Religious disputes have always existed and will exist for a long time. Atheists give a huge number of arguments against the existence of divine forces, believers find arguments in their defense. Since neither side can prove either its own rightness or wrongness of the other side, these discussions cannot lead to any concrete result, however, they generate a considerable number of philosophical ideas, sometimes very peculiar and interesting.
The evolution of religious beliefs
The difficulty in religious disputes is largely due to the fact that over time, religion has adapted to the development of science so that the existence of higher powers cannot be refuted by the methods currently available. At first, for example, God was perceived as a more real character, figuratively speaking, sitting on a cloud and looking at the world he created, but scientific achievements increasingly questioned this.
It turned out that the planet is not one, there are others that are not inhabited by anyone and it is not clear why the creator needed them. The sun was not a magical gift of the gods, but quite a concrete star. Flying into space did not find anything confirming the existence of higher forces. Much of what was considered miracles and divine providence was explained by scientific facts. And God has become an increasingly spiritual concept, because it is much more difficult to prove the absence of something intangible and invisible.
Bertrand Russell: Reflections on Religion
What do philosophers offer? Russell's Kettle is an analogy criticizing religion cited by a mathematician and philosopher from Great Britain, Bertrand Russell. It refutes the idea that doubters must prove the falsity of religious judgments, and unbelievers - their righteousness.
It is assumed that this Russell teapot rotates in low Earth orbit, but is so small that it is impossible to see it with a simple glance, or with the most advanced astronomical instruments. Bertrand Russell writes that if he added to these words that since it was impossible to refute the presence of a teapot, then no one had the right to doubt its existence, and such a statement would have seemed delusional. However, if the reality of the teapot was confirmed by ancient books, children from the school bench would talk about its authenticity and regularly preach. Unbelief in him would seem strange, and unbelievers would become patients of psychiatrists or victims of the Inquisition.
Bertrand Russell: The Philosophy of Analogy
The basic meaning of Russell’s words boils down to the fact that not all arguments are credible, and it’s silly to blindly believe in everything.
A huge layer of scientific knowledge is accepted when learning on faith. It is simply said that it is just like that, and people agree and remember it. No one proves hundreds of thousands of rules, theorems, and theories. This is not necessary - they were reasonably proven earlier. If desired, they can be proved again, but there is no point in doing this when there is still much that is unknown and undiscovered in science.
But the existence of God was never and unequivocally proven by anyone, on which Bertrand Russell emphasizes. Books, more precisely, the different attitudes of different people to sacred books, only add to the complexity. If atheists and critics of Christianity as a whole perceive them, rather, as a collection of legends and traditions, which has a certain historical and cultural value, but is largely embellished and far from the truth, then for believers this is an absolutely reliable document that they do not question.
Prove unprovable
What Bertrand Russell says is not only applicable to religion. We can talk about any beliefs that cannot be refuted experimentally. And not only about the beliefs of a healthy person, but also about sheer insanity. To draw a line between an adequate person and a patient of a psychiatrist is at first glance not so difficult. But not always the delirium of the inflamed consciousness can be refuted by a visual scientific experiment. And since it is impossible to refute, does this mean that the statement about his insanity is not true? No, because it is obvious to those around him that he is abnormal. That is, in fact, one has to neglect any evidence.
An analogy or a psychological trick?
Like many supporters of atheism, Bertrand Russell did not escape criticism of the faithful. Reflections on the religion of this person, and, in particular, the analogy with the teapot, is nothing but a psychological ploy. In their opinion, if you replace this ideal porcelain teapot, which cannot fly in space in any way, with a real cosmic body - an asteroid, then its statements cease to be absurd.
In fact, there is no reason to believe in Russell’s “teapot, ” besides the author’s claim. While religion was not invented for the sake of confrontation with atheists - believers recognize God as existing. Each of them has its own argument for this, it can vary greatly. But their faith is not based on a single naked statement.
Can everything be proved?
The meaning of what Bertrand Russell says about religion boils down to the following: if it is impossible to reach something logically or demonstrate it, then it does not exist and does not have a right to exist. However, there are examples in history when some discoveries were made speculatively. For example, Democritus pointed to the existence of atoms, although at that time this statement sounded rather wild, but there was no question of evidence. Therefore, it is impossible to exclude the possibility that some statements made by people now can subsequently be confirmed from a scientific point of view.
In fact, criticism of religion implies two options - God is or is not. And since its existence cannot be proved, then it does not exist. At the same time, the third option “we don’t know” remains forgotten. In religion, one cannot really find absolute guarantees of the existence of higher forces. But there is faith in them. And “we don’t know” from science is quite enough to allow people to believe.
Opinions against
Comparing the “Russell teapot” and God may be foolish for someone. To Russell’s statement, it’s often added that the kettle should be endowed with absolute properties, but then the analogy looks ridiculous at all. A specific teapot familiar to everyone has a form in which it is clear that it is he, and not a plate or sugar bowl - it has certain sizes, weight, is not made from all materials, etc. But if you endow this type of ware with immortality, omnipotence, invisibility, eternity and other absolute properties, then it will cease to be a teapot, because it will lose all those attributes that make it to them.
With his charter in a strange monastery
If we consider the phrase that the judgment cannot be refuted in any way, then a contradiction also arises. God is a concept of an ideal spiritual world that does not fit into our material world. But the teapot is a completely tangible object, obeying the laws of physics and all other scientific laws that exist on our planet. And knowing these rules, it is safe to say that the teapot has nowhere to take in near-earth orbit. But the laws governing the spiritual world are not known to humanity for certain, and it approaches this world with human laws, which gives rise to misunderstanding and errors.
God can cause the emergence of our universe: throughout the course of history, he fills the voids in the chain of causes and effects. It plays an important role in the worldview of people. But faith in the teapot is excessive, because there is no moral or material benefit from it.
