Why I Am Not A Teapot Agnostic

There are different ways of being an atheist or an agnostic. A person can be agnostic in the sense that they don’t believe in the supernatural, but think that it might really exist. Or, a person can be an agnostic in the sense that they believe in some kind of supernatural realm, just not any described by the world’s religions.

Most atheists say they just don't believe in God. These atheists can also be called agnostics.

For example, well-known atheists Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins say they are “teapot agnostics,” which is a reference to one of Bertrand Russell's ideas (found in his essay, "Is There a God?"). The idea is that we cannot prove that there isn’t a teapot revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit somewhere between Earth and Mars--a teapot so small it could not "be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes."

Russell continues:

"But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is 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. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history."

So, the argument goes, there may theoretically be a God, just as there may be a celestial teapot, but there is no reason to believe it. This is what is called "weak atheism," since it does not flatly refuse the possibility of there being a God.

The problem with the teapot argument is that it rests on the premise that there is no difference between the ideas of God and the celestial teapot. Yet, there is a difference. Unlike the notion of God, we can define teapots in empirical and logical terms. We can be agnostic about the teapot, because we know what it would mean for there to be a teapot in orbit around the Sun. (Of course, this presumes that the teapot is in some way measurable, even if our best telescopes cannot pick it up. Perhaps it emits a unique, herbal radiation.)

We have no way of understanding the notion of God, however, and so we cannot know what it would mean for there to be a God. There is no meaningful way to even discuss the possibility of God’s existence.

Thus, I cannot be a "teapot agnostic" about the existence of God. You could instead say I’m a theological noncognitivist, but I wouldn’t recommend introducing that phrase into many conversations. A simpler though less descriptive way to put it is that I'm a "strong atheist."


See also:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Argument For Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the idea that there is no conflict between determinism and free will.  Incompatibilism is the idea that free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe.  There's been a lot of discussion over which view is correct.  What's remarkable about the debate isn't so much the stubbornness or passion which has been exhibited by this or that party, but the fact that the very terms of the debate are controversial.  There is a great deal of confusion about what the key issues in the debate are and how we should be talking about them.  As a result, there is a meta-debate within the debate itself.  You cannot engage in the debate without also engaging in a debate about the debate--about what issues are at stake and about how the issues should be framed.  So here's what I want to do:  I want to explain why I think incompatibilists are doing a very bad job of framing the debate, and also why compatibilism is the most reasonable option on the table.  It's an ambi
Read more

Coco, The Book of Life: What's the Difference?

If you've seen  Coco  and The Book of Life , you've surely noticed some of the similarities. At the very least, they are both animated musicals set in Mexico on the Day of the Dead (Día de Muertos). And you surely noticed that they both feature a guitar-wielding male protagonist who enters and returns from the Land of the Dead. But how many other similarities did you notice? --SPOILER ALERT-- In both films: Authenticity is a defining characteristic of the protagonist (Miguel in Coco ; Manolo in The Book of Life ). The protagonist learns the guitar in secret, and against the wishes of his family. This sets up a conflict between the desire to be true to yourself and devotion to your family. The conflict is resolved in a touching moment when the protagonist picks up his guitar and sings a plaintive song in front of his family. Authenticity and family both prevail in the end. Main characters (Juaquin and Xibalba in The Book of Life  and Ernesto in Coco ) achieve fame an
Read more

The Unintended Irony of Birdman and Big Hero 6

Birdman,  Oscar's Best Picture of 2014, is a satire of Hollywood's lack of artistic gravitas.  The primary target is the dark hole of superhero films that attracts much of the industry's money and talent.   Birdman goes out of its way to repeatedly poke fun at superhero movies.  And yet, the Oscar for Best Animated Feature went to Big Hero 6 . . . a superhero movie.  Who said the Academy had to be consistent? I just watched Big Hero 6 and enjoyed a lot of it.  Yet, it suffers from all of the problems that often plague superhero movies.  It is the perfect example of the sort of film that Birdman is making fun of.  (Warning:  the rest of this post contains major spoilers.) The hero (subtly named "Hiro"), a thirteen-year-old boy of limited means, somehow manages to produce thousands of tiny 'microbots,' and gear for controlling them directly through his thoughts.  It's not even so ridiculous that he could come up with a way to build such things--
Read more