Teapot spotted^{[explanation nonexistent]}

This might be

But we're not sure

Skeptic's Annotated Bible Roswell Prometheus Books The Dragon in My Garage PolitiFact The European Skeptics Podcast

Who's asking?

Paul Kurtz Richard A. Gardner Susan Blackmore Bill Nye TheAmazingAtheist B. R. Ambedkar v -t -e

Click to enlarge

Russell's Teapot, also known as theCelestial Teapot orCosmic Teapot, is an analogy devised by the philosopherBertrand Russell intended to refute the idea that theburden of proof lies upon theskeptic to disprove a claim, whether in general or of anyreligion. By using an intentionally absurd analogy, Russell's Teapot draws attention to the formal logic behind the burden of proof and how it works. (Not to be confused with Russell Hobbs' Tea Kettle.)

Russell's original proposition[edit]

In an unpublished article entitled "Is There a God?", commissioned in 1952 byIllustrated magazine,^[1] Russell suggested the followingthought experiment to illustrate the burden of proof andfalsifiability:

If I were to suggest that between theEarth andMars there is a china teapot revolving about thesun 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 an 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 thepsychiatrist in an enlightened age or of theInquisitor in an earlier time.

The existence of this teapot cannot be disproven. We can look and scan the skies almost for eternity, and it may always just be the case that it wasn't in the place we looked — there may be another spot we've overlooked, or it may have moved while we were looking. However, given the absurd nature of the specific example, the teapot, we would rightly infer thatabsence of evidence is evidence of absence. Russell's audacity in the thought experiment was to question why people don't like to apply the same, sound,logic (remembering thatformal logic is independent of the actual content of an argument) to the existence of any particulardeity; there is no difference in the evidence base provided, therefore there is no reason to assume a God andnot a celestial teapot.

Extension and use by Dawkins[edit]

The Richard Dawkins Foundation professes its belief in the Almighty Celestial Teapot (objects not to scale).

Richard Dawkins also used Russell's teapot argument extensively inThe God Delusion andA Devil's Chaplain. He developed the argument further, to include many attitudes associated with the bad side of religion, including fear, oppression, and persecution.

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential,tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stoneteapot-unbelievers,teapot-apostates,teapot-heretics andteapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put thetea in first.

Dawkins' extended argument is that the trouble different believers cause for those who don't believe exactly what they do would be aTempest in a teapot if there weren't so much harm through it.

Large numbers of people believe absurdities[edit]

The persuasive aspects of Russell's teapot argument lie in reducing non-falsifiable beliefs to something that is more clearly absurd. Some may object to this methodology, citing that religions are somehow "different",^[2] but in general the claims made by Russell regarding the celestial teapot are similar to those proposed by all religions, major and minor alike. Indeed, given a broad enough definition, the existence of the teapot is just as much a religious matter as any other deity.A small but growing number of people believe in the Olympiangods of theGreco-Roman religions,a few people believe inAsatru,Neopagans believe at least parts of theCeltic religion, but very many people buy intoJudeo-Christian andIslamic traditions. Yet there is no consistent reason to take these currently popular ideologies any more seriously than other Bronze Age, Iron Age, or older, mythologies. Indeed, in another 2000 years, Christianity may have been displaced byScientology,atheism, or something else as a major religion/belief system — so special privilege should not be given to a conjecture, even an openly religious one, just due to thenumber of adherents. This is the key behind highlighting the argument with the assertion as a teapot in orbit. We only think that the teapot is anobviouslybullshit example because no one seriously believes it. If people did believe in it, we might think otherwise, but that's the point. This fact alone would not change the underlying logic, and evidence provided, to back up the assertion.

It can be argued that the case for most religions is actuallyweaker than the case for an alleged teapot orbiting the sun. At least the teapot, if it existed, would not violate any known physical laws — it might cause its hypothetical discoverers to scratch their heads about how the hell a teapot actuallygot there (see the "refutation" below), but nothing really stops a teapot existing or being in orbit. Many organized religions, if they were true, would require repeated violations of known physical laws. Truemiracles being the obvious example, but the mere existence ofgods and the variouscreation myths are also included in this.

No reliable document has any reasonable information suggesting that any religion is true, either. TheOld Testament is riddled withcontradictions and implausible stories, as is theNew Testament. Other religions revere their differentmythologies in a similar way. When it's pointed out that they can't possibly all be true, the different believers insist passionately that their particular mythology has to be right, and all the others must be wrong. Russell's teapot points out how absurd this attitude is, by stating that no one would insist in believing something that is patent nonsense if it is phrased in a less familiar way, i.e., as the teapot rather than an established and populargod, goddess, or pantheon.

Additional interpretations[edit]

PRAISE THE TEAPOT and the tea within it!

When presented with the full narrative, the stage where Russell declares that the teapot is actually too small to be seen (after it has been searched for by all the telescopes in the world) can be considered an example ofmoving the goalposts.

In addition, the point where the teapot becomes "undetectable" is analogous to numerous ideas used in the construction of scientific theories regarding how theuniverse works. Namely, if something isentirely undetectable and as such has no effect that can be measured or observed, directly or indirectly, then its existence or otherwise essentially makes no difference to the world. Thus, it can happily be discarded if convenient to a bettertheory. This was the case with theaether, for example, which was a theorised "substance" that light would propagate through. As experiments failed to detect it or its effect (theMichelson–Morley experiment being the most prominent and famous example), the idea was discarded to allow the development ofspacetime as used inrelativity. The notions of absolute position, rest, and motion — associated with the existence of the aether — were also discarded, as they really can't be detected, in favor of morerelativistic physics which turned out to predict the nature of the universe much better anyway.

Creationist response[edit]

Philip J. Rayment, a formerConservapedia editor, argues:

While Rayment’s argument is logical, it is irrelevant as it ignores or misinterprets almost the entire point of the original argument. This refutation of the "Teapot Argument" requires there to be areliable and preferablyprimary source for evidence of the teapot; i.e., the astronaut who placed it there. As stated above, no reliable ancient books prove the existence of a celestial teapot. Likewise, no reliable ancient books provesupernatural claims of anyreligion. While it does raise the questionslightly to assume that these hypothetical ancient books that espouse a celestial teapot are not reliable (to much the same extent that we need to assume we exist in order to have any discussionat all), it is much more improbable that theyare accurate, and so requires a much greater leap offaith andcircular reasoning.

The conclusion of the Russell's Teapot, therefore, is that there is no valid reason, beyondwidespread belief, for belief in celestial teapots — or, by extension, for belief in religion.

Occam's razor suggests that the simplest answer with the fewest unproven assumptions is most likely to be true. There isscientific evidence for the physical universe and for whatmetaphysical naturalism presupposes exists. Celestial teapots and other religious claims introduce unnecessary complications and assumptions.

See also[edit]

• Burden of proof
• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
• Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Fun:Celestial TeapotThis article explores thesexuality of the Exalted High Priestess and the Divine Teapot Owner.
• Invisible Pink Unicorn
• Russell's paradox
• The Dragon in My Garage

External links[edit]

• Why Russell's Teapot still serves

References[edit]

• Bronze-level articles
• Skepticism
• Apologetics and counter-apologetics
• Atheism
• Philosophy
• Religion
• Thought experiment

• Pages using DynamicPageList parser function
• Articles needing explanation