Rationality Rules Debunked Me on Russell's Teapot, OR DID HE? | My Response

Welcome back, friends.

My name is Nate, and I'm the face of this here channel.

If it's your first time here, nice to meet you.

I wear a lot of hats.

I'm a teacher, a pastor, a speaker, and the president of a Christian nonprofit organization called Wise Disciple.

And if you're a Christian, then I'm here for you.

I'm glad that you're watching.

Got an interesting video for you today.

So the other day, somebody in the Wise Disciple community informed me that my recent video on Russell's teapot, which, by the way, I

had moved on from this, so I guess I thought I had.

I have a lot of other videos and subjects to talk about with you all, but somebody told me that the Russell's teapot video I made was

taken out back to the shed and whipped.

He didn't say it like that.

This person who responded to me is called Rationality Rules.

Now, already, I like the name for the channel.

I like the alliteration.

So kudos to this person who has a great name.

Also because of the double entendre, right?

So Rationality Rules implies the rules that rationality follows, but then also it could refer to the kind of the

rationality that has authority over all of the things, right?

So Rationality Rules as king.

So dig that great name.

Also, as we get into this video, dig the check this out.

Hello, my fellow apes.

Dig the haircut, bro.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Got a Viking thing going on.

Love that.

Here's the deal.

I'm not afraid of challenges to what I've said.

I'm not afraid of being wrong either.

So it is very possible that I said something stupid in the last video.

It wouldn't be the first time.

So I'll be listening with the heart of being corrected.

If I did make a mistake.

I don't think I did.

But honestly, that was a few weeks ago and I don't remember what I said.

And that's what 40 looks like everybody.

43 years old and your short -term memory ain't what it used to be.

That should be a t -shirt.

All right, without further ado, let's watch my video getting trounced by Rationality Rules.

So I hope you are well.

Today, we're going to take a stroll into the lair of Wise Disciple, a ministry that's run by a dude called Nate.

And specifically,.

I am a dude.

Thank you for acknowledging my dudehood.

I am a dude.

I consider myself a dude.

Thank you.

We're going to listen to Nate as he attempts to shatter Russell's teapot, which is an analogy that was formulated by Bertrand Russell

to illustrate that the burden of proof rests upon those who are making unfalsifiable claims.

But don't worry.

We'll be sure to pour ourselves a hard coffee from Russell's teapot as and when Nate mischaracterizes it.

And yes, I know what I've done there.

I've made a positive claim.

And so now I have a burden to prove it.

Or do I?

Perhaps it's you that has the burden to disprove it.

Let's find out.

Over the last couple of weeks, I decided to carve out some time and talk about the burden of proof.

What is it?

And more importantly, in debates and regular conversations, do non -Christians or Christians shoulder the

burden of proof?

The first video caused some consternation amongst some in the atheist community.

And so I answered some of their comments in last week's video.

You know, I'm tempted to also provide commentary on Nate's first video and the answers he offered to those questions he

mentioned.

But I'll leave this up to you, the audience.

If you want to see me respond to his other burden of proof claims, then please do let me know through the comments.

If you do, I'll likely do so on Casually Debunked.

Here, however, we're focusing on Russell's default.

Walking down this path, so to speak, and seeing some of the responses, particularly by those who disagree with me, it just

brought back this distant memory of some...

It's kind of weird watching a video of somebody else watching a video of me.

And now I feel like I'm deep in the Inception universe.

I need my totem.

Where's my...

Where's my...

Am I in the real world or am I stuck in the YouTube world watching somebody in the YouTube

world watching myself in the YouTube world?

Something that I was wrestling with maybe 10 years ago now, maybe more than that, it was called

Russell's Teapot.

Russell's Teapot is named after the famous atheist Bertrand Russell, who, by the way, Bertrand Russell was a massive

intellectual for his time.

I strongly admire Russell's contributions.

His writings, in particular, he was a very smart man.

Well, by the way, I'm not just saying that, you know.

I read Russell at a time when I was thinking through idealism, and I think his critiques were

fascinating.

So, I'm not a believer in dismissing people categorically.

If you happen to disagree with them in like one specific area, I think that's too broad, too dismissive,

too sweeping.

And I think a lot of people do that, unfortunately.

That's a separate video.

A lot of people are right on a lot of issues, and then they get some things wrong.

So, you have to take what people say kind of one idea at a time.

But he came up with this challenge to Christianity that's centered on a thought experiment.

Imagine a teapot floating in outer space.

What does this have to do with the burden of proof or Christianity at all?

I'm going to talk about it in this video.

So, first of all, like pretty much all apologists, Nate comes across as pretty confident and knowledgeable.

So, first of all, I don't consider myself to be an apologist.

So, I mean, it's an easy conclusion to draw if you see a video about something like

this.

And maybe the critique is, Nate, you are an apologist, you don't realize it.

Okay, I consider myself to be a Christian.

I consider myself to be a teacher.

That's where my background and experience is in those things.

Does apologetics come up?

Yeah, I mean, apologetics, I think, is a fundamental component of being a Christian in today's culture.

But I don't consider myself to be like Greg Koekel, Jay Warner Wallace, Sean

McDowell.

You know what I mean?

That's not me.

That's not how I see myself.

So, just point of clarification.

He's explained that he wrestled with Russell's teapot ten years ago, implying that he's long since shelved it, which, as we'll see

in a moment, is indeed the case.

And he says that he strongly admires Russell's contributions, which implies that he's read at least a decent amount of Russell's work.

This all serves to paint Nate as an authoritative figure.

However, from the very -.

Well, it serves to talk about what really happened.

I was an atheist until I was 30.

I was taken with atheist arguments.

I thought Christians were idiots.

And then I changed my mind.

And I have read Russell.

Arguably, I could read more Russell.

But yeah, so, it seems a little disingenuous to just go, well, I'm just painting myself as an

authority figure.

Okay.

At the get -go, there's signs of him not actually understanding the purpose of Russell's teapot.

He said that Russell came up with it to challenge Christianity.

But he came up with this challenge to Christianity that's centered on a thought experiment.

But as we'll see in just a moment, this simply isn't the case.

Russell did not create his analogy to challenge Christianity or even any specific proposition.

Rather, his analogy challenges, if we want to use that word, who has the burden of proof in a setting in which a proposition, and

especially an unfalsifiable proposition, is asserted.

It's about the rule.

Okay, I see what's going on here.

So, already we're off on the wrong foot.

All right.

Boy, I hope the whole video is not like this.

Parsing words in this way, especially this early on, without letting me finish my point,

is not going to be very helpful.

I didn't say that Russell came up with Russell's teapot to challenge Christianity.

I said that Russell came up with a challenge to Christianity.

There's a difference.

Now, sure, this phrase I chose to use is pretty vague, right?

So, what do I mean by challenge to Christianity?

What I mean is that the challenge comes in when the burden of proof is placed solely at the Christian's feet, thus

freeing the atheist from having to shoulder their own burden.

So, my comment was not about Russell's motive, you know, why he originally came up with the teapot analogy.

My comment is about the effect of the analogy.

And by the way, not only does Russell go on to use the analogy to explain his own atheism, the analogy itself has

been taken and used by some atheists today.

Again, to make only Christians do the work.

And so this - that's literally what I just said.

And so, this video is focused on those effects.

Rules of debate, not a specific proposition.

And thus, it only challenges the Christian if and only if the Christian makes claims, and then insists that their interlocutor

disproved their claims.

To get the proper context, let's read the source material.

Russell gave the analogy in an unpublished article commissioned by Illustrated magazine in 1952, titled, Is

There a God?

In the short article, he -.

By the way, this is a really good article.

I think everybody should read the article.

I think it's available online.

I'll probably try to find it and then put a link in the notes below.

You should take a look at it.

He speaks of Abrahamic monotheism broadly, and especially Judaism, not Christianity, and after dealing

tersely with some of the most prominent theistic arguments of his day, he sets the stage for his analogy.

And crucially, he does so by first establishing a very rare type of theism, namely, one which doesn't claim God to

be omnipotent.

Here's the setup.

There is, it is true, a modernist form of theism, according to which God is not omnipotent, but is doing his best

in spite of great difficulties.

This view, although it is new among Christians, is not new in the history of thought.

It is, in fact, to be found in Plato.

I do not think this view can be proved to be false.

I think that all that can be said is that there is no positive reason in its favour.

And it's here, with this setup, that he gave his teapot analogy.

He writes,.

This is, of course, a mistake.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars, there is a China teapot revolving around 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 then say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of

human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

So that's the claim.

It's a pretty simple one.

If I were to assert something that can't be disproved, and then, instead of offering evidence and argumentation, I

insisted that you disprove my assertion, then I'd be guilty of shifting the burden of proof.

So far, so good, man.

Man, um...

What is...

What is your name?

I'm so sorry.

I should have looked that up before I hopped on here.

I don't know.

We'll just call you Rationality Rules.

I mean, I would characterize Russell's article slightly differently, but I don't disagree with much of what

Rationality Rules is saying here, so... and I think this is very helpful information.

It provides, you know, clarification, all that.

So, very good.

...and atheists alike will likely accept.

Suppose that I said that reincarnation is true.

That when we die, we are born anew, and inhabit a new vessel according to our moral virtue.

And then, when you ask me to prove this, far from offering arguments and evidence, I insist that you disprove

it.

Russell's point is that this would be fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

If I make a positive claim, I inherit a burden to prove it.

But that is, I think, enough context on the table.

It doesn't strictly matter, I should say, whether or not the claim is unfalsifiable.

It's just that if it is unfalsifiable, then the shifting of the burden of proof becomes more obvious.

But right now, let's jump in.

As I've mentioned very often when discussing the existence of God with Rationality Rules, you could have cut that out.

Like, you didn't have to see my opening bumper.

But, I mean, thanks for keeping it in.

Atheists, agnostics, skeptics, even some Christians, the notions of the burden of proof...

By the way, I don't know if I'm gonna...

So this video is 25 minutes long.

I don't think I'm gonna be able to...

If I keep pausing this, I'm not gonna be able to get to the whole video.

So, hopefully I can get to the substance of it.

...proof and supporting evidence are raised.

Sometimes atheists and skeptics will say that they don't shoulder the burden of proof because they're not the ones making

claims.

Yes, and sometimes that's definitely the case.

Many atheists, perhaps most, don't claim that God doesn't exist, or that Christianity, Islam, Hinduism,

and or Norse religion is false.

These atheists don't carry a burden of proof because they're not issuing a positive claim.

Other atheists, however, such as myself, will say that certain gods don't exist, or that specific

religions are false.

And this does come with a burden of proof, because it's a positive claim.

Basically, the dialectic is gonna dictate who has burdens to fulfill.

And, again, Russell's teapot addresses a very specific dialectic, one in which those who make positive claims

insist that they're interlocutors to prove their claims.

Now, this -.

No, that's not true.

Okay, let me back up.

Yes, Russell's teapot is an analogy that originated out of a specific context, alright?

And that context was an interview with a magazine where Russell deals with some religious folks who

provide no argumentation for their views and then try to force atheists to shoulder the burden.

Literally what Rationality Rules just got done saying.

And he's not wrong about that.

But, that's not how Russell utilized his own analogy later in life to describe his own atheism.

Russell, later on, tried to explain why he was an atheist.

And when he brought up his teapot floating in outer space that no one can disprove to describe why he

did not believe in God, now, all of a sudden, he utilized the reference not referring

to the rules of debate and the burden of proof, although burden of proof is entailed, he's using the analogy now in a different way.

And that's what I'm responding to.

See, this is what I meant by parsing my words way too early before I've had a chance to make my point.

I actually quote Russell in this video later to support myself.

But you have to give me time to get to the quote so I can make my point before you can properly critique me.

This is important to talk about as good evidence provides a foundation for a reasonable inference on this

issue.

As well as just talking about this idea that those who make claims must support them with some kind of

evidence.

So, for example, if God exists, then there should be some evidence to support claims of his existence.

And as Christian case makers continue to show, there are a number of evidences that support the existence of God.

Well, many would disagree, including Russell, who in his article, no less, succinctly tackled what was in his

time a few of those arguments, a few of those alleged pieces of evidence.

Some theists, for instance, claim that life itself is evidence of God, whereas some atheists would claim

that life as we know it, with all of its natural evil, is actually evidence against God, at least the tri -omni -God.

But more to the point, and to reiterate, Russell issued his teapot analogy in specifically the context of the

theist insisting that the atheist disprove God's existence.

If, instead, the theist presents and defends evidence for the arguments in favour of God, then they're

not shifting the burden of proof, and hence the analogy isn't relevant.

So, I don't need a crystal ball to see where this is going.

If Rationality Rules is going to plant his flag on the original context out of which Russell

made his teapot analogy, then he's not really going to be dealing with what I'm actually saying.

Because, like I said, Russell doesn't use his teapot analogy only to respond to some

theists who don't want to make their own arguments.

Russell uses the analogy to explain his own atheism.

I literally quote Russell in this regard in just a moment.

If you could just let me get there, please.

Fortunately, some atheists believe that there can be no evidence for God whatsoever, and it is from this mistaken

presupposition that a particular strategy involving a teapot floating in outer space has emerged.

Okay, this is an utterly bizarre take.

It's a giant red flag.

Before explaining why, though, let's replain Nate's words so that they're fixed in our mind.

Unfortunately, some atheists believe that there can be no evidence for God whatsoever, and it is from this mistaken

presupposition that a particular strategy involving a teapot floating in outer space has emerged.

So, to even suggest that Russell came up with his teapot analogy based on the presupposition that there can be no evidence for God

whatsoever is to fundamentally mistake him.

That's not what I'm saying.

Rationality rules is fundamentally mistaking me.

In his article, Russell issued a response to several alleged pieces of evidence put forth by theists, and his

setup for his analogy very clearly is in context of theists refusing to defend their claims with

logic, reason, or evidence.

What's more, suppose -.

Well, that's not true either.

Look, I can't stop this thing every single second.

It's gonna take too long.

Everyone watching, go read Russell's interview.

I'm gonna put the link, put the notes in below, all that.

Go look at it, so that you can keep track of the back and forth here.

Suppose that Russell, or indeed any atheist, did presuppose that there can be no evidence for God's existence.

Why, then, would he create, in Russell's case, or employ, in my case, for instance, an

analogy that pertains to the evidential burden of proof in context of God's existence?

The narrative that Nate is spinning here is not only false, but it's complete nonsense.

So -.

No, Rationality Rules has just spoken way too soon, and so he's missing my point.

I mean, just let me get to the quote, man.

I love this guy's video, though.

You know what I mean?

Like, so far, great production quality.

I love the microphone, too.

Like, his voice is butter, which I totally dig.

Great audio is important for YouTube videos.

Never mind.

The argument goes, we cannot conclusively prove that there is not a teapot orbiting the sun

somewhere in outer space.

But, given the lack of evidence for such a teapot, its likelihood is so low that the reasonable conclusion

should be that it does not exist.

No, that's not what Russell's teapot analogy expresses.

The analogy doesn't draw any conclusion on the existence of the teapot.

Again, this is not even how Russell refers to his own analogy.

And, by the way, this is also kind of missing my overall point, because I'm not just referring to Russell.

My point was, some atheists use his analogy in this way.

So, again, this is what happens when you plant your flag on Russell's interview instead of taking

into account what I'm actually saying about how Russell talks about the teapot analogy and how some

atheists use the analogy.

So, not only is all of these things missing, but so is the forest for the trees.

And it certainly doesn't draw a probabilistic conclusion on the existence of the teapot.

Further still, it definitely doesn't, as Nate claims, draw a probabilistic conclusion on the existence of the teapot based

on a lack of evidence.

And it definitely, most certainly, doesn't draw a probabilistic conclusion on the existence of the teapot based

on a presupposition of there being no evidence for the teapot's existence, or, by analogy, God's existence.

Nate is impressively confused here.

But it's for a reason, which he'll reveal now.

Likewise, we cannot conclusively prove that God At least I'm impressively confus I would rather be

impressively confused than just ordinarily confused?

I don't know.

Does not exist, but, given the lack of evidence for God, the reasonable conclusion should be that he

does not exist.

This particular argument originated with philosopher Bertrand Russell in a letter that he wrote in 1958.

And here's part of that letter.

I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the gods of Olympus or

Valhalla.

To take another illustration, nobody can prove that there is not, between the Earth and Mars, a China teapot

revolving in an elliptical orbit.

But nobody thinks this is sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice.

I think the Christian God just as unlikely.

And this reference explains, at least partially, why Nate is so confused.

He's referenced a personal letter from 1958 rather than the unpublished article commissioned in

1952 by Illustrative Magazine.

Indeed, it seems that Nate wasn't wrestling with Russell's teapot 10 years ago, but rather a completely different

analogy that Russell gave, fair enough, but one that has absolutely nothing to do with the burden of

proof.

Let's bring up the letter.

Russell's words just before Nate chose to start the quote state I ought to call myself an agnostic, but,

for all practical purposes, I am an atheist.

And to then illustrate just how unlikely he finds Christianity to be true, he gave an analogy using a

celestial teapot.

Hence, Russell was illustrating to Mr. Major and Mr. Lewis just how unlikely he considers Christianity to

be.

Note again that this has nothing to do with the burden of proof.

Now, while Russell has used a celestial teapot as an analogy, this obviously isn't in the context of the burden of

proof.

I've used a unicorn as an analogy multiple times to give an example, but each analogy has served a

different point.

In his 1958 letter, Russell used a celestial teapot to illustrate how unlikely he finds Christianity to be true,

whereas in his 1952 article, he's used a celestial teapot to illustrate where the burden of proof lies.

Hence, Nate isn't even referencing the source material that he's confidently claiming to rebut.

Okay, at this point, he's critiquing his own misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

So he started off by laying a framework for my own words, but he did so incorrectly, like right out of the gate

he did so incorrectly, and now he's attacking his own flawed framework.

Also, I'm not quite clear, like, what's the distinction that Rationality Rules is trying to draw now?

If Russell uses the celestial teapot when talking about some theists who try to force atheists to

disprove their claims, then it's okay to mention the teapot.

But if Russell uses the celestial teapot to draw a probabilistic conclusion that the Christian God does not exist, then

it's not okay to mention the teapot?

Is that how that works?

See, at this point, he's completely lost my original premise.

This is the original premise that he said was an utterly bizarre take in A Giant Red Flag.

Let's play it again.

Unfortunately, some atheists believe that there can be no evidence for God whatsoever, and it is from this mistaken

presupposition that a particular strategy involving a teapot floating in outer space has emerged.

So that's exactly what some atheists do today.

They assume that there can be no evidence because evidence is defined more narrowly to be physical or empirical evidence, and they

employ Russell's teapot to show this.

Where did this crazy idea that Russell's teapot could somehow be used as an explanation that God's existence is unlikely

from Bertrand Russell himself?

Look at this letter right here.

I mean, just stare at it for a split second.

I ought to call myself an agnostic, but for all practical purposes, I am an atheist.

This is what he's saying.

I am an atheist.

Now, here's why.

I do not think the existence of the Christian God is any more probable than the existence of the other gods.

And then he employs the illustration.

To take another illustration, nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a China teapot

revolving in elliptical orbit.

Why is he bringing up this celestial teapot again?

It's because he's explaining why he's an atheist.

This is a different context now out of the original context from which he created the analogy in the first place.

But I don't know what the critique is at this point, but rationality rules.

You have seriously missed my point.

Now, this wasn't just Bertrand Russell that said this.

A number of decades later, Richard Dawkins commented on Russell's idea in The God Delusion.

This is what he said.

Russell's point is that the burden of proof rests with the believers, not the non -believers.

And now, somehow, things are getting even more off track.

Dawkins' quote here is explicitly in reference to Russell's 1952 article, not the

1958 correspondence that Nate is convinced Russell's burden of proof analogy comes from.

Again, the burden of proof is only relevant to the 1952 article, and any philosophical source

will make that clear.

No, it's not.

When Russell told Mr. Major that he's an atheist because no one can disprove his teapot, he already

opened the door to the burden of proof.

Why?

Well, if a Christian theist and an atheist are talking about the existence of God and the atheist quotes Russell in this

regard to Mr. Major, which, by the way, a number of atheists do, the question of who shoulders the burden

naturally flows out of that.

It's amazing to me that rationality rules misses this.

If you're an atheist watching this video and you have employed Russell's teapot in disagreements with Christians, especially online,

you guys are talking, tell me that you have not said, since I can't disprove a celestial teapot floating in

space, I can't disprove God either, so you're the one making the claims, you tell me why your God

exists.

That is all about the burden of proof, and that's how these kinds of conversations go.

There's no way to read the 1958 letter to get the impression that Russell was talking about the burden of proof.

If Nate had read Dawkins' book or even just a few words above where he took the quote, he'd have probably

realized this.

Wow.

I mean, this went right off the rails pretty fast.

Look, I think I get it.

I think I got the gist, so I'm going to make some statements and close, because I need to get back to my weekend here.

I have read Dawkins, and not just The God Delusion.

I think everyone, first of all, should read Bertrand Russell, and should read Richard Dawkins.

Whether you're a Christian atheist or something else, if you are a genuine seeker of truth, you've got to read these people.

You'll be more informed as you draw your own conclusions about the existence of God and the related issues surrounding the existence

of God.

What I find truly problematic with Rationality Rules' response to me is not only his

early misunderstanding, like right out of the gate of what I was actually saying, and then attacking that misunderstanding.

It's not just that.

He doesn't even seem to be aware of atheists after Russell and their own understanding of Russell on this issue of his floating

teapot in outer space.

There is a great chapter in the book, New Atheism, Critical Perspectives, and Contemporary Debates.

It's a really interesting read, especially for somebody who is a Christian theist like myself, but it really

helps to shine some light on this issue, because there's a chapter in the book.

It's written by Ethan Quillen.

He's an atheist and a professor, and he tracks Russell's teapot and its connection to atheist argumentation

that travels along the same lines.

So he talks about Carl Sagan's Invisible Dragon.

You know, he talks about Beginni's Loch Ness Monster.

He talks about Dawkins' Boeing 747.

All of these guys are principally speaking, they're kind of following the tradition of Russell by comparing a fiction

to religious claims.

Richard Dawkins uses Russell's teapot as a springboard to conclude that God does not exist.

It doesn't just stop at the burden of proof, but it definitely includes the burden of proof.

The best way to illustrate this is with an article that Dawkins wrote back in 2002, and I'll leave a link to this as well in

the notes, but this is what he said.

A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a

tooth fairy agnostic.

He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative.

But agnostic on its own might suggest that he thought God's existence or non -existence equally likely.

In fact, though strictly agnostic about both, he considers God's existence no more probable than the tooth

fairy's.

Hence the phrase tooth fairy agnostic.

Here it is.

Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic

purpose.

You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with

its non -existence.

The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots.

It is infinite.

If you want to believe in a particular one of them, teapots, unicorns, tooth fairies, Thor, or Yahweh,

the onus is on you to say why you believe in it.

The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not.

Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot for the same didactic purpose.

For what purpose?

To deal with some theists who are trying to force atheists to disprove their claims?

No.

To show that probabilistically the existence of God is not likely.

And so not only should atheists not believe in God, they shouldn't even have to say why.

The onus is on the Christian to do so.

That's why I made the video.

And my statements stand.

I'm gonna call it quits right about here, because I think I've gotten the gist of this video.

Look, thank you to Rationality Rules for the response, but unfortunately, when it comes to Russell's teapot, I'm

afraid O'Doyle rules.

I couldn't resist.

Look, this turned out to be like a part four of this discussion.

I am done with this topic, alright?

I've got other videos to make for you.

If you are a Christian that desires to be a wise follower of Jesus, then let's go.

Stick with me, because we'll hit the ground running very shortly.

But in the meantime, I'm gonna get back to my weekend, and I'm gonna say, bye for now.