Talk:Russell's teapot/Archive 1

Russell's language
“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” is a really awkward sentence that feels like a run-on sentence even though, when re-read two or three times, it proves to be grammatically correct and logical.

However, because there are four phrases in the sentence, it still feels like a run-on, with the last comma being a mistake. In other words, it feels like Russell said “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” in which case it should have been “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” or “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 know that in those versions, the two parts are contradictory; if it was intolerable presumption, why should he be rightly thought to be talking nonsense? My point, however, is that the original sentence is awkward to read.)

My solution, had I been Russell’s editor, would have been to change it to, “But I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense 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” or even “But I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense 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.” There, the commas (or dashes) serve as a nested sub-phrase, or as parentheses, containing a phrase which could be taken out without making the sentence not make sense (“But I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense 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”--not as complete, but still logical).

Unfortunately, changing that in the Wikipedia article would make the article historically inaccurate, since that’s not what Russell said, and so the original bad sentence must stand. Felicity4711 08:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Felicity. I guess the moral is that if you're Bertrand Russell, you can more or less say anything you like and get away with it. Also I'm afraid I reverted your last edit. Straight quotes are the only reasonable option for people using the wiki editor. Thanks again.—Laurence Boyce 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I’ve read the MOS and directed quotes are allowed. I find them entirely reasonable to use, and preferable to unprofessional-looking straight quotes. If it’s any consolation, I won’t re-direct the quotes on this article (Russell’s teapot) for a long time. Another user (not you) has been flaming me on my talk page, then stalking my contributions and systematically un-directing all the quotes in them, and I want to repair all the vandalism from that before I consider what to do with articles like this one. In the meantime, thank you for at least being polite about your disagreement on straight or directed quotes. Felicity4711 00:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional philosophical characteristics of the Teapot
It seems to me relevant that Additional characteristics of a belief in this Teapot include: It has been suggested that this is "soapbox" which I think is meant to mean "if you think about these you might realise that this is a very poor parallel with belief in God". Since the entire tone of the article as written is stongly atheistic POV I'm not sure that this is a valid criticism. Can anyone suggest any improvements? NBeale 18:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) No-one seriously believes in the existence of this Teapot.
 * 2) No-one has put forward serious arguments for the existence of this Teapot.
 * 3) The hypothetical teapot is an object in the universe and it would in principle be possible to initiate a scientific program to verify its existence, by sending suitably equipped satellites.
 * 4) A person with a firmly sustained belief in the existence of this teapot would have a delusion in the scientific meaning of the term, which would remain true even if the second "culture" sentence from the definition of delusion.


 * Ah, Mr Beale – this God Delusion business has really got you rattled hasn't it? So now you're going to lecture us about POV – I like that. (By the way, if anyone wants to see an example of some absurd POV, check this out.) Now where was I? Oh yes – suppose we cut a deal? You get off this article, and in return I'll leave your priceless 747 article alone together with all its sophisticated mathematics which I couldn't possibly understand? Laurence Boyce 18:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Laurence. How many of your contributions to the debate have been to try to hide information and arguments and make personal attacks? How many positive contributions? I haven't tried to hide anything. So who is rattled I wonder? Let us leave the information on the table, work together constuctively to improve the articles and let the reader decide.  What are you afraid of? NBeale 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I've made well over a thousand positive contributions to Wikipedia – not as many as some, but it will be a fair while before you reach that figure, by which time I daresay you will have pissed off about a thousand people. I mean what do you expect me to say about your latest effort? It clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Laurence Boyce 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, calm down... The teapot article is good and useful - and worth keeping because it's notable and historical and has stood the test of time. But it does not need the addition of a list of other mythical concepts. Or maybe we should add a list of unicorns, tooth fairies etc to god! And what's that nonsense about the Boeing 747? Unlike Russell's teapot, this is neither notable nor historical - a candidate for speedy deletion if ever I saw one, even if it passed the NPOV test - which it doesn't! Sorry, NBeale - I have to agree with Laurence here. I'm now going to mark the Boeing 747 article for deletion. Snalwibma 20:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone else got there first! Articles for deletion/Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit Snalwibma 20:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the teapot
NBeale has twice tried to add the following text to the Teapot page.
 * Criticism of the validity of this analogy
 * Critics of the validity of this analogy suggest inter alia that:
 * No scientist has seriously advocated the existence of this "teapot"
 * There is ample ground for disbelief in the claim.
 * The cumulative case for God has, rightly or wrongly. persuaded at least a considerable minority of scientific minds.
 * This teapot is a rhetorical and non-scientific device to associate a serious case with a ridiculous one.

When I first reverted it, I put an edit comment that I didn't even have the energy to explain... NBeale's insistince has given me a little more energy. First of all, in checking both of these "references" I found the teapot example mentioned, but I never did find the numbered points, or even a paraphrase thereof on the page. Second of all (or perhaps this should be first) the source is not likely to be considered a reliable source Verifiability. As is stated there: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." These two concerns alone should preclude inclusion of this text, on wikipedia grounds alone. This is to say nothing of the quality of the aforementioned "argument", which as Laurence Boyce has correctly pointed out on the Dawkins page, is not appropriate on wikipedia talk pages. Edhubbard 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ed. Thanks for the explanation. I added the numbered points for convenience but if you prefer I'll remove them. I don't think the 1st ref is a "self-published books, personal website, or blog" The 2nd is indeed a blog but one published by The Guardian which in common with other leading UK newspapers provides blogs for their commentators.  I think we can both agree that these criticisms of the teapot analogy are widely shared (at least by theists) it's just that most of them haven't bothered to write about something so transparently absurd. Do you, or does anyone else, dispute the accuracy of these assertions btw, as opposed to their provenance? NBeale 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that they are "widely shared (at least by theists)" (which may or may not be true) doesn't in any way change the point of the matter. The first reference that you refer to is certainly not in any way a reliable sourse.  Just because someone writes this on their page, what official status do they have? The fact that it is a webpage associated with a group, rather than a single individual doesn't change the basic point of the matter.  I could get me and five friends together, and we could post stuff, and it would be just as useless from the wikipedia point of view as if I were to do it on my own.  Edhubbard 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as the accuracy goes, although I agree that this isn't the place, I'll indulge you a little. Let's deal with point by point:
 * 1. "No scientist has seriously advocated the existence of this "teapot". Well, as far as I can tell, it hasn't been scientists that are advocating belief in God either, it's ministers.  So, point 1 is misleading, at best.
 * 2. "There is ample ground for disbelief in the claim." Yes, there is ample ground for disbelief in the claim that there is an orbiting teapot, and also in God, the tooth fairy or any other of these things... However, whether there is ample ground for disbelief or not doesn't change the fact that as scientists, we can never *prove* that something doesn't exist.  It's a simple point about the limits of science, be it teapots or God.  Somehow, religious people attempt to draw a strong conclusion from the fact that scientists will readily admit that they cannot disprove something.  The teapot example is the counterargument to that "aha! you can't prove it doesn't exist, therefore it exists" type of thinking.  That we can't disprove the existence of God isn't very informative, since from a logical point of view, we can't *even* prove the non-existence of orbiting teapots, which nobody believes in.
 * 3. "The cumulative case for God has, rightly or wrongly. persuaded at least a considerable minority of scientific minds." And many scientific minds were at one time or another convinced that the earth was flat, or that the brain was primarily a radiator for cooling the blood. Scientists do not claim to be infallible... indeed, it is the very admission of fallibility that makes science progress.  Of course it should be noted that scientists, who are trained to look at evidence and evaluate it, are by and large the group of people least likely to believe in God.
 * 4. "This teapot is a rhetorical and non-scientific device to associate a serious case with a ridiculous one." No, this teapot is a rhetorical device to associate a ridiculous case with an even more transparently obviously ridiculous one. From the fact that scientists cannot prove the non-existence of X, we can infer nothing about the existence of X.  This is the most important point of the argument, and it applies equally well whether X is dreamt up on the spot or has 2000+ years of tradition behind it.  Edhubbard 23:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed. Thanks. To respond quickly: (1) Polkinghorne, Dyson, Conway Morris etc.. are world class scientists. (2) Think about eg Aether, Phlogiston, Local Hidden Variables and whether satellites could in principle falsify teapot/god. (3) Flat Earth trope a complete myth! (see eg Rocks of Ages) - rest misses the point. (4) When "cannot" means "cannot in principle by any conceivable experiment" (true of God, not Teapot etc..) you can infer that this question is beyond the domain of science. NBeale 07:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The last time I heard Conway Morris speak, he put up a slide of the Turin Shroud and said he thought it was genuine. If that's world class then I must be Einstein. Laurence Boyce 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll explain why the Criticism section as is has been removed. Again. First section:

''Not surprisingly, adherents of religion are not convinced of the validity of this analogy, suggesting for example that "no scientist has made such a farcical claim, and there is ample ground for disbelief. The cumulative case for God, on the contrary, has persuaded scientific minds [of high calibre]. [This] teapot is a rhetorical and non-scientific device to associate a serious case with a ridiculous one." '' Any paragraph that starts "Not surprisingly" reeks of POV. Secondly, I don't see how an unattributed statement in an article from The Trinity Network is a reliable source. It is a blog for a group of three churches. Not reliable, not notable.

The next section:

and that the refutation that Alister McGrath offers of the idea that belief in God is like belief in the tooth fairy applies a fortiori to the comparison with a teapot.

The statement "applies a fortiori to the comparison with a teapot" is drawing a conclusion that McGrath doesn't draw or state. He speaks only of the tooth fairy, not the teapot. On top of that, while The Guardian is usually a reliable source, note that http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk is, by their own definition, a blog. Again, not a notable or reliable source.

If you can address these concerns with better sources, do so. The section needs to be removed as is (and removed again if restored as is). *Spark* 03:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Spark. thanks for these explanations. I didn't put in "Not surprisingly" I think that was an atheist's contribution but I don't like deleting other Editors' work. www.trinity.ie is a website not a blog and the paper (which is by Fergus Ryan) is well referenced and pretty scholarly. It's Bunglawala who suggests that McGrath's refutation applies to the Teapot (McGrath of course demolishes the "Teapot" in The Dawkins Delusion but that's not yet published). The main reason few academics have bothered with it is that it's an unpublished analogy that Russell didn't think much of. But Russell's cast-offs are good enough for Dawk. TrulyThe Twilight of Atheism. I expect there are some other sources, I'll see if I can find them. NBeale 21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't resist the irony of asking you to prove that nobody bothered with it. Can you prove that there are no discussions of it?  A quick google search for "Bertrand Russell" teapot turns up 19500 hits.  I'm sure there are some good things in there.   Edhubbard 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed - indeed but this is pretty well all bloggery and recycling Russell and Dawk. I said "few 'academics' have bothered with it" Try the same search on Google Scholar and you get 72 hits but none (as far as I can see) is about this teapot. QED NBeale 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nbeale, there is nothing QED about it. This is just my point.  Although you are clearly very smart, you just don't get scientific thinking.  Perhaps too much training in the world of math, where truths can be had with 100% black and white certainty.  We have no such luxury in scientific research. So, to continue with the point, using my ironic example here.  You have attempted to prove that the teapot has not met with much academic discussion, using Google Scholar.  However, I submit to you that your sample was badly biased in at least two ways.  First, it is well-established that the web is biased towards modern sources, so things that are pre-web often do not make it onto the web, and therefore you may have missed a great deal of academic discussion from pre-web days.  Second, we also know that (as a cultural group) philosophers tend to be less web-savy then, say, for example, computer scientists.  Therefore, assuming that by academic you mean philosophers, again, a web search would be systematically biased towards not turning up academic discussions of the teapot.  Based on the biased samples that you have used, you could fail to find evidence for critical treatment of the teapot, but you cannot prove that it doesn't exist.  This is the point of the teapot, the flying spagetti monster and so on... It's a matter of scientific, empricial thinking.  All that a scientist can do is provide reasonable grounds to believe that something does not exist (e.g., phlogiston, aether, etc, as you mentioned before) but a scientist can never "prove" that something doesn't exist.  There is always the possibility of an alternative interpretation of a "null result", be it in trying to prove the non-existence of God, or critical reaction to the teapot.  Edhubbard 21:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1)Sometimes the teapot is used by atheists as reason to not have to consider both sides of an argument (e.g. when atheists say things like "You must be stupid and illogical to ask me why I don't believe in God") Just because inability to disprove x can't prove x is true it is not the same as saying inability to disprove x should not be considered amongst many other factors as part of your reasoning.

2)It assumes there are no arguments and evidence for God. I could say that just because we can't disprove Julia Caesar didn't exist we assume it's o.k. simply because of a few historical texts and that we are taught it as truth when we are at school in our history lessons.

I think a criticisms section should be created, Most articles on arguments for Christianity have one and articles like Pascal’s wager even have criticisms which the article acknowledges are only valid if the argument is misunderstood.

83.100.203.145 12:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So far I just don't see anything here that even remotely seems like a valid criticism of the teapot analogy. I'd say that the criticism section doesn't exist not because of some huge atheist conspiracy against the religious crowd, but because it would consist of personal opinions, vague or suspicious webpage references, or complete misunderstanding of the original concept. As for the "It assumes there are no arguments and evidence for God" argument, I'm sorry, I may be missing something, but last time I checked there was no evidence that conclusively supported the existence of any kind of Supreme Being(s) being the ruler(s) and creator(s) of this universe, let alone (arguably) self-conflicting and largely unprovable claims of all religious groups that predominate the world today. To paraphrase a more religious friend of mine, "You cannot prove God. You must trust Him and just believe He is there." Which may be nice for her, but can hardly sound convincing to an outsider. Anyway, stop being so dramatic with all those atheist impersonations. I'm sure that if you find an actual argument against the teapot concept, the missing criticism section will be added at once. 68.174.5.23 22:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * None of the four points address the nature of the argument as false analogy (and are indeed fallacious themselves), and are thus irrelevant to the article. Not to mention lack of reliable sources. --Draco 2k (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sagan's Dragon
Accidentally hit enter while retyping my edit summary. I reverted the addition. As worded it didn't flow well at all. Apart from that, Sagan's dragon is not as well known as the teapot, pink unicorn, or even FSM. It is mentioned in the pink unicorn article, perhaps that's enough, I don't think a link to The Demon Haunted World is needed, but if it were worded better I wouldn't be against having it included. -- *Spark* 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Kneecap
This seems trivial, but I've seen in the history that the link on 'kneecap' has gone back and forth. I've just relinked it (and only now realized that I wasn't logged in when I did so), and I'd like to explain my rationale so this doesn't turn into an rv war. On the surface, linking this seems to be a violation of Only make links that are relevant to the context and I understand why for that reason some would remove it. In doing so, consider that Shiska should also be unlinked for the same reason. However, from the policy page: [...] This usage of 'kneecap' is clearly a secondary meaning - he's not referring to the patella. The link is helpful for understanding the meaning of the quote to those that aren't familiar with the slang term, just as the Shiska link is useful for those that aren't familiar with Yiddish - despite the fact that the word "has moved into English usage, mostly in North American Jewish culture". It seems to me that the policy clearly handles this exact situation, and I've tried to act accordingly. Tofof 05:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What generally should be linked
 * Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker (or in another dialect). If the word would not be translated in context with an ordinary foreign language dictionary, consider linking to an article or Wiktionary entry to help foreign language readers, especially translators. Check the link for disambiguation, and link to the specific item.


 * You're probably right Tofof, though I personally have a preference for not linking anything in quoted text – it seems like taking a liberty somehow. But I won't remove the links. Laurence Boyce 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree! In fact hadn't the words kneecap and shiska been linked I would've been lost. I did click both to get the meaning :) Hakeem.gadi (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Misc reverts
I have undone a few recent changes as follows: Laurence Boyce 21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Removed the quotation from Carolyn Porco. It's quite funny but it doesn't really apply, as Russell clearly stipulates that the teapot must lie between Earth and Mars. To say that a teapot on the surface of the Earth lies between Earth and Mars is being too literalist really.
 * 2) Reverted some changes by NBeale who is still wasting our time. The only citation required are the orignal words of Russell (from the external link) which state that "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." As it stands, the wording of this article clearly reflects Russell's idea.
 * 3) Removed some stuff about the band "Gong" which was not terribly interesting.
 * 4) Stripped down the cats which were getting a bit lengthy.


 * Good call i was in the process of taking that down and you beat me to it. 63.206.125.100 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Laurence. Sorry if you consider that encouraging people to think clearly and be precise in language is "wasting our time". But this "analogy" doesn't refute anything. Intended to if you like. NBeale 08:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. Laurence Boyce 09:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins quote
An anonymous editor has removed the Dawkins quote twice. I don't want to edit-war over it, and will leave to other editors whether this was an appropriate deletion. -- TedFrank 04:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's on-topic, from a notable figure. Keep it in. --Eyrian 13:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article as of 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC) is a little heavy on primary source material, but the point is that the Celestial Teapot "hypothesis" is the equal of any other supernatural belief. There should be something to underline that. Peter Grey 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I say delete the Dawkins' quote. Bueller 007 10:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the Dawkins quote. It is a notable up-to-date development of (or comment on) the idea from a well-known figure. Snalwibma 10:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit this quote, it's not my place to do so, I am just a low man on the totem pole, but I believe there's a typo in the 2nd to last sentence of the Dawkins' quote. It reads: "Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one." when I believe it should read 'of,' as in "Mothers don't warn their sons of marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. Dave/Sly/Slydawg (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the quote is accurate. To warn off means to tell someone to steer clear of something, as in "he warned the trespasser off his property." Maybe it's a British English usage, but it is certainly correct, and it is what Dawkins wrote. Snalwibma (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Article on tempest in a teapot
Do we have an article on Schneier's Adversaries? (Example characters used while discussing security related algorithms or protocols)? They are probably replicated more than Russell's teapot. This article should be deleted unless RS comments on noteriety (e.g., no original research to establish noteriety). 170.215.15.26 02:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Um... What specifically is your objection? It isn't a personal attack page by any stretch, and I don't see what "tempest in a teapot" has to do with Russell's teapot.  I agree that perhaps the article needs better context, but that is no reason to put a db-* template at the top.  db-* deletion templates are generally reserved for pages which are uncontroversial candidates for deletion, along the lines of "Moe is gay."  Please investigate the Template:prod and Template:AfD templates if you wish this article to be deleted. Silly rabbit 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not realize it would be controversial. See my comments above.  Many such rhetorical inventions exist, but what makes this one worthy of an article?  I don't get it.  My other db- have been successful, just trying to keep standards up.  This isn't a blog for attacking believers in God...that would be liberalpedia.com. 170.215.15.26 04:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, to answer your question: yes there is an article on Schneier's adversaries (see Alice and Bob). But even if Wikipedia lacked this article, it is not to be used as an argument for deleting this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).  As for notability, I had heard of Russell's teapot from reading the original essay, as well as from lectures in the philosophy of science.  So this is notable.  I don't see how this can in any way be regarded as a personal attack against theists.  Is God a personal attack on atheists?  By the way, care to share what other db-'s you have been throwing around?  Silly rabbit 10:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They were deleted. One was for some grocery store, another for a venture capital firm. As for "I had heard of Russell's teapot from reading the original essay, as well as from lectures in the philosophy of science. So this is notable" I did not know notability could be established by a contributor having heard of an article's subject before.  Also, that wikipedia has an article on Alice in Bob would fall under the Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond line of thinking.  Alice and Bob aren't being used, to my knowledge, to diminish belief in what you term the super natural, and are probably actually notable.  The Alice and Bob article seem to have established notabilty using outside sources. 170.215.15.26 22:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The supplementary commentary by Dawkins confers notability. --Eyrian 23:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You slapped a speedy deletion on the page citing the reason that it isn't notable (even though it was a db-attack template). I'm not a contributor, but I am telling you it is notable and shouldn't be deleted.  If you want better feedback, there are other administrative templates available to request reference expansion.  But improving the article doesn't seem to be your goal. Silly rabbit 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sky Kingdom
Speaking of Celestial Teapots: Sky_Kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.240.2 (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent addition.
I've temprorarily revrted the changes to the article. Recent edit added the following:

"In The Dawkins Delusion?, Alister McGrath objects to Dawkins' use of the Russell's teapot analogy. He argues that the analogy is flawed because nobody actually believes such nonsense, and says that it is an example of Dawkins systematically mocking, misrepresenting, and demonizing competing worldviews."

Could the editor please explain the relevance of trivia in the second half to the article? Additionally, there's logical consistency issues since Dawkins' quote in the above paragraph does not support him using the analogy as presented by the criticisms. --Draco 2k (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Draco. I agree. Dawkins is actually saying that religion is not like the teapot, because people do believe religion but don't believe in the teapot. I haven't read McGrath's pamphlet, but if he is accurately quoted in the above, he clearly has completely misunderstood Dawkins. In any case, I cannot see the relevance to this article (about Russell's teapot, remember) of a swipe at Dawkins for "mocking, misrepresenting, and demonizing". The recent addition strikes me as an attempt (yet again) to use Wikipedia as a medium for Dawkins-bashing! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a bit hard to assume good faith in this case. While criticisms of everything are always a good thing to have, something tells me common sense should also apply. I'm sure the last bit about Dawkins being this or that would do nicely in his own article, if it's not already in.


 * Speaking of which, do we really need to cite the whole Dawkins' quote here? It's a great point and a good read, but is it really that relevant to the Teapot itself? --Draco 2k (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do assume good faith. I read Dawkins' point differently than Snalwibma does.  The sense in which he is arguing that religion is not like the teapot is "religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves."  Throughout the rest of the discussion he equates religion with "teapot-believers."


 * The argument is that while religion is logically equivalent to Russell's teapot, people believe it simply because of the powerful influence of religious groups. He then extends the analogy to say "Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-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 the tea in first."


 * I don't see any way to understand that other than that Dawkins is equating the substance of religious faith to Russell's teapot, and saying that religious belief is common because it is enforced by the bad behavior of religious believers. In that context, I think quoting McGrath's response is appropriate - he's a believer who's saying that the substance of religious belief is not as absurd as the orbiting teapot, and that Dawkins' equating religious believers with "teapot-believers" who "stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death" is, in his view, "mocking, misrepresenting, and demonizing."  You may not agree that it's mocking, or you may believe the mockery is well deserved - in either case, the article isn't balanced if we include Dawkins but don't also include the contrary view that Dawkins' use of the criticism is unjustified and miss-characterizes the beliefs and behavior of most religious people. EastTN (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, but McGrath, as quoted in the addition, rejects Dawkins' argument on the grounds that "the analogy is flawed because nobody actually believes such nonsense". That, to say the least, is begging the question. I (and I guess Dawkins), would say that the argument is valid for almost precisely the same reason. Both (a) religion and (b) the teapot are utter nonsense, the only real difference being that an amazing number of people believe in (a), while nobody believes in (b). The rest (stoning unbelievers etc) simply follows from the fact that people believe. I agree that Dawkins is mocking and demonising, but as for misrepresenting - I reckon the characterisation of religion in the Dawkins quote is spot-on! But enough - the issue is not whether I, or you, or anyone else, agrees with either party. The issue is whether the passage adds anything of value to the article. Here, I would argue that it doesn't. This is an article about Russell's teapot, not about what McGrath said about Dawkins, who said something about Russell... In fact, I agree with Draco that the Dawkins quote is already pretty tangential, and should probably be reduced to the bare minimum. If it is important to insert (yet more!) anti-Dawkins quotes into Wikipedia, the place to do it is in the artcles about Dawkins and his works, not here. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's correct - Dawkins' is asserting that religion is "utter nonsense" comparable to the idea of the orbiting teapot. McGrath is asserting that it is not, and is offering as one piece of evidence the fact that no one on the planet takes the idea of the teapot seriously, but many are convinced that religion does make sense.  He's also suggesting that in his use of the analogy Dawkins is engaging in an ad-hominem argument by mockery rather than by engaging any particular religious belief.  I think implied in that is the position that in most cases religion isn't in fact sustained by the the kind of coercion implied by Dawkins' language about a "threat of stoning."  We can speculate about how many people who currently profess religious belief would renounce it if they weren't coerced, but then we'd be arguing the merits of the case rather than reporting on the debate.


 * You're also right that it doesn't really matter which side you or I find more convincing. My only issue is that if we include Dawkins' use of the concept, we have to be willing to balance it by quoting believers when they respond.  On the flip side, if we dump the Dawkins bit, there's no reason to include McGrath either. EastTN (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do let me clarify to this extent - if we keep Dawkins' argument, I think we do need to keep the McGrath response. I'm perfectly comfortable cutting them both down proportionately (and pretty ruthlessly).  My suggestion would be a single sentence that says Dawkins recently used the same analogy to criticize religion, and McGrath argued that the analogy was inappropriate.  The same footnotes could be used, and it would make the point that the analogy Russell cooked up is still in play in the debates between atheists and believers - which seems relevant to me. EastTN (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken a stab at text that highlights the fact that the analogy is still being actively debated. EastTN (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer your new version to the old one. For such a lengthy passage, the Dawkins quotation never added much in the way of substance to the article, in my opinion.  It is sufficient to point out that it still has a place in modern atheist polemic.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 22:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I too think that the new version is pretty good. I have edited it, though, because if we are not going to give any substance to Dawkins' use of the analogy, it hardly seems fair to say that according to McGrath it is "flawed". I have accordingly reduced it still further, to say only that Dawkins uses it and McGrath criticises it. What think you all? SNALWIBMA ( talk - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 23:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the part about Dawkins should be in here, and especially the following reference to how his use of it was criticised. Did the theologian criticise the analogy or was the suggestion that Dawkins applied the analogy incorrectly? If the former is correct then why is Dawkins mentioned at all? If the latter then why would this not be on the Dawkins page instead of this one? Ninahexan (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A brief reference to Dawkins using the teapot analogy is justified, to show that the teapot still has some currency. But I agree that to go on from there and say how others have in turn commented on Dawkins is stretching things too far. Does that mean McGrath gets the chop? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I really like Snalwibma's new version - I vote for going with it. It shows that the analogy is still in play, without taking sides on anything.
 * If you read McGrath carefully, he's arguing that the analogy doesn't hold as a general criticism of religion, because no one believes in anything as obviously ludicrous as an orbiting teapot. He is doing that in direct response to Dawkins application of the analogy, though, and he's also criticizing what he sees as ad hominem attacks by Dawkins on believers.  I think there's also a subtle distinction here, between Russell's original use of the analogy to argue where the burden of proof lies (which I don't think McGrath or most other Christian apologists would object to) and the use of the analogy to criticize religion by implying that all religious beliefs are as prima facia silly as a literal celestial teapot (which they do strongly object to).
 * If we cut the McGrath response, I strongly believe that Dawkins has to be cut also. If the fact that the analogy still has currency is relevant to the article, then the fact that current use of the analogy doesn't go unchallenged is also relevant.  If we cut Dawkins and stick to Russell's original "burden of proof" argument, I see no need for McGrath's discussion of the other use of the analogy.
 * On another note, if we were really bold there might be some value in explicating these two different uses of the analogy, along with the objection to the second, before introducing parodies such as Spaghetti Monsters, which appear to be primarily intended to make the second use in a bit more "in your face" manner. I'm happy sticking with Snalwibma's version, though. EastTN (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should reflect counter-arguments, but I still think that it has not been written in a way that is clear. If Dawkins was judged by a theologian to have improperly used the analogy then why is it here? To show that Dawkins misused it or that there exist some theologians who think he did? If the assertion is that Russell's teapot can not be used as a general criticism of religion then this goes beyond Dawkins and as such should not be raised in connection with him, but rather be mentioned in another section. To suggest that Russell had not intended to ridicule religion seems to ignore the fact that he used a teapot in his analogy. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just an extension of that ridicule. I think Russell shouldn't be watered down. Ninahexan (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing some more reading, and I think this section needs to be tweaked. Russell used the example to make the point that from an outside perspective all religions may seem absurd. That is why he created an absurd example (teapot). This can not be countered by saying that no-one believes in something so absurd as a teapot, because this is precisely why he chose such an example. As such McGrath effectively says nothing about Dawkins but about Russell, so it should not be associated with Dawkins. That being said I don't think that McGrath should be in this article at all. There have been much better counter-arguments that have been made against Russell's analogy. I believe that the only reason McGrath is mentioned is to get his name on the page in the hope that his book will reach a broader readership. Ninahexan (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have it exactly right. The McGrath objection that "the analogy doesn't hold because no one believes in anything as obviously ludicrous as an orbiting teapot" precisely misses the point - that the whole point of the teapot analogy is that it is obviously ludicrous. And I agree, on reflection, that he has no place in the article. He is not saying anything useful about the teapot. Unless, unless... his role is to show how Russell's teapot (and, incidentally, Dawkins) even today can raise the hackles of the religious apologist, causing a frothing at the mouth but a failure to grasp the issue. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. The original point of the analogy wasn't that religious belief is obviously ludicrous, but to clarify where the burden of proof lies when someone makes an unfalsifiable claim.  The same argument can be applied equally well to claims that are reasonable, but unfalsifiable, as it can to claims that you or I deem unreasonable (or even ludicrous).  Dawkins is making another assertion - that religious claims are not only unfalsifiable but inherently absurd.  The teapot analogy is not a proof of this, it's simply a vivid illustration of just how absurd Dawkins judges religious belief to be (and Dawkins' argument is truly sweeping - he's lumping together all religious belief, which is incredibly diverse - running from the revealed monotheism of Christianity or Islam to the esoteric philosophical thought of Buddhism or Daosm).


 * McGrath isn't objecting to the argument regarding burden of proof - he's simply saying that while the absurdity of all religious belief may seem obvious to Mr. Dawkins, there are billions of other people who disagree with him. Given that Dawkins does not use the teapot to explain why all religious belief is patently absurd (unless he's implying that any assertion that's unfalsifiable is inherently ludicrous), his argument is ultimately premised on the assertion that "because religious belief is clearly as absurd as an orbital teapot, then . . ."  If we include that assertion, we're going to be POV if we don't also recognize that his initial premise in applying the analogy is challenged by others. EastTN (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Russell can have his say in the matter. The excerpt follows where the article's excerpt halts- "or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history. Practically all the beliefs of savages are absurd. In early civilizations there may be as much as one percent for which there is something to be said. In our own day.... But at this point I must be careful. We all know that there are absurd beliefs in Soviet Russia. If we are Protestants, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Catholics. If we are Catholics, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Protestants. If we are Conservatives, we are amazed by the superstitions to be found in the Labour Party. If we are Socialists, we are aghast at the credulity of Conservatives. I do not know, dear reader, what your beliefs may be, but whatever they may be, you must concede that nine-tenths of the beliefs of nine-tenths of mankind are totally irrational. The beliefs in question are, of course, those which you do not hold. I cannot, therefore, think it presumptuous to doubt something which has long been held to be true, especially when this opinion has only prevailed in certain geographical regions, as is the case with all theological opinions."

He specifically says that beliefs from outside the perspective of one's religion can and often do seem absurd. Russell had to use an absurd teapot analogy because there is every chance that anything slightly less absurd was already being worshipped! The argument about burden of proof is the first part of the point of the ultimate point that Russell was making- that he found no reason to believe in anything that seemed absurd, even if it was a belief held by the majority. This article is about Bertrand Russell's analogy, not McGrath, nor Dawkins. If McGrath is left in there should then be a refutation of his logic, which will then be refuted ad nauseum. Dawkins should be left if only to let people know the analogy is still used (though for the life of me I can't see why it wouldn't be). Ninahexan (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I disagree. The Russell quote you selected illustrates that he's making a general point about burden of proof - one that he extends to political and economic beliefs.  There's another subtle distinction that must be made here: Russell did not argue that you should not accept any belief that strikes you as "absurd," but rather made a two pronged point - the "irrational" beliefs tend to be "those which you do not hold," and that widespread acceptance of a belief is not sufficient grounds for accepting it.  (His punch line is "I cannot, therefore, think it presumptuous to doubt . . ." - hardly an "ergo, any and all religious beliefs are patently absurd . . .")  Both points are well taken, and I don't know anyone who would disagree in principle with either one.


 * Dawkins is begging the question by assuming out of hand that any religious belief is per se absurd (presumably including not only the most spectacular claims of Pentecostal Christians, but the mildest metaphysical speculations of Buddhists and Daoists) - that's a far cry from saying that the burden of proof lies on the believer rather than the atheist. There's nothing in his use of the teapot analogy that constitutes an argument against the logical consistency or plausibility of any particular religious belief.  Remember, for example, that the same claim of nonfalsifiability that's leveled against religious beliefs has also been leveled against some of the more speculative versions of string theory.  In doing that no one claims that it's logically impossible that one of those theories could be true - they're simply claiming on an epistemological level that since there's no way at this time to disprove them, they're purely speculative and there's no reason to accept them without clear and convincing proof.


 * Bottom line, if we want to say that "According to Dawkins, Russell's teapot analogy has direct application to religious belief because any such belief is obviously and patently absurd . . ." then we're taking a clear POV unless we also say "Religious apologists disagree with Dawkins' assertion that all religious belief is absurd." EastTN (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone here wants to say "According to Dawkins, Russell's teapot analogy has direct application to religious belief...". As I understand it, the function of quoting (or mentioning) Dawkins is to say "the teapot analogy is still in use today". That's all - and in that context I don't think McGrath adds much, except a bit of gratuitous let's-stick-the-knife-in-Dawkins-at-every-opportunity-we-get, which is a pretty prevalent attitude on Wikipedia, and (for all that it might be relevant in articles that are actually about Dawkins) certainly does not belong in this article. Having said that, I am pretty content with the present version, which simply says that "Russell's teapot analogy is still used ... Dawkins used it ... and his use of the analogy was criticised by ... McGrath." <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the current version too. Personally, I don't see it as sticking in a knife - it just takes "the teapot analogy is still in use today" and adds "and is actively debated."  That seems pretty even handed to me. EastTN (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that either Dawkins or McGrath should be in this article. Shall we constantly cite people who refer to Occam's razor too, to let everyone know that the concept hasn't died? In my opinion the Dawkins reference is only there to open the door to McGrath. I see absolutely no reason to balance the article with viewpoints for and against religion, and to do so just takes away from the article illustrating Russell's analogy and gracelessly uses it to drop names of current authors who want to sell books. In terms of what information serves an encyclopedia I suggest that Dawkins and McGrath be removed. If they want to sell their books on the backs of others then that is fine, but wikipedia should not be a tool for those purposes. Ninahexan (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Shall we constantly cite people who refer to Occam's razor too, to let everyone know that the concept hasn't died?" No, but we might show some contemporary relevance to Occam's razor by citing one person who refers to Occam's razor.  It doesn't have to be all or nothing.  "In my opinion the Dawkins reference is only there to open the door to McGrath."  The Dawkins reference is not only there to open the door to McGrath, look back to a version before September.  I'm not sure I agree that McGrath belongs, but I haven't seen any good argument for McGrath's inclusion.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm of the opinion that Dawkins is not needed in the article, but I am in the minority in this view. However, I think perhaps there is a consensus that the reference to McGrath brings nothing of substance to this article. How long before this can be removed with a clear conscience? Ninahexan (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a real POV problem here. Dawkins uses the teapot analogy as the basis of an attack on religion.  The specific attack is not that the burden of proof lies with people who make religious claims, that religious belief is incorrect, or that it cannot be proven, but that all religious belief is on its face comically and childishly absurd.  McGrath responds that he's misusing the analogy by begging the question - instead of proving that religious belief is absurd, Dawkins assumes as his premise that all religion is absurd, and is merely using the orbital teapot as an inflammatory analogy to illustrate just how absurd he believes it to be.  We're implicitly taking the POV that his premise is correct and unchallenged if we include Dawkins but refuse to include McGrath. EastTN (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it really a strange line of thought to follow that if there is no evidence for something then a belief in it is absurd? This is what Russell himself was saying, that even if there is a mountain of religious documents asserting something that it may still seem absurd without a faith in it. There are two logical conclusions that can be drawn here: Dawkins was wrong in his use of the analogy- this means that he should not be included on this page (which means McGrath has no place on the page either). The other conclusion is that Dawkins was right in his use of the analogy- which means that McGrath's criticisms are unfounded, in which case Dawkins should be included while McGrath should not. Which conclusion is favoured? Ninahexan (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But both of you (EastTN and Ninahexan) seem to propose basing a decision on the inclusion or otherwise of Dawkins and McGrath on whether they are right or wrong. I happen to think that Dawkins (like Russell) is right, and that McGrath is too befuddled by his "faith" to see the point of the argument that Dawkins in making - but that's irrelevant. Whether they belong in this article depends on whether their recent use of the teapot analogy adds anything to the reader's understanding of the concept and how it has been used. I would argue that the Dawkins quote (which was deleted a couple of weeks back) is worthwhile because (a) it shows a more recent use of the analogy and (b) it adds some further refinement to the idea. I am less sure about the McGrath, but I find it hard to judge, not having read his anti-Dawkins pamphlet. If he is simply uttering a predictable "I don't like it" then he should be left out; if what he says adds anything useful about the teapot then he can be included. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and if McGrath has any comment about the teapot analogy itself then it should not be mentioned in connection with Dawkins but in its own right, as a general criticism of Russell's analogy. Otherwise it changes the focus of the article to bickering between camps. Ninahexan (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I've given the impression that we should decide this based on which author is right - I don't. I also don't think arguing about which of the two (or if either of the two) is right would be useful or appropriate here.  In my opinion:


 * a) Dawkins is using the analogy in a fundamentally different way than is described in the rest of the article, which focuses on it as an argument about where the burden of proof lies when someone advances an unfalsifiable claim;
 * b) McGrath is objecting to the new use to which Dawkins is applying the analogy;
 * c) So far as I'm aware, no one disagrees with the point about burden of proof that Russell makes;


 * If the article did not include Dawkins' use of the teapot analogy, there would be no question of POV or balance, because there is no debate over any of the rest of it. If we agree that Dawkins' contribution is relevant (and I believe that it is, for exactly the reasons Snalwibma cites), then McGrath's contribution is also relevant (whether we ultimately agree with him or not), because he's discussing the potential limits of what the teapot analogy can prove.  However, it makes no sense to discuss McGrath's position independently - it's an explicit response to Dawkins' argument.


 * Bottom line, Dawkins' has used the teapot analogy in a way that's logically entirely different from what the rest of the article discusses. Instead of using the teapot analogy to say that the burden of proof lies with anyone who makes an extraordinary claim, he uses it try and prove that a particular class of claims are not only extraordinary, but that they're false.  Whether we think he's right or not (and I'm convinced that it's better rhetoric than logic - there are much more cogent arguments against religion out there), we're biasing the article if we don't include the fact that he's being challenged over it.  Otherwise we create the impression that Dawkins' new application of the analogy is as universally accepted as the original point Russell made about burden of proof - which simply is not true. EastTN (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The notion of whether Dawkins did or did not use the analogy correctly seems to be a matter of opinion. I am opposed to having authors cited on this page because it is going to date very quickly, but more for the fact that it seems that this is an exercise in political correctness. Dawkins criticised religion, so someone attacks Dawkins. Why then is this drama infecting Russell's teapot analogy page? Let it be played out on Dawkins' or McGrath's page. I think it is here merely to "balance" something that doesn't at all need balancing. There is no POV issue if Dawkins is cited without mentioning McGrath because nothing of substance is discussed in the article about what Dawkins was saying, merely that the analogy was used recently. As such it doesn't matter whether Dawkins was right or wrong. If this is the case, then there is no need at all to refute Dawkins, and no need to mention McGrath. Oops, Ninahexan. 124.170.72.19 (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, as I see it, we have two statements of the following form:


 * 1) Mr. A uses argument X
 * 2) Mr. B says that Mr. A applies argument X incorrectly


 * Mr. A is a prominent advocate for a world view that you agree with. Mr. B is, rightly or wrongly, an advocate for an opposing world view.  The position that's being taken here is that statement 1) is relevant to and belongs in an article on argument X, but statement 2) is absolutely irrelevant to, and would be completely out of place in, an article on argument X.


 * In addition, the desire seems to have been expressed several times during the discussion to exclude any criticism of Mr. A from the article.


 * This creates at least the impression of an inability to understand, or an unwillingness to acknowledge, an opposing point of view.


 * Life's too short to fight over this endlessly. But I'd strongly encourage you to ignore the specifics, focus on the form of the issue, and ask yourselves if you'd feel the same way if you disagreed with Mr. A and agreed with Mr. B - and what that means for the way this should be treated in a wikipedia article (for purposes of editing, it should not matter which one we agree with). EastTN (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

McGrath says nothing about Russell's analogy, only about Dawkins' use of it. As such McGrath brings nothing to the article, which if I remember rightly is about Russell's analogy. I'd prefer not to amend the article myself, since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and do not want to be presumptuous. Ninahexan (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the McGrath thing. This is a fringe view.  Russell's teapot analogy is a good, robust refutation of arguments from Revelation, scripture, prayer, and tradition.  It establishes the burden of proof--and of course it is always with the theist of whatever stripe to establish the existence of his particular deity (whether a teapot, a unicorn, or divine pasta).  --TS 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly object. The response from McGrath is as notable as Dawkin's use of the analogy.  The rationale for including Dawkin's comments is that it illustrates that the analogy is still in current use.  If we do that, we risk losing the NPOV if we don't also illustrate that the uses to which it is currently put are also challenged. EastTN (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Teapot picture "unencyclopedic"?
I'd like to contend this removal by Jeandré du Toit (talk • contribs): in which sense is the removed fragment "unencyclopedic"? I agree that the teapot picture alone does not fit here, but I think its caption was a good "simple words" synthesis of the main argument behind Russell's teapot &mdash; the use and abuse of argument from ignorance by religious people, and the social stigma of criticizing the main, accepted religious beliefs &mdash; with the image being a simple eye-catcher to the caption. It is also the only image in an otherwise quite "barren" article that might need expansion, so I don't think clutter could be aduced as a secondary reason for the removal. Habbit (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Reinstate the picture and caption. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 11:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. However, I'd rather not be the one to revert, since I've been recently involved in a reversion war at List of Prime Ministers of Spain, and even though I was ultimately cleared of all suspicions and the other users were blocked for vandalism, I want to be extra cautious on consensus building. Speaking of which, I had hoped the original deleter to comment here. Maybe I should leave a message on his talk page? Habbit (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a good illustration. I haven't been involved in this, I'll leave a note on his talk page (since you are being extra-careful). tedder (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A picture of a teapot would be fine in an article on teapots, but you wouldn't see it in an encyclopedia article about Russell's. The tone of the caption, a question, is also not encyclopedic.
 * If the current sentence "intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions" and the Russell quote can be replaced with a simplified description that'd be fine, but we can't use the caption text. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-24t09:12z

(de-indent) Thanks for coming by, Jeandré. My point is that the teapot, while not exactly the best image for the article, draws attention to a simplified explanation of the question posed by Russell. Of course, we should not replace his quote with our own text, though we can add, expand and paraphrase it. The simplistic picture, however, allows a layman to grasp at least a superficial understanding of the deep phylosophical problem of what we can and cannot know, and, more importantly to Russell's argument, whether or not we should allow unfalsifiable beliefs to command terrenal powers as religion does. I guess a picture of a teapot on this article might look stupid to a knowledgeable person, but I think its learning value far exceeds that of a more "orthodoxically encyplopedic" like Russell's portrait. Habbit (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wolpe
The analogy clearly states that a central part of the assertion that the teapot exists is that it can not be disproved (since it can not be observed, by even the most powerful of telescopes). The spirit of the analogy is that the existence of the teapot can not be falsified. The rabbi seems to have misunderstood this part of the analogy. Perhaps his opponent mentioned something similar in response. Ninahexan (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I have seen the part of the debate where Wolpe comments on the analogy. He does so by defining god as being intangible, so incapable of being falsified, and in so being is not within the realm of science. This is why Russell imputed conditions on the ability for the existence for the teapot to be falsified, and in so doing suggested that the teapot's tangibility could not be verified (much the same as Wolpe's god). Perhaps if I were to debate him this could be added to this page. As it is I suppose it is original research, unless someone has found the argument before in a referenced piece. Ninahexan (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. Wolpe (like McGrath) completely misunderstands the point of the teapot analogy (whether deliberately or in ignorance I do not know). But it would be WP:OR to say so in the article. My problem with the mention of Wolpe, however, is that it's trivial. I watched the debate too, and he merely mentions it in passing (and quite likely hasn't given it any - or enough - thought in advance). I already pruned the mention of Wolpe down substantially. I can't really see that it's worth including at all. We don't need to document every passing media reference to Russell and teapot. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It does seem that both criticisms of the analogy rely on a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the structural details of the analogy. As such it doesn't seem that either of the criticisms really address the analogy, so inclusion of the material should be commented upon before being added, though I am unsure whether this is usual wikipedia policy or not. Ninahexan (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this paragraph has to go. There is no evidence that this is a significant viewpoint. According to WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." And the material (video) to back this up, gives the opinion of one person. We cannot include the opinion of rabbi Wolpe (or any other notable person), on each subject he talks about, on the corresponding Wikipedia article(s). His arguments against the teapot analogy might only deserve inclusion into this article, if backed up by sufficient reliable sources, that they represent a significant viewpoint within the fields of philosophy and theology. In the latter case, these reliable sources need to be the references for the viewpoint, not this video. -- Crowsnest (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it has to go. Not only is it not a significant viewpoint, but it is based on a (probably intentional) misunderstanding of Russell's point. Russell spoke of a teapot, and not, for example, a planet, because indeed we cannot see a teapot that far even with our most powerful telescopes. Whether we will be able to in the future is irrelevant. The analogy made perfect sense in 1952. Allinthebrain (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Our role as Wikipedia editors is not to decide who's right - it's to document as accurately as possible the analogy made by Russell and how it is used. Sometimes that requires making an extra effort to make sure that we are accurately reporting views that we believe are flat out wrong ("writing for the enemy").  That doesn't mean we have to say that these views are correct.  But it's hard to see how we can say, with a straight face, that the article has a neutral point of view when we highlight an extended passage from Dawkins in which he uses the analogy to criticize religion, and then exclude from the article any mention that advocates of religion have even tried to respond to him.
 * I'm on board with describing those responses in absolutely neutral, Sgt. Joe Friday "Just the facts Ma'am" terms, and with not suggesting that those responses are somehow "right," "better" than what Dawkins has said, or that they have effectively countered or refuted Dawkins' criticism.
 * To be very blunt, let's hypothesize a reader who agrees with Dawkins 100 percent and who, perhaps due to where they live or their social setting, has never really had much contact with traditional religious faith. Now they have - a potential significant other, a new in-law, a boss, whatever - and they're researching the whole "religion thing."  Do we really want them to come away thinking "Oh, so Russell and Dawkins have nailed it - all I have to do is explain the teapot and the problem is solved"?  Wouldn't it be much better for them to at least come away aware that the analogy is not accepted in religious circles, and that apologists from various religious backgrounds criticize Dawkins' use of it directly? Whichever "team" you or I may be on, it doesn't help that team's cause to have people ignorant of they way this is used and (whichever side you may believe is doing it) abused. EastTN (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To repeat what I have said (or at least meant to say) above - I have no great problem with a brief reference to McGrath, though I am a little unhappy with the prospect of endlessly quoting "A said X, and B commented on A's use of X, and C criticised B for using A's X analogy, and D commented that C...". We would do well to remember that this is an article about Russell's teapot, not about Dawkins, or those who have commented on Dawkins' arguments. But I have a real problem with the reference to Wolpe. If you actually watch the video, you will see that it's the briefest of passing mentions of the teapot. It's trivial. It's not worth including. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 16:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Snalwibma. And I removed the Wolfe sentence, as of undue weight in the article: see the previous outcome of the discussion above; plus that the Wolfe reference contains less than two minutes in 1¾ hour of video stream, cut off by the discussion moderator before a discussion starts; and is a primary source not getting coverage in reliable secondary sources (as the Dawkins and McGrath books got). -- Crowsnest (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dawkins mentions the teapot on 4 of the 272 pages: ~1.5%. 2 of 105 minutes is ~1.9%. If 2ndary sources are found, I agree with the just-the-facts inclusion. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-25t18:25z

[ sic ]
I don't get the need for the "[ sic ]" at the end of the Dawkin's quote. What's being sic'ed? .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  09:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Paine, a quick look at the edit history shows two places where other editors think that our transcription of Dawkins' quote is in error (or just don't think that they shouldn't be editing quotes). The first is "warn off" vs. "warn of" which has, I think, been adequately dealt with by using a hidden comment. The second, more recent one, and the one that seems to have lead to the sic is whether the quote is "milk in first" or "milk in last" .  Personally, I think that this might also be better dealt with by a hidden quote since there is nothing "wrong" with the way that Dawkins wrote the quote, so nothing to sic.  But, we apparently need to hidden quote the whole thing to stop people assuming that there are transcription errors in our use of it here. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ed! I believe you're right, though, about better handling it with a comment rather than a [sic] to reduce confusion for readers.    .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   19:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I guess some people don't "get" that by changing it to "milk in last", the quote would imply people kneecapping themselves.
 * Yes, indeed. :-) Edhubbard (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic?
Is this a British English/American English thing or is this supposed to be skeptic? - Ageekgal 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a BrE/AmE thing. The correct British spelling is SCEPTIC, and Russell would have spelt (that's "spelled", to American readers ;-) ) it that way! Snalwibma 06:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that it is also a different spelting (that's a bad joke, don't hate me, I'm not a crazy Conservapedia loon), but all I can visualize when I "say" sceptic in my mind is a tank buried in the ground in front of your home and filed with vile, vile things. --Edgerunner 76 14:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I sympathise/ize. But it's not the role of wikipedia to promote spelling reform! Snalwibma 15:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the british/american spelling controversy, but I find it a bit odd that the link for "sceptic" brings you to a page on "skepticism". While it may be somewhat relevant to use the british spelling because the article references a british person, I think the overall consistency of spelling in Wikipedia takes precedence.  Either change the spelling or remove the link to the skepticism page.  After all, is the spelling of this word really that big a deal that you have to insert multiple comments to tell people not to change the spelling?Snottywong 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Snottywong. You are snotty-wrong, and I have just reverted your misspelling of sceptic on the page. Whether the link is to skeptic or storm in a teacup is irrelevant. See the item on national varieties of English in the Manual of Style. Snalwibma 21:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't recall there being a"uk" in front of the Wikipedia URL. I disregarded the "warnings" and changed it back to skeptic.  I used the following explanation:  "Using a word from the dialect of the person that the article is about has no bearing on the lexical semantics of the word itself and is therefore confusing and irrelevant." Bahdageet (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See Manual of Style and uw-lang. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 07:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As an American and a longtime Wikipedian who has participated in some of the periodic, heated discussions over English versions and spellings, I support retaining "sceptic" in this article, however strange it may look to American eyes. There is no Wikipedia-wide consistency rule, other than following the overall style guidelines, the relevant one of which Snalwibma and Tuvok both cite above. The argument about Wikipedia being based on U.S. servers has been beaten to death many times with no change in the overall policy. Rather than look cross-eyed at the unfamiliar, we can look at this as an opportunity to broaden our knowledge of our robust and flexible shared language. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Jeff. Look on the variation in spelling as a positive benefit, an opportunity to learn that the entire world does not march in step with the USA in spelling (or in many other things). The argument that the spelling sceptic is "confusing" is nonsense. It's even wikilinked to the article on skepticism, for god's sake, and there you will even find a discussion of the spelling of the word - so where on earth is the confusion? Anyway, it's not confusing, it's (a) correct, (b) appropriate, (c) informative and interesting! Snalwibma (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Another vote for "Sketpic" - it's not a quote, and it looks like a misspelling as "sceptic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhnmdahl (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jhnmdahl and all. This isn't a vote. The wikipedia policies on this are abundanty clear.  Inasmuch as Russell is a British subject, the British spelling is the correct and appropriate one... And this is coming from an American.  If you really want to chance this, I suggest that you go and try your hand at getting the policy changed (good luck!).  Edhubbard (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since people are still ignorantly changing sceptic to skeptic I thought I would include a reference to suggest how Russell uses the word.http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/russell04.htm Ninahexan (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the Dawkins quote
— TylerJ71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have removed the following quote itself, but not the reference to it.

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 stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-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 the tea in first.


 * The quote doesn't expand on the original analogy, which is a burden of proof argument. The quote doesn't elaborate the burden of proof argument either.

TylerJ71 (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote criticizes religion and compares it to the teapot, which is not relevant to the main topic itself. At most, this quote should only be mentioned as an aside.  There is no reason to include an entire quote which has absolutely no bearing on the main point of the teapot analogy.
 * Per WP:Preserve, and more importantly because the Dawkin's quote is a contemporary form of Russell's teapot, I have added it back in within a new section on "Contemporary forms". I agree that the Dawkin's quote ought not to be in the lead.
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   05:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WP: Preserve says "try to preserve information", not all information must be kept.


 * If someone posts a long excerpt from a novel or a book that is irrelevant to any subject matter in particular, not deleting just for the sake of "preserving the information" makes no sense.

This is the only reason you have given for the inclusion of the entire quote.


 * I am not deleting the entire thing, I am leaving in the reference to the quote. No sources have been deleted.

Furthermore,


 * Dawkin's quote isn't a contemporary form, it's just a comparison of the teapot and religion.

Not only that, if you look at the lengthy discussion on this talk page, the result was the reference to Dawkin's quote was included but the quote itself was cut.

The quote was re-inserted without any dicussion or any valid reason in the edit summary.TylerJ71 (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I find Dawkins quote an important illustration of RT and see no reason for its removal. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've given a lot of reasons for the removal. The concensus is that it should be removed, but it would be mentioned.

The quote doesn't expand the topic itself, only mentions it.

It isn't a contemporary form at all.TylerJ71 (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a consensus for removal, and I don't find the arguments for removal convincing. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is simply not enough to say, "I don't find your arguments convincing". I gave you a lot of reasons for the removal of the quote, and so far your only response has been, "I don't like it".TylerJ71 (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I don't see a consensus that you claim exists (two editors disagree with you in this thread alone) and your arguments are not convincing on any level. You created your account for only one reason: To remove this information.  I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable.  You may continue to try and make your case here, but you need to stop removing this information and you need to stop creating accounts designed only to remove this information. Viriditas (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Viriditas, the quote should stay. Yworo (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't addressed how this quote is on topic. All I hear is that "This quote should be included". The teapot is about burden of proof, Dawkins just mentions it in an attack on religion, totally unrelated to what the teapot actually argues.

Why are you dismissing my opinion because I only edit one article? Does wiki policy stipulate that I have to edit multiple articles?

TylerJ71 (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the reasons you have given for removing it. That's sufficient in my book. Yworo (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not in the spirit of wikipedia. Someone makes a change, gives reasons on the talk page, and then someone reverts those changes, saying, "I don't agree".TylerJ71 (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure it is. Someone who wants to remove cited information needs to give convincing arguments. You haven't. Try being more convincing. And you could look at this flowchart of the editing process. Yworo (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that wikipedia policy does not endorse someone imposing their will by saying "try being more convincing.TylerJ71 (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? That's not even what's going on here. What's going on is coming to a consensus about the matter. At the current time at least, two editors oppose your suggestions. Yworo (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition of criticism section
I recently added a criticism section. There's no question it is relevant to the topic, and there is no reason to not include it, unless editors are simply trying to keep certain viewpoints from the article.TylerJ71 (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Include meaningful criticism, by all means - but can we not find a better source than a recent non-notable book? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 18:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reasons to delete "Teapot is testable and God is untestable" criticism:

The citation might be weak, but more importantly, one of TylerJ71's critical points is just not applicable and should be removed. It's a distinction without a difference because it has its facts wrong and attacks not Russell's argument, but another one - leaving the "easily confused" thinking that Russell's argument has been criticized/refuted, not the other subtly different argument sitting right next to it.

Surely, today the teapot itself is obviously testable, we have technologies that could conceivably find such a thing. But, in 1952, before even the first orbiting satellite, a teapot's findability was inconceivable to most lay people. Then, the teapot itself was obvious as a metaphor for something untestable. Indeed, the context of Russell's argument implies that it doesn't have to be a teapot, but that it only need be any bizarre untestable proposition (such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster). SO, to point out that a teapot in particular is testable and God isn't is an error that misinterprets Russell's argument. As the "a teapot is testable and God isn't" criticism is a misinterpretation of the Russell's argument it isn't a criticism of Russell's argument. It's a criticism of some other argument, and it should be stricken.

--Gummer85 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The key point of russell's teapot was not that it was untestable, but that it cannot be disproved. The criticism clearly addresses that point, saying that the teapot is not disprovable in a strong sense.

It is not a misrepresentation of the argument because a teapot is physical and its existence can be verified.

And that is only part of the criticism.

"Second, given what we know about the empirical world (partly from science), we have no good reason to think these beliefs are true and at least some reason to think them false. Thus, the burden of proof clearly falls on these beliefs." TylerJ71 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course the key point of Russell's argument is that the proposition (teapot, spaghetti monster, etc.) cannot be disproved. The undisprovablity of a "nonsense proposition" is central.  Why would he make the rest of the argument if he didn't expect the teapot to be taken as just a example of any old "unverifiable nonsense proposition"?  The argument would be a mumbling mishmash otherwise, and Russell was just not that stupid. (Nobody's that stupid!)  My point was not about his point, but about the criticism cited.  It is indeed unfortunate that Russell chose a teapot in a far far away orbit (something that is conceptually verifiable) as an example.  However, the CONTEXT, that is THE WHOLE OF RUSSELL'S ARGUMENT clearly shows that he means the teapot as an illustration of something unverifiable.  In 1952, verifiablility of such things with tools other than telescopes was inconceivable in the minds of most people.  My point was that the criticism is not applicable because it incorrectly blurs/twists the the difference between Russell's actual whole argument in context into another argument, then criticizes the other argument.


 * But, I've said all this already (and it's been discussed extensively on this page and in history). TylerJ71, please read my first text and above carefully before commenting again. I was clear the first time.  I showed that the teapot itself was immaterial in the context of the whole of Russell's argument.  The verifiability or non-verifiability of a teapot is immaterial.   The criticism, as written, hides this distinction.  In as much as this hiding is accidental, the material is muddled.  In as much as the hiding is purposeful (probably the case), the material is non-neutral (in addition to being muddled).


 * Deletion and Sanctions?


 * In any case, the material currently in the criticism section cries out for expedient deletion while the issue is worked out. I will make the edits myself if TylerJ71 won't do it.  Any comments about this from anyone other than TylerJ71?  I agree with 71.174.200.210 below, TylerJ71 has been an edit-warring bully with a clear agenda.  Just look as (his) contribution history.  It looks like he created the account for the sole purpose of pushing one form of non-neutral point of view into the text.  How do we make sanctions against this guy?  Are they called for?  Do we just tell him to "stop it" and hope for the best?  I've never called for sanctions against someone and I don't know how it's done.  Should he be blocked for a period?  Should this article be protected somehow?  Comments anybody?


 * --Gummer85 (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring bully? I didn't revert a change you made which I disagree with. I didn't attack anyone personally. Calling me a bully with a non-neutral point of view agenda is completely uncalled for.

If you think Russell's argument has to be about unverfiability and untestability, the onus is on you to provide sources. Russell's actual analogy is about unfalsifibility.

You also ignored the other parts of the argument. Furthermore, your argument seems to be "he should've picked something different" because you don't like the fact that a teapot's testable and verfiable, since it is a physical entity.TylerJ71 (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes made to Criticism section:

I fixed-up the Criticism section to make it more encyclopedic and more neutral. This was a sincere effort. Note that I did not delete the section. I retained TylerJ71's reference. I tried to describe TylerJ71's points succinctly and neutrally. I think the Contemporary Forms section could use a similar treatment. That is, to merely describe the matter in a simple straightforward way that isn't actually a thinly veiled advocacy. That's what I mean by "encyclopedic". Subjects like this have to be absolutely passionless or else they scream "bias!" and things get real unfriendly real quick. :-).

--Gummer85 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dramatic improvement, Gummer. Well done! A few more references (e.g. McGrath?) could doubtless be brought in, as well, and the "contemporary uses" section could beenfit from similar treatment. You are quite right about the need to describe in an encyclopaedic tone - and there is a further danger, evidenced in some of the discussion above, that editors are basing their opinions on what to include/exclude from the article on whether they personally find an argument convincing. The test is not whether it is a convincing argument, but whether it is made in a source that is both notable and reliable. We should not even be discussing whether the teapot is testable, verifiable, etc - but solely whether it has been used in such sources. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. And I agree with editor Snalwibma. It's not always easy to go from first-party sourcing to third-party sourcing, but this is the way it must be done.
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   07:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys. --Gummer85 (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation.

The revised section missed one point from the original quote:

"Second, given what we know about the empirical world (partly from science), we have no good reason to think these beliefs are true and at least some reason to think them false."

Furthermore, the sentence "Russell's Teapot continues to be viewed skeptically by some" is not exactly true. The teapot is not meant to be believed, so being viewed as skeptical doesn't make any sense.

The key criticism is that the teapot is not comparable to religion because:

A) It's verfiable. B) Given what we know about the world, there is reason to think the teapot doesn't exist.

The revised section does not communicate the argument clearly, and instead just says A) teapot is verfiable B) teapot is a superstition, not a religion this is not what the argument is saying.TylerJ71 (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel that the revised section does not communicate that argument clearly, please suggest how it might be improved to do so. But please do not simply revert to the version that does nothing but present an uncritical platform for the presentation of one person's views. I thought we were getting somewhere - reaching an agreement that both the criticism and the current forms sections would be better if they summarised a range of uses/arguments rather than simply being used to promote a viewpoint. Reverting to this earlier version does nothing to help that progress! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 15:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is based on one person's arguments, I don't see how including the quote would violate NPOV. There's an entire quote of a non-published source, which presents only one person's arguments.

Tell me what is POV about the following section:

Eric Reitan criticized the analogy and argues that belief in a teapot is different from belief in God. He writes:

When it comes to God, absence of scientific evidence is simply not a reason for disbelief because belief in God is different in kind from belief in Santa, orbiting chinaware, or space lobsters.[7]

There are, in short, at least three properties shared by belief in Santa, the celestial teapot, garden faeries, space lobsters and the rest. First, they are beliefs that can in principle be tested empirically. While they might not be falsifiable in a strong sense, they are in principle verifiable - and can thus be falsified in the weak sense. Second, given what we know about the empirical world (partly from science), we have no good reason to think these beliefs are true and at least some reason to think them false. Thus, the burden of proof clearly falls on these beliefs. Finally, this burden has not been met.[8]

Also note that if you think the quote violates POV, the Russell quote would as well.

Unlike the Russell quote, the book is published (not self-published either). I already exlained previously why I don't like the current version, it does not even summarize the arguments, but instead presents points that are presented in the book out of sequence, and don't make any sense at all. In fact, no one is even making those arguments, and the section misrepresents the arguments in the book.TylerJ71 (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe you are still completely ignoring the points Gummer85 made in a previous reply, specifically: "The verifiability or non-verifiability of a teapot is immaterial." that is true because the concept of the teapot argument lies in shifting the burden of proof away from sceptics that argue that unverifiable "facts" should not be taken as facts until proven by the proponents. In this argument, it makes no sense to qualify the teapot as a part of existence that can be tested and God as part of existence that cannot be. Russel created the analogy in spirit of classifying the teapot as 'non-testable'. If you simply say that it is testable and therefore false, you are not disproving the argument, you are simply creating a straw man argument, because you substitute the original conditions with your own, which you later attack.


 * The quote you presented simply says: "belief in God is different in kind from belief in Santa, orbiting chinaware, or space lobsters". Why is that true? Unless that statement is proven (and it is not), that is nothing more than personal opinion. Russel's teapot is in no way disproved by that statement, since, in essence, that statement means "It is not so, because it is not." That makes no sense, and it it weren't the existence of God in question, no man would ever take that statement as true. The fact that that happens is exactly the phenomena Russel tried to highlight in his argument - you take things for true simply because it is "affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school". Galliente (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The argument doesn't say "testable therefore false". The argment is not meant to "disprove" an argument, it is simply a criticism of the analogy for comparing belief in a teapot to a belief in God. Saying that the teapot is verfiable is not a straw-man argument at all, the teapot is a physical entity and is by default verfiable.

The discussion is about what should be included, not about whether the argument is convincing or whether it "disproves" the argument in question.

The criticism does not misrepresent Russell's argument because a physical object, the teapot, is by principle, verifiable, even if technology does not allow so at the time.TylerJ71 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Then you honestly believe that Russel was thick enough to propose comparing God in verifiability to something physical? All I can do is hope that you reread both mine and Gummer85's reply to you earlier above. The entire concept of the teapot being material is completely irrelevant to this analogy. It's an example of a concept. Galliente (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

He did compare belief in God to belief in something physical. Which is why it's called Russell's teapot. Just because you insist that the teapot, a physical object, is unverifiable doesn't make it so. Even when Russell wrote that analogy, it is clear that physical objects are by default, verifiable. The analogy is what it is. Don't try to make it into something it's not.TylerJ71 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's a teapot because Russell wanted to make a comparison with something ludicrous, and thereby to show how silly he thought belief in a god was. The fact that it's a physical object (and using today's technology fairly readily verifiable) is irrelevant. But this whole discussion is close to irrelevant, too. The only point that should be at issue is how best to represent (a) the contemporary forms of the teapot idea and (b) criticism of Russell's views as expressed in the teapot analogy. I (and others, judging from the discussion here) am firmly of the opinion that in neither case is it a good idea simply to quote an extensive chunk of what someone else (whether Dawkins or Reitan or anyone else) says, and thereby appear to tacitly support the views expressed. Far better to do as is attempted in the criticism section of the current version of the article, summarising those views and placing them in context. Now, can we discuss how best to summarise the kind of criticism made by Reitan? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 16:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, I would say that the criticism section needs to be relieved of the third sentence. The second starts with "In one counter argument" and the third with "Others", which would directly imply that there are two groups of people countering that. The inline citations both point to the same source, showing that that is only a single source. In my opinion, make it exactly as Contemporary Forms is. Single quote from the whoever is the author of that postulate, complete with stating the source. That way, in both cases, the reader can draw their own conclusion. Galliente (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a quote means necessarily to tactily support the view. The article quotes a lot of Russell's unpublished paper as well. If Russell is to be quoted in this manner, (an unpublished source no less), Reitzan should be as well (especially considering his quote is about a quarter the size of Russell's).TylerJ71 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But the Russell quote is the source on which the whole article is based, and therefore of course Russell must "be quoted in this manner"! Without the extensive quote from Russell there would be no article. So you cannot compare the quote from Russell with those from Dawkins or Reitan in this way, and you cannot use the existence or the length of the Russell quote to justify quoting anyone else at any given length. Whether Russell's piece was published is also irrelevant (unless you wish to argue that Russell's Teapot is not notable enough to justify an article at all). But it is entirely reasonable to compare the Dawkins and the Reitan (or, rather, the contemporary forms (roughly, pro-Russell) and criticism (anti-Russell) sections, and it does seem reasonable that those two sections should treat their sources in similar ways. Maybe, in fact, it would be best simply to quote Dawkins and Reitan, and let each have his say - I am open to persuasion on that. But I am worried that the Reitan source is pretty non-notable, and that it is being included solely in pursuit of "balance" (or, some might say, POV-pushing) rather than because it actually adds anything useful to the article. There have been earlier discussions (see above on this page) about whether to include (a) a remark by Alister McGrath about Dawkins' use of the teapot idea and (b) a comment on the teapot by a rabbi (I forget the name) in a YouTube discussion. The first was rejected because it was a comment on Dawkins rather than the teapot per se, and therefore too far removed from the topic of this article. The second was rejected because it was no more than a passing mention. How exactly is the piece by Reitan different? In what way is it notable enough to merit inclusion? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> )

The Reitzan quote is published, and it is relevant, that's why it should be included. Quoting from someone does not mean endorsing that view.

Russell's quote is unpublished and yet it is quoted at length. How is that irrelevant? There are plenty of wikipedia articles on theories and arguments without an extensive quote.

If Russell is to be quoted in such an extensive matter, it would be POV-pushing not to include a quote which directly criticizes that view. I would be open to summarizing both viewpoints, but it is pov-pushing to include one quote but not the other. Russell's argument can be summarized, and in a lot of wikipedia articles, that's exactly what editors do.TylerJ71 (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a ridiculous argument. This is an article about Russell's teapot. How can it possibly be seen as "POV-pushing" to include the full quotation from Russell himself that explains what Russell's teapot is? By all means argue (though I don't think I'd agree) that Dawkins requires balancing by a contrary quotation, but leave Russell himself out of this! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I said. I never said it was POV pushing to include Russell, I said it was POV pushing to include quote one side's argument but not the other. I'm not arguing that Dawkins require a "balancing", I'm just saying that if Russell is to be quoted, Reitan should be also. I never advocated leaving both quotes out.

I don't know why you insist on leaving the Reitan quote out. Just because the book is not a national bestseller does not mean it's not notable. Controversial statements such as those by Reitan, according to wikipedia policy, should be quoted instead of summarized, because it is easy to misrepresent those statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QUOTE#When_to_use_quotations

"When to use quotations

dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors. (e.g. Using "Coulter stated that '[w]e need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' crème brûlée. That's just a joke, for you in the media.' [2]" instead of "Coulter called for the killing of a Supreme Court Justice." [3])"

TylerJ71 (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the critic may not be renowned, the source is reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undue_weight_(sources)#Reliability_can_help_judge_due_weight

The reliability of a source can help you judge the weight to give the opinions of that source. The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion. For sources of very low reliability, due weight may be no mention at all.TylerJ71 (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In today's world, something being published has no meaning whatsoever. I know multiple people who self-published a book, and the Church will publish anything defending its dogmas anyway. If it were up to me, I would exclude Reitan on the ground of his argument being ridiculous at best (RE:Verifiability of the teapot is completely irrelevant) and insulting to Russell's intelligence if we were not so kind. However, I will concede on the point that Dawkins's quote is not true beyond all doubt and can leave room for counter arguments. I wish they were not as completely dumb as Reitan's, however.


 * In all fairness, remove both sections and just leave a link to "A Devil's Chaplain" on the bottom. Counter arguments of it can go there. Russell's teapot is an analogy that serves as an idea for basis for argumentation first, this entire religion debate is secondary at best. In my opinion, best course of action would be restricting this artice just to the idea, not the religious debates. Galliente (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No bullying
I think the viewpoints that should be kept out of the article are the non-neutral viewpoints. The criticism section as it stands now carries a tone of non-neutrality. (Not that it can't be fixed.)

Non-neutral "tone" is permitted in the discussions however so I can't really complain too much, but TylerJ71's pre-positioned defense above does imply a negative point of view. Here's my complaint with his statement he makes above:
 * It is improper "bullying" behavior to suggest that anyone who argues against inclusion of the section must only be "trying to keep certain viewpoints from the article".

71.174.200.210 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)