Russell's teapot

Some time ago, a commenter mentioned Russell's Teapot, and suggested that the idea was pertinent to a post of mine. (See Pete D's first comment on this post.) I had never heard of Russell's Teapot, although I had heard of Bertrand Russell, and I failed to look the matter up right away, which I should have done. I have now done so, and am musing on the topic.

The Wikipedia article on the subject quotes Russell's original statement. Russell's point was that claiming that there is a God, with no scientific proof of His existence, is no more legitimate than claiming that there is a teapot, too small to detect with instruments of any kind, orbiting the sun.

But that's not all. Russell said "since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it. . ." I would claim, and I am not alone, that there is a God, but that I cannot advance any scientific proof of His existence. I claim that I have subjective evidence from personal experience; from observing that sin is in the world, yet most people think that sin and evil is somehow unnatural and wrong; and from the Bible, that God exists. I do not claim that it is not legitimate to doubt God's existence. The validity of my personal experience can be questioned. Sometimes I question it myself. Perhaps our notion that the world is somehow spoiled is mistaken. It is possible that the Bible is a fabrication. In other words, the sentence quoted at the beginning of this paragraph does not apply to my belief, or to that of many other Christians. Just because something cannot be disproved, does not mean that it is not legitimate to doubt its existence.

For example, A could assert that witches can fly. B could respond that she has never seen a witch fly, and even doubt that witches exist. A could counter by asking B to prove that witches do not exist. B could respond that witches have not been found under various circumstances. A could, in that case, respond that there are other circumstances, which B has not experienced, in which witches do exist, and fly. It is not possible for B to examine all possible circumstances, but it is still reasonable for B to doubt that witches can fly.

I don't argue, and I don't think many Christians do, that the fact that Russell cannot disprove God's existence is an important reason for believing in God. I do think that the inability to disprove God's existence is a defense of belief in God. Not a strong one, but a defense. I agree that there is no scientific proof of God's existence. But, as I said, I believe that there are other kinds of proofs of that existence, and that it is not necessary to have scientific proof of His existence for me, and others, to believe in God. There are some things that a significant number of important mainstream scientists believe, that, so far, at least, lack scientific proof. These include the existence of the Higgs boson, and of universes that are parallel to our own, and string theory.

Hebrews 11:3 says: "By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible." Verse 6, of the same chapter, says "Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to him, for he who comes to God must believe that he exists, and that he is a rewarder of those who seek him." (WEB -- I'm using the WEB because it is public domain. I can't link directly to a verse in that Bible, because the web site uses frames.) As I understand it, and I may be wrong on more than one level, God offers humans the choice as to whether or not to believe. There is enough evidence, to an honest seeker, to bring about belief, but the evidence must be accepted by faith. Thomas didn't have to feel Christ's wounds to know that he was looking at the Resurrected Lord.

My understanding is that the things that happen in the world, which are the province of science, such as the doings of cells and ecosystems and galaxies and quarks and chemical reactions and photosynthesis and tectonic plates and water drops, are expressions of God Himself. In Psalm 19:1, David wrote:
"The heavens declare the glory of God.
The expanse shows his handiwork."
and in Romans 1:20, Paul said: "For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse." And it isn't just that God is revealed through the existence of created things. As Colossians 1 puts it: "16 For by him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things are held together." (WEB) God, mostly God the Son, made things as they are, and so that they work the way they do. He intimately binds up the test tube, the spectrophotometer, the computer recording the data, the scientist herself, and the means of communicating the results. It's no wonder that the experimenter will not find evidence for God in an experiment.


I also see that there is a sin problem in the world, and in me, and that God alone offers a satisfactory solution, namely the sacrificial death of the incarnated Son of God, validated by His resurrection.


Unfortunately, one thing that helps to keep some people from finding faith in God is that some of us who claim to be Christians don't always live a life consistent with the unselfish teaching of Christ.


One of Russell's great efforts, in collaboration with Whitehead, was "an attempt to derive all mathematical truths from a well-defined set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic." In other words, to prove the legitimacy of mathematics beyond any possible doubt. That attempt, though heroic, failed, with the discovery of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. It is not possible to prove the legitimacy of mathematics beyond any possible doubt. But I use mathematics, and I believe that it is right to do so.

The two, putting math on a completely logical and systematic foundation, and arguing that belief in the existence of God does not make sense, are not the same thing, and not exactly comparable. But, I believe, both efforts were and are futile, even for a man as brilliant as the late Lord Russell.

Thanks for reading. I thank Pete D. for his comment.