Just Because I Believe in God Does Not Mean I Believe in Russell’s Teapot
The issue is not whether God exists, but where do we disagree about God
I am a theist so when an atheist claims there is no God and gives a usually snarky reason, I will listen to see if they can convince me. They can’t.
What is the reason why they claim there is no god? It is always some form of “I do not see God, therefore, he does not exist,” always.
There are several forms of this but the most common: God may exist, but (unicorns, flying spaghetti monster, teapot in space) may also exist. The point is you can claim that anything exists, that does not mean it actually does.
Since I do believe in God, I look at that and say: “You miss the point.”
Atheism makes no logical sense to me exactly for the reason used to “prove” it above.
Faith is not about believing that which does not exist. That is absurd. We root our faith in a simple scientific principle: there are realities that exist in the universe greater than our biological ability to perceive them.
This does not prove God exists, but it does disprove all those arguments cited above by atheists. The reason? They are all based on the opposite principle. I could rephrase them simply: If I cannot perceive it, then it does not exist. Everything in the universe must be at least potentially perceivable by me. If it isn’t then it does not exist.
The modern form of the argument originally comes from Bertrand Russell, the late British mathematician atheist of the twentieth century. Other atheists who cite it since then include Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. They call it Russell’s Teapot or as I call it: Teapot in Space.
In the teapot in space argument, Russell says that a teapot could be floating between Earth and Mars. No one can see it even using the most powerful telescope because it is too small. Therefore, it may or not actually be there but no one can disprove it is. Russell added, religion is like making it unacceptable for you or anyone to assume God does not exist, therefore, although there is no proof, assumption of existence of God and the teapot is the standard.
This argument actually works only in a material sense. So, Russell and his philosophical progeny can disseminate this idea, but for people of faith it is weak. The argument assumes that nothing exists that does not have the potential for the human being to perceive. Even if we say that the teapot is too small to see using the most powerful telescope, it is still a teapot made of atoms. Potentially, we can see it. That is where the argument fails. What Russell and the rest argue for is that all that exists must be potentially perceivable by the human. This makes the human powers of perception the determining factor of whether something exists. In other words, if Bertrand Russell could not potentially perceive it, it does not exist.
As people of faith, we believe that the standard for understanding what exists in the world is greater than the standard for what the human being can perceive. Non-believers have no choice but to be atheists. Since Bertrand Russell could not perceive it then they reason it must not exist.
It is like the atheist is inside the cave telling us that all that exists is within the walls of the cave, there is nothing outside.
As a believer, I begin with the principle that the universe is bigger than my ability to perceive it. Therefore, the standard of what exists in the world is not what Russell could or could not perceive or for that matter me.
For an atheist to convince me there is no God, he has to disprove to me that our ability to perceive the world around us is limited, or that there is nothing beyond the walls of the cave.
Can I prove my position and disprove the atheist position? Yes, using the science we as Catholics understand that I will admit that other Christians and theists do not: evolution.
Can you prove to me that you evolved to the point of being able to perceive all of reality including that which is not material? If you cannot prove that to me, you cannot prove to me your atheism.
You can tell me that you disagree with my concept of God but that is a different argument. You cannot disprove to me the existence of God because you cannot prove to me that we evolved to the point that we can perceive all of reality and we do not see God.
The unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, teapot in space are all based on the Russell’s argument and this is why they do not work. The fundamental principle of atheism is that all reality is composed of matter. The teapot cannot be seen because it is too small, but it is still a teapot made of atoms.
Is there any reality that is not composed of matter? That is the question the atheist has to answer.
If you cannot answer it, then you cannot convince me of your atheism. It is relatively simple.
God may exist, he in fact may not, but your arguments do not shed any light on the answer.
The fact is that Jesus actually did answer this question when he described God as spirit (John 4:4) which means when we are talking about God, we are talking about that which is not made of matter.
One of the questions I always bring up in the discussion is: are there angels in the room? If someone says no, they say so because they cannot see them, but that lends us back to all reality must be potentially perceivable by a human being in order for me to believe it exists. If they say yes or even maybe, then they are acknowledging that there exist realities that are beyond what is perceivable by Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins and me.
The fundamental principle that separate theists from atheists begin there. Everything else builds upon that difference in our arguments.
So when an atheist gives a snarky response: “Well I do not believe in God but I do not see (unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, teapot in space) so I assume they do not exist.” He or she just confirms the principle on which atheism is based: “If I do not see it then it does not exist.” It is an unconvincing argument, even if it was made by the late Bertrand Russell.