When I was around 8 years old, I was the only one in my class who knows enough of the rules of chess to play. I went about teaching my friends how to play. When I was losing the game, I changed the rule. I cheated.
Russell’s analogy of the teapot, presupposed that a teapot exhibit features with the elegance of design and must be manufactured. It is beyond our human acceptance that such an object can be there unless an agent planted it there. If it looked designed, there must be a designer, and if it looked manufactured, there must be a maker. It is ridiculous to think of the teapot’s existence without a designer and a maker.
It is funny how the same rule does not apply to the universe as well. It is stated that chance plus matter plus time is all that it needed for the complex universe to happen, and finely tuned. If there is not enough time (since the big bang), there we can have another theory, the multi-universe. Why then cannot there be a teapot orbiting round the sun? Given time, the bombardment of particles and radiation, multiplied by a system of multi-universe, I would think the teapot is much easier to be created then a blade of grass.
I was caught by my friend who pointed out my inconsistency in applying the rule of chess. I contradicted myself. It only took another 8 years old to see it. Surely you can detect someone cheating here.
Russell's Teapot is an analogy that pertains to the idea of burden of proof. You can substitute the teapot with a leprechaun, Harry Potter, Zeus, The Mighty Thor, Yahweh, fairies, Santa Claus and the likes. To put it succinctly, it is up to the believers, who proclaim the extraordinary, to provide evidence for its/his/her/their existence. So, contrary to what you said, it really has nothing to do with the physical properties of a teapot or the elegance of its design.
ReplyDeleteYou said "If it looked designed, there must be a designer, and if it looked manufactured, there must be a maker. It is ridiculous to think of the teapot’s existence without a designer and a maker".
I believe we have tangentially strayed from the topic of burden of proof to intelligent design. These are two parallel and disparate matters which at no point intercept each other. The amalgamation of these two concepts is objectionable.
The Watchmaker analogy, on the other hand, is apt and in direct reference to intelligent design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy
The argument from design has the following premises:
1. The universe is complex
2. It must, therefore, have a creator
This analogy has faults and fallacies aplenty, those being:
1. The creator of the universe should, by logical extension, be more complex than the universe itself. Then, who is the creator of the creator, and the creator of the creator of the creator…(and so on and so forth)? If God created himself, why can’t the same be said of the universe? For argument sake, if such a God exists, how does one reconcile this God with the Abrahamic God?
2. A watch (or teapot, whichever takes your fancy) however exquisitely designed and intricate, is an inanimate object. Our Earth is home to an abundance of complex life forms which can be accounted for by evolution. The Watchmaker analogy simply cannot satisfy this aspect.
3. We know who made the watch (clearly a man made object), we don’t know who or what made the universe.
There are gaps in our knowledge of this vast and infinite space we call the universe, but please do not fill'em with the supernatural and unsubstantiated.
Just two short one;
ReplyDelete1. When my remark about the Christian's belief in teapot part 1, I believe that that was who Russell contending with in the analogy. (I may be wrong)
2. In teapot 2, I was just trying to reconcile the inconsistencies or bias (or apparent)in choice of how one want to believe. I understand that at certain point we need to put ourselves in one of the boats. Lets also analyse the irrational artifacts within.
Isn't the definition of ‘God’ supposed to purport that 'He' does not need to be created/is *the* exception to the principle that 'everything must have a creator'? Whereas the definition of 'universe' only states ‘existing’ but doesn’t include ‘self-created’.
ReplyDeleteIt's like the question 'can God create a rock he cannot destroy?' - the answer isn't a yes/no/can/can't/is/isn't... The question itself is illogical so how can you expect a logical answer.
It’s illogical because it’s ignoring the fact (by definition of ‘God’) that God is omnipotent, so therefore you are creating a paradox, not simply asking a confronting question. And so it’s the same with saying that God needs a creator because by definition God is supposed to have created himself.
I don’t really understand what you mean by “how does one reconcile this God with the Abrahamic God though” – how do you mean them to be different?
And your blog seems to be set to the wrong time zone U. Andrew haha.
ReplyDelete@Rachel
ReplyDeleteI was drawing a distinction, albeit imprecisely (in hindsight, my sentence was poorly constructed), between theism and deism/pandeism –the former is the Judeo- Christian –Islamic God. It is, in other words, a personal and interventionist God – a God that answers prayers, weigh judgements, and dispense rewards or punishments; the latter is personified by Spinoza’s God – a God who is impersonal and has no interest in humanity , and can be interchangeably referred to as Nature.
If God, indeed, does exist, how can you be sure that it is the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God? Can it not be the detached indifferent and neutral Spinoza’s God? How do you choose one over the other, and why?
Please note the above is a product of speculation and put forward as a moot point. I do not have evidence for neither of those Gods (but if you do I would be most glad to lend an ear).
The universe can be defined in more ways than one, as does God. The veracity of a definition can also be questioned and subjected to scrutiny. I am sure you will offer a quick riposte if I offered the definition of orange as a warm, glowing yellow with two shades of white, three shades of blue and five shades of green-ish pink. Just because I defined it as such, does it make it credible and true? To exclaim that “God is the uncaused cause because, why, that’s how God is defined!” does little to advance the argument – it is still firmly planted to where it was x amount of explanations ago.
Defining God is an easy task if your only constraint is imagination, not reason. To make my point, consider this creation myth with Mesopotamian roots:
Apsu and Tiamat, fresh and salt water, mixed together, created the great and too noisy gods. Apsu wished to kill them, but Tiamat, who wished them no harm, prevailed. Apsu was killed, so Tiamat sought revenge. Marduk killed Tiamat and divided her, using part for earth and part for the heavens. Mankind was made out of Tiamat's second husband.
What evidence do you have, to have led you to believe that Yahweh created Earth, but not Apsu and Tiamat? Is the Genesis creation narrative less absurd and more reasonable, and how so?
Stephen Hawking, in his latest book “The Grand Design”, opined that it is unnecessary to invoke God to explain the great mysteries of the origins of the universe. The extremely religious viewed this as a subordination of, and an insult to, their sacred faith. Sadly and regrettably, I have not read the book and am unable to dwell into it more, let alone to vouch for its scientific content. But if Mr Hawking has indeed successfully and convincingly explained the origins of the universe using the law of science and nothing more (hint: no supernatural entities), is it not worthwhile to at least consider that the universe did not start with a God?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“How do you choose one over the other, and why?” and “What evidence do you have, to have led you to believe that Yahweh created Earth, but not Apsu and Tiamat? Is the Genesis creation narrative less absurd and more reasonable, and how so?”
ReplyDelete– I answered under ‘What is convincing’, and also because ‘Apsu and Tiamat’ doesn’t 'answer' the 'question' of meaning and destiny. Re the 4 questions - which Andrew first raised in 'Blue Cheese Philosophy' - "The belief system must answer them with logic as we know it, and all the answers must be nitted together as a coherence whole." I think Andrew is going to address these again anyway, since you asked him to elaborate further under the '‘What is convincing’ post.