What is your opinion of Bertrand Russell's Teapot analogy?

Question

I'm curious to see what people on both sides of the argument think of this example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Answer 1

Russell hit one out of the park with that little thought experiment....

That which is asserted without evidence, can be safely dismissed without evidence.

Answer 2

I agree it has merit. Someone here posted that the teapot isn't worth looking for, while God is. I agree. However, you should look for it on your own, with your own resources, and not to make everyone place your value on it.

In other words, if I value the teapot, I should not try and convince you of it's existance, even if I am totally convinced of it. Unless I have proof, then it would be both worthless and witless to try. Why would it be any different for God?

No matter the value to you, the importance is the value to the person who you try and convince. Sure, as a Christian you are supposed to pass on the good news...but Jesus was pretty clear...tell your story, and if they don't listen, shake the dust of that town off your sandals and move on...that's a far cry from staying on forever and trying to convince people...even at the point of a sword.

So, I like what he has to say. It's clear and concise. The difference here is that one thing is a matter of science...I can either prove the teapot's there, or I cannot. The other is a matter of faith...and therefore can't be proven. I think he was saying...don't require me to take a scientific view of faith...it's just not going to work.

Answer 3

Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy states:

"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."

However, the problem with this thinking is that a teapot in orbit does not significantly affect the universe. Also, the preconceived assumption that supports it is that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and that the reason why people believe is indoctrination in religion.

Dawkins picks up that reasoning and goes on to the claim that since there is no evidence for the existence of God, the burden of proof is on the one who believes in God, not on the one that does not believe.

But, there is evidence that supports the existence of God, based on the effect that this existence has on reality.

Dr Brian Garvey's statement:
The atheist is committed to there being an alternative explanation of why the universe exists and is the way it is. Moreover, the analogy relies on assumptions about the prior plausibility of atheism. Hence, the teapot argument fails.

Three major evidences for the existence of God are:

1. the very existence of the universe, with a beginning
2. the complexity and interrelatedness of matter, energy, and life
3. the existence of specific laws which relate to intelligence.

Chemists, biologists, geneticists and astrophysicists all over the internet have examples, many in scientific papers, of these evidences.

In addition, in the realm of philosophy and logical deduction, Kalaam's argument, particularly as WL Craig presents it, is a clear evidence of the first point above.

I wonder if atheism has any evidence of its plausibility. Atheism has more of a likelihood of being belief without evidence than belief in a Creator God.



http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/38828-if-i-were-to-suggest-that-between-the-earth-and

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/ppr/about-us/people/brian-garvey

Answer 4

anyone wanting to read more about Bertrand Russell should read his work "Why I am not a Christian"

Mr. Russell is glaring example of what it meant to be an independent thinker and live in the bigoted closed-minded 1950's America. He was a man that was ridiculed publicly for his beliefs (or lack thereof), lost jobs as a mathematician and teacher of philosophy at New York University all because of disagreeing with the establishments religious beliefs.

Answer 5

I think that is right on the money.

I can make all kinds of claims but if I not only can't prove them myself but if I state that you can't prove it either - you just have to take my word for it - then the claim is worthless.

I also agree with Dawkin's comments that if somebody wanted tax-exempt status for believing in the teapot or if someone wanted to start a war because someone else believed in a different kind of teapot - then that is a sign of great sickness.

Answer 6

It makes perfect sense to me, espcially with the added condition that has the teapot being taught as truth.

Answer 7

The value of what you seek has to factor into the burden of proof equation. The burden of proof depends upon your goal and the value of your goal. If you want to stand any chance of finding your Creator, then you will proceed until there is proof that your Creator doesn't exist. If you don't want to know your Creator, then you will not proceed until there is proof that He does exist. This is ordinary human nature.

Russell's Teapot isn't worth anything and so it isn't worth my looking for it but the value of the One who created me is infinite.

Hi Nightowl. I agree that I cannot convince anyone (and should not try) to seek God if that person doesn't see God as having any worth.

Answer 8

It's perfect. It's a great example of how the burden of proof must always logically be on the person claiming something exists and never on the one who asserts it does not.

Answer 9

It makes a very good point.
Excellent analogy.

Answer 10

I like it, but get ready for the bla bla bla, have faith crowd, You might even get a biblical quote.