قوری چای راسل

قوری چای راسل، که آنرا «قوری چای آسمانی» نیز خوانده‌اند، تمثیلی است که ابتدا فیلسوف معاصر برتراند راسل بیان کرد. منظور از آن ردّ نظری بود که ارائهٔ دلیل بر نبود خدا را بر عهدهٔ شکاکان می‌داند.

راسل در مقاله‌ای تحت عنوان آیا خدایی هست؟، که به سفارش مجله ایلوستریتد در سال ۱۹۵۲ نوشت و هرگز منتشر نشد، چنین نوشت:

اگر من مدعی می‌شدم که در منظومه شمسی میان زمین و مریخ یک قوری چینی دور خورشید می‌گردد، هیچ کس قادر نبود مدّعای مرا رد کند، مشروط به آنکه حواسم می‌بود که در ادامه بگویم این قوری آنقدر کوچک است که حتی با قوی‌ترین تلسکوپ‌ها هم قابل رویت نیست. اما اگر تا آنجا پیش می‌رفتم که می‌گفتم چون مدعای من ابطال ناپذیراست جایز نیست عقل بشر به آن شک کند، به حق به یاوه گویی متهم می‌شدم. با این حال، اگر وجود این قوری در کتب قدما تایید شده بود و آن را حقیقتی قدسی شمرده و هر یکشنبه در کلیسا درباره آن به وعظ می‌پرداختند و در مدارس آن را به ذهن کودکان فرو می‌کردند، تردید در وجود آن نشانهٔ نامتعارف بودن تلقی می‌شد و شخص شکاک را در عصر روشنگری به نزد روانپزشک و در دوره پیش از آن به دادگاه تفتیش عقاید می‌فرستادند.[۱]

تمثیل «قوری چای‌باوری» راسل در مقابله با مذهب کماکان مبنای بسیاری از مناظرات بین مؤمنان و دگراندیشان است. ریچارد داوکینز از این قیاس در کتاب معروف خود کشیش شیطان استفاده کرده‌است.

داوکینز به خاطر استفاده از قیاس قوری چای‌باوری با انتقاد برخی از مذهبیون، از جمله آلیستر مک گرات در کتاب " توهم داوکینز" قرار گرفت.

با استقبال از مفهوم «قوری چای‌باوری»، تقلیدهای دیگری انجام گرفته که از جمله می‌توان به اسب تک‌شاخ صورتی نامرئی[۲]، هیولای اسپاگتی پرنده[۳] و اژدها در گاراژ من[۴] اشاره کرد.
پانویس

↑ Bertrand Russell: Is There a God?
↑ Richard Dawkins (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton-Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-618-68000-9.
↑ Wolf, Gary (November 14, 2006). "The Church of the Non-Believers". Wired News. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html.
↑ Sagan, Carl (June 21, 2007). "The Dragon in My Garage". http://www.RichardDawkins.Net. http://richarddawkins.net/social/index.php?mode=article&id=35.

منابع

مشارکت‌کنندگان ویکی‌پدیا، «Russell's teapot»، ویکی‌پدیای انگلیسی، دانشنامهٔ آزاد (بازیابی در ۲۹ آوریل ۲۰۰۷).

[نمایش]
ن • ب • و
مسئلهٔ وجود خدا
[نمایش]
ن • ب • و
الهیات
رده‌ها:

برتراند راسل
برهان‌های فلسفی
خداناباوری
شک‌گرایی
ندانم‌گرایی
نقد دین
نقیضه‌ها

قس عربی

إبریق راسل، الذی یدعى أحیاناً بالإبریق الکونی، هو تشبیه أول کان أول من صاغه الفیلسوف بیرتراند راسل (1872 - 1970)، هادفاً إلى دحض فکرة أن هناک عبء إثبات فلسفی یقع على المشککین لإثبات عدم صحة ادعاءات الأدیان بأنها غیر خاطئة. إبریق راسل ما زال یستخدم فی النقاشات التی تدور حول وجود الخالق. کما استخدم التعبیر علماء الاجتماع للدلالة على العلاقات بین الدین والامتثال الاجتماعی.
نص راسل الأصلی
برتراند راسل فی 1907

فی مقال کتب لکن لم ینشر قط بعنوان "هل هناک خالق؟ ?Is There a God"، لمجلة المصور Illustrated فی 1952، کتب راسل:

إذا أمکننی أن أشیر أنه یوجد بین الأرض والمریخ إبریق مصنوع من الخزف الصینی یدور حول الشمس فی مدار بیضوی، لا یمکن لأحد أن یدحض افتراضی ، إذا کنت حریصاً على ذکر أن الإبریق أضغر من أن تراه أقوى التلسکوبات الموجودة عندنا. ولکنی إذا انتقلت إلى الادعاء بأن افتراضی یتمتع بخاصیة أنه لا یمکن اثبات عدم صحته، وبذلک فانه من غیر المقبول لأی عقل بشری متزن أن یشکک فی صحته، فبالتأکید یجب أن یعتبرنی الناس أتحدث بجنون خالص. ورغم ذلک فإنه إذا وجد فی نصوص قدیمة ما یؤکد وجود مثل ذلک الإبریق، واعتبر کشیء مقدس کل یوم أحد، وزرع فی عقول الأولاد الصغار فی المدرسة، فإن شککت فی وجودها فسیکون ذلک علامة على عدم الاتزان ویجذب ذلک المشکک انتباهات طبیب نفسانی فی عصر مستنیر کعصرنا أو أی فضولی فی فی العصور السحیقة.[1]

المصادر

^ بیرتراند راسل: هل هناک خالق؟

[أظهر]ع · ن · ت
لادینیة
[أظهر]ع · ن · ت
فلسفة الدین
تصنیفات:

لاأدریة
نقد الدین
حجج فلسفیة
إلحاد

قس ارکی استانبولی

Russell'ın çaydanlığı, diğer bir adıyla göksel çaydanlık, filozof Bertrand Russell tarafından dinlerin yanlışlanamaz savlarının yanlışlanması görevinin kuşkuculara düştüğü görüşünü çürütmek amacıyla ileri sürülen bir benzeşim. Illustrated dergisinin 1952'de içeriğine kattığı (ama hiç yayımlamadığı) "Bir Tanrı var mı?" isimli makalesinde, Russell aşağıdakileri söyler:
“ Eğer ben Dünya ve Mars arasında eliptik bir yörüngede güneşin etrafında dönen Çin seramiği bir çaydanlık olduğunu öne sürseydim ve bu çaydanlığın en güçlü teleskoplarımızla bile tespit edilemeyecek kadar küçük olduğunu ekleyecek kadar da dikkatli olsaydım, kimse bu görüşümün tersini kanıtlayamazdı. Ama devam edip de bu savımın yanlışlanamaz nitelikte oluşundan dolayı insan aklının ondan kuşku duymasının kabul edilemez bir küstahlık olacağını söyleseydim, herkes haklı olarak saçmaladığımı düşünürdü. Ancak, eğer böyle bir çaydanlığın varlığı eski kitaplarca onaylansaydı, her Pazar günü kilisede kutsal gerçeklik olarak öğretilseydi ve okullarda çocukların beynine kazınsaydı, onun varlığından kuşku duymak bir gariplik belirtisi olarak görülür ve o kuşkuyu duyan kişiye yakınçağda bir ruh doktoruyla ya da daha önceki çağlarda bir Engizisyon yargıcıyla bir randevu alınırdı. ”

Bir Şeytan'ın Papazı isimli kitabında, Richard Dawkins çaydanlık fikrini biraz daha ileri götürür:
“ Organize dinlerin, açık düşmanlığımızı haketmesinin nedeni şudur ki, Russell'ın çaydanlığına olan bir inancın aksine, din güçlüdür, etkilidir, vergiden muaftır ve kendini korumaktan aciz küçük çocuklara sistematik biçimde aşılanır. Çocuklar gelişim yıllarını çaydanlıklar hakkında manyakça kitaplar ezberleyerek harcamaya zorlanmazlar. Devletin okulları, anababaları yanlış biçimdeki çaydanlıklara inanmayı tercih eden çocukları okul sisteminin dışında tutmaz. Çaydanlığa inananlar, çaydanlığa inanmayanları ya da çaydanlık kâfirlerini veya çaydanlık sapkınlarını hatta çaydanlığı inkar edenleri ölümüne taşlamaz. Anneler çocuklarını, bir değil de üç çaydanlığa inanan çaydanlık-gâvuru eşlerle evlenmemeleri için uyarmaz. Önce sütü koyanlar, önce çayı koyanların dizlerini parçalamaz. ”

Russell'in çaydanlığı kavramı daha mizahi ve dinleri açıkça parodileştiren biçimlere de gelişmiştir; Tek Boynuzlu Görünmez Pembe At ve Uçan Spagetti Canavarı bunlara iki örnektir.
Ayrıca bakınız

Cahilin Savı
The Root of All Evil?, Richard Dawkins tarafından yazılan ve sunulan bir TV belgeseli

Dış bağlantılar

Bertrand Russell: Bir Tanrı Var mı? (İngilizce)

[gizle]

g
t
d

Dinsizlik
Ateizm
Ateistler listesi · Demografi · Din · Tarih · Devlet ateizmi · Eleştiriler · Ayrımcılık · Yargılanma · Zayıf ve güçlü · Agnostik ateizm · Antiteizm · Din karşıtlığı · Atheist Alliance International
Agnostisizm
Agnostikler Listesi · Agnostik teizm · Agnostik ateizm · Zayıf agnostisizm · Güçlü agnostisizm · İgnostisizm · Apateizm
Nonteizm
Seküler hümanizm · Post-teizm · Özgür düşünce · Sekülerizm · Sekülerite · Dine yönelik eleştiri · Freedom From Religion Foundation · Uçan Spagetti Canavarı · Tek Boynuzlu Görünmez Pembe At · Russell'in Çaydanlığı
Kategoriler:

Tanrı'nın varlığına dair argümanlar
Parodi dinler
Ateizm
Din eleştirisi

قس عبری

קנקן התה של ראסל הוא אנלוגיה של הפילוסוף האנגלי ברטראנד ראסל, שמטרתה להפריך את הטיעון שגורס כי במקרה של אמונה דתית, שאינה ניתנת להפרכה, נטל ההוכחה עובר אל הספקן, ועליו להוכיח שהאמונה אינה נכונה.

הטענה נשמעה לראשונה במאמר בשם "היש אלוהים?", שכתב ראסל למגזין Illustrated ב-1954:


אילו הייתי טוען שבין כדור הארץ לשמש מסתובב קנקן תה במסלול אליפטי, לא היה ניתן להפריך את הטענה שלי כל עוד הייתי דואג לציין שמידות הקנקן כה קטנות, כך שלא ניתן לצפות בו אף בטלסקופ החזק ביותר שיש ברשותנו. אך אילו הייתי ממשיך בטיעון, ואומר כי מכיוון שלא ניתן להפריך את הטענה, תהיה זאת עזות מצח מצד ההיגיון האנושי לפקפק בה, אחשב בצדק למי שמדבר שטויות. אם, לעומת זאת, יטענו לעצם קיומו של קנקן תה שכזה בטקסטים עתיקים, ילמדוהו כאמת מקודשת בכל יום ראשון, ויחדירוהו לראשיהם של תלמידי בית ספר, אזי פקפוק באמונה כזאת ייחשב לסימן לחריגות, ועלול להוביל את המפקפק לטיפול פסיכיאטרי בעידן הנאור, או לאינקוויזיציה בעידן קדום יותר.



חוסר דת
אתאיזם

דמוגרפיה • דת • היסטוריה • אתאיזם מדיני • ביקורת • הפליה • חלש וחזק • אתאיזם אגנוסטי • מרומז ומפורש • אנטיתאיזם • התנגדות לדת • ברית האתאיסטים הבינלאומית • אתאיזם יהודי
אגנוסטיות

תאיזם אגנוסטי • אתאיזם אגנוסטי • אגנוסטיות חלשה • אגנוסטיות חזקה • איגנוסטיציזם • אפאתאיזם
נונתאיזם

הומניזם חילוני • פוסט-תאיזם • חשיבה חופשית • חילון • חילוניות • חילונים • ביקורת הדת • טרנסתאיזם • קנקן התה של ראסל • דת פרודית • מפלצת הספגטי המעופפת
P yin yang.svg ערך זה הוא קצרמר בנושא פילוסופיה. אתם מוזמנים לתרום לוויקיפדיה ולהרחיב אותו.

قس انگلیسی

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.
Contents
Russell's argument

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. 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 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.[1]

In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy as a reason for his own atheism:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. 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 sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[2]

Analysis

Peter Atkins said that the point of Russell's teapot is that there is no burden on anyone to disprove assertions. Occam's razor suggests that the simpler theory with fewer assertions (e.g. a universe with no supernatural beings) should be the starting point in the discussion rather than the more complex theory.[3] Atkins notes that this argument does not appeal to the religious because, unlike scientific evidence, religious evidence is said to be experienced through personal revelation which cannot be conveyed or objectively verified.

In his books A Devil's Chaplain (2003) and The God Delusion (2006), Richard Dawkins used the teapot as an analogy of an argument against what he termed "agnostic conciliation", a policy of intellectual appeasement that allows for philosophical domains that concern exclusively religious matters.[4] Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a god. Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention. Dawkins presents the teapot as a reductio ad absurdum of this position: if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being.[5]

Carl Sagan uses Russell's teapot in the chapter "The Dragon In My Garage" in his book The Demon-Haunted World, and says "Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."[6]
Counterarguments

Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that the analogy fails because the believer and non-believer with regard to the teapot are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of the atheist and the theist.[7] Garvey argues that it is not a matter of the theist propounding existence of a thing and the atheist simply denying it - each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is: "the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms – the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."[2]

The literary critic James Wood, without believing in God, says that belief in God "is a good deal more reasonable than belief in a teapot" because God is a "grand and big idea" which "is not analogically disproved by reference to celestial teapots or vacuum cleaners, which lack the necessary bigness and grandeur" and "because God cannot be reified, cannot be turned into a mere thing".[8]

One counter-argument, advanced by philosopher Eric Reitan,[9] is that belief in God is different from belief in a teapot because teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable, and that given what we know about the physical world we have no good reason to think that belief in Russell's teapot is justified and at least some reason to think it not.[10]

Philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not.[11] He says that all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity but because of its triviality, arguing that "When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist." [11]
Parody

The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn[5] and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[12] '60s Musician and psychedelic poet Daevid Allen created his Planet Gong Universe and the Flying Teapot Trilogy around the idea of a Flying Teapot and refers to Russell's Teapot in his book's 'Gong Dreaming'
See also
Listen to this article (info/dl)
Menu
0:00
This audio file was created from a revision of the "Russell's teapot" article dated 2012-05-02, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)
More spoken articles
Sound-icon.svg

Occam's razor - trim theories of their unnecessary assumptions.
The Root of All Evil?, a television documentary
Parody religion

References

^ Bertrand Russell: Is There a God?
^ a b Garvey, Brian (2010). "Absence of evidence, evidence of absence, and the atheist’s teapot". Ars Disputandi 10: 9–22.
^ Atkins, Peter. "Atheism and science". In Clayton, Philip and Simpson, Zachary R.. The Oxford handbook of religion and science. pp. 129–130
^ Richard Dawkins. A Devil's Chaplain. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-33540-4.
^ a b Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-68000-4.
^ Carl Sagan: The Dragon In My Garage
^ Garvey, Brian (2010). "Absence of evidence, evidence of absence, and the atheist’s teapot". Ars Disputandi 10: 9–22.
^ Wood, James (18 December 2006). "The Celestial Teapot". The New Republic (27)
^ Eric Reitan | Contributors | Religion Dispatches
^ Eric Reitan. Is God a Delusion?. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 78–80. ISBN 1-4051-8361-6.
^ a b Chamberlain. Paul, Why People Don't Believe: Confronting Seven Challenges to Christian Faith, pp. 82-83, Baker Books 2011
^ Wolf, Gary (November 14, 2006). "The Church of the Non-Believers". Wired News.

[show]

v
t
e

Irreligion
[show]

v
t
e

Philosophy of religion
Categories:

Bertrand Russell
Agnosticism
Atheism
Criticism of religion
Philosophical arguments
Parodies
Skepticism