Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Part 1/2

There may be some Christians here who are wondering why they keep on coming up against invented entities: pixies dancing on keyboards, leprechauns speaking to people, etc., and seeing them compared to religious belief. They are all based on the flawed Parable of the Celestial Teapot by Bertrand Russell.

Apparently, it is meant to illustrate the Negative Proof Fallacy, and up to a point, it does. However, it then goes astray. It may well have been written at a time when sceptics were expected to disprove the existence of God, otherwise belief wins by default.

I’m using the text as per Pg 74-75 of the paperback edition of The God Delusion...

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.

Up to a point, I agree. However, I think that the burden of proof should lie with the one making the claim. If I were to make a statement about the Christian faith, e.g. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then the onus is on me to demonstrate why I believe this. However, if I went up to a Muslim and said, “Mohammed was not God’s final messenger”, then the onus should be on me to back up my claim, not expect the Muslim to affirm why he or she believes that particular tenet of their religion.

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.

If someone were to claim this and really believed it, then it could be subjected to the same inductive technique I suggested on another thread. One could start with questions such as
•   How did they come to know about the teapot?
•   How do they know about its properties, e.g. that it is a china one?
•   How do they know the nature of its orbit, etc., etc.
And if you go there, you may see the extent to which the deception will be maintained. I tried it with bluehillside’s pixies on the Cold-Case Christianity thread, asking him how he defined them. This was his response:

How are you defining “God”?

Oh, to have the faith of an atheist, to be relying on something he can’t even define, lol!

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.

I would agree with this being linked to religious belief if the individual were claiming belief by default if one couldn’t disprove their particular belief, but as I said earlier, I’m not seeing this nowadays.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Part 2/2

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 the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Here is where the parable goes wrong. The teapot is a made-up entity used  to illustrate a fallacy, yet it is being compared to religious belief! The implication is that religious belief is as much of a man-made invention as the teapot, yet there is no demonstration of why. As such, it is an exercise in circular reasoning, yet all of the parody deities, and other entities (e.g. bluehillside’s leprechauns / pixies) used in arguments against religious belief are based on this!

The central issue I have with the parable is that it relies on circular reasoning; assuming the conclusion to demonstrate the conclusion.

1.   It assumes that there is no reasoning basis behind religious belief.
If someone makes a religious claim, there is nothing to stop me investigating it for myself.

2.   It assumes that there is no evidence for religious belief.
As such, it conflates belief with blind belief, faith with blind faith.

3.   It assumes that religious belief is not falsifiable.
As some Christians have realised now, the only thing not falsifiable is the naturalistic precommitment of some atheists.

The worst bit about this parable however is that it does what it claims shouldn’t be done!!A made-up entity (e.g. bluehillside’s pixies, which he can’t define!) is compared with religious belief so the reality (intended or otherwise) is that the religious belief is taken as false by default and the religious believer is invited to counter it. Oh, and in countering it, you can only use techniques that has concluded that religious belief is false!!

I’m anticipating all the atheists telling me how I’ve misunderstood the parable or how I’ve violated some argument or other, so if any of the Christians here (e.g. Bashful Anthony, Hope, Sassy, Vlad, etc) disagree with anything I’ve said, feel free to say why and I’ll consider it, thanks.

[Nearly Sane]

Lot of words just trying to avoid the burden of proof, sword. The teapot, the pixies, the cook, the thief, and her lover, old uncle Tom Cobbley and all are just hypotheticals about the NPF. Tell me how to distinguish between them and your god beliefs. What makes your claim more valid than any made up beliefs.

[torridon]

Here is where the parable goes wrong. The teapot is a made-up entity used  to illustrate a fallacy, yet it is being compared to religious belief! The implication is that religious belief is as much of a man-made invention as the teapot, yet there is no demonstration of why. As such, it is an exercise in circular reasoning, yet all of the parody deities, and other entities (e.g. bluehillside’s leprechauns / pixies) used in arguments against religious belief are based on this!

It seems you haven't understood the analogy yet.

There are a potentially infinite number of beliefs; they can't all be correct and it would be impossible to review and investigate all of them and it would be foolish to assume they are valid by some sort of default.  So, it is incumbent on the believer to justify their particular belief to the sceptic, not vice versa.

[Gordon]

It is an analogy that illustrates certain logical fallacies, and in spite of this being explained to you several times it seems you haven't understood it yet. It has nothing to do with either begging the question or showing religion to be falsifiable, or this 'faith vs blind faith' dichotomy you are peddling.

If you intend to go down the philosophical route you need to do some homework first, else you'll continue to look uninformed.

[wigginhall]

There seem to be two versions of the teapot analogy, the first written by Russell in 1952, and the second in 1958.   This one is very compressed: "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."  (Wiki, under 'Celestial Teapot').

This shows clearly how Russell intended the NPF here:  'nobody can prove that there is not ...'

Also of interest, J. B. Bury's version of it: "If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed?"   

This was written in 1914.   Bury has a very succint summary: 'the burden of proof does not lie with the rejecter'. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Part 1/2

There may be some Christians here who are wondering why they keep on coming up against invented entities: pixies dancing on keyboards, leprechauns speaking to people, etc., and seeing them compared to religious belief. They are all based on the flawed Parable of the Celestial Teapot by Bertrand Russell.

Apparently, it is meant to illustrate the Negative Proof Fallacy, and up to a point, it does. However, it then goes astray. It may well have been written at a time when sceptics were expected to disprove the existence of God, otherwise belief wins by default.

I’m using the text as per Pg 74-75 of the paperback edition of The God Delusion...

Um, it’s just a useful way to illustrate that the negative proof fallacy is a fallacy. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote from: Bertrand Russell

“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.”

Up to a point, I agree. However, I think that the burden of proof should lie with the one making the claim. If I were to make a statement about the Christian faith, e.g. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then the onus is on me to demonstrate why I believe this. However, if I went up to a Muslim and said, “Mohammed was not God’s final messenger”, then the onus should be on me to back up my claim, not expect the Muslim to affirm why he or she believes that particular tenet of their religion.

You’ve gone off the rails. The response to the Christian, Muslim etc isn’t, “you’re wrong”; rather it’s, “you have no cogent argument to suggest that you’re right”. That’s why for example “atheism” isn’t the claim that there are no gods, but rather that there are no good reasons to think they do exist. 

Quote from: Bertrand Russell

“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.”

If someone were to claim this and really believed it, then it could be subjected to the same inductive technique I suggested on another thread. One could start with questions such as

•   How did they come to know about the teapot?
•   How do they know about its properties, e.g. that it is a china one?
•   How do they know the nature of its orbit, etc., etc.

You’ve gone even further off the rails here. None of these questions are relevant because all that’s necessary for the teapotist is faith. That’s it – “I know that the teapot is there because that’s my faith” is the beginning and end of it. Russell’s point however concerns only what happens when I try to argue that it’s there for you too because you can’t disprove my faith belief.

And if you go there, you may see the extent to which the deception will be maintained. I tried it with bluehillside’s pixies on the Cold-Case Christianity thread, asking him how he defined them. This was his response:

Quote from: he

“How are you defining “God”?”

Oh, to have the faith of an atheist, to be relying on something he can’t even define, lol!

Oh dear. For the reason I’ve explained, the question is irrelevant for the purpose of Russell’s analogy. As a secondary issue though, if you do want to ask how the pixie-ist defines pixies you may as well ask how the theist defines “God”. If absence of a definition for the latter doesn’t trouble that faith belief, nor can you argue that it should trouble the faith belief of the former.     

Quote from: Bertrand Russell

“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.”

I would agree with this being linked to religious belief if the individual were claiming belief by default if one couldn’t disprove their particular belief, but as I said earlier, I’m not seeing this nowadays.

Then you’re not looking properly. The negative proof fallacy appears regularly here for example. Hope in particular is a big fan.

Part 2/2

Quote from: Bertrand Russell

“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 the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Here is where the parable goes wrong. The teapot is a made-up entity used  to illustrate a fallacy, yet it is being compared to religious belief! The implication is that religious belief is as much of a man-made invention as the teapot, yet there is no demonstration of why. As such, it is an exercise in circular reasoning, yet all of the parody deities, and other entities (e.g. bluehillside’s leprechauns / pixies) used in arguments against religious belief are based on this!

You really haven’t got this at all have you? Russell is saying that the celestial teapot is self-evidently an invention. If however it was as culturally embedded as “God”, “Allah”, “Ra”, “Zeus” etc were or are then it would be considered orthodox and so dissent from it would be thought to be eccentric. It’s a secondary issue to the principle argument – that non-falsification doesn't make a conjecture true – but it’s also a truism about group think.

The central issue I have with the parable is that it relies on circular reasoning; assuming the conclusion to demonstrate the conclusion.

It does no such thing. It merely points out – correctly – that arguing for the truth of something on the basis that it can’t be falsified is a bad argument. Nothing more, nothing less.

1.   It assumes that there is no reasoning basis behind religious belief.

If someone makes a religious claim, there is nothing to stop me investigating it for myself.

No it doesn’t. Whether or not there is reasoning for a religious belief has no relevance whatever to the fallaciousness of the negative proof argument. If such reasoning exists then it stands on its merits, and even it could do so the negative argument would still be a bad one. 

2.   It assumes that there is no evidence for religious belief.

As such, it conflates belief with blind belief, faith with blind faith.

You’d have all your work ahead of you to establish a difference between them, but for this purpose you don’t have to because it assumes no such thing. Even if you could make an argument for faith that isn’t “blind”, the negative proof argument would still be false.

3.   It assumes that religious belief is not falsifiable.

As some Christians have realised now, the only thing not falsifiable is the naturalistic precommitment of some atheists.

“Some Christians” might think that, but they can’t “realise” it because it relies on a straw man definition of “naturalism”. Again though, Russell’s teapot assumes no such thing. All it does is to explain that when the Christian says, “you can’t disprove God, therefore God is real” he’s making a false argument.

The worst bit about this parable however is that it does what it claims shouldn’t be done!!A made-up entity (e.g. bluehillside’s pixies, which he can’t define!) is compared with religious belief so the reality (intended or otherwise) is that the religious belief is taken as false by default and the religious believer is invited to counter it. Oh, and in countering it, you can only use techniques that has concluded that religious belief is false!!

Are feeling about now like Wylie E. Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons when he runs off the cliff, looks down and suddenly realises that the ground is no longer beneath him? You should be.

Some of us are pretty sure that “God” is every bit as much a made up entity as pixies or the teapot, but that’s not relevant for the purpose of the argument.

All Russell’s teapot does is to clear away the deadwood of one argument that Christians (and other faith believers) sometimes use. That’s it. Really, that’s it. It doesn’t say, “therefore Christianity is wrong” as you imply at all. All it actually says is, “that specific argument for Christianity is wrong.” If Christians want to make different arguments for “God” they can do so, and those arguments can be considered on their merits. For the NPF to which Russell confines himself with his teapot though the analogy is fine.     

I’m anticipating all the atheists telling me how I’ve misunderstood the parable or how I’ve violated some argument or other, so if any of the Christians here (e.g. Bashful Anthony, Hope, Sassy, Vlad, etc) disagree with anything I’ve said, feel free to say why and I’ll consider it, thanks.

As you demonstrably have misunderstood it and been told why, why would you not want to address that rather than talk only to people you think might share your misunderstanding?

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks for the Bury quote, wigginhall, not seen that before. The actual quote from Russell does trigger off a note of agreement between Sword and me. The use of the word 'unlikely' imports some form of probability being calculated. To an extent, the Bury quote implies it too. This isn't about likelihood, and such claims would surely have to take the supernatural into the realms of probability.

In the end I think we are back that the best summation is probably that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, as long as people are clear on what evidence means. We lack any method for establishing causes currently that does not assume a naturalistic approach. The idea that induction is a method that lends itself to supernatural causes has been asserted by Sword but when I used induction as regards dead people he thought incorrectly that it was deduction, and when asked to use induction on one area then used deduction. So given he can't actually tell what is being used, I'm more than a tad sceptical about his idea on induction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword

I think you capture the category confusion of certain atheist argument quite vividly.

An elf is categorised with a teapot and during any argument the elf will gain some powers and lose others.

Of course the whole point of using these characters The FSM, the Leprechaun is that they are ridiculous. Technically it is hard to disprove there existence and as long as we don't mention any other categories in which they differ from God and are lucky, perhaps a bit of the ridicule will rub off.


Russell will still be one of the greatest as the joke is owned up to. He will be one of the greatest of the aristocratic piddletakers of the anglo saxon world which has it seems an insatiable appetite for celebrity scallywags.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I think you capture the category confusion of certain atheist argument quite vividly.

An elf is categorised with a teapot and during any argument the elf will gain some powers and lose others.

Of course the whole point of using these characters The FSM, the Leprechaun is that they are ridiculous. Technically it is hard to disprove there existence and as long as we don't mention any other categories in which they differ from God and are lucky, perhaps a bit of the ridicule will rub off.


Russell will still be one of the greatest as the joke is owned up to. He will be one of the greatest of the aristocratic piddletakers of the anglo saxon world which has it seems an insatiable appetite for celebrity scallywags.

In which Vlad once again demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding of the term "category error".

Oh well - we tried.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad once again demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding of the term "category error".

Oh well - we tried.

In which Hillside tries to vindicate Invisible Pink......Oh well.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

In which Hillside tries to vindicate Invisible Pink......Oh well.

As you've been corrected on the meaning of "category error" many times and you still get it wrong, just out of interest why don't you tell us what you think it means so we can see why you keep going off the rails?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Ok, time to start addressing the responses. Bear with me as I will go in order ...

Lot of words just trying to avoid the burden of proof, sword.

Perhaps you missed this:

I think that the burden of proof should lie with the one making the claim.

The teapot, the pixies, the cook, the thief, and her lover, old uncle Tom Cobbley and all are just hypotheticals about the NPF.

And that is your problem! By then comparing with religious belief, the attributes of these hypotheticals must also apply to religious belief, otherwise the comparison doesn't work. So you are in effect asking this:

Using the reasoning that says X is hypothetical and given that Y is similar to X, show that Y is not hypothetical

Tell me how to distinguish between them and your god beliefs. What makes your claim more valid than any made up beliefs.

You've answered your own question! Made-up beliefs are false by default. So again, if you are using the techniques that produce made-up beliefs to try and show that a belief is not made up, you can't! Another approach is needed.

I tried to address this in the Faith & Belief: Induction vs Deduction thread, an approach to use where certainty cannot be guaranteed. Hope gave a specific example on the 'Cold-Case Christianity' thread. How many here have tried it?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

There are a potentially infinite number of beliefs; they can't all be correct and it would be impossible to review and investigate all of them and it would be foolish to assume they are valid by some sort of default.  So, it is incumbent on the believer to justify their particular belief to the sceptic, not vice versa.

Agreed. Perhaps you missed this?

However, I think that the burden of proof should lie with the one making the claim. If I were to make a statement about the Christian faith, e.g. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then the onus is on me to demonstrate why I believe this.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

There seem to be two versions of the teapot analogy, the first written by Russell in 1952, and the second in 1958.   This one is very compressed: "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."  (Wiki, under 'Celestial Teapot').

Thanks for this wigginhall. It's a shorter version of the problem!

Who came up with the idea that between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit. He did! Why did he come up with it? Any visual evidence? Any documented claim he was researching? No! He made it up. So as soon as he compares it to the likelihood of the existence of God, he is starting from the premise that God is as unlikely, not reaching this conclusion after any kind of investigation.

[SusanDoris]

I think you continue to miss the point - all beliefs about god/s are made-up beliefs, and that includes the god generally given a capital G.
It is you who needs to back up your claim, if you claim that your god/god is not a made-up belief.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you continue to miss the point - all beliefs about god/s are made-up beliefs, and that includes the god generally given a capital G.
It is you who needs to back up your claim, if you claim that your god/god is not a made-up belief.

That all god beliefs are made up is a positive claim. If you state that the burden of proof lies upon you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you continue to miss the point - all beliefs about god/s are made-up beliefs, and that includes the god generally given a capital G.
It is you who needs to back up your claim, if you claim that your god/god is not a made-up belief.

If you are saying like Bluehillside does ''prove your God is not something made up'' then you are in fact suggesting that a person is making something up in a rather tricksy fashion knowing full well that the claim that God is made up is a positive assertion and thus carries a burden of proof.

In other words, you have to demonstrate that there is any making up going on.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

You’ve gone off the rails. The response to the Christian, Muslim etc isn’t, “you’re wrong”; rather it’s, “you have no cogent argument to suggest that you’re right”.

Which is still a positive claim that I would be making! How do I know that they have no cogent argument to suggest that they are right? It's arrogant presumption on my part!

That’s why for example “atheism” isn’t the claim that there are no gods, but rather that there are no good reasons to think they do exist.

Which is why I prefer the definition of atheism as an absence of belief in God(s). The burden of proof lies with the believer.

When you say there are no good reasons to think they do exist., there is no way to convince the individual otherwise as they are claiming their position as true.

None of these questions are relevant because all that’s necessary for the teapotist is faith. That’s it – “I know that the teapot is there because that’s my faith” is the beginning and end of it.

So what we have here is someone's impression of what religious belief entails, coming up with something they think is analogous and comparing them. The error made here is to fail to differentiate between faith and blind faith; belief and blind belief.

You really haven’t got this at all have you? Russell is saying that the celestial teapot is self-evidently an invention.

Precisely!

If however it was as culturally embedded as “God”, “Allah”, “Ra”, “Zeus” etc were or are then it would be considered orthodox and so dissent from it would be thought to be eccentric.

Exactly. Hence the question as to why it appears to be self-evident in one case, but not the other. From his perspective, both are the same; yet one is not given a second thought and the other is followed by millions.

Are feeling about now like Wylie E. Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons when he runs off the cliff, looks down and suddenly realises that the ground is no longer beneath him? You should be.

No. Actually, try Indiana Jones in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and the third of the trials that he has to do to get the grail. Best illustration of faith I've seen anywhere!

Some of us are pretty sure that “God” is every bit as much a made up entity as pixies or the teapot, but that’s not relevant for the purpose of the argument.

Having admitted this, it is very relevant. The teapot is made up, so if you are going to link it with religious belief, you are claiming that religious belief is made up, whether you intend to or not! You are not doing any analysis and reaching a conclusion. You are starting with the conclusion!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Thanks for the Bury quote, wigginhall, not seen that before. The actual quote from Russell does trigger off a note of agreement between Sword and me. The use of the word 'unlikely' imports some form of probability being calculated. To an extent, the Bury quote implies it too. This isn't about likelihood, and such claims would surely have to take the supernatural into the realms of probability.

Thank you Nearly Sane  Now some progress can be made.

Before bluehillside dives in: No, I am not claiming anything by default, or even two alternatives as equally likely.

In the end I think we are back that the best summation is probably that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, as long as people are clear on what evidence means.

Which, if there is genuine intention to move forward, would be a good discussion. That's partly why I think an opportunity was missed with Hope's Cold-case Christianity thread.

We lack any method for establishing causes currently that does not assume a naturalistic approach.

Perhaps with certainty, yes, but strong arguments can be made (and indeed have been made), in my opinion

The idea that induction is a method that lends itself to supernatural causes has been asserted by Sword but when I used induction as regards dead people he thought incorrectly that it was deduction

Because of your assertion that dead people don't rise from the dead, one that I took to be a deduction based on a naturalistic-only way of seeing things. An inductive approach would be to investigate the claim, which was the subject of Hope's  Cold-case Christianity thread.

and when asked to use induction on one area then used deduction.

I never claimed I was using induction in response to Sebastian Toe's question (I've said more on the thread). It was a clear trick question, attempting to put me in the invidious position of saying a poster was in error. It appeared that there was no way out. So I dealt with it another way, exposing the flawed premise in the question. I didn't say at the outset what approach I was using because it would have given the game away!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword

I think you capture the category confusion of certain atheist argument quite vividly.

Thank you. 

Of course the whole point of using these characters The FSM, the Leprechaun is that they are ridiculous.

True. If their use stopped there in illustrating the NPF, I would agree with it 100%. It is the linking with religious belief that is wrong, in my opinion. If you are going to compare two different things, there has to be at least one common frame of reference, so there is no way to avoid the implication that religious belief is also made up.

Russell will still be one of the greatest as the joke is owned up to.

Although I've addressed at lengths my disagreements with his parable, I can't help feeling that there has been some misuse of it. I can see that at the time he wrote it, there may well have been those claiming belief by default if it couldn't be disproved.

[Nearly Sane]

Just a quick note to Sword, thanks for the detailed responses to a couple of posts. I don't currently have time to reply but will do.

[SusanDoris]

If you are saying like Bluehillside does ''prove your God is not something made up'' then you are in fact suggesting that a person is making something up in a rather tricksy fashion knowing full well that the claim that God is made up is a positive assertion and thus carries a burden of proof.

In other words, you have to demonstrate that there is any making up going on.

But at the moment, I'm not going to do that, i.e. word the post differently to make it correct - it makes it too easy for the believers to talk as if their views are the more probable, or that there is a sort of 50/50 balance either way.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Just a quick note to Sword, thanks for the detailed responses to a couple of posts. I don't currently have time to reply but will do.

That's ok. Thanks for at least trying to understand.

There's a couple of things you've said that have got me thinking (e.g. the whole issue of evidence), so I'll try and say more in the next couple of days...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

But at the moment, I'm not going to do that, i.e. word the post differently to make it correct - it makes it too easy for the believers to talk as if their views are the more probable, or that there is a sort of 50/50 balance either way.

But can't you see how you are investigating something, yet deciding in advance what the conclusion must look like?

If any of us believers talk as if our views are the more probable then it's still a faith position! In any case, the burden of proof would be with us to back up our position.

Probability may affect the decision, but it has no bearing on what is true. The odds of winning the UK National Lottery are 45,057,474 to one (59C6  on a calculator or combin(59,6) in Excel for the mathematicians!), but people still win it!