Did you know that there's a china teapot that's revolving about the
sun in an elliptical orbit between earth and mars
Welcome to Northern Diaries and my name is Sudarsanan Sampath Kumar and
today we are going to talk about Russell's Teapot.
Throughout our brief existence mankind has always been preoccupied with various
traditions based on beliefs religion moral values traditions form around these beliefs.
From ancient religions to modern doomsday cults humans have always been fascinated
with any and all answers to existential mysteries even if those answers don't
hold up logically and crashes in the face of even the slightest scrutiny.
There are people who believe earth is flat even though there are countless proof of a round
earth they still remain skeptics. What about belief in things that cannot be disproved?
Many people believe in God including my own family they have this unshakable belief
that there is a supreme being who's governing even the most mundane aspects of their lives.
What about philosophies like solipsism? Could you really prove anything other than the self exists?
Or what about philosophies like Simulation Hypothesis?
Could you really prove that you're not lying comfortably in some disgusting
computer goo immersed in an amazing simulation?
in 1952 philosopher Bertrand Russell in an article titled, 'Is there a God?',
proposed a thought experiment. He wrote many orthodox people speak as though it
were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them.
This is of course a mistake 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.
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.
So in summary the philosopher here makes the conclusion that the philosophic burden of proof
lies upon the person making the unfalsifiable claim
rather than shifting the burden of proof to others.
The teapot argument was made to illustrate the fact that because you cannot disprove
the existence of God or in this case the existence of a China teapot in space
doesn't mean that it warrants any critical attention.
Russell points out that if he brings up this teapot argument he would rightly be thought to
be talking nonsense. So just because the existence of God was affirmed in ancient books and taught as
the sacred truth for thousands of years, he argues that it shouldn't receive any serious thought.
But of course nothing is as simple as it appears. Several philosophers and literary
critics have critically analyzed Russell's Teapot and some even rejected the argument.
Philosopher Gary Michael Gutting famously rejected the teapot argument. Gutting points
out that numerous sensible competent people appeal to personal experience and arguments in support
of God's existence. Thus to simply reject the existence of god out of hand seems unjustified.
Think about it. What's the difference between believing in God and believing in a teapot?
A belief in a supreme being is something grand. That belief is an attempt to explain or even
demystify a reality. For all of our philosophical technological and scientific breakthrough we still
haven't come up with a proper explanation of why everything's the way it is.
Our very existence is still shrouded in mystery. A profound belief that grows out of that mystery
is different from a spinning teapot. For starters the teapot is man-made
and its origins known, but the same cannot be said about the concept of God.
Philosopher Eric Reitan points out that belief in a God is different from belief in a teapot because
teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable and that given what we know about the
physical world we have no good reason to think that belief in Russell's teapot is justified.
Originally yes, Bertrand Russell came up with this argument to explain why he
doesn't believe in a supreme being. He used this argument against religion. I
personally think that this is not a strong argument against theism,
but i think it's an important argument when it comes to deciding who bears the burden of proof.
It is especially relevant in today's world because we all have access to this crazy loudspeaker
called the internet and anyone can make any hard to disprove, unsubstantiated claim and call it
the truth, and there will certainly be an audience ready and willing to accept that truth and that's
how facts become subjective and when facts become subjective proof is the last line of defense.
Russell's teapot simply points out that if you're making a vague claim that's hard to refute
the burden of proof is on you. Next time when you're watching a random
conspiracy video on YouTube at 2am on a Monday night,
just think about this lonely teapot spinning in some quiet corner of the universe.
What do you think about this celestial teapot? Do you think it successfully argues
against the existence of God? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
That's it for today. If you like this video please hit the like button,
share it with your like-minded friends on social media and subscribe
and please don't forget to hit the bell icon so that you get notified any time I post a new video.
I also have a Patreon page where you can donate and support this channel.
I want to sincerely thank all of my Patreon supporters for their help and motivation
thank you so much and see you in the next video.