In his book, “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins evokes the parable of the celestial teapot. The celestial teapot is an analogy made by Bertrand Russell. Russell wrote:

“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than that of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving around the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. 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. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Dawkins uses Russell’s analogy as a critique of agnosticism, which he believes to be intellectually impoverished. However, Dawkins’s main point is the absurdity of the existence of God. He admits that he cannot disprove the existence of God. Neither can he disprove the existence of a celestial tea pot. Since the probability of one is on the par with the other, he has relegated God to the realm of Mother Goose and fairies.

Dawkins finds himself in a venerable pantheon of esteemed intellectuals who have retold the parable of the celestial teapot. The story is witty. It has even spawned children, such as the parable of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Unfortunately, the celestial teapot is a very weak argument against God. First, Dawkins is attacking a straw man. I have no doubt that some religious person at some time challenged Russell and Dawkins to disprove the existence of God. However, it is not the role of intellectual luminaries to attack the least educated in the opposing camp. It is their role to address the ideas of the intellectual giants of Christianity.

For Russell and Dawkins, there have been plenty of ideas to address. Russell might have addressed the arguments of C. S. Lewis. Dawkins might have addressed the ideas of Dinesh D’souza, Ravi Zacharias or William Lane Craig. These men provide numerous and eloquent arguments for the existence of God. Noticeably lacking in their arguments is the notion that it was “the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas.”

You need not rely on these four men. The field of Christian Apologetics is a very rich two millennia. It does not consists of two thousand years of religious writers demanding proof of the nonexistence of God. It is puzzling why Russell and Dawkins should shut their eyes to two thousand years of thought to construct their straw opponent.

If the first part of Russell’s argument is weak, the latter half is catastrophic. He commits magnificent violence to analogy.

The central point of an analogy is to illuminate or clarify an idea by comparing it to a more familiar one. By showing that the familiar is analogous, or similar to, the idea lacking clarity, you illuminate the true nature of the unclear idea.

For example, imagine that Robert has written a high school book report about Richard Dawkins’s, The God Delusion. The book report includes many colored graphs that show the evils of religious people. It also includes pages of colored photographs of Richard Dawkins. Robert has even included a painting of Dawkins thwarting the attack of a Christian suicide bomber on a pizza shop in Indiana.

Robert’s mom, Martha, stays late one night to print her son’s report on her boss’s printer. While she is printing the 14^th photo of Richard Dawkins, the company accountant unexpectedly returns to the office. He wants to know why Martha is printing her son’s book report on the boss’s printer. Does she have permission?

“No,” Martha replies. “But I’m not hurting anyone. I’m only borrowing the printer. I am not taking anything.”

The accountant does not agree. The boss paid for the forty pages of paper. Martha is using ink. The accountant has had the printer repairman out every six months for the last three years. The accountant does some math in his head. He calculates that the boss is paying $9.63 to print Robert’s report.

The accountant asks Martha, “Would you take $9.63 out of the boss’s cash drawer?”

“Of course not,” she replies.

“Then how can you print that paper at the boss’s expense.”

This is a passable analogy. Martha is confused about the morality of using the boss’s resources for personal use. The accountant shows her that it is analogous to a more familiar act. Both the accountant and Martha agree on the moral implications of the familiar act. Martha is confronted with the implications of the unclear act.

How effective is Dawkin’s analogy? Dawkins wants to show that belief in God is absurd. He conjures a celestial teapot. He ridicules the idea that such a teapot could exist. He declares that the teapot is analogous to God. He declares victory by declaring God absurd.

Please note that this analogy does not possess the essential elements of the device. Dawkins does not introduce a familiar idea to clarify another. No one is familiar with celestial teapots. The idea is not familiar, but eccentric.

The device has no persuasion value at all. Martha and the accountant agreed on the moral, philosophical and ethical implications of stealing from the boss. Dawkins and his religious opponents do not agree on the moral or philosophical or scientific implications of celestial crockery.

Finally, God is not analogous to flying teapots. I suppose we could write a book on ways that teapots are not like God, but for the purpose of this Blog we will simply state that teapots are nor omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent. In fact, this particular teapot is so small, it could be said to be apresent.

The parable of the celestial teapot does not succeed at attacking serious Christian apologetics. It does not succeed at analogy. At what then does it succeed?

It succeeds at wittily heaping derision on intellectual opponents. It is not an argument. It is a statement of blind disrespect. In other words, it succeeds at nothing. It is a waste of paper.