Russell’s teapot: how do we think about the existence of God?

What is Russell's teapot? We explain this concept devised by the philosopher Bertrand Russell.

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 they are not per se contrary, make 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 long and hard throughout history. And within this debate, the discussion on whether his existence is probable or not, and in any case, whether what should be provided is proof of his existence or non-existence, has stood out. One of the concepts that have been used in this respect is that of Russell's teapot, which is the concept we are going to talk about in this article.This is the concept we are going to talk about in this article.

What is Russell's teapot?

In 1952 the Illustrated Magazine commissioned the famous philosopher, mathematician and writer and by then Nobel Prize winner Bertrand Russell to write an article in which he reflected his opinion on the existence of God and the arguments used to debate the existence of God..

It would be in this article, which finally was 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 the Earth and Mars there is a Chinese teapot revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit, no one would be able to reject my assertion if I had been careful to add that the teapot is too small to be observed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to say that, since my assertion cannot be rejected, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I would be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as sacred truth every Sunday and inculcated in the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would be a sign of eccentricity, and the doubter would deserve the attention of a psychiatrist in an enlightened time or 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. a skeptical perspective regarding 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.

What does this argument really defend?

It should be noted that although it may seem to be 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 is not deterministic and does not establish that a deity cannot really exist.It only pretends to show that the argument for its existence cannot be based on the impossibility of denying it absolutely.

In other words, what Russell's concept of the teapot tells us is not that God does or does not exist (although Russell himself was skeptical of His existence at the time he wrote the argument we are discussing in this article), but rather that it makes no sense to define to say that he does because there is no evidence to the contrary or to 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 prove that something does not exist in order to be able to say that it does not.

And this way of thinking cannot have a different result from the one offered to dogma: as 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 capacity to search for him would not be sufficient for the moment.

Thus, he defines the existence or non-existence of the deity as something that is neither provable nor falsifiable. is neither provable nor falsifiable since it is not possible to carry out verifications with parameters that can prove either of the two positions.

Not only applicable to religion

The argument or analogy of Russell's teapot was originally raised in order to evaluate the fact that some orthodox religious positions state that the dogma and the very existence of God is demonstrated by the fact that it is not possible to provide proofs that the existence of God is not falsifiable. the impossibility of providing evidence that denies it..

But beyond the religious sphere itself, the analogy would still be applicable in any situation in which a proof is demanded that, given the conditions presented in the hypothesis or belief assumed, 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 make about others, certain moral precepts or organizational aspects such as leadership or power.

Bibliographical references:

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