Russell's Kettle. Bertrand Russell: Philosophy

Religious disputes have always existed and will continue to 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 the wrongness of the other party, these discussions can not lead to any concrete result, but they give rise to a considerable number of philosophical ideas, at times very peculiar and interesting.

Evolution of religious beliefs

The difficulty in religious disputes is largely due to the fact that over time, religion has been adjusted to the development of science so that the existence of higher forces can not be refuted by the methods currently available. 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 alone, there are others, not inhabited by anyone and it is unclear why the creator needed it. The sun was not the magic 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 to prove the absence of something intangible and invisible is much more difficult.

Bertrand Russell: Reflections on Religion

What do philosophers offer? "Russell Tea Maker" is an analogy criticizing religion, given by mathematician and philosopher from Britain Bertrand Russell. It refutes the idea that doubters must prove the falsity of religious judgments, and unbelievers - their rightness.

It is assumed that this Russell teapot rotates in a near-earth orbit, but at the same time is so small that it is impossible to see it either with a simple gaze or with the most perfect astronomical instruments. Bertrand Russell writes that, adding to these words, that since the presence of a teapot can not be refuted, then no one has a right to doubt its existence, and such a statement would look delusional. However, if the reality of the kettle was confirmed by ancient books, its authenticity would be spoken to children from the school bench, regularly preached. Disbelief in it would seem strange, and unbelievers would become patients of psychiatrists or victims of the Inquisition.

Bertrand Russell: Philosophy of Analogy

The main meaning of Russell's words boils down to the fact that not all arguments are trustworthy, and it is foolish to believe blindly in everything.

A huge layer of scientific knowledge is taken when teaching for faith. It simply says that it is so, and people agree and remember it. Nobody proves hundreds of thousands of rules, theorems and theories. This is not necessary - they were reasonably proved earlier. If desired, they can be proved anew, 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 has never been unequivocally proven by anyone, on which Bertrand Russell emphasizes. Books, or rather, the different attitudes of different people toward 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 legends having a certain historical and cultural value, but largely embellished and far from the truth, for believers this is an absolutely authentic document that they do not call into question.

Prove the unprovable

What Bertrand Russell says is applicable not only to religion. It can be about any beliefs that can not be refuted experimentally. And not only about the convictions of a healthy person, but also about sheer madness. At the first sight, it is not so difficult to draw a line between an adequate person and a psychiatrist patient. But not always the raving of inflamed consciousness can be refuted by a visual scientific experiment. And since it's impossible to refute, does this mean that the statement about his folly is not true? No, because it is obvious to others that he is abnormal. That is, in fact, we have to disregard any evidence.

An analogy or a psychological trick?

Like many advocates of atheism, Bertrand Russell did not escape the criticism of believers. Reflections on the religion of this person, and, in particular, the analogy with the teapot - is nothing but a psychological trick. In their opinion, if, to replace this perfect porcelain teapot, which can not fly in space, the real cosmic body - an asteroid, then its statements cease to be absurd.

In fact, there are no grounds for believing in the Russell Tea Maker, other than the author's claim, no. While religion was not invented for the sake of confrontation with atheists - believers recognize God as existing. Each of them has its own argument on this, it can be very different. But their faith is not based on one single bare statement.

Can we prove everything?

The meaning of what Bertrand Russell says about religion amounts to the following: if it is impossible to reach something logically or to demonstrate it, then it does not exist and does not have the right to exist. However, there are examples in history when some discoveries were made in a speculative way. For example, Democritus pointed to the existence of atoms, although at the time this assertion sounded rather wild, and there could be no question of evidence. Therefore, it is possible to exclude the possibility that some statements made by people now can later be confirmed from a scientific point of view.

In fact, criticism of religion implies two options - God is or does not exist. And since its existence can not be proved, it means that it does not exist. At the same time, the third option "we do not know" remains forgotten. In religion, one does not really find absolute guarantees of the existence of higher forces. But there is faith in them. And "we do not know" from science is enough to allow people to believe.

Opinions against

Comparing the "Russell Tea Maker" and God can be foolish for someone. Russell's assertion is often added that the kettle must be endowed with absolute properties, but then the analogy looks ridiculous. The concrete familiar to all the teapot has a form, by which it is clear that this is it, and not a plate or sugar bowl - it has certain sizes, weight, it is not made of all materials, etc. But if we endow this kind of dishes 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 it.

With its charter in a foreign monastery

If we consider the phrase that a proposition can not be refuted in any way, then a contradiction arises. God is the concept of an ideal spiritual world that does not fit into our material world. But the teapot is a tangible object that obeys the laws of physics and all other scientific laws that exist on our planet. And knowing these rules, it can be confidently asserted that there is absolutely no place for the kettle to take in the near-earth orbit. But the laws governing the spiritual world are unknown to mankind, and it comes to this world with human laws, which generates misunderstanding and errors.

God can serve as the reason for the emergence of our universe: throughout history it fills the void in the chain of causes and effects. He plays an important role in the worldview of people. But the belief in the kettle is redundant, because there is no moral or material benefit from it.

Modern variations of Russell's analogy

"Russell's Kettle" formed the basis of some humorous religious teachings of our time. Among them the most famous became the Flying Macaroni Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Both these pseudo-religions reduce belief in the supernatural to absurdity and try to prove its conventionality, i.e. That you can invent any divine image for yourself and call it the only true one, without giving any evidence to your right. After all, how can you prove that a unicorn is really pink, if it is invisible?