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 one of them has its own characteristics, which, despite not being contrary per se, mean that their perspectives and ways of working may 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, he has highlighted the discussion regarding whether or not its existence is probable and in any case whether what should be provided is evidence of its existence or its non-existence. One of the concepts that have been used in this regard is that of Russell's teapot., this being the concept that we are going to talk about throughout this article.

• Related article: "How are Psychology and Philosophy similar?"

What is Russell's teapot?

In 1952, the Illustrated Magazine commissioned the famous philosopher, mathematician and writer, and by then awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature Bertrand Russell writing an article in which he will reflect

his opinion regarding the existence of God and the arguments used to debate that existence.

It would be in said article, which was not finally published, in which the renowned author used the analogy that is now known as Russell's teapot. The latter reads as follows:

If I were to suggest that between Earth and Mars there is a Chinese teapot revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit, no one would be able to reject my statement if I had been careful to add that the teapot is too small to be observed even by our smallest telescopes powerful. But if I were to say that, since my statement cannot be rejected, it is intolerable for human reason to presume to doubt it, it would be thought that I am talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of said teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as holy truth every Sunday, and instilled in the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would be a sign of eccentricity, and whoever doubts would deserve the attention of a psychiatrist in enlightened times or of an inquisitor in modern times. previous.

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 as an argument for the existence of God the fact of not being able to prove his non-existence.

• You may be interested in: "Types of religion (and their differences in beliefs and ideas)"

What does this argument really stand for?

It must be taken into account that although it may seem like an argument against religion or belief in God and indeed is often used in this sense, the truth is that the teapot argument Russell it is not deterministic and does not establish that a deity cannot really exist: only intends to show that the argument for its existence cannot be based on the impossibility of absolutely denying it.

In other words, what Russell's teapot concept tells us is not that God exists or not (although Russell himself he was skeptical of its existence at the time he wrote the argument we are dealing with in this article), but rather there is no point defining to say that he does because there is no evidence to the contrary or claim that such proof is necessary in order 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 be able to say that it does not.

And it is that said way of thinking cannot have a different result from the one offered to dogma: as it happens with the previous teapot, if God did not exist It would not be possible to know with total certainty if we take into account that perhaps our technology and ability to search for it was not for the moment enough.

Thus, he defines the existence or non-existence 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.

Not only applicable to religion

Russell's teapot argument or analogy was originally raised in order to assess the fact that some orthodox religious positions state that the dogma and the very existence of God is demonstrated by the inability to provide evidence that denies it.

But beyond the religious realm itself, the analogy would continue to be applicable in all those situations in which proof was demanded. that given the conditions presented in the assumed hypothesis or belief, it was not impossible to verify or falsify the affair. This serves as a basis, for example, for subjective aspects such as the beliefs and prejudices we make about others, certain moral precepts or organizational aspects such as leadership or power.

Bibliographic references:

• Russell, b. (1952). Is there a God? Illustrated Magazine (unpublished). [On-line]. Available in: https://web.archive.org/web/20130710005113/http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/br/br_god.html