Are you religious?

[Rev]

You could easily have 2000 years of debate about the glazing on Russell's Teapot.

I think you may have misunderstood Russell's argument!


I am rather afraid you have probably misunderstood the dialectic here. The teapot analogy is used in this instance in response to a theist arguing that atheism is irrational because there can be no proof of God's non-existence.
That is, when the theist argues that the inability to disprove a thesis shifts the burden onto those sceptical of the thesis, even and especially when the claim is unfalsifiable in principle,
He commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. The teapot analogy is a way of illustrating this fallaciousness.

It is not that believing in God and believing in the teapot are epistemically on par, but rather that the reason given in this instance is a poor one.
Philosophy is about arguments and reasons, so poor arguments are met with examples that demonstrate their ridiculousness.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

really though?
v. out·ed, out·ing, outs
v.intr. To be disclosed or revealed.

 

[Rev]

No offence meant, I just found it an amusing turn of phrase

if anything I liked it!

 

[MacB]

This thread has caused me to develop the belief that Rev is creepy

 

[Rev]

This thread has caused me to develop the belief that Rev is creepy

I am, and I am in your garden with my laptop
(there seems to be evidence of recent burials and a strong smell of out of date pork)

 

[byegad]

Couldn't agree more with Rev that, a thesis that cannot be disproved must therefore be true, is a load of dingos kidneys.

As an atheist I'm content with my non-belief and don't need to strive to reconcile my atheism with the real world. As our scientific knowledge increases and we can explain more and more of the natural world in mathematics and forces that just are, the religiously minded are pushed into more rationalisation of what, at least to me, are their irrational beliefs.

I don't feel the need to preach or convert others to my 'side' I let them make their own minds up. My two boys were exposed to the daily Christian propaganda at school and both were Scouts, where again they were exposed to religion. They made their own minds up when they were old enough to do so, and as one said to me a couple of years ago; 'I saw you leading a moral and good life without religion and thought about what we had been taught at school about religion and rejected it.

 

[Rev]

This thread has caused me to develop the belief that Rev is creepy

It's no secret from your previous posts where you stand, however such mud slinging is both childish and irrelevant to the discussion.



Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
   
2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

So there you rubber wearing Norfolk swinger

 

[clarion]

I have not misunderstood Russell at all. Yes, the argument that the existence of gods cannot ne disproved is a fatally flawed one, bit there is no reason at all to distinguish between an imaginary friend and am imaginary teapot. They are directly on a par, and have as much effect on us as each other. In fact, there is somewhat more credibility to the teapot since we know that such an object exists (even if you are going to dispute the definition till you reach absurdity), and the mechanics of orbit, whereas the existence and locations (not to mention the physics) of gods are beyond fuzzy, even after thousands of years in which to establish any evidence at all.

 

[Rev]

OK Clarion, firstly you suggest quite unambiguously that Russell’s teapot is epistemologically on par with an invisible friend.

There is no reason at all to distinguish between an imaginary friend and an imaginary teapot.

Yet we are not debating the existence of invisible friends are we?

Nor are we debating the existence of the slightly more entertaining variations called the Flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn. If we were we could happily apply equal epistemological value to them as we do Russell’s teapot.

Your line of reasoning for Russell’s teapot seems to be that;

1. There is no evidence for the existence of any God.

2. There is no evidence for the existence of the Russell’s teapot.

3. Therefore, belief in a God and belief in Russell’s teapot are on equal epistemic grounds.

This is wrought with fallacy.

Firstly premise 1 is false. It is not the case that there is no evidence for the existence of any God.
Clarion you may not accept the evidence for the existence God, but you doe not offer much by way of demonstrating that the classical and contemporary arguments for God’s existence are false.
Even if you adequately refuted several arguments given by theists for the belief in God, you would still not be justified in saying that “there is NO evidence for the existence of God.”
In fact your comments smack of a priori rejection (a rejection of the evidence before the evidence is even given) of the notion that evidence may be given for the existence of a God.
Suggesting a somewhat biased approach?

Numerous arguments have been given for the existence of God. For example, there are cosmological arguments (arguments for a first cause), teleological arguments (arguments for a Grand Designer), moral arguments (arguments for a Moral Lawgiver), and others. If your serious about the question of God you must deal with the evidence and arguments thoroughly before dogmatically rejecting belief in a God.
To ignorantly reject the existence of God “because you can’t think of any good reasons to believe in God” dismisses much anecdotal and philosophical evidence. Many major philosophers and thinkers have dealt with the existence of God, and many of them accepted some form of belief in a God.

Many more people profess direct experience of god on a daily basis and this is evidence (whether you accept its veracity or not it is evidence that Russell’s teapot does not have) that makes it ridiculous to suggest God and Russell’s teapot are epistemologically the same!


NOTE: This is not advocating the "appeal to the people" fallacy (argumentum ad populum). The argument is not that belief in God is true BECAUSE so many people believe that God exists.

Rather, it is simply an irrefutable fact that many people claim to have a direct experience of god on a daily basis.
In contrast with the serious issue of God’s existence, Russell’s teapot is not (to my knowledge) ever credited with being seen or felt , directly or inferred.


The belief in Russell’s teapot is held by no one!

Even its advocates do not believe in it!

No one claims to have direct experience of it or its influence!

Even those who sarcastically espouse that Russell’s teapot exists don’t really believe that it exists, nor do they think that the teapot is a coherent explanation for certain experiences or phenomena, never mind finite contingent being, logic, morality, beauty, etc. Oh and I am an atheist...shhhhh

 

[Fab Foodie]

Anyone organising their toe-nail collections tonight? I might.

 

[Aperitif]

Anyone organising their toe-nail collections tonight? I might.

Jesus had toe nails...he had a couple through his hands too.

 

[youngoldbloke]

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

(Douglas Adams)​

 

[clarion]

Rev, if an argument is proposed but cannot be substantiated or disproved, it cannot be allowed as evidence. Thus, there is no proof for the existence of supernatural phenomena.

Teapots, however, do exist. I think you'd find that one hard to deny.

Russell proposed the teapot to show up the fallacies of theist argument, and the elisions made in order to pretend the gaps don't exist. It still seems to work, as your posts show.

 

[Rev]

Rev, if an argument is proposed but cannot be substantiated or disproved, it cannot be allowed as evidence.

The problem here is yet again you make an assumption about evidence you have not examined priori rejection (a rejection of the evidence before the evidence is even given)
Your statement is fallacious again

Russell proposed the teapot to show up the fallacies of theist argument,

2nd time of posting
The teapot analogy is used in this instance in response to a theist arguing that atheism is irrational because there can be no proof of God's non-existence.

That is, when the theist argues that the inability to disprove a thesis shifts the burden onto those sceptical of the thesis, even and especially when the claim is unfalsifiable in principle,
He commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. The teapot analogy is a way of illustrating this fallaciousness.

It is not that believing in God and believing in the teapot are epistemically on par, but rather that the reason given in this instance is a poor one.
Philosophy is about arguments and reasons, so poor arguments are met with examples that demonstrate their ridiculousness.
I'd rather not just re post what you choose to ignore but I am loathe to go through the rigmarole of refuting it afresh line by line.


.

 

[Rev]

Russell's point is you can't use the fact that a hypothesis can't be disproved as evidence for that hypothesis or as justification for belief in that hypothesis. This is clearly correct!
It's not an argument against the existence of anything including teapots , unicorns or Gods. It no way implies that we should not be open to a person using other sound reasons to justify their beliefs.

That is all Russell proves! Nothing more. Pretending it is some supernatural magical mantra against the gods is pure superstition! and whats more irrational!