Any comments on this quote from the British philosopher Bertrand Russell?

Question

" If I where 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 be 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 attention of the psychiatrist in an enlightened or of the inquisitor in an earlier time."

How many people here would disagree and if so please tell me why?

Answer 1

That statement is what is known as a "straw man" type of argument. What it does it set up a situation that has no direct relevance to the central idea under discussion and then seek to make it seem relevant by drawing non-existence tangential points.

To illustrate my point, I'll take the same starting point that Russell uses and insert a different subject of attack. Consider if I was using his technique to oppose the popular notion that mankind came into existence by pure chance because inanimate matter suddenly took on life all by itself and then when enough time had elapsed radiation causing random mutations that were shaped by natural selection turned a one celled creature into a giraffe and an elephant and a humming bird and a caterpillar/butterfly and a kangaroo and honey bees and carpenter ants, and on and on all by accident with no intelligent direction to the process.

" If I where 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 be rightly be thought to be talking nonsense

If however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in theoretical scientific text books, taught as the accepted truth by the majority of the secular humanistic population 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 attention of the psychiatrist in an enlightened or of the inquisitor in an earlier time."

Remember that no one has ever seen a living one celled creature that came to life all by itself. No one has ever seen such a creature "evolve" into a fish or a fish "evolve" into a frog or a "frog" evolve into a mammal and then into a human being. No one can prove that the theory of evolution ever took place. Saying that these things happened long ago is like saying that the teapot is too small to see with a telescope.

You see, my argument had nothing to do with whether or not the theory of evolution is supportable or if there was any evidence that would make it fair to consider it as a possible truth. I set up a straw man to sway people's opinions to my view point without giving the subject any objective tests to measure up to.

Answer 2

Russell was explaining why his agnosticism leaned toward atheism. The orbiting teapot is an example of something which can't be proven or disproven, but is highly unlikely. I disagree with the analogy because if God can be neither proven or disproven then you are free to act on faith. Why not an agnosticism that leans toward theism? A leap of faith in God has more personal ramifications than believing in an orbiting teapot.

However, I agree with Russell that too many beliefs, both secular and religious, are instilled as dogma when they should be freely questioned.

Answer 3

Great point! A better analogy, though, to Christianity would be that for thousands of years, the teapot was predicted to crash land on earth and give tea to all takers. This teapot was predicted to be crushed into a million pieces and three days later, reform itself. Then just as predicted, the teapot arrived, shared its tea with everyone and then was shattered by an angry soda manufacturer. Three days later it reformed itself in the presence of about five hundred people and floated back up into space with all watching. Then all the events were recorded and as historically verifiable (it could be argued more verifiable) than all other events in ancient history. Now, THAT would be a teapot to believe in.

Answer 4

It is a very clear analogy that those who do not believe in God will feel relieved about but those who do, although they see the point he's making, will still reject his argument as insufficient proof.

I believe scientific explanation of the cause of existence, I also believe the 'thing' that caused it all should be called God.

I believe that life did not begin with Genesis, the bible is man-made and does not and cannot describe the beginning of life.

But I believe in the scriptures that describes the times of the ancients and how we should conduct our lives. I believe in the life and teachings of Jesus and the probability of an afterlife.

Until science's theories or the existence of God can be disproved I will believe in both.

Answer 5

This is Russell's well-known illustration of the idiocy of religious faith and doctrine. It is a great place for anyone to start reading seriously about religion and why it is just plain illogical for people to be expected to believe any of it. Russell was a clear-thinking dude who also wrote very well indeed. You may also want to read Nietsche, but Nietsche is hard work, because he didn't have a sense of humour!
For me, seeing people worshipping invisible entities tells me they are psychologically challenged and not living up to their full potential as human beings. Religion is cowardice. Religion is running away from the truth, and as such, it is very damaging to have so many members of the human race involved with it on a daily basis.

Answer 6

Do you seriously imagine that any Creationist has EVER read anything other than the Bible? Bertrand Russell used LOGIC and REASON, show me some in any belief system. Possibly Freud covered it fully when he likened belief to Psychosis! You set a superb table of reasoning with your posting - now watch them shoot it down!

Answer 7

It is a true statement- and even the most devout will not disagree. Of course, they believe that they are developing a personal relationship with the teapo... er... with God, and so they do not require even a shred of actual evidence.

Remember, though, that people can not be reasoned out of religion easily.

Answer 8

Russell in many ways was quite a logician, but the celestial teapot argument ultimately amounts to being a strawman. This is probably why Richard Dawkins likes it so much, as he has no background in logic or philosophy.

There are other rational reasons for believing in a god (proveable or not) than a celestial teapot, which Russell clearly fails to deal with. For example, god could be the predication of things like rationality itself, or the world, human senses being accurate as opposed to Darwinian instruments geared for survival alone. Or even if god is relegated to being nothing more than a deistic creator, that alone separates him from being a teapot or flying elephant, or Flying Spagetti Monster.

Secondly, there are any number of properly rational beliefs that we hold on a daily basis that are not subject to empirical verification. Take for example memory based beliefs that constitute the single greatest resource for knowledge about ourselves and others. For example, there is no way to verify that my friend almost ran someone off the road when I was sitting passenger side. That event made me think differently about who my friend was. But I cannot prove this ever happened by scientific means.

Russell was quite the lover of women. If I chose to challenge that he hever made love to such and such a woman, he would probably not have any verification of it. If made fun of him for not having proof or even evidence, he would no doubt switch the argument to saying some things need proof, like god, and others not. When he makes this switch, he shows the weakness in and subjective application of his Positivist position.

I think Russell was a great thinker but his contritbutions to the philosophy of religion have been vastly overestimated. I would consult him as a mathematician, first.

Answer 9

That is a logical argument. but religion is not based on logic.

As a fundy would ask , " can you prove the teapot does not exist ? "

Answer 10

Ah yes, the sacred teapot theory. Of course he wrote this before the Hubble telescope went up to join the teapot (if it's there at all!). I worship at the shrine of my little tin teapot every morning, placing offerings of flavoured leaves inside it and drinking the holy liquid that emerges whilst muttering inane comments to that well known god, Tea. (Closely followed by the lesser god Bran and his acolytes, Banana and Honey).