Destroying Russell's Teapot (With Lasers!)

[Solus_vistor]

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.

Consciousness no more arises from the matter of our brain than what I am writing here arises from the matter of this computer. And you can take apart your computer as much as you wish after you have received this post, and you will not find evidence there that I exist.

Besides, this is another useful metaphor — not explanation: My thoughts can live on your computer to which they were sent even after this computer has been destroyed. Something similar one can believe about one’s identity (mind, soul) surviving as a sofware running on another hardware (“spiritual body”). Our resurrection would then correspond to being dowloaded to that “spiritual hardware”.

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.

Or, we haven’t given yet a full explanation for it but we believe that we shall in the future. So you either believe this, or that consciousness is impossible to explain from within physical science for reasons that are intrinsic to science and its limitations.

Anyhow, what would such a full explanation of consciousness — comparable, say, with a full explanation, i.e. satisfying for everybody, of the movement of planets — look like? There were attempts to explain phenomena that quantum physics can mathematically describe and forecast by bringing consciousness, i.e. the observer, into play (e.g. some versions of the Copenhagen interpretation), but these explanations were met with strong resistance from physicists and philosophers: observed phenomena and physical laws explaining them should not involve the consciousness of the observer.

What if those phenomena concern the very nature of consciousness? How can you avoid here bringing consciousness into play and thus explain it using “objective” (independent of consciousness) physical laws? How can your explanation of consciousness not involve consciousness? It would be like in the story about baron Münchhausen, who escaped from a swamp by pulling himself up by his own hair.

Still, this is just one side of the argument, and you can certainly provide arguments for the opposite belief that sometimes in the future we shall be able to use our consciousness to explain consciousness to everybody’s satisfaction.

 

[Ion]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Gwudq1pq1...C6xDPw/s1600/Shifting+the+Burden+of+Proof.png

The picture suggest events that are repeatable or natural things that can be checked any time or as many times as you want. We questioned why would you have the same approach for unique events, non repeatable. Why do you pretend you use no faith for such events?

 

[ngill09]

Sorry, but no. Even non-repeatable events can have evidence, and that’s no excuse to try to shift the burden of proof.

If someone claims that they flew on a flying horse across the country last night, and has no evidence to back up their claim, it is not unreasonable for a person not to believe them. And if that person then starts demanding that everyone who doesn’t believe him prove that he didn’t fly around on a flying horse last night, he’s being unreasonable, at least in my opinion.

 

[Ion]

Sorry, but no. Even non-repeatable events can have evidence, and that’s no excuse to try to shift the burden of proof.

If someone claims that they flew on a flying horse across the country last night, and has no evidence to back up their claim, it is not unreasonable for a person not to believe them. And if that person then starts demanding that everyone who doesn’t believe him prove that he didn’t fly around on a flying horse last night, he’s being unreasonable, at least in my opinion.

Now you go to the other extreme, where there can’t be any witness.
If that person would have 2 billion people to back up his claim, wouldn’t that turn the tables?

 

[ngill09]

I never said there couldn’t be witnesses. Eyewitness testimony is a form of evidence. Not without its faults, but it’s something.

 

[Ion]

And what is the difference between the eyewitness and the one who believes the eyewitness. Isn’t a judge such a believer?

 

[ANewWorld]

Indeed. It is also one of the least reliable forms of evidence.

scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

One major factor is that the further removed from an event one is, the less reliable eye witness testimonies become. Anyhow, to the point of unique events presenting a problem, I earlier pointed out one obvious example in the example of the moon landing. It was certainly unique but there is plenty of evidence it happened and this included eye witnesses, technical plans on how to do it, the demonstration of understanding the laws of nature to accurately predict how we could get there, the fact that it was a well circulated goal that we were trying to get there, etc.

Now, if we found some lone eye witness testimony (or even hundreds of people) from say 50 years prior that they had seen humans launch a rocket to the moon, that would be an example of a unique claim that would require far more evidence to determine with any certainty that it happened.

 

[MPat]

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.

I guess I should note that Catholic Church does not claim any of those beliefs and thus we do not have to defend them.

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.

Which posts? I must have missed them… But no, I do not see how any contradiction could be possible here. Especially since you talked about contradiction with “scientific facts” which, I assume, are supposed to differ from “scientific theories” or “philosophical principles”… What single measurement without any generalisation could possibly tell us that laws of nature could not be suspended?

Also, perhaps it would be worth to consider the definition given by St. Thomas Aquinas (“Things that are at times divinely accomplished, apart from the generally established order in things, are customarily called miracles;” - “Summa contra gentiles”, chapter “On miracles” - dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles3b.htm#101). Not that it changes that much in this case…

Were the laws of nature “suspended” in a verifiable way, then that observation would be incorporated into what can happen in nature.

Well, should it be so? If the laws of nature are meant to describe what happens normally, exceptions simply cannot be made into laws of nature.

It is really an altogether incoherent claim, but nonetheless one that some people make.

Sorry, but I don’t think I understand what exactly is that “it”…

(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.)

Or was misunderstood. Don’t forget that possibility.

But anyway, I don’t see how you are supposed to get from “carries an enormous burden of proof” to “directly contradict scientific facts”…

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.

Well, every single belief in that list has more evidence in favour of it than the “teapot” (that is not hard - most wrong beliefs have more evidence in favour of them than “teapot”). That is, at least it is possible to construct an “argument from authority” (perhaps with a very loose meaning of “authority”) for each of them. That already counts as “evidence” (though not necessarily as very impressive evidence).

 

[MPat]

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.

You know, it works the other way just as well. You have only asserted that “we do have a growing body of evidence that it arises from the matter in our brains”, but you didn’t actually offer any other evidence to support this claim.

We might also try it with a claim that “[consciousness] arises from the matter in our brains”. At the moment the only evidence you have offered in favour of it is the unsupported assertion I have mentioned in the previous paragraph and “Show some evidence that there is something else driving it and it will then be considered.” (let’s see - “Show some evidence that there is no teapot and it will then be considered.”?)…

So, do you feel persuaded already, or can we agree that usefulness of “Russell’s Teapot” is rather limited…?

 

[ngill09]

And what is the difference between the eyewitness and the one who believes the eyewitness. Isn’t a judge such a believer?

Because people believe things for all kinds of reasons.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Because people believe things for all kinds of reasons.

The real problem with Russel’s Teapot is that it arbitraily rejects many proofs for the existence of God. I say arbitraily because the rejection is based on anti-theist prejudice. More odiously, Russel accused Believers of baseless indoctrination, the very thing that non-believers have been engaged in in the public sector for at least two hundred years!.

That God exists has been proven by Thomas Aquinas in his Five Ways, and in several other ways as well, it has been demonstrated adequately by Aristotle in at least two ways, it has been demonstrated by other philosophers ( John Lock ), it is evident to cmmon sense ( St. Paul, " The evidence of him is seen in the things he has made. " The existence of an intellectual soul in man is another, the voice of conscience is another. The inner coordinate unity of the Old and New Testaments verify the Truth of their content, that a Divine Revelation has been made, that Christ’s coming was foretold in the Old Testament. And so on. The are no valid arguments against these proofs except blind prejudice by people who basically cant keep their britches zipped - that is always the bottom line, when one takes a close look. None of these famous objectors are moral paragons. Go down the list, you will hardly find a continent person among them. In many you will find genuine madness. Many admit, they do not want there to be even the possibility for a God to exist. Why? What are they affraid of?

Linus2nd

 

[ngill09]

The real problem with Russel’s Teapot is that it arbitraily rejects many proofs for the existence of God. I say arbitraily because the rejection is based on anti-theist prejudice. More odiously, Russel accused Believers of baseless indoctrination, the very thing that non-believers have been engaged in in the public sector for at least two hundred years!.

That God exists has been proven by Thomas Aquinas in his Five Ways, and in several other ways as well, it has been demonstrated adequately by Aristotle in at least two ways, it has been demonstrated by other philosophers ( John Lock ), it is evident to cmmon sense ( St. Paul, " The evidence of him is seen in the things he has made. " The existence of an intellectual soul in man is another, the voice of conscience is another. The inner coordinate unity of the Old and New Testaments verify the Truth of their content, that a Divine Revelation has been made, that Christ’s coming was foretold in the Old Testament. And so on. The are no valid arguments against these proofs except blind prejudice by people who basically cant keep their britches zipped - that is always the bottom line, when one takes a close look. None of these famous objectors are moral paragons. Go down the list, you will hardly find a continent person among them. In many you will find genuine madness. Many admit, they do not want there to be even the possibility for a God to exist. Why? What are they affraid of?

Linus2nd

Well this is a nice set of rambling assertions, but I don’t see any substance behind your blank assertion that God’s existence has been definitively proven. Strange that most professional philosophers are atheists.

And to be precise, Russell’s teapot analogy isn’t meant to reject any proofs of God’s existence, it’s a specific retort to the attempt to shift the burden of proof onto someone who doesn’t believe an unsubstantiated claim. If there’s proof, the analogy doesn’t apply, which is why my very first post in this thread was to point out that the best way to defeat the teapot analogy is to provide evidence or proof of God. If you don’t understand why someone might want to use this analogy, I have dozens of posts by Charlemagne III and others demanding that nonbelievers must prove that God does not exist, or that people who don’t believe in souls prove that souls don’t exist, etc.

 

[Ion]

Because people believe things for all kinds of reasons.

In things that make you change how you live your life how you understand life and death, and most important how you spend your eternal life, I do not think anybody should take it easy. And people learn quickly, there are so many using “the pot” regarding for example the moon landing. People in good standing, going to vote, with jobs and family.
ANewWorld mentioned the moon landing as the perfect example of a unique event 100% provable(100% natural). But there are so many who do not believe it. “You have to prove it to me but I choose what is proof or not” is rather a trick.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well this is a nice set of rambling assertions, but I don’t see any substance behind your blank assertion that God’s existence has been definitively proven. Strange that most professional philosophers are atheists.

No assertions, " rambling " or otherwise. You don’t see the substance because you don’t want to see it. Do most professional philosophers believe God does not exist? I haven’t been keeping score. But for most of the past 2,500 years it has not been so. Oh well, since the " Age of Inlightenment, " some " philosophers " have acted like they were gods.

And to be precise, Russell’s teapot analogy isn’t meant to reject any proofs of God’s existence, it’s a specific retort to the attempt to shift the burden of proof onto someone who doesn’t believe an unsubstantiated claim. If there’s proof, the analogy doesn’t apply, which is why my very first post in this thread was to point out that the best way to defeat the teapot analogy is to provide evidence or proof of God. If you don’t understand why someone might want to use this analogy, I have dozens of posts by Charlemagne III and others demanding that nonbelievers must prove that God does not exist, or that people who don’t believe in souls prove that souls don’t exist, etc.

Oh, I know. But if some fool is standing outside shouting " the world is ending, the world is ending, " we naturally demand proof. And the modern, modish skeptic is absolutely certain God does not exist, just ask him. So naturally we demand he furnish proof of his belief. The same as he demands proof of ours. Now he can provide nothing in the way of proof. We on the other hand have proven our case - and only fools reject it. As Scripture says, " Only the fool says, in his heart, that God does not exist…even Devils believe and tremble…"

Naturally we are going to hold your feet to the fire. I know it is the " chick " position to take these days to say God does not exist, the crowds demand something bold, something revolutionary. And to reject God is certainly bold and certainly revolutionary. It is also foolish beyond description.

" By their works you shall know them. " Atheists, show me your Mother Teresa’s, show me your good works! Show me you Augistine, your Aquinas, your Francis of Assis, your Joan of Arc, even yiour Aristotle. Show me your unsurpassed moral system, your works of compassionn, your Universities, your Hospitals your classical music, your unsurpassed works of art, your Christ, your books of Wisdom.

Linus2nd

 

[ngill09]

Oh, I know. But if some fool is standing outside shouting " the world is ending, the world is ending, " we naturally demand proof. And the modern, modish skeptic is absolutely certain God does not exist, just ask him. So naturally we demand he furnish proof of his belief. The same as he demands proof of ours. Now he can provide nothing in the way of proof. We on the other hand have proven our case - and only fools reject it. As Scripture says, " Only the fool says, in his heart, that God does not exist…even Devils believe and tremble…"

Naturally we are going to hold your feet to the fire. I know it is the " chick " position to take these days to say God does not exist, the crowds demand something bold, something revolutionary. And to reject God is certainly bold and certainly revolutionary. It is also foolish beyond description.

" By their works you shall know them. " Atheists, show me your Mother Teresa’s, show me your good works! Show me you Augistine, your Aquinas, your Francis of Assis, your Joan of Arc, even yiour Aristotle. Show me your unsurpassed moral system, your works of compassionn, your Universities, your Hospitals your classical music, your unsurpassed works of art, your Christ, your books of Wisdom.

Linus2nd

Funny, I’ve never met a non-Christian who is absolutely certain that God does not exist (depending on what you call God). I haven’t seen proofs that God exists. I’ve seen incredibly bad arguments and some arguments that might be good in a certain philosophical framework but don’t transfer to modern science very well.

Yeah… I think you’re off base. Atheists are still the most hated group by most Americans and trust me that coming out as questioning your religious beliefs in any respect is usually met with a great deal of hostility. I don’t even identify as atheist and yet when I told my family I no longer identify as Christian about half of them announced that they were no longer going to have anything to do with me.

As for atheist saints: atheists are a small group but I can start the list with Bill Gates, Socrates (not strictly an atheist but executed for atheism so we’ll take him), Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Edison (Deist but a freethinker), Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Alan Turing, Andrei Sakharov, Nikolai Vavilov, Bertrand Russell, Richard Feynman, Peter Higgs, and Steven Weinberg. Secular ethics, charities, universities, and hospitals do exist. I don’t know if you’re ignorant or deliberately obtuse but I suggest you open your mind and educate yourself because you should be embarrassed by your statements.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And the modern, modish skeptic is absolutely certain God does not exist, just ask him.

I thought the skeptical theological position was that of uncertainty and doubt on the god proposition; those that are certain there is no God would be strong atheist and not theological skeptics.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I thought the skeptical theological position was that of uncertainty and doubt on the god proposition; those that are certain there is no God would be strong atheist and not theological skeptics.

That’s O.K., I’m giving them credit for not being as foolish as they pretend.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Funny, I’ve never met a non-Christian who is absolutely certain that God does not exist (depending on what you call God). I haven’t seen proofs that God exists. I’ve seen incredibly bad arguments and some arguments that might be good in a certain philosophical framework but don’t transfer to modern science very well.

Yeah… I think you’re off base. Atheists are still the most hated group by most Americans and trust me that coming out as questioning your religious beliefs in any respect is usually met with a great deal of hostility. I don’t even identify as atheist and yet when I told my family I no longer identify as Christian about half of them announced that they were no longer going to have anything to do with me.

As for atheist saints: atheists are a small group but I can start the list with Bill Gates, Socrates (not strictly an atheist but executed for atheism so we’ll take him), Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Edison (Deist but a freethinker), Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Alan Turing, Andrei Sakharov, Nikolai Vavilov, Bertrand Russell, Richard Feynman, Peter Higgs, and Steven Weinberg. Secular ethics, charities, universities, and hospitals do exist. I don’t know if you’re ignorant or deliberately obtuse but I suggest you open your mind and educate yourself because you should be embarrassed by your statements.

We don’t hate atheists, we think they are missing a link somewhere. The arguments for the existence of God have absolutely nothing to do with science or its methods. They have to do with philosophical reasoning. And of all the folks you mention I don’t recognize any saints. Bill and Linda Gates do some good things which they counter by doing some pretty rehensible things, they are a mixed bag. Sagan, Hawking, Russell! Give me a break.

Sorry about your family. I have a nephew who claims to be atheist, neither nor anyone else in the family have disowned him. And on a natural plane is really a nice, responsible guy. His wife is a devoute Catholic and he has a mentally challenged 13 year old daughter whom he loves more than life itself.

Linus2nd

 

[ngill09]

We don’t hate atheists, we think they are missing a link somewhere. The arguments for the existence of God have absolutely nothing to do with science or its methods. They have to do with philosophical reasoning. And of all the folks you mention I don’t recognize any saints. Bill and Linda Gates do some good things which they counter by doing some pretty rehensible things, they are a mixed bag. Sagan, Hawking, Russell! Give me a break.

Sorry about your family. I have a nephew who claims to be atheist, neither nor anyone else in the family have disowned him. And on a natural plane is really a nice, responsible guy. His wife is a devoute Catholic and he has a mentally challenged 13 year old daughter whom he loves more than life itself.

Linus2nd

Well if you want to get picky about the good and bad quality of “saints”, then I’m going to have to point out that Aquinas and Augustine argued for the persecution, torture and execution of heretics. Everyone on my list furthered the cause of humanity in significant ways, but Sakharov in particular I chose for his humanitarian works, which earned him a Nobel Peace Prize. For that matter, the first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Henry Dunant, who was an agnostic.

 

[Ion]

Well if you want to get picky about the good and bad quality of “saints”, then I’m going to have to point out that Aquinas and Augustine argued for the persecution, torture and execution of heretics. Everyone on my list furthered the cause of humanity in significant ways, but Sakharov in particular I chose for his humanitarian works, which earned him a Nobel Peace Prize. For that matter, the first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Henry Dunant, who was an agnostic.

Can you provide the quotations?