(Concerning the Philosophy of religion) 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. By the Philosopher, Bertrand Russell My response: Bertrand believes if he asserts what he stated about the tea pot that it cannot be refuted. But I disagree. The mistake most people make when trying to refute his reasoning is as follows: They try to show that the tea pot does not exist. But that is exactly what Russell wants because he knows it is impossible to do so. So how should Theists approach Russells tea pot? Well, I believe the way to refute Russells tea pot is as follows: Show that it is logically impossible. If we can show that it is logically impossible, then the truth value of his claim will be negated. What does logically impossible mean? Well it means that if we can demonstrate that his claims cause him to contradict himself, then conceptually, he must be wrong about his claims, because they violate the principles of logic, and therefore the claims must be irrational. Below is an argument against Russells tea pot: The argument (from the epistemic standard of empiricism) is as follows: 1. Nothing can be known beyond sensory experience. 2. Thus, if a China tea pot exists beyond sensory experience, then Bertrand Russell cannot know anything about it. (Assuming a China tea pot exists for the sake of argument) 3. Bertrand Russell cannot know anything about the China tea pot. (So how does he know that a China tea pot exists?) 4. If Bertrand Russell cannot know anything about the China tea pot, then he cannot know that between Earth and Mars there is a China tea pot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. (Moreover he cannot even know that such a tea pot exists) 5. Therefore, Bertrand Russell cannot know that between Earth and Mars there is a China tea pot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit. 6. If Bertrand Russell cannot know that between earth and Mars there is a China tea pot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, then his claim (that is, the claim that there is a China tea pot between the Earth and Mars e.t.c) about the China tea pot is false. 7. Therefore, Bertrand Russells claim about the China tea pot is false.
Posted on: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 12:23:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015