Russell's Teapot Argument And Its Variants

[.InshAllah.]

Russell's teapot argument and its many variants are oft repeated arguments championed by many athiests who claim that they prove that belief in God is irrational. The teapot argument goes something like this:

If someone were to claim that there was a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars, but this teapot was undetectable by any telescope, then we would react with incredulity. There is no evidence for such a teapot, so we would believe that there is no such teapot, and therefore we should believe that there is no God as there is no evidence for God.

The point of the argument is to show that lack of evidence for God entitles use to believe that that He doesn't exist.

Mark Sharlow in his new paper The End of the Teapot Argument for Atheism (and All its Tawdry Imitators) quite rightly argues that these arguments are 'shockingly weak'. The reason that we react with disbelief is not because we lack evidence for such a teapot (because it's undetecable), but rather because such a teapot is intrinsically improbable. In order for a teapot to be orbiting the Sun between the Earth and Mars, humans would probably have to put it there. But we know that it's very unlikely that humans put a teapot there. The alternative is that the teapot formed by chance which is even more improbable. So belief in such teapot is implausible. Suppose that instead of a teapot, we are told that an oblong rock with 2 craters that is undetectable with telescopes is orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars. Would we react with disbelief? No, because such an object isn't intrinsically improbable, eventhough it is undetectable and we have no evidence that such an object exists.

The difference between the oblong rock and the teapot is that we have independent reasons to doubt the existence of the latter. So in order for the teapot to be analogous to the existence of God, the athiest would have to present us with independent arguments against the existence of God. Without these arguments, the teapot argument is worthless. Suppose the athiest succeeds in presenting us arguments, the teapot argument would still be evidentially impotent, as any strength whatsoever that it has is solely from these independent arguments. Its the independent arguments that would be doing all of the work, so the teapot argument adds nothing to the atheist's case.

Sharlow goes through the variants of the teapot argument: the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, faires, Santa etc. and shows that they are all likewise intrinsically improbable. He then offers another argument for the improbability of the orbiting teapot et al. based on arbitrariness. The moral is that if you want to argue that something doesn't exist then you need an argument. Appealing to orbiting teapots and invisible unicorns isn't going to help you.

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

(salam)

I agree with this post, and the view offered by the paper.

However, the main difference between "God exists" and "a teapot orbits neptune" is that the latter is an empirical proposition, and the former a non-empirical claim and they cannot be treated as the same type of assertion - each of these 2 propositions belongs to a separate philosophical category, and so the philosophical problems intrinsic to one category cannot be applied to the other.

Please a take a look at the following, where the metaphysical implications of an empirical proposition do not apply to a non-empirical proposition, and it is incorrect to demand the latter type to satisfy the requirements of the former.

What are the consequences of "a teapot orbits neptune"? - x, y, and z. How can we verify these? e.g. By using a very strong telescope.

What are the consequences of its negation - "a teapot does not orbit neptune"? - a, b, and c. How can we verify these? e.g. By doing some stellar spectroscopy.

So, we then infer the correct proposition by collating and then verifying the evidence. But what about "God exists"?

What are the consequences of "God exists", and how can we verify these consequences?

What are the consequences of its negation - "God does not exist" - which are not a consequent of "God exists", and how can we verify these consequences?

The above shows that an empirical proposition is all about synthetic a posteriori whereas "God exists" is not synthetic a posteriori, and so the evidence which makes the empirical position true, probable, possible, false would not make sense for "God exists", since "God exists" is synthetic or analystic a priori, and so does not require the evidence which is required for the empirical claims.

(wasalam)

[Lanatin]

The flying spaghetti monster is one of the krappest jokes around.

[Ugly Jinn]

I don't know who Mark Sharlow is but he failed to make the connection, and a horrible refute.

The whole point of the analogy is that a teapot exists in space only because human/s say it does, just like humans say God/s exist. Replacing 'teapot' with 'rock' to make an argument defeats the whole point of the theory. The whole point of using 'teapot' is that it is man made, and in his opinion, God/s are man made. Russell also specifically mentioned it as a 'china' teapot equating it to religion ('Christian' God, 'Jew' God, etc.). He also used teapot because humans are familiar with it, just like how humans are familiar with God/s.

The whole point of the theory is that no one can prove a negative (negative proof), that's all. Take away the teapots and orbits, Russell is just adding color to an already known theory.

Jebreil made a better refute than Sharlow.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Ugly Jinn

[Guest Jebreil]

The whole point of the analogy is that a teapot exists in space only because human/s say it does, just like humans say God/s exist. Replacing 'teapot' with 'rock' to make an argument defeats the whole point of the theory. The whole point of using 'teapot' is that it is man made, and in his opinion, God/s are man made. Russell also specifically mentioned it as a 'china' teapot equating it to religion ('Christian' God, 'Jew' God, etc.). He also used teapot because humans are familiar with it, just like how humans are familiar with God/s.

(bismillah)

(salam)

The question is how similar are they, teapot and God? Is it really that theists just posit a wild claim without any reason? What the paper seems to argue is that the orbitting teapot is improbable and there is no reason to believe it's certainly true (hence why nobody seriously believes it) yet God is not improbable (maybe possible?) and there are reasons to believe (we sense wisdom in the intricacy of the cosmos, we feel a need for a divine figure, we seek the meaning of existence, we abhor an infinite regress, we intuit the unity permeating everything). So the point is, is this a sophisticated analogy?

My own understanding is that it's a bad analogy, and the only common point between the two is that there is no empirical evidence for either. However, this objection is not really an objection, since God is not an empirical concept.

(wasalam)

[Ugly Jinn]

I understand your point of view, but I think you are taking the analogy too literally. You may think using a 'teapot' is absurd, but it's intentionally used to show the absurdity of God/s from an Atheists' point of view. If you observe, most atheists tend to use such approach like 'flying spaghetti', 'pink unicorns', etc. In a way, they are mocking theists.

The analogy simply wants to make a point that a human can claim anything he wants (regardless if it's an empirical claim or not), and if there isn't any/enough evidence to disprove it, the claim remains valid, even if the possibility is slim (improbable). That's the gist of the analogy. And because of that there are plethora of different Gods that humans believe in.

You may not like the analogy, but I'm sure you understand the point he's trying to make (negative proof).

Edited January 23, 2012 by Ugly Jinn

[.InshAllah.]

The whole point of the theory is that no one can prove a negative (negative proof), that's all. Take away the teapots and orbits, Russell is just adding color to an already known theory.

The analogy simply wants to make a point that a human can claim anything he wants (regardless if it's an empirical claim or not), and if there isn't any/enough evidence to disprove it, the claim remains valid, even if the possibility is slim (improbable). That's the gist of the analogy. And because of that there are plethora of different Gods that humans believe in.

Whats the point of the teapot argument? You've given 2 different points. In the first quote you say that the point is that you cant prove a negative. This is clearly false and in many different ways. See this: http://www.shiachat....ove-a-negative/

In the second quote you say that the point is to disprove the claim that if there is no evidence against a statement, then that statement is valid. Presumably by this you mean that if someone makes a claim but has no evidence for it, then we can regard the claim as false. If this is what you mean (correct me if Im wrong), then I agree that that is what the teapot argument is typically trying to prove. There is no evidence for such a teapot, therefore we ought to believe that such a teapot doesnt exist; Likewise, there is no evidence for God, so ought to believe that He doesnt exist.

In order for this to be an argument rather than the athiests personal opinion, belief in the orbiting teapot has to be analogous to belief in God. But we cant just assume they are analogous - in fact they arent analogous at all. We have independent reasons to regard such a teapot as improbable (as he explains in the paper), and thats why regard such a teapot as absurd. We do not have comparable reasons to regard God as improbable; If the athiests thinks that we do then he needs to provide us with these arguments. Without independent arguments the two are not analogous and the teapot argument fails. (Even with these other arguments the teapot is evidentially useless as he explains)

Furthermore, if the athiest was right that we ought to regard any claim without evidence as false, then why not use the oblong rock analogy? Because the athiest is not right! eventhough we have no evidence for such a rock, it would be wrong of us to deny its existence, because such a rock is not made improbable by independent arguments, in contrast to the orbiting teapot.

[Ugly Jinn]

Whats the point of the teapot argument? You've given 2 different points. In the first quote you say that the point is that you cant prove a negative. This is clearly false and in many different ways. See this: http://www.shiachat....ove-a-negative/

That's what Russel believes, hence my explanation.

That article wasn't impressive at all, can't even distinguish the nature of the positive/nature claim. (I only read the Part 2). There is a difference between 'lack of evidence' and 'evidence of absence'.

There are differences in approach:

--Disproving a negative

--Proving a negative

Athiest's will claim disproving a negative is a logical fallacy, the onus is on the one who makes the claim.

In order for this to be an argument rather than the athiests personal opinion, belief in the orbiting teapot has to be analogous to belief in God. But we cant just assume they are analogous - in fact they arent analogous at all. We have independent reasons to regard such a teapot as improbable (as he explains in the paper), and thats why regard such a teapot as absurd. We do not have comparable reasons to regard God as improbable; If the athiests thinks that we do then he needs to provide us with these arguments. Without independent arguments the two are not analogous and the teapot argument fails. (Even with these other arguments the teapot is evidentially useless as he explains)

Teapot orbiting is absurd, that's the whole point. The absurdity of making a claim without proof is the comparison Russel's trying to make. You can replace teapot with angels orbiting, will that really change anything? No, logically it won't. For someone influenced by religion, it might (all you need is a hadith stating it).

Edited January 25, 2012 by Ugly Jinn

[Lanatin]

Teapot orbiting is absurd, that's the whole point. The absurdity of making a claim without proof is the comparison Russel's trying to make. You can replace teapot with angels orbiting, will that really change anything? No, logically it won't. For someone influenced by religion, it might (all you need is a hadith stating it).

He was trying to disprove God, not dogma.

[.InshAllah.]

That's what Russel believes, hence my explanation.

That article wasn't impressive at all, can't even distinguish the nature of the positive/nature claim. (I only read the Part 2).

If you only read the second part then you missed the bit about proving a negative. Give it a read.

Athiest's will claim disproving a negative is a logical fallacy, the onus is on the one who makes the claim.

Actually athiests claim that you cant prove a negative, not that you cant disprove a negative, but in either case the claim is false. Read the article.

Teapot orbiting is absurd, that's the whole point. The absurdity of making a claim without proof is the comparison Russel's trying to make. You can replace teapot with angels orbiting, will that really change anything? No, logically it won't. For someone influenced by religion, it might (all you need is a hadith stating it).

The teapot is absurd because its improbable, not because theres no evidence for it, otherwise the oblong rock with 2 craters would also be absurd.

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Jinn

If the Orbiting Teapot's only purpose is to show that a negative cannot be proven and it is absurd to believe in it because there isn't any evidence, then, as Inshallah says, the Orbiting Undetectable Rock with Crater is also absurd to believe in if there isn't any evidence.

However, it doesn't seem that Orbiting Undetectable Rock with Crater is so absurd to believe in, because given the reality of Space, it is not so improbable for there to be such an Orbiting Rock with Crater.

Therefore, the conclusion is drawn, lack of evidence does not make a belief absurd, but rather, lack of evidence + improbability of existence of object makes a belief absurd. Therefore, an atheist cannot just rely on the lack of evidence. They would have to construct arguments to show that God is intrinsically improbable.

That's a fair point.

(wasalam)

[Gypsy]

I am confused here. How can you use the teapot hypotheses to make a case for the existence of God?

Eventually, sooner or later, you will always be able to either approve or disapprove the existence of a teapot circling the orbit. To an atheist the existence of God is as highly improbably as the existence of a teapot circling the orbit between Earth and Mars.

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Gypsy

To an atheist the existence of God is as highly improbable as the existence of a teapot circling the orbit between Earth and Mars.

They would have to show/prove that the idea of God existing is as highly improbable. Mere claims can be dismissed by equally mere claims. Isn't that what the atheists say? So, the same applies here, to them.

(wasalam)

Edited January 31, 2012 by Jebreil

[MajiC]

Russell's teapot argument and its many variants are oft repeated arguments championed by many athiests who claim that they prove that belief in God is irrational. The teapot argument goes something like this:

If someone were to claim that there was a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars, but this teapot was undetectable by any telescope, then we would react with incredulity. There is no evidence for such a teapot, so we would believe that there is no such teapot, and therefore we should believe that there is no God as there is no evidence for God.

The point of the argument is to show that lack of evidence for God entitles use to believe that that He doesn't exist.

I've always been baffled by the stupidity of this pseudo-argument. The proposition of God and that of the celestial teapot are completely incomparable. One is a proposition based on a syllogistic structure and the other is a childish assertion. For example, the most elementary arguments for God employ the principle of causality while the teaport "argument" employs nothing of the kind. Where did the celestial teapot leave any traces and indications? This is the most glaring difference and quite an embarassing blunder on the part of Mr Russel.

Edited February 1, 2012 by MajiC

[Incognito]

I agree MajiC. Russells contribution to logic is profound and to be much admired. When it comes to his religious and ethical arguments he embarasses himself.

[titumir]

I have a small extension to the problem.

Imagine an astronomer, examining the skies with his powerful telescope, suddenly finds an intricately made and designed teapot actually orbiting between Jupiter and Saturn. Its perfectly shaped, well designed and with advanced features that the scientists' home country cannot make a teapot like it.

So, then what? Do we believe an ancient civilization put it there or do we believe that random collisions between the rock created that intricately shaped and designed teapot which is so advanced that the world cannot make on like it?

[Incognito]

How is that an extension to the problem? It seems like a completely irrelevant question.

Pardon my ignorance.

[Gypsy]

I have a small extension to the problem.

Imagine an astronomer, examining the skies with his powerful telescope, suddenly finds an intricately made and designed teapot actually orbiting between Jupiter and Saturn. Its perfectly shaped, well designed and with advanced features that the scientists' home country cannot make a teapot like it.

So, then what? Do we believe an ancient civilization put it there or do we believe that random collisions between the rock created that intricately shaped and designed teapot which is so advanced that the world cannot make on like it?

Do you know why the hypothetical scenario in your post will never happen?

[The Persian Shah]

The teapot argument may not be valid in the particular sense you are all complaining about, but it does have it's own importance. For example, it is Shahid Mutahhari [QS] who notes in "The Principles of Philosophy and the Method of Realism" (Usul-e Falsafa wa Ravesh-e Riyalism): The arguments for God vary and not all are complete/flawless. The argument by design can only take one to the frontiers of the metaphysical realm, but it cannot go beyond that. So, someone can reply to this argument by saying that only the existence of a Creator/Designer has been proved, but what that entity is remains to be established. It could be your conception of God, or the flying spaghetti monster, or another, or even multiple designers.

Of course, we also can't beat him in eloquence of speech :):

"Thirdly, the path of empirical knowledge, or the path [to the knowledge of God] through nature, is one which extends from nature to the frontier of the metaphysical, no further. We do not say that it is a path which stretches- from nature to the frontier of the Divine realm, or that it is sufficient, as they say, for 'the journey from the creatures to God' (min al-khalq ila al-Haqq). All that we are saying is that it is a road that leads only up to the frontiers of the metaphysical. That is, it only proves that nature has a metaphysical plane to which it is subject. But whether that metaphysical is itself created or not; that is, whether that metaphysical power is the creator of all things, or itself created and subject to something beyond it; and presuming that there is nothing beyond it, whether it is simple or composite, one or many; are its knowledge and power finite or infinite; is its grace finite or infinite; is man free or not vis-à-vis it—none of these and scores of similar other questions can be answered by it."

- Shahid Mutahhari [QS],

"The Causes Responsible for Materialist tendencies in the West"