they certainly won’t let God stand in the way. And many of them are " young heads full of mush " just following the most attractive pied pieper.

Linus2nd

 

[ngill09]

Brave words. Thomas’ arguments are the proof. Of course not everyone is capable of understanding them, it does require a great deal of knowledge and understanding of both Aristotle and Thomas. But there are many other sound arguments which can lead one to God’s existence. In all of these arguments one must have an opern mind. And it is my experience from the atheists and agnostics who show up here that they do not have an open mind. Most of them have an " ax " of some sort to grind and they certainly won’t let God stand in the way. And many of them are " young heads full of mush " just following the most attractive pied pieper.

Linus2nd

Right, I’ll just ignore the ad hominem. This thread is not about proving God exists, it’s about addressing the Teapot analogy, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other of those things. And the way to address those is to provide reasoned argument or evidence, not to just assert that there exists undeniable proofs.

As to the OP, the “argument” is not balderdash as its point was proven in post #3, because there do exist religious people who assert that not believing an unproven proposition takes some great leap of faith.

 

[adawgj]

I’m just wondering what will happen to the tea after the tea pot is broken?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And just saying “Aquinas’ arguments prove God with absolute certainty” is not actually an argument in itself.

I agree with this. It’s reasonable to argue that if the arguments were absolutely certain, there would hardly be anyone who disagrees with them. But that obviously is not the case. I prefer to think of the arguments as absolutely plausible, especially the cosmological and the teleological arguments.

What’s remarkable about Russell is how deep he could be on most subjects, but how shallow he could be about religion. Well, perhaps not remarkable but more predictable since he declared himself an agnostic by his 16th birthday.

 

[MPat]

And this is why Russell’s Teapot is invoked. Atheism thus takes the same “faith” that it takes to not believe there’s a teapot floating around in space.

The way to “destroy” it is to prove it a poor analogy by providing a good argument or evidence for God’s existence. Russell’s Teapot is invoked simply to illustrate that it doesn’t take much to disbelieve things for which there is no evidence.

Actually, we do not even need a good argument. For, well, we do not even have a weak argument in favour of existence of that teapot…

And just saying “Aquinas’ arguments prove God with absolute certainty” is not actually an argument in itself.

It is, although it is (obviously) much weaker than the arguments it mentions. Argument from authority might not be a strong argument, but at least it is an argument. Actually, one cannot make even such argument in favour of existence of such a teapot, as, for example, Russell himself didn’t manage to say that “his teapot” exists.

By the way, I wonder if challenging someone who presented a “Russell Teapot” argument to make it a non-hypothetical (that is, to say that such a teapot exists - and to say so in public) wouldn’t work in many cases as well…

 

[tdgesq]

Russell’s teapot isn’t an argument that disproves God. It’s an argument of burden of proof and remaining agnostic on a matter until convinced by other information. If you happen to encounter some one that is an agnostic atheist they won’t tell you that God is disproved or known to not exist. Rather they will tell you in some way or another that they have not yet been convinced of a god-proposition.

I agree, which is why I think the relevance of Russell’s teapot is of limited usefulness in modern times. I don’t know any theists (I have no doubt there may be some) who assert that a person making no truth claim about the existence of God is required to explain why God doesn’t exist. The agnostic who states, “I don’t know if God exists or not,” isn’t asserting anything about God’s existence. In principle, the non-theist who claims “I don’t believe God exists, but I can’t prove it,” hasn’t made a truth claim. A mere belief is not a claim to knowledge. Even the agnostic atheist who says, “I don’t believe God exists because I don’t perceive enough evidence to convince me,” isn’t claiming that God doesn’t exist. So I think Russell’s premise that theist’s require non-theists to bear the burden of proof for God’s non-existence is largely incorrect today

On the other hand, we have the new atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al) who do make affirmative truth claims about God’s existence. They claim, quite enthusiastically and bombastically, that God doesn’t exist. Does Russell’s teapot exempt them from providing reasons for their position? Of course not, because failure to provide any reasons for the conclusion would be a circular argument and, thus, a logical fallacy. By logical necessity there must be some explanation given. It has nothing to do with Russell’s teapot or the demands of theists upon non-theists or who ought to bear the burden of proof.

The same can be said of theists who make truth claims about the non-existence of things. Do theists claim that Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist? I don’t know of any, but it would be perfectly permissible to to say “I don’t know if it exists or not.” Just for the fun of it, I am here claiming right now that Russell’s teapot does not exist. By making that truth claim I am required to give a reason for it by logical necessity, just as the new atheist is required to when he claims that God doesn’t exist. I would have to give reasons for why the teapot doesn’t exist, and I think there are good reasons to claim it’s non-existence; but the new atheists are also required to give reasons, and they do in fact give reasons, whether you believe they are true or not.

So I think Russell’s teapot fails to be relevant to us today because:

(1) The premise is false that theist’s require non-theist’s to prove God’s non-existence in the absence of a truth claim.

(2) Any truth claim, by either an atheist or a theist, requires reasons to support it by logical necessity.

(3) Atheists and theists do in fact give reasons for their respective claims of non-existence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One aspect of Russell’s Teapot that he fails to mention, is that no one really cares whether his Teapot exists. The question of God matters very much to everyone, even atheists. So in at least one respect Russell is offering a false analogy by comparing a Teapot to God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Right, I’ll just ignore the ad hominem. This thread is not about proving God exists, it’s about addressing the Teapot analogy, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other of those things. And the way to address those is to provide reasoned argument or evidence, not to just assert that there exists undeniable proofs.

As to the OP, the “argument” is not balderdash as its point was proven in post #3, because there do exist religious people who assert that not believing an unproven proposition takes some great leap of faith.

Divine Revelation is the proof of Faith. " The Spirit blows where it will…Some are called, few are chosen…" If one digs in his heels, it is no wonder he doubts or disbelieves. Christ said, " …You ask for signs, you have the Prophets and you have not believed. You will be given no sign…"

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree with this. It’s reasonable to argue that if the arguments were absolutely certain, there would hardly be anyone who disagrees with them. But that obviously is not the case. I prefer to think of the arguments as absolutely plausible, especially the cosmological and the teleological arguments.

What’s remarkable about Russell is how deep he could be on most subjects, but how shallow he could be about religion. Well, perhaps not remarkable but more predictable since he declared himself an agnostic by his 16th birthday.

Perhaps " absolute " is too strong. But I would say it is certain to a very high degree to those who understand them. Of course Divine Revelation provides absolute certainty.

Linus2nd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

On the other hand, we have the new atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, et al) who do make affirmative truth claims about God’s existence. They claim, quite enthusiastically and bombastically, that God doesn’t exist.

People that make the truth claim that there are no gods fall into the category of “strong atheist.” A “new atheist” tends to be a strong atheist that is promoting a social/political agenda. But a strong atheist may or may not be a new atheist.

The same can be said of theists who make truth claims about the non-existence of things. Do theists claim that Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist? I don’t know of any, but it would be perfectly permissible to to say “I don’t know if it exists or not.” Just for the fun of it, I am here claiming right now that Russell’s teapot does not exist.

Hmmm…that sounds like some one engaging in a hypothetical, but not asserting the hypothetical is actually true.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

These days, between space stations filled with floating debris (not all hygienic), space junk, and astronauts with a sense of humour, there probably is a teapot floating around between Earth and Mars.

More than likely its got “Betrand Russell” engraved on one side, and “Our Knowledge of the External World as a field for Scientific Method in Philosophy” on the other if some practical joker of an astronaut has real finesse.

 

[tdgesq]

People that make the truth claim that there are no gods fall into the category of “strong atheist.” A “new atheist” tends to be a strong atheist that is promoting a social/political agenda. But a strong atheist may or may not be a new atheist.

I’m good with whatever labels non-theists use to identify themselves. I just used the new atheists as an example because of their notoriety.

Hmmm…that sounds like some one engaging in a hypothetical, but not asserting the hypothetical is actually true.

Not really, although it would be difficult to criticize me for that since the teapot itself is a hypothetical. Not even Russell believed it.

What I really did is made a truth claim and then didn’t give any reasons to support it. I just asserted that I did have reasons. You would be right to accuse me of begging the question for that. I am happy to provide the reasons if you like. Before I do though, I have a question. Is the following a good argument?

(1) If there is no evidence for the existence of a thing, then that thing does not exist.
(2) There is no evidence for the existence of Russell’s teapot.
(3) Therefore, Russell’s teapot does not exist.

This is modus ponens, so valid as to form. Does this argument prove that Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Before I do though, I have a question. Is the following a good argument?

(1) If there is no evidence for the existence of a thing, then that thing does not exist.

This might be true, but since there being no evidence is indistinguishable from there being no evidence within reach or other conditions such as evidence being present but not understood then this is something I could only see being useful within certain constraints. In general how can we know there’s no evidence for some proposed object?

Ex: Let’s say I may the truth claim there are no roaches in my house. You search high and low, look within the walls, the air ducts, and ever space that you can think to look. Does that mean that there is actually no evidence for a roach in my house?

(2) There is no evidence for the existence of Russell’s teapot.

There’s no evidence of which we know…

(3) Therefore, Russell’s teapot does not exist.

We do not know that it exists. We do not know that it does not exist. It’s not a truth claim that we could validate.

I called a friend that is not familiar with the tea pot scenario and said to him “If I told you there is a tea pot in orbit…do you believe me?” After convincing him this wasn’t a trick question he said "It’s a possibility, I don’t know if it’s there or not, so I can only treat it as a possibility… " (the other things he said further articulated his position).

BTW: if you can think of anything else to ask him given his unfamiliarity with the scenario let me know. He’s supposed to be calling me back in a few hours.

This is modus ponens, so valid as to form. Does this argument prove that Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist?

Nope. It’s a proposition whose truth value could not be validated.

 

[donohueb]

Usually you would find teapots in a kitchen. Not orbiting the planet.

However if hit with this argument then I would just say that there is a secret NASA satellite in my kitchen at home!

They may laugh out loud but then so would I. Their argument is a nonsense. I would say, that if you think that there is a possibility of a teapot orbiting the Earth then there is an equal possibility of a secret NASA satellite in my kitchen. If you think that the satellite in my kitchen could not be true then your teapot could not be true.

I would say to them that to stretch the non existance of a teapot in space or the non existance of a satellite in my kitchen is a proof that God does not exist, then you sir are an idiot!

Not very Christian, I know. But sometimes you have to say such things. Also rolling on the floor and laughing at their silliness is also a good way to destroy thier arguments.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Usually you would find teapots in a kitchen. Not orbiting the planet.

However if hit with this argument then I would just say that there is a secret NASA satellite in my kitchen at home!

Sorry, I can’t tell what you are getting at.