Saturday, March 03, 2007

Brian Flemming

I was sitting here listening to a little on the rational response squad. They have Brian Flemming going up against the president of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University. Flemming pulled off something I thought was great using Bertrand Russel's teapot analogy. Flemming said "answer these questions yes or no"

1.) Do you believe there is a flying teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars?

No.

2.) Do you believe that if a large percentage of the world's population believed there was a flying teapot out there you would believe it?

No.

3.) Would you believe in the flying teapot if lots of people received great joy from the belief?

No.

4.) Would you believe it if people had huge parties and festivals to celebrate the teapot?

No.

5.) Would you believe in the teapot if you decided that you wished it were true to receive the benefits, even though you had no reason to believe it?

No.

6.) Would you believe there was a teapot between earth and mars if millions of people promised everlasting life if you believed it?

No.

7.) Would you believe in the teapot if millions of people insisted that you would go to hell for eternity if you didn't believe in it?

No.

Brian's final question:

What is the minimum it would take for you to believe that there was a flying teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars?

This line of questioning forces the theist to naturally proclaim that some sort of empirical evidence would be required to believe in it. The smart ones immediately see this and seek to avoid the obvious reply "I need evidence". But then they get caught in their own shit by replying "well there is evidence for Jesus and that's why believing in Jesus is different". Since their religion is a "faith" this can't be true. There can't be sufficient evidence to believe in a faith by definition. The president of Liberty U was befuddled. He opted for the "there *is* evidence for Jesus" approach, which only makes sense to people who already believe.

It's impossible to argue with them, but Flemming's method is a great illustration.

No comments: