Teapot of the raschel
The teapot (British: Russell's teapot) of the raschel is analogy indicating there being the burden of proof in the philosophical discussion to the insisting human being whom I cannot disprove scientifically to push a burden of proof to the others about religion in particular in the concept that Bertrand Russel of the philosopher proposed for the first time. I may be called the teapot of the heavens and a teapot of the space. According to the raschel, the person who insists when there is a teapot going around the sun somewhere through between earth and Mars of the space is grounded on what nobody can prove when it is a mistake as for it, and what demand that I believe the existence of the teapot to go around is nonsense. The teapot of the raschel may be still mentioned in a discussion over the existence of God.
Table of contents
Discussion of the raschel
Russel states in a sentence titled "does God exist?" which it is depended in 1952 and wrote (not become printing type by the judgment of the editor) from "illustration lei Ted magazine" as follows.
Even if the majority of extremely common people accept a dogma, an agnostic seems to disprove it not the thing which a dogmatist proves; talk in a way. It is wrong not to mention this. Why don't I insist that there is a teapot going around the sun in an elliptic orbit between earth and Mars? I cannot prove that I say to nobody if I added it carefully when this teapot is small so as not to be able to discover even how powerful telescope when it is a mistake. However, it should be thought that I say a nonsense thing if I stated that it is too arrogant that the human reason can doubt it because I cannot disprove it successively. However, if a book written in the ancient times can identify such a teapot and is tell every Sunday when it is the truth that should not invade it and it is planted in the head of children at school and appeared, I only hesitated about believing the existence, and it is the mark of the eccentric conduct and will be that a psychiatrist is given a qualification to suffer from a large questor if there is it before it if in the times when the person holding doubt opened it [1].
I talk about this analogy as atheistic grounds of Russel in 1958.
I should call oneself an agnostic. But, seeing from which point, I am an atheist. I do not think that Christian God is person that he is more reliable than gods of Olympos and Valhalla anymore. I will compare it with the different thing. I can prove that a teapot of the earthenware does not turn around in an elliptic orbit between earth and Mars to nobody, but there is the person to seem to be enough nowhere so as to really stand on it, and to think about a thing. Christian God is a thing unlikely in the same way for me, too [2].
Analysis
According to Peter Atkins, it is the point that there is for nobody as for the responsibility to prove that insistence is an error that is important in thinking about a teapot of the raschel. Therefore I tell that you should make a simple hypothesis the starting point of the discussion (without, e.g., thinking all things to be a supernatural person) than it becomes the Occam's razor from fewer claims not a complicated hypothesis. Atkins states that such a discussion does not engage with the religion. This is because it is said that it experiences it through impossible personal revelation I tell the religious grounds to a person unlike scientific grounds, and to inspect objectively [3].
"God is a delusion", and appeasement plan - "conciliation of the agnosticism" and he who are shrewd that Richard Dawkins permits philosophy the domain where only a religious problem affects exclusively use a teapot this as a metaphor of the discussions to object to - to call in (2006) with "clergyman (2003) serving the devil" [4]. The creed will deserve respect and attention equally if I suffer from these measures because the science does not have art proving both the existence of God and the absence when I will not believe it to believe God because it is a problem of the both personal preference. Dough Kyn uses the teapot as reduction to absurdity of this situation. In other words, an agnostic comes to have to load faith of God and the faith of the teapot which goes around the orbit if I demand that I have the respect for disbelief equally with じだけの respect. The existence of the teapot of the heavens is because there are not existence of God and no changing place if I say in scientific accuracy [5].
Carl Sagan sells teapots of the raschel in the chapter of "the dragon in the garage" of "world (Japanese translation "talks about Carl Sagan science and a demon") possessed by the devil" and states, it "is distinction at all not to be able to invalidate a hypothesis and to prove if it is right" [6].
Argument
The Brian garfish bay of the philosopher insists that this teapot fails as analogy. The person whom the person believing in this teapot does not believe is not only in an agreement about one thing with merely space, and this is because it can have the faith that is common about every thing except it about the space. In other words, it is not possible for the one to cut into pieces called an atheist and the theist in this teapot [7]. According to the garfish bay, I do not have a relationship called the atheist denying merely it with theist insisting on the existence of a certain thing. Each other gives an alternative explanation there how space exists why. "The grounds are situations that there is not it or is either in there being just it so that there is just it whether the atheist does not only deny the existence of the thing asserting that there is theist, and it gets into the viewpoint that there is not on the coattails of God that there is just space, and there is just the atheist by anything more than God [7]".
James Wood of the literary arts critic is the human being who does not believe in God, but states that it is "the delicious business that is much rational than I believe in a teapot" to believe in God. Because God is "a splendid magnificent concept", and it "is not disproved as analogy even if I take the vacuum cleaner of a teapot and the vacuum of the heavens that are not which", and, as for "God, it cannot have possibilities to be to a simple thing without being able to realize" [8]. A teapot was matter, and Eric Reitan of the philosopher argued if it was different to believe a thing and the teapot which therefore believed in God because I could theoretically inspect it. There are not enough reasons why teapot faith of the raschel is justified, and there will be some kind of reasons not to justify at least when I do it assuming our knowledge about the material world [9].
According to the Paul Chang Barrah in of the philosopher, the "active" (positive) truth claim has a burden of proof, and it is a mistake not to have it for "negative" (negative) truth claim logically [10]. "Every", the burden of proof is found for a truth claim and a teapot is accompanied by heavier responsibility not the passiveness like Mother Goose and the fairy of the tooth because of obviousness (triviality) and turns around. The chamber lane states, it "becomes clear to suffer - that it is equal to a thing to insist on when the thing denying such a person really exists and sometimes - burden of proof that is heavier than it if I replace such an imaginary existence with Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, the genuine existence in the normal meaning such as George Washington" [10].
Footnote
- ^ Bertrand Russell: Is There a God?
- ^ Garvey, Brian (2010). "Absence of evidence, evidence of absence, and the atheist' s teapot". Ars Disputandi 10: 9–2.
- ^ Atkins, Peter. "Atheism and science". In Clayton, Philip and Simpson, Zachary R.. It is pp. The Oxford handbook of religion and science 129–130
- ^ Richard Dawkins. A Devil's Chaplain. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-33540-4.
- ^ Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
- ^ Carl Sagan: The Dragon In My Garage
- ^ a b Garvey, Brian (2010). "Absence of evidence, evidence of absence, and the atheist' s teapot". Ars Disputandi 10: 9–2.
- ^ Wood, James (18 December 2006). "The Celestial Teapot". The New Republic (27)
- ^ Eric Reitan. Is God a Delusion?. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 78–80. ISBN 1-4051-8361-6.
- ^ a b Chamberlain. Paul, Why People Don't Believe: Confronting Seven Challenges to Christian Faith, pp. 82-83, Baker Books 2011
Allied item
This article is taken from the Japanese Wikipedia Teapot of the raschel
This article is distributed by cc-by-sa or GFDL license in accordance with the provisions of Wikipedia.
In addition, Tranpedia is simply not responsible for any show is only by translating the writings of foreign licenses that are compatible with CC-BY-SA license information.
0 개의 댓글:
댓글 쓰기