"Teapot Atheism"
Just because you cannot disprove the existence of something, does not mean that it does indeed exist. There are a myriad of things in our universe we could not disprove and just as many explanations for the existence of our world that we could come up with, that are just as plausible as that of a deity. Bertrand Russel's analogy of 'Tea Pot Atheism' illustrates this argument.
"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 an 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 and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time" (Bertrand Russell).
Richard Dawkin's adds to this idea and brings it into modern light in the BBC series "The Root of All Evil?"
8 comments:
This is exactly why Religion will always be around. You cannot prove or disprove it, Scientifically, therefor people will choose to believe it based on their history with it. Since I was never forced in to religion, or familiar with it I see things like this and say "See! This is proof that atheism is right!" whereas my cousin would see it and say "See! This is proof that atheism is wrong! Scientists can't disprove God's existence which provides no counter-point to the Church's claim!"
I've read some of Russell's stuff; and although he was a great intellect, he realized the hopelessness of his plight as an athiest. Let me give you two quotes from two of his works:
In "Why I Am Not a Christian" he said:
"I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive."
In "A Free Man's Worship and Other Writings" he says:
"no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined for extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins."
Wow. That's his view of the end of all things? Think about that for yourself--where does that paradigm leave you for today? Right and wrong, absolutes in the universe, objective reality, etc. cannot exist. What's the logical outworking of this kind of perspective on life. Man, I hope for Russell's sake that he was right. If he was, if his pessimism on life was well-founded, then his thoughts, however epic they are or were, will rot eventually just like his body currently is. He didn't worry about an eternal soul, it didn't exist in his mind.
But what if he was wrong? The implications of his worldview being misguided are treacherous, don't you think? If he was wrong, that means his soul was eternal-- and the implications of that are scary, aren't they? What if you have an eternal soul, but you completely neglect the care of it in the only life you're given?
I've always thought about this when comparing the athiest with the Christian. The athiest has no answer for suffering in the world--other than the fact that it's all meaningless. And in terms of the soul and eternity--if the Christian is wrong, at least he lived a life of freedom while on earth; if the athiest is wrong however, eternity is a big price to pay.
What do you think??
I don't see the pessimism that you see in Russel's statements. I think it is incredibly humbling. Just being alive and well is enough for me. All living creatures are at odds to just be alive. Our DNA shows us this simple fact. I also have a problem with the word 'meaningless.' Pain and suffering is a sad fact of life--however that in no way warrants creating an imaginary God to cope with it. You are using a slight reference to Pascal's wager in your last statement. One that I am working to address in an upcoming blog, because it does come up very often. How does living a life of fear--having an overbearing God watching over your shoulder and judging your every move make your life freer? Seems much more like a celestial dictatorship--North Korea anyone?
You're assuming that living the Christian paradigm is a life of fear? Hardly. Scripture doesn't teach anything about "an overbearing God watching over your shoulder and judging every move you make." Or are you referring to a different belief-system than biblical Christianity? Because the God of the Bible, and his revelation to humanity in his son Jesus is a God of love, compassion, and most of all truth. Basically, he is the ultimate reality in the universe. Now--being connected with that God, or living in reality, is far more free than living disconnected from it. The "celestial dictator" is a cop-out imaginary figure that those who want to neglect the God of the Bible often throw out because coming face to face with reality is too uncomfortable. Does that caricature of God make you feel better about rejecting the reality of Scripture? Don't invent an straw-man of a God that you can easily light on fire. Have more intellectual honesty than that.
And in terms of the problem of pain and suffering in the world--inventing a God in order to "cope with it" isn't exactly the route taken by biblical Christianity. In fact, there would be no "problem of pain" if it weren't for the Christian worldview and the Bible. If there's not an all powerful fully benevolent God who is sovereign in the universe, then we could explain away pain and suffering. But the fact that there is makes us question what's going on. And it's in Jesus and his work on the cross that we look to for the answer to those questions (but I won't get too far into that now).
As you said, "Just being alive and well is enough for me." But what happens when "well" isn't how you can describe your situation anymore? What happens when pain and suffering do come? They will. What's your answer in those times? Ignore it? Distract yourself from it? Enlighten yourself with high thoughts and escape reality?
What's your answer??
I will accept reality and move on. Stay close to friends and family. Just because you need something else, doesn't mean that everyone else does. The only people who escape reality are the religious. The stories that the bible is made up of are outside of reality--they defy the natural laws of the universe.
Edit: "they defy the natural laws of the [world]." Did not mean to say universe.
I'm guessing you mean miraculous accounts in Scripture when you are saying they "defy the natural laws of the world"? What are some examples that you look at that make you pessimistic? Jesus walking on water? The plagues in Exodus? That kind of stuff?
Yeah that is what I was getting at. The miracles you cited as well as the virgin birth for instance. I mean, these cannot not be proven just as much as they cannot be disproved, however it is much more likely for someone to create a fabricated story than for a man to actually be born of a virgin.
Post a Comment