Destroying Russell's Teapot (With Lasers!)

[Ion]

It’s a tricky abuse of logic. Not only makes an analogy with a situation where is no gain anyway, but puts unique events out of reason. For example the coming into existence of the first living cell: either way you can’t get any logical conclusion using his pot.
The trick comes when getting something out of reason gives you the liberty of doing nothing, which is the atheists desire when it is about God.

I would like to add that faith is an essential part of our mind. His pot suggest that faith is built only on experiments which is totally false.

 

[ANewWorld]

Not only makes an analogy with a situation where is no gain anyway, but puts unique events out of reason. For example the coming into existence of the first living cell: either way you can’t get any logical conclusion using his pot.
The trick comes when getting something out of reason gives you the liberty of doing nothing, which is the atheists desire when it is about God.

Not sure what you even mean by no gain, so I’ll address the other parts of your statement.

With regard to it putting unique events out of reason, that’s demonstrably false because you have a false underlying assumption that repeatability is the only type of evidence. For example, on July 20, 1969, the United States successfully put men on the moon. This event is unique in that the date and time it happened will never occur again, the mean distance from the Earth to the moon was a value that it will never be again (the moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth), Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin never had been on the moon and won’t be again, etc. I will even assume you did not mean to construe unique in this broad of a sense, though this sense is valid. The event was still unique at the time in that no one had ever walked on the moon before. Yet, there is plenty of evidence to indicate it happened.

The formation of the first cell falls victim to the same false premise. There’s evidence for a first cell because we have living things made out of cells and we have a boundary shortly after the Big Bang occurred when we know time and physical laws as currently understood became valid. Thus, at least with in the constraints of the last 13.7 billion years, we know that there was a first living cell because we are dealing with finite time and matter. Russell’s Teapot could quite properly be applied to an assertion about the precise conditions and mechanisms by which that first cell came into existence. It could not be applied to the fact that it did.

There’s not really much to say regarding your unfounded assertion regarding atheists that at least several hundred million people all have the same desires and those desires are the same because of lack of belief in the proposition of gods. This is no more to the point than a Muslim person asserting that Christians decide to let women work because Christians are infidels, or any other of an innumerable list of accusations or stereotypes that could be levied at a particular group.

 

[Ion]

Not sure what you even mean by no gain, so I’ll address the other parts of your statement.

With regard to it putting unique events out of reason, that’s demonstrably false because you have a false underlying assumption that repeatability is the only type of evidence. For example, on July 20, 1969, the United States successfully put men on the moon. This event is unique in that the date and time it happened will never occur again, the mean distance from the Earth to the moon was a value that it will never be again (the moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth), Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin never had been on the moon and won’t be again, etc. I will even assume you did not mean to construe unique in this broad of a sense, though this sense is valid. The event was still unique at the time in that no one had ever walked on the moon before. Yet, there is plenty of evidence to indicate it happened.

The formation of the first cell falls victim to the same false premise. There’s evidence for a first cell because we have living things made out of cells and we have a boundary shortly after the Big Bang occurred when we know time and physical laws as currently understood became valid. Thus, at least with in the constraints of the last 13.7 billion years, we know that there was a first living cell because we are dealing with finite time and matter. Russell’s Teapot could quite properly be applied to an assertion about the precise conditions and mechanisms by which that first cell came into existence. It could not be applied to the fact that it did.

There’s not really much to say regarding your unfounded assertion regarding atheists that at least several hundred million people all have the same desires and those desires are the same because of lack of belief in the proposition of gods. This is no more to the point than a Muslim person asserting that Christians decide to let women work because Christians are infidels, or any other of an innumerable list of accusations or stereotypes that could be levied at a particular group.

If there is a pot or not, what’s the difference?
No gain…well if you try to prove that God exists to somebody who anyway doesn’t care and is content to live the moment no matter how long that is, you can only hope that the person will remember sometime your words.

For the given example with the moon landing check up the internet and see how many people actually believe it was faked.

And the example with the cell, until we see one born out of dead matter, and we can repeat the experiment, the apparition of the first cell by chance is a supposition only, under the assumption that God doesn’t exist. Tea pot=you say you prove a cell come out of dead matter

 

[MPat]

I believe my last response to Solus vistor sufficiently addressed this claim of the straw man argument. The New Atheists books are not addressing any one specific individual, nor are they saying that every single person who claims belief in God believes the same thing. Here is one of the more recent polls on religious belief: harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1353/Default.aspx

Clearly, there is much more to belief than a Ground of Being or consciousness and bliss. The numbers of people who believe things not only that are not supported by evidence, but things that are in direct contradiction to scientific facts is not small, and that is the audience they are targeting. Richard Dawkins even states with regard to the more sophisticated arguments among theists who take a reasonable approach to accepting science, “If only such subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would surely be a better place, and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that this kind of understated, decent, revisionist religion is numerically negligible. To the vast majority of believers around the world, religion all too closely resembles what you hear from the likes of Roberson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or the Ayatollah Khomeini. These are not straw men, they are all too influential and everybody in the modern world has to deal with them.”

Well, first of all, an argument can easily be fallacious in such a way when addressing one position and not fallacious when addressing another… (I guess you have already reached an agreement on this point by now.)

Second, the poll you cited seems to list seventeen beliefs in table 1a (and some more in other tables). Which of them were you describing as “things not only that are not supported by evidence, but things that are in direct contradiction to scientific facts”…?

 

[ANewWorld]

Sorry, I feel I did not answer your request, but this is all I could put together.

Apologies for my delayed response, you packed a lot of information into a relatively short amount of space. I believe that we’ve taken this conversation as far as it can be taken (insofar as the four points you just addressed) given the nature of the communication.

I do have to say you are the first theist I have seen who readily accepts the claim that if “supernatural events” could be demonstrated to have an effect on our physical world, the scientific method would take them into account and they’d become part of our natural understanding of the world. This is the exact same argument I have used and have seen skeptics such as Michael Shermer use to refute false accusations regarding scientism. I feel that we are in agreement that it is dubious to apply the current state of science to proof about attributes of God that are purely metaphysical (though this is exactly what many theologians do, William Lane Craig being one example), and that science can quite rightly be applied to empirical claims.

I feel the only point we still have a strong disagreement about is Russell’s intended use of the teapot analogy. In that regard, I still think that he intended it, at least in part, to apply to specific religious claims and dogmas pertaining to the world. Here is a quote from his 1952 article (also quoted in the Wikipedia summary):

“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.”

He clearly did not accept the metaphysical proposition about a personal creator of the universe on the grounds that it lacked evidence as well. But to avoid talking in circles, I think we’ve also both established a high degree of agreement that invoking purely fideistic claims to write public policy and try to compel others to agree with a point of view, is not a defensible stance and on this and other larger points I think we’ve each explained our stance as well as could possibly be done here.

 

[ANewWorld]

Which of them were you describing as “things not only that are not supported by evidence, but things that are in direct contradiction to scientific facts”…?

Items here that directly contradict scientific facts and the current state of knowledge would be the assertion that evolution doesn’t occur and belief in astrology. I think those are the only two that fall squarely into a category where there is obvious scientific evidence that contradicts the claims. Miracles might be a third (depending on what definition of miracle one wants to use). If we use the definition Hume used, “A suspension of the laws of nature on your behalf,” then yes that is quite contradictory as pointed out on other posts in this thread. Were the laws of nature “suspended” in a verifiable way, then that observation would be incorporated into what can happen in nature. It is really an altogether incoherent claim, but nonetheless one that some people make. (A trivial example would be the fundamentalist claim that the sun and moon literally stood still in the sky in relation to the Earth as asserted in Joshua 10:13. A claim like this carries an enormous burden of proof to show that it is more likely gravity suddenly stopped working than it is that the writer simply was mistaken or making stuff up.)

The other claims on the list I would say fall into the unsupported category, but to go into full discussion about various assertions about each of them (many of which large books have been dedicated to) would be very difficult to do given the constraints communicating on a message board, and would be going way off the topic at hand. Russell’s Teapot would rightly assert that the burden of proof for positive belief in those claims lies with the one making the claims, a point about divine action and dogmas that I already made and can be seen in my prior posts.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Russell’s Teapot would rightly assert that the burden of proof for positive belief in those claims lies with the one making the claims, a point about divine action and dogmas that I already made and can be seen in my prior posts.

The burden of proof for the existence of God is not to show you God. That seems an unreasonable demand for proof. Likewise, the burden of proof for miracles. How does one repeat a miracle to prove that it happened? By definition, a miracle is not likely to be repeated.

But as I’ve argued elsewhere, if the theist has a burden of proof, so does the atheist.

And I see no proof anywhere for the universal negative that God does not exist. By definition God cannot be visibly demonstrated to exist, nor (obviously) can God be visibly demonstrated not to exist.

So what we are left with is surmises based on what pointers (and hopes) we have that a creative Power brought us into being and has designed a destiny for us. The atheist view is that there are neither pointers nor hope.

Take your choice and your chances!

 

[ngill09]

The burden of proof for the existence of God is not to show you God. That seems an unreasonable demand for proof. Likewise, the burden of proof for miracles. How does one repeat a miracle to prove that it happened? By definition, a miracle is not likely to be repeated.

But as I’ve argued elsewhere, if the theist has a burden of proof, so does the atheist.

And I see no proof anywhere for the universal negative that God does not exist. By definition God cannot be visibly demonstrated to exist, nor (obviously) can God be visibly demonstrated not to exist.

So what we are left with is surmises based on what pointers (and hopes) we have that a creative Power brought us into being and has designed a destiny for us. The atheist view is that there are neither pointers nor hope.

Take your choice and your chances!

Just because you think your only hope is in magic doesn’t mean people who don’t believe in magic have no hope.

 

[Solus_vistor]

… first theist I have seen who readily accepts the claim that if “supernatural events” could be demonstrated to have an effect on our physical world, the scientific method would take them into account and they’d become part of our natural understanding of the world.

Please note that I wrote “Events that can be recorded by scientific instruments as violations of known natural laws” — e.g. a photo of an Apparition or a tape recording of a message by Virgin — no mention of demonstrating supernatural whatever. What is accepted today as a miracle by some e.g. Catholics, always inherently involves human consciousness, which is not the case with measurements by physical instruments.

I do not want to defend William Lane Craig but his “proofs” of metaphysical claims are in fact only arguments that are convincing for some not for others. People do convert, however not because they find Craig’s arguments convincing but because they find God as the best explanation of their life experience, and only a posteriori find arguments for His existence convincing.

I think I have already said that dogmas in Christianity — contrary to Russell’s naive assumption — are (mostly) of a metaphysical (like the existence of God) not physical character, and hence can be neither proved nor disproved as e.g. statements in mathematics, nor detected by physical instruments or made subjects of a scientific theory that could explain them. The Occam’s razor is a much stronger argument against assuming the existence of something beyond the physical than the teapot.

try to compel others to agree with a point of view, is not a defensible stance

I agree, including when this is done by calling those of a different point of view irrational, immoral, superstitious etc. Anyway, thanks for the stimulating exchange of ideas.

 

[ANewWorld]

Just because you think your only hope is in magic doesn’t mean people who don’t believe in magic have no hope.

+1

And, as George Bernard Shaw put it, “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”

And no, before anyone jumps all over me, I’m not saying all theists are reasoning at the levels of drunks. The point here is that having a worldview that entails hope is not an argument. I’m quite sure my 6 year old son has hopes that tomorrow will be a snow day if I asked him. This has no bearing on the likelihood that it will actually snow.

 

[ANewWorld]

I do not want to defend William Lane Craig but his “proofs” of metaphysical claims are in fact only arguments that are convincing for some not for others.

Yes, this is true of his proofs in their raw form. I was thinking more along the lines of his recent debate in February with Sean Carroll at Cal Tech. If you haven’t seen it, you may find it interesting.

I can’t say I agree with Craig on much, but he does do a good job in debates and usually does a fantastic job presenting his arguments and calling out his opponents when they make mistakes. He was off his game in this arena though, clearly drawing conclusions from current cosmological models that are not necessarily valid (and in some of the cases so far off the mark that his arguments were “not even wrong”).

 

[Solus_vistor]

William Lane Craig is a professional debater, and serves as a good sounding board for his atheist debate opponents. These debates confirm atheists, or disappointed ex-believers, in their unbeliefs but I have never heard of somebody converting to Christianity on the basis of such debates.

I expressed my opinion about one such debate in forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11637784&postcount=13.

Even so, most of Craig’s arguments, as far as I can judge, are vintage Catholic arguments. However, the distinctions between contingent vs necessary, not ens summum (the highest being) but ipsum esse subsistens (the sheer act to be itself) are not very comprehensible to a modern, natural science oriented, mind.

 

[davidv]

Just because you think your only hope is in magic doesn’t mean people who don’t believe in magic have no hope.

Define “magic” as used in the context of the above. Why does it apply to the Catholic Faith? I detect a strawman.

 

[ngill09]

Define “magic” as used in the context of the above. Why does it apply to the Catholic Faith? I detect a strawman.

The post I replied to stated that the only hope lies in the supernatural, and thus naturalism offers no hope.

 

[davidv]

The post I replied to stated that the only hope lies in the supernatural, and thus naturalism offers no hope.

This doesn’t explain what you meant by magic. So please explain what you meant in your reply by citing magic.

 

[ngill09]

This doesn’t explain what you meant by magic. So please explain what you meant in your reply by citing magic.

The supernatural. That’s not a very precise term but then it’s naturalism that is under attack and I’m assuming those attacking it have some idea of what they’re talking about.

 

[ANewWorld]

Define “magic” as used in the context of the above. Why does it apply to the Catholic Faith? I detect a strawman.

The very first dictionary definition of “magic” that comes up refers to the supernatural: google.com/search?q=magic&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS546US546&oq=magic&aqs=chrome…69i57j0l5.1024j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=magic+definition
Likewise, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines it as such: “an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source”

So, I don’t think anyone is presenting a straw man when you assert that hope can only be found in the potential of a supernatural force that gives us eternal life. I also understand that you are probably referring to hope as it is described in the Catholic virtue, which is defined more narrowly than hope in general and is described as hope for eternal life.

To bring this back more in line with the topic, I think most people agree (perhaps excepting some deluded individuals) that our bodies will not last forever. There is no evidence suggesting this is remotely possible. If it is not our body that lives forever, then it is often implied that our soul does. For the sake of argument, let’s all grant that souls exist, what does it even mean for it to live forever if it is detached from the body? This would seem to necessarily imply that consciousness is somehow contingent on something other than our brains.

This assertion is one where Russell’s Teapot can rightly be applied; i.e. we do not yet have a firm enough understanding of consciousness to draw such a conclusion, but we do have a growing body of evidence that it arises from the matter in our brains. Show some evidence that there is something else driving it and it will then be considered. Turning back to David Bentley Hart’s book (and I’d imagine Solus vistor may have something to say about this), he repeatedly asserts that consciousness cannot be explained by the physical. This amounts to nothing more than a God of the Gaps argument.

To quote Hart, “In any event, I do not believe the physicalist narrative of reality can ever really account for consciousness and its intentionality.” In other words, we haven’t given yet given a full explanation for it, so God is responsible.

 

[ANewWorld]

The supernatural. That’s not a very precise term but then it’s naturalism that is under attack and I’m assuming those attacking it have some idea of what they’re talking about.

I was just about to ask if you meant to include supernatural by magic (as I just stated in post #56) since I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I see you are including this and obviously not referring to parlor tricks or Harry Potter wizardry, or something of that sort.

 

[ANewWorld]

By definition, a miracle is not likely to be repeated.

Regardless what definition what gives a miracle, this is definitely a reasonable attribute to be included. But here, it seems that you are implicitly assuming that repeatability is the only evidence that exists. This simply isn’t the case, which I pointed out earlier in post #42

And I see no proof anywhere for the universal negative that God does not exist.

And this is not a view that is commonly asserted.

 

[ngill09]

The burden of proof for the existence of God is not to show you God. That seems an unreasonable demand for proof. Likewise, the burden of proof for miracles. How does one repeat a miracle to prove that it happened? By definition, a miracle is not likely to be repeated.

But as I’ve argued elsewhere, if the theist has a burden of proof, so does the atheist.

And I see no proof anywhere for the universal negative that God does not exist.