What is Russell’s teapot? We explain this concept devised by the philosopher Bertrand Russell. Russell’s Teapot: How Do We Think About God’s Existence?
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 although not per se contrary make their perspectives and ways of functioning 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 that debate, he has highlighted the discussion as to whether or not its existence is probable and in any case whether what should be provided are proofs of its existence or non-existence.
One of the concepts used in this regard is that of Russell’s teapot, this being the concept that we are going to talk about throughout this article.
1. What is Russell’s teapot?
In 1952 the Illustrated Magazine commissioned the famous philosopher, mathematician and writer and then Nobel Prize winner Bertrand Russell to write an article in which he would reflect his opinion about the existence of God and the arguments used to debate that existence.
It would be in that article, which was not finally published, that the recognized author would use 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 spinning 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 for human reason to presume to doubt it, one would think that I am 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 school children, hesitation to believe in its existence would be a sign of eccentricity, and one who doubted would deserve the attention of a psychiatrist in an enlightened time or of 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 regarding the discussion and the bias that is committed when considering as an argument of the existence of God the fact of not being able to prove its non-existence.
2. What does this argument really stand for?
It should be kept in mind that while it may seem to be an argument against religion or belief in God and is in fact 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 of its existence cannot be based on the impossibility of denying it absolutely.
In other words, what Russell’s teapot concept tells us is not that God exists or not (although Russell himself was skeptical about its existence at the time he wrote the argument we are discussing in this article), but that it makes no sense to say that he does because there is no evidence to the contrary or to pretend that such evidence 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.
This way of thinking cannot have a different result from the one offered to the dogma: as with the previous teapot, if God did not exist, it would not be possible to know for sure if we take into account that perhaps our technology and capacity to search for him were not sufficient for the moment.
Thus, he defines the existence or non-existence of deity as something that is neither verifiable nor falsifiable given that it is not possible to carry out verification with parameters that can prove either of the two positions.
3. Not only applicable to religion
The argument or analogy of Russell’s teapot 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 impossibility of providing evidence that denies it.
But beyond the religious realm itself, the analogy would continue to be applicable in any situation in which evidence was required that, given the conditions presented in the hypothesis or assumed belief, it would not be impossible to carry out a verification or falsehood of 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.
