Russell's Teapot, or The Celestial Teapot, is an "analogy" created by Betrand Russell. The actual concept, as it appeared in its natural form, is:
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 an 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.
It has two notable uses, one of which being an argument for "the rationality of atheism," while the other is as a method of explaining why the burden of proof does not lie upon the person questioning the belief (whatever it may be, though usually religious).
The main problem with Russell's Teapot is quickly explained in just the second sentence of this wiki page: "By using an intentionally absurd analogy, Russell's Teapot draws attention to the formal logic behind the burden of proof and how it works." (emphasis mine)
The problem with intentionally absurd analogies is that they tend to be insincere. What those are typically referred to as is a "strawman fallacy." Russell's teapot is, unintentionally I'm sure, a great example of the strawman fallacy, which is where a concept is taken, purposefully changed into something that is easier to attack, and then attacking that concept rather than the actual one being discussed. It's fascinating that this is somehow acceptable rhetoric.
An undetectable floating space teapot, just like a floating spaghetti monster and every other false analogy to God, are literally all strawmen - you take the concept of God, turn it into something that is literally entirely different, and attack that instead of the concept of God, because it's easier and makes you look smart.
The reason that this argument still seems viable to the atheist is because they believe that God is just as absurd as these examples, which actually demonstrates a lack of understanding of the concept they are attempting to discuss.
I reviewed this before, but this ties back into the "Which "god" are you talking about?" argument, which only exists due to a failure to understand what the concept understood to be God is actually referring to. I'll go over it quickly:
The concept known to be God is not "the Christian God," or "the Tao," or "Allah," but rather the Unmoved Mover, the Uncaused First Cause. God is understood to be the reason why anything exists at all - He is the Creator. The concept of God is understood and accepted by every religion as being the exact same concept, but the different religions disagree on what attributes that concept has. Christians and Muslims believe in the same God, they just disagree about who that God is and what He does or has done or what He wants us to do, etc. Different religions may disagree with how or why He created the universe, or what sorts of things He's done or not done, but they all agree that God is the Creator, the one who made existence, who exists outside of our universe.
So "the concept of God," is not what any particular religion may describe God as being like, but the force that created the universe. The concept of God exists outside of our universe, as God created the universe, and thus could not "be from" our universe. When we are arguing about whether or not God exists, you're not arguing with someone about whether or not "the Christian God," or any other particular "religion's God," exists, but if the reason that anything at all exists is due to the concept understood to be God - a timeless, spaceless, and immaterial Creator that exists outside of our universe.
That distinctly means that any arguments that pertain to God's timelessness, spacelessness, immaterialness, etc., are not special pleading. God as a concept is understood by any and all people discussing it to specifically be outside of the laws of our universe. When you use a specifically not timeless, spaceless, and immaterial example as an "analogy" to God, you are being insincere and creating a strawman. If your argument is that the timeless, spaceless, and immaterial Creator is actually a teapot, or spaghetti, or a unicorn, then that is a different argument. When you argue about the possible existence of an undetectable floating space teapot within our universe, you are explicitly creating an example of a thing that is not analogous to what we mean when we discuss God.
Re: Rationality of Atheism
The concept here is that we "don't have evidence" for God (arguable), just as we don't have evidence for a celestial teapot. The atheist using this argument may then attempt to compel one to disbelieve in the teapot, or God, due to the lack of evidence for these concepts, as there is no reason to believe in it. This method of using the teapot argument is insincere - the concept of God and the concept of the celestial teapot are not analogous, thus conflating the two as similar arguments is purposefully misleading.
An undetectable floating space teapot would, by its own definition, exist within the context of our universe. Simply put, given the context of our universe in which this teapot would exist, its existence is evidentially and logically improbable. God, by His own definition, does not imply that He would exist within the context of our universe, and thus we cannot use the context of our own universe to make evidential or logical claims about His improbability based on our understanding of "improbable" as it exists in this universe.
The fact of the matter is if I'm arguing for the existence of something that does not conform to the laws of our universe, then the laws of our universe cannot be used as a basis for whether or not that something is improbable. You can make other arguments against it, and I can of course respond to your arguments, but based on this, specific argument, the teapot and God are not analogous. Russell attempts to use the obvious, inarguable absurdity of an undetectable floating space teapot as an analogy for God, when the two concepts are not comparable. You cannot argue that God is an absurd or improbable claim to make based on these concepts because we cannot make arguments about the laws that exist outside of our universe. We cannot know what the laws are, if there are any, outside of our universe, so we cannot argue that God violates those laws. An undetectable floating space teapot does fall within the jurisdiction of our universe and thus is susceptible to the laws of our universe, which it roundly violates.
The only way to use this argument without being intellectually insincere is to make the claim that not having evidence for something is a good reason to neither believe or disbelieve in that thing. Not having evidence for or against something is a good reason to withhold judgement and remain agnostic, not to make the jump to atheism.
The refutation of this method of utilizing the teapot argument is well discussed very much at length by someone else here, if further reading is desired.
Re: Burden of Proof
The other main way in which Russell's Teapot is used is as an attempt to claim that the skeptic, or atheist, is not the one who needs to provide evidence or argumentation against a religious (or possibly other) positive claim. The way that this argument works follows the same insincerity as it did previously, but still varies slightly in its application.
The teapot in the false analogy both has no evidence for its existence, and is also not falsifiable. We already discussed falsifiability earlier, but a lack of falsifiability merely makes something not scientific. Zealous believers in falsifiability consider it to be necessary for a question's importance to be valid, thus this ties directly into God's unfalsifiability and the conclusion by these people that therefore God is not an important question.
This is very silly, considering the implications of God's existence or nonexistence. An undetectable floating teapot doesn't sound like it has much bearing on anything of importance certainly, but something that has the potential to greatly and permanently influence your destiny sounds like it could be a little more important.
So this false analogy, in this context, performs two actions: it conflates a tiny floating space teapot that exists within our universe with the Creator of the universe who exists outside of our universe in a strawman argument, and it attempts to apply the teapot's inconsequentiality to God.
It then draws these to the conclusion that because there is no evidence for an undetectable floating space teapot, and because the existence of that teapot, if applicable, would be meaningless, that if you don't believe in this teapot, you do not have to explain yourself, but rather anyone attempting to defend the existence of this teapot would need to do so. It then turns "teapot" into "God" in a spectacular explosion of straw.
This is yet another way that atheists attempt to cast off any burden of proof they may have. The problem with this dead horse of an argument is that the burden of proof, when appropriately applied, will depend on the set up of the debate and the situation at hand. Atheists attempting to say that they can merely sit back and decide when a theist has provided a convincing enough argument without ever having to say anything of substance in return is intellectually bankrupt and flies directly in the face of how debate and discussion are supposed to occur.
It is true, if I make the positive claim that God exists, the burden initially lies on me to provide the proof. However, if the atheist is the one who starts by making the positive claim that God doesn't exist, the burden of proof is now his. He doesn't get to make a special case for himself merely due to the fact that question revolves around God - and any attempts to justify this purposefully unsportsmanlike position, including a teapot, are equally underhanded.
In fact, the entire position of the atheist that the burden of proof is never his is yet again based on a misunderstanding of the concept of God! As mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the reason the atheist believes that teapot and spaghetti comparisons are valid to make against God is because he truly believes God is just as absurd as these concepts. Because the atheists assumes that God is absurd as a concept, he makes the conclusion that his position is the default position of believing something that is rational and logical, while the theist is attempting to prove something that is absurd.
The only way to combat this kind of misunderstanding is a clarification of what God is. When you attempt to take God out of the equation, you aren't left with science explaining how the world works with no further issues - because now you have no reason for that world existing at all. How did we get here? There must be an explanation for why any exists at all, and if it is not God, then it must be something else. It cannot be "nothing," and a position that God doesn't exist for this reason cannot be a default position. There is no "default" position because the question "Why is there anything at all?" must be answered with something. The claim is that the reason anything at all exists is because of God. If you want to contest that God doesn't exist, you must replace God with something else - you can't simply make the claim that "the reason existence exists isn't real," because now you have to justify how you think existence exists. The atheist is not simply "lacking a belief," they are, in fact, claiming that the answer to why anything at all exists is not God. Essentially their position is "your answer to this question is wrong." You cannot "lack a belief" in the existence of an answer to the question of why anything at all exists - because we exist, there must be an answer. If your claim is that it is not God, then it must be something else.
An undetectable floating space teapot did not create existence, or do anything really, thus there is nothing that must replace the teapot if you contest that it is not real. If you argue that a teapot is orbiting around in our solar system, the consequence of being wrong is null. If you are arguing that there is a timeless, spaceless, and immaterial Creator who created all of existence, if you are wrong then there must be a replacement. The teapot can be replaced with "nothing," God cannot. There must be something. Arguing against God requires a replacement argument.
Any and all attempts to cast away the burden of proof fail for this reason, and there are more reasons though I don't feel they are important to get into at this moment.
The wiki page makes one more notably interesting claim, which is:
In addition, the point where the teapot becomes "undetectable" is analogous to numerous ideas used in the construction of scientific theories regarding how the universe works. Namely, if something is entirely undetectable and as such has no effect that can be measured or observed, directly or indirectly, then its existence or otherwise essentially makes no difference to the world.
This is similar to the idea of falsifiability, that is, if something is not falsifiable, then it is not important. This claim is that if you can't detect or measure something, then its existence is inconsequential.
Well, what if it's not? What if this undetectable, unobservable thing... does, in fact, affect the universe? It may sound absurd on the surface, but the idea that we could dismiss that something may be important just because we can't see it is both arrogant and presumptuous. This is yet another thing that pseudo-scientists and naturalist adherents simply assume based on their preexisting biases. If something is undetectable and unobservable, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We didn't know atoms existed until recently - that doesn't mean that they were inconsequential. They literally make up everything - that's pretty consequential. What if there is something that we have yet to discover or understand that is of consequence - and what if it is of severe consequence?
Why be so arrogant as to proclaim that anything outside of the scope of human understanding is not important? It's stunning, really, to see the leaps of faith "rational" naturalists are willing to make sometimes.
Sure, perhaps there is no use in wondering whether or not some sort of thing that we can't see and have no concept of exists and whether or not it can influence our lives. But oddly enough, we do have a concept of God, and the idea that this concept could greatly influence your life is both known and understood. To dismiss the question of God out of hand as absurd and not worthy of contemplation is, I'd argue, actually what is absurd. We have uncountable numbers of people who have proclaimed the value of the question of God. Whether or not you come out of it believing in Him, attempting to proclaim that there is no purpose to even exploring the question is quite roundly naive. Is "being right" and looking smart worth eternity?
No comments:
Post a Comment