Skip to main content

van Inwagen's Critique of Russell's Teapot Argument

Here.




Comments

Steve Maitzen said…
Van Inwagen's critique turns on the claim that the prior probability of Russell's Teapot is "essentially zero" whereas the prior probability of God isn't essentially zero. Disputes about prior probability are notoriously hard to resolve, so any argument depending on a claim about prior probabilities inherits that problem. For instance, I don't think van Inwagen assigns enough weight to the fact that philosophers have long challenged the internal coherence of the concept of God, whereas no one has challenged the internal coherence of the concept of Russell's Teapot. Likewise, philosophers have spent centuries devising (bad) arguments for God's existence but no time at all devising (bad) arguments for the Teapot's existence. If they had, the waters might now be muddy enough that the prior probability of the Teapot's existence wouldn't seem to us to be essentially zero.
Matt McCormick said…
There is some research now that casts an interesting shadow on the issue here. Philosophers tend to think of the major issues surrounding prior probability being related to internal coherence or real plausibility, etc. But if you expose someone to an idea repeatedly, even if it's patently false, her estimation of its plausibility, even its probability, will rise. The Source Amnesia problem is related. We often retain an idea even when we have heard it disproven, but we forget the source. That's why such a large percentage of Americans still have their doubts about whether Obama is a Christian, or whether he is a US citizen. Repeat the controversy enough times, like they do on Fox News, and the false claim gets treated as fact. With the huge influx of zombie movies, books, and culture, people now place a higher plausibility on a zombie apocalypse, even though all of those portrayals are fictional. Repeat any outrageous claim enough, and it becomes normal, even common sense. THAT'S why van Inwagen and his like are prone to place such a high prior probability on the God concept. But when you wrench the idea out of its typical, familiar context, it becomes jarring and foreign. Sometimes I'll ask Christians: "So you think there is a giant, invisible sky being with a zombie son who reads minds and grants wishes? And once a week you gather with other followers to eat his skin and blood?" The prior probability of that, I submit, is very low, van Inwagen's protests notwithstanding. As you point out, Ex, arguments against God have lowered the prior probability for sensible people, but people's spending so much time playing make believe in church has artificially elevated the prior probability of nonsense.
I'm disappointed. In those few lines that van Inwagen quotes, Russell clearly does not make the argument van Inwagen accuses him of making. Nobody, it seems, has ever made the argument van Inwagen is critiquing.

Popular posts from this blog

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…