Article by Tim Wikiriwhi.
Syndicated from Eternal Vigilance.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is a Transegoist sympathizer; not a Transegoist — our syndication of his article does not indicate that he endorses the Transegoist philosophy.
It has always amazed me that the atheist world is so enthralled with Bertrand Russell’s «Celestial Teapot» as a supposed logical argument against the credibility of belief in God. This argument is routinely deployed by atheists in debates with theists, and so it was on a discussion I am having on face book about Science and belief in the after life. The important place Russell’s Teapot (and it’s mate, the «Flying Spaghetti Monster») play in the great controversy between faith and skepticism warrants that I write this article about it. I don’t know why Russell’s argument is so revered by atheists, as it only takes a small amount of contemplation to realize that His argument is actually a refutation of blind faith in atheistic evolution, not belief in God.
Let me explain.
Here is the argument in question:
«If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.» —Bertrand Russell
The reason we ought to doubt the existence of a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars is simply because we know that teapots are the product of mind over matter; i.e., unless mankind, or some other intelligence formed a teapot out of China and placed it in that orbit that there is no way nature could produce such an object via it’s blind and/or unguided forces!
The Theory of Evolution. The Illusion of Design.
This is an argument from design, and it makes a mockery of evolutionary theory because atheist evolutionists believe that something far, far more complex than a china teapot in orbit can and has been made by the pure blind and unguided forces of nature; I refer to the spectacle of life on Earth! For Atheists to believe life could possibly be the result of blind chance, and yet balk at the idea of a «celestial teapot» being formed by pure chance exposes their absurd credulity. According to their theory, there ought to be all sorts of objects in space which have a quirky resemblance to designed artifacts…teapots? Not a problem!
(I am reminded of The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, when it mentions the existence of “Casinos, all of which have been formed by the natural erosion of wind and rain…” Hilarious!)
Well, we all know there very much is a problem: nature does not work like that! Russell’s argument is actually a very poor argument given the nature of what he was attempting to disprove; i.e., religious belief.
It is also a great testament to the duplicity of atheists who balk at the idea of a celestial teapot, yet will look at you square in the face and tell you they believe life started by accident! That is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel! He has, in fact, furnished theists with a great argument against atheism; for it would be much easier to believe in a «celestial teapot» than in the spontaneous generation and evolution of life. Not to appreciate this is to be pig-headed indeed.
For more evidence of intelligent design:
Read about Biomimicry… Plagiarizing God’s designs.
Read about Paley’s other Watch.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Wikiriwhi is currently running for mayor of the city of Hamilton, NZ, as the Libertarianz Party candidate.