4,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + + − {{cquote|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 [[Holy book | 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 [[Inquisition|Inquisitor]] in an earlier time.}} <small>Quote edited to add link</small> − [[Richard Dawkins]] also used Russell's teapot argument extensively in ''[[The God Delusion]]'' and ''[[A Devil's Chaplain]]''. He developed the argument further. − − {{cquote|The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first. }} − Russell’s teapot is a persuasive argument. In fact, the case for most religions is weaker than the case for an alleged teapot orbiting the sun. At least the teapot, if it existed, would not violate any known physical laws. Many organized religions, if they were true, would require repeated violations of known physical laws. No reliable document has any reasonable information suggesting that any religion is true, either. The [[Old Testament]] is riddled with contradiction and implausible stories, as is the [[New Testament]]. Other religions revere their different [[Mythology|mythologies]] in a similar way. When it’s pointed out that they can’t possibly all be true, the different believers insist passionately that their particular mythology has to be right, and all the others must be wrong. − − ==Discredited?== − − The argument for Russell's Teapot was effectively dealt with by the great philosopher and railway worker [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Philip_J._Rayment Phillip J. Rayment], who reasoned: − {{cquote|The fallacy in the argument is that there is in fact nothing absurd about believing the teapot to be there, if those "ancient books" were written by an ancient astronaut or other being who placed the teapot there. − The argument ''presumes'' that such is not the case, so presumes what it sets out to prove, and is thus a circular argument. − + − − While Rayment’s argument is logical, it is irrelevant as it ignores almost the entire premise of the original argument. This refutation of the "Teapot argument" requires there to be a ''reliable'' and preferably ''primary'' source for evidence of the teapot; i.e., the astronaut who placed it there. As stated above, no reliable ancient books prove the existence of a celestial teapot. Further, no reliable ancient books prove the claims of any religion. While it does [[beg the question]] ''slightly'' to assume that these hypothetical ancient books that espouse a celestial teapot are not reliable (to much the same extent that we need to assume we exist in order to have any discussion ''at all''), it is of much greater improbability that they ''are'' accurate, and so requires a much greater leap of faith and circular reasoning. − − There is no valid reason, beyond [[Argumentum ad populum|widespread belief]], for belief in celestial teapots -- or for belief in religion. − − == See also == − − *[[Burden of proof]] − *[[Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence]] − *[[Fun:Celestial Teapot]] − + − + − [[Category:Religion]]
Undo revision 621484 by Jlensher (Talk)Direct copy from elsewhere - the "fun:celestial teapot" gave you away.
'''Russell's teapot''' or the '''Celestial Teapot''' was an analogy devised by the philosopher [[Bertrand Russell]] intended to refute the idea that the [[burden of proof]] lies upon the [[skeptic]] to disprove the claims of [[religion]]s. In an unpublished article entitled "Is There a God?" commissioned by ''Illustrated'' magazine, Russell said the following:
'''Russel's Teapot''' is an [[argument]] first formulated by the [[philosopher]] [[Bertrand Russell]] as a [[reductio ad absurdum]] of the notion that in an argument about the possible existence of an [[unseen]] entity, the burden of proof is upon the skeptic.
{{cquote|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.<ref>[http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html Is There A God?]</ref>}}
The fallacy in the argument is that there is in fact nothing absurd about believing the teapot to be there, if those "ancient books" were written by an ancient astronaut or other being who placed the teapot there.
The argument ''presumes'' that such is not the case, so presumes what it sets out to prove, and is thus a [[circular argument]].
That is, the argument is based on the ''presumption'' that there is no valid reason, beyond widespread belief, to believe that the teapot exists.
That is, the argument is based on the ''presumption'' that there is no valid reason, beyond widespread belief, to believe that the teapot exists.
But if the validity of those ancient books could be established, there is indeed reason to believe that the teapot exists, and thus the presumption in the argument is false<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Russel%27s_teapot&diff=prev&oldid=417136]</ref>}}
But if the validity of those ancient books could be established, there is indeed reason to believe that the teapot exists, and thus the presumption in the argument is false.
==Footnotes==
==References==
<references/>
<references />
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]