However, there is an important difference between the teapot and deity cases; namely, that of explanatory power. The teapot case explains no phenomenon in our universe. Deism however explains many phenomena as I will discuss further later. This difference is critical because the basis for believing a theory is that is has explanatory power. We believe, say, the theory of relativity because it does indeed explain our observable universe. A theory that explains nothing - or worse is in violation of an observation - has no validity. This applies to the teapot case, but not to the deity case. For the teapot case the two claims "there isn't a teapot around mars" and "there is such a teapot" are very asymmetrical with one evidently far more reasonable to believe than the other. With deism however the gap between "a deity does not exist" and "a deity does exist" is far smaller because the one offers, to some extent, explanatory power. As such, to the extent that deism has superior explanatory power to a Martian teapot, an agnostic perspective of deism is more powerful and balanced statement than the epistemological consideration of teapot agnosticism.
Now the extent to which deism offers explanatory power for the universe is highly debatable as is the compatibility of its predictions with our observations. Such things include the creation of the universe, the nature of consciousness, existence of morality an whatnot. The point isn't to argue for or against any of these claims but instead to note that this must be the source of the debate. Hence, to argue against deism one must debate the extent of its explanatory power such as how compatible it is with observation but not to apply the teapot analogy and reduce agnosticism to an epistemological consideration about uncertainty.
Thoughts on this post? Comment below!
Share this post: