Russell’s Teapot: How Do We Think About The Existence Of God?
Science and religion are two concepts that have often been seen as opposites, being two ways of trying to explain the reality that surrounds us and existence itself. Each of them has its own characteristics, which, although not per se contrary, mean that their perspectives and ways of functioning can differ in basic elements.
One of them is the position regarding the existence of God, something that various authors have debated at length throughout history. And within this debate, the discussion has highlighted whether or not its existence is probable and in any case if what should be provided is evidence of its existence or non-existence. One of the concepts that have been used in this regard is that of Russell’s teapot this being the concept we are going to talk about throughout this article.
In 1952, the Illustrated Magazine commissioned the famous philosopher, mathematician and writer, who was already awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, Bertrand Russell, to write an article in which he reflected their opinion regarding the existence of God and the arguments used to debate said existence
It would be in said article, which was ultimately not published, in which the renowned author used the analogy that today is known as Russell’s teapot. The latter reads as follows:
If I were to suggest that between Earth and Mars there exists a Chinese teapot revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit, no one would be able to reject my claim if I had been careful to add that the teapot is too small to be observed even by our telescopes. more powerful. But if I said that, since my statement cannot be rejected, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, you would think I was talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, were taught as sacred truth every Sunday, and were inculcated in the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would be a sign of eccentricity, and whoever doubt would deserve the attention of a psychiatrist in an enlightened time or of an inquisitor in earlier times.
Thus, Russell’s teapot is an analogy or simile that the author uses in order to present a skeptical perspective in relation to the discussion and the bias that is committed when considering the fact of not being able to prove his non-existence as an argument for the existence of God.
It must be taken into account that although it may seem like an argument against religion or belief in God and in fact it is often used in this sense, the truth is that Russell’s teapot argument It is not deterministic and does not establish that a deity cannot really exist: It only aims to show that the argument for its existence cannot be based on the impossibility of denying it absolutely.
In other words, what Russell’s teapot concept tells us is not that God exists or not (although Russell himself was skeptical about his existence at the time he wrote the argument we discuss in this article). ), but It makes no sense to define saying that it does because there is no evidence to the contrary or pretend that such proof is necessary to be able to deny it.
Thus, we would be facing a skeptical position that would rather be against a dogmatic position that demands the need to demonstrate that something does not exist in order to say that it does not exist.
And this way of thinking cannot have a different result from that offered to dogma: as with the previous teapot, if God did not exist it would not be possible to know it with total certainty if we take into account that perhaps our technology and ability to looking for it was not enough for the moment.
Thus, he defines the existence or nonexistence of the deity as something that It is neither verifiable nor falsifiable since it is not possible to carry out checks with parameters that can prove either of the two positions.
Russell’s teapot argument or analogy was originally proposed in order to assess the fact that some orthodox religious positions propose that dogma and the very existence of God is demonstrated by the inability to provide evidence to deny it
But beyond the religious sphere itself, the analogy would continue to be applicable in any situation in which proof was required that, given the conditions presented in the assumed hypothesis or belief, it would not be impossible to verify or falsify the matter. This serves as a basis, for example, for subjective aspects such as the beliefs and prejudices we have about others, certain moral precepts or organizational aspects such as leadership or power.
