Ockham’s razor, Russell’s teapot, and the lottery paradox.
Ockham’s razor and Russell’s teapot are often used by atheists to support their opinion that the denial of alleged supernatural entities is the only rational attitude. They criticize genuine agnostics for not being rigorous enough.
Indeed, it is not prudent to declare being agnostic about an insufficiently justified metaphysical claim in the sense that one ascribes more weight to it than to any element of an infinite number of alternatives, which share the same extent of speculation. But this also applies to all naturalistic positions, because an a priori exclusion of simply anything beyond what is commonly regarded as “normal” reality, such as for instance hidden entities postulated by diverse religious traditions or whatever, is an arbitrary assumption likewise.
“Ockham’s razor”, which is often summoned in this context, is actually only a more or less useful pragmatic recommendation for the creation of hypotheses depending on the particular situation. But in the realm of pure metaphysical speculation it can’t confer higher legitimacy to a superficially leaner looking approach, which often only appears to be so, because some implications in behind are unwittingly ignored or even deliberately neglected. As historically demonstrated by the emergence of modern physics even in science concerning secular mundane issues, things can turn out to be far more complex and bewildering than ever dreamt. Therefore it would be based on an incorrect hasty conclusion, if all conceivabilities concerning hidden spheres of reality beyond the “natural” one, which in addition might perhaps resemble at least slightly some religious postulates, would be rejected dogmatically.
In discussions with agnostics atheists occasionally also mention Bertrand Russell’s analogy between religious claims and the postulate of an extraterrestrial china teapot, which allegedly revolves about the sun in an orbit between Mars and the Earth.
In a distorting narrow interpretation they declare every form of agnosticism to be necessarily a quasi completely “neutral” point of view. This would be inadequate in case of claims without empirical or logically rational grounds such as any widely known religion’s theses concerning (a certain) God’s existence. Otherwise hypotheses about the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, a flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorns etc. as far as they are formulated in an adroit manner, which sufficiently immunize them against refutations, also would have to be regarded as “unratable” and taken seriously at least to such an extent, which is epistemologically unjustifiable.
Well, in fact there is no reason, to presume that a teapot circulates about the sun between Mars and Earth, but Russell perhaps might have been amazed about the extent of the resemblance of the most teapot-like object in that area, although it almost certainly is not composed of porcelain. The chance for astonishment would be correspondingly higher, if the considered area would not be limited to the rather small fraction of asteroids between Mars and Earth, but would include all extraterrestrial objects, which do not originate from living creatures, within our solar system or even within our galaxy not to speak of the whole universe. Admittedly the similarity criteria for the rankings would have to be defined rather arbitrarily.
My qualms against Russell’s analogy does not imply that we confidently should accept a hypothesis, which conjectures that an according to everyday usage of the term “normal teapot” of nonhuman origin exists somewhere in the outer space. But we should take care, not to harbor too narrow-minded ideas about, what reasonably has to be ruled out as impossible. If a physicist of the 19th century would have been confronted with theses containing concepts like “curved spacetime”, “time dilation”, “wave-particle duality” “quantum superposition” etc., he would most probably dismissed them as sheer nonsense. Like the old classical materialism modern naturalism, which is adapted to nowadays theories, may sooner or later turn out to be a simply far too naïve view of reality as well.
Finally I would like to bring up the lottery paradox. In refutation of Pascal’s wager atheists often make the objection that the consideration of further options like a god who abhors opportunistic believers would destroy Pascal’s argument. Now, what is the really valid point about Russell’s analogy, is that an assertion without reasonable evidence can be neglected in the normal conduct of life. In some respects it resembles the purchase of one ticket in an amazingly large lottery. In such a situation it also would not be wise to adjust your lifestyle to the assumption of winning before the result is announced. But nonetheless if the tickets are numbered, your chance to win a bet with your friends that the winning number belongs to a certain range will increase with its size. Similarly people who do not a priori exclude any possibility of otherwise undefined supernatural entities do have a higher chance of being right than stubborn naturalists.
Occasionally I am amazed, how grimly and bluntly in “missionary” manner some atheists advocate their creed. Like their religious opponents they tend to close their minds to any critical argument, questioning their attitude. The common enemy is the open minded agnostic who doesn’t make claims about unresolved metaphysical questions.
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.And as a nullifidian (one who is without faith or religious belief), I am amazed at how some find it important to make a strident distinction between the 'agnostic' and 'atheist' labels. If our beliefs are informed by our understanding of the facts (i.e., knowledge), then I see no reason why one cannot be both an atheist (one who lacks a belief in a deity) and an agnostic (one who attests that nothing is known or factually demonstrable regarding the existence or nature of a deity).
Agnosticism and atheism are, in this nullifidian's way of looking at it, more alike than they are distinct, and I'm comfortable with both. I have no belief in a god or gods, therefore I'm an atheist. Why? Because I have seen no evidence or facts and am therefore without any knowledge upon which to inform such a belief. In other words, I'm an atheist because I'm an agnostic.
In any case, arguing over these two "A" labels runs the risk of ignoring the elephant in the room: religion, which is the real source of so much of humanity's woes.
p-nullifidian
Level 8
Apr 20, 2021
5
That always make sense to me, and I have heard it said many times. Unfortunately of course careful thoughtful nuanced ideas do not make headlines, because of course there are a lot of people who have an interest in promoting misunderstanding.
Dear p-nullifidian,
I believe that nobody can prevent believing completely, Even the agreement to certain scientific hypothesis is ultimately based on some sort of beliefs. I have written a philosophical essay about this topic. It is available through the following link:
[archive.org]
In addition I am quite sure that you have some beliefs concerning religious topics, for instance, most atheists and pseudo-agnostics believe that there is no afterlife. Though I personally would prefer if death leads to a painless unconsciousness without any suffering, I think that this isn't sure and there remains a non-neglectable probability for an afterlife or further existence in whatever form. To me that is more like a threat than something I would hope. If you think that's mere rubbish then this is most likely because you BELIEVE in a certain form of realism and naturalism. Maybe you feel better with this, but then it is wishful thinking. Isn't this one common reproach of atheists against theists?
@johannesweg IMHO, the aim should not be to prevent belief, per se, but to prune beliefs that are not supported by evidence, and are therefore a matter of faith. To quote Peter Boghossian, "'Faith' is the word one uses when one does not have enough evidence to justify holding a belief, but when one just goes ahead and believes anyway.” This is not a description of the scientific method.
As far as there being an afterlife, while I am a skeptic, and consider this life as the only one I will have, I remain open to new discoveries. Of one thing I am confident, if there were a form of existence that we have yet to identify, it would be a natural phenomenon, one that is identifiable, quantifiable and repeatable.
My philosophical position is more along the lines of, "I don't believe there is a god but more to the point, I just don't bloody care!"
Cyklone
Level 7
Apr 20, 2021
4
Indeed! I'm leaning your way with each year that passes. Even if there were a 'supreme being' its existence has no relevance to me, any more than my existence has upon an amoeba in a nearby pond!
Wow. You certainly have a way with words. In the West it is really only the existence of the Abrahamic god that is seriously debated. We leave the Hindu gods to Hindus and the earlier polytheistic gods as dismissed as mere fantasies.
You can waffle on as much as you like but how anyone who has studied the bible in any detail can seriously suggest that there is any evidence for the existence of this god is beyond me.
Moravian
Level 8
Apr 20, 2021
4
Dear Moravian,
I have studied the bible in detail and I BELIEVE that the Abrahamic god is so unlikely that one can reasonably neglect its existence. All what I have learnt about the world and my personal experience especially disproves an almighty wise good loving Christian godfather. If any somehow godlike entities, deities etc. exist then they are more likely to be evil (at least from my point of view) or morally indifferent. My disbelief in the Christian god is not only based on the failure of theodicy. But it would go beyond the scope of the topic of this posting here to explain the details. Though I think that the probability for the Abrahamic god is too low for being relevant this does not mean that the same is true for (an undefined) everything one might call "supernatural entitiy". To me naturalism is only one possibility among others.
@johannesweg Yes I agree with you there and if there is or has been any supernatural force in existence it must be so far removed from the popular definition of what a "god" is that it can be ignored in this context and maybe could exist in the realm of quantum physics ?
Why do we need a theory about why something doesn't exist?
lerlo
Level 8
Apr 20, 2021
4
Dear lerlo,
I fear you missed the point of my posting, which is about the existing difference between agnosticism and atheism. This is a philosophical epistemological issue. That's why I posted it at the category "Philosophy & Meaning".
@johannesweg I look at the two differently: Agnosticism is not being sure, while Atheism is being sure. Myself I have a problem with creation and what caused it. Of course the possibility that some "being" caused it is only in my head because it was put there by parents and society irrationally. Regardless, I don't feel that either of them have to defend the non-existence of something. It's when the other side of an argument creates a distraction that such "requirements" seem to be necessary. Do Santa Claus deniers have to explain why they don't believe or even if they are agnostic about Santa Claus? Just like in the U.S. court system, the believers in an entity are the only ones that have the burden of proof that such an entity exists.
@lerlo
In my argumentation I do acknowledge that everybody making a certain positive claim has to justify it. But this is also true for the ontological claims of naturalism. Using the lottery paradox I tried to explain Ockham’s razor and Russell’s teapot analogy can not be used to decide metaphysical questions. The physicists of the nineteenth century had no interpretable clues for relativistic or quantum effects. Was the naive materialism of certain scientists of that time justified? And what about us, who got this lesson in the history of science? Can we still continue to declare that there couldn’t be amazing facts beyond our present horizon?
While your post is nicely academic, the process is entirely unnecessary and is an example of over thinking an issue.
The simple solution, and answer is that there is no reason to believe a super natural being exists.
Alienbeing
Level 8
Apr 20, 2021
6
In former times people asking questions beyond religious doctrines as for instance early scientific thinkers were also regarded as thinking too much.
@johannesweg In former times no one knew science and physics as we do today. Many things not understood were attributed to God.
Perhaps you desire to return to those times.
Dear Alienbeing,
please read my answers to the comments of skado.
@johannesweg I just did. You really have to get over yourself. Do you do anything other than make big deals out of nothing?
We can say all kinds of things about what we think we believe or about what we think we know, or don’t, as the case may be, but we behave according to our best guess.
So what’s your best guess?
skado
Level 9
Apr 20, 2021
3
My guess is that naturalism is a non-negligible possibility but there remains a significant room for alternatives. Therefore for instance some form of further conscious existence after death can not completely excluded. This attitude gives more weight to my ethical conduct. It reduced the temptation to live according to the maxime "après moi, le déluge".
@johannesweg
No offense, but that sounds like a textbook case of motivated reasoning. If precise, and rational, and scientific is what you were aiming for, you just missed the mark. Will you be able to separate your personal needs from your objectivity?
Don't get me wrong; I don't claim that personal preferences must always be based on reason. But when someone goes to such lengths to make their preferences sound reason-based, I wonder why they don't instead just say "This is my preference, and I don't have to justify it rationally." That would seem acceptable to me. But to write a lengthy essay on the reasoning behind a position, and that reasoning turn out to be influenced by personal need is... definitely not in keeping with the scientific method, at minimum, and I feel it would be safe to say, not within the bounds of objective reasoning.
@skado
Did you also read my answers to other comments? For example in my reply to p-nullifidian I declared that I would prefer if death leads to a painless unconsciousness without any suffering. In my statement to the comment of Moravian I declare that all I heard about the world and my personal experience in my opinion rather contradicts the existence of an almighty wise good loving Christian godfather. If there are any godlike entities they are more likely to be evil (from my point of view) or at least morally indifferent. The weight my agnostic attitude puts at my ethical conduct sometimes occurs to be a burden.
So what do you mean, when you suggest that my reasoning is influenced by personal needs? Yes, although I am an epistemological fallibilist, I think that trying to use reason is most probably the best we can do in life in the long run.
When I lost my Christian faith I was an atheist myself for some time. But when I started to delve into modern physics I found all this very much disturbing and counter-intuitive. Once more I had to question what reasonably was believable. This was the beginning of my engagement in epistemology. After some decades I tried to summarize my considerations in an essay which in the meantime had to be corrected several times. The current version is available at the following link:
[archive.org]
Aren’t atheist insisting on the usage of reason against mindlessly adopted creeds? From my personal experience I know that atheism can offer an alleviating liberation from the fear of god and the corset of oppressive moral obligations. It can be a relief, if you are convinced that death is just something like a dreamless sleep, nothing to be feared anymore. So, who is more influenced by personal needs? The atheist or the genuine agnostic, who can not hope for a paradise, but is additionally confronted with uncertainty?
OK, apologies if I misread your words. When you said it gives more weight to your ethical conduct I thought you were seeing that as a benefit. But you're saying it is unwelcome weight? Do I understand that correctly now? It reduced the temptation, but you regret that it did?
Actually they are not only misusing Russell's teapot. Which supports agnostic philosophy. But also Ockham's Razor, which was an ancient rule for use in formal debating, and never said anything like its common modern misuser's think it did.
Fernapple
Level 9
Apr 20, 2021
1
Ockham's razor is named after the medieval philosopher William of Ockham. It is rather a pragmatic rule, which for instance is quite often ignored by contemporary theoretical physicists. In physics regularly particles or principles are postulated, which are beyond experimental assessment at the time of publication. This was true for the neutrino in the past and is true for the so-called strings today. As I wanted to point out, using that razor in the area of metaphysical or ontological speculation is a definite misuse. But this is what many atheist actually do.
An orbiting teapot? Preposterous. It's a Tesla lol
redhog
Level 7
Apr 20, 2021
2
Let's hope that Musk didn't secretly hide a China teapot inside his celestial car.
@johannesweg he would do such a thing....
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.