Tim and the Giant Teapot

An interview with Sasha Zouev

Sasha Zouev is a PhD philosophy researcher at the University of Leeds as well as a children's book author. His new book, Tim and the Giant Teapot, is one of the first children's picture books to deal with topics concerning critical thinking, humanism, and atheism. It can be read as an introductory text to epistemology for very young children.

Your book delves into complex themes such as faith, skepticism, and humanism. What inspired you to weave these philosophical concepts into a story aimed at children?

I was born into a Christian family (my parents are non-practicing Russian Orthodox). And while they certainly never pushed their religion onto me, I would hear them sometimes talk about God and do things like light a candle in the prayer room before a long flight, so I kind of just assumed I was a Christian without giving it much thought. Then, when I turned 17, I was gifted a copy of Christopher Hitchens ‘God is Not Great’ and Richard Dawkins ‘The God Delusion’ as a highschool graduation gift from my Philosophy teacher. I compulsively read both of those books over that summer and they had a profound impact on my life - probably more than any other non-fiction books I have read since. 

I eventually became convinced that every child is technically born an ‘atheist’ (or certainly agnostic), and that religion (whether it be judaism, christianity, islam, or scientology!) is only instilled in them by their parents, friends, or their immediate community. Often, this is done at a very early age when the child has no real experience of critical thinking and although they might display childlike curiosity, they do not fully understand the basics of skepticism. This might be a controversial thing to say, but I truly do believe that introducing organized religion to a child before they are at an age where they can independently reason and think for themselves is a form of harmful brainwashing…

Whereas the book market is flooded with books like ‘My First Bible’ and ‘The Quran for Children’, I noticed that there were absolutely no children’s books that taught kids the basics of critical thinking and explained to them the fundamental ideas behind skepticism, secularism, and humanism. I wanted to change that. That is largely where the inspiration for Tim and the Giant teapot comes from.

As for the Teapot itself, this is an idea adapted from philosopher Bertrand Russel’s ‘Celestial Teapot’ stressing that the burden of proof of any claim must lie on the person making that claim:

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. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. 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.

Russel, 1952

I do wish to stress however, our book does not aim to convert young children into atheists! We were very careful to avoid any mention of God, prayer, or religion. Rather, we rely on fun analogies with the aim of getting the reader to THINK about why they believe what they believe. 

Illustrated by Anastasia Zababashkina

You mentioned incorporating the Socratic method into the dialogue.

Before I learned properly about the Socratic method in my MA Philosophy class, I stumbled on a Youtube channel by Anthony Magnabasco (who incidentally gave a talk at one of the Plato’s Academy events last year!) called ‘Street Epistemology’. I was immediately hooked. Essentially, the Socratic Method / Street Epistemology is a reasoned conversation about the basis for belief. More formally described, it is a conversational tool that helps people reflect on the quality of their reasons and the reliability of the methods used to derive one's confidence level in their deeply-held beliefs.

We took this idea and tried to incorporate it into our book. Kate, one of main characters of our story, believes in a magical teapot in the sky that can answer her wishes whenever she asks it for help. Tim, the skeptic in our book, does not know about the teapot but wants to understand why Kate believes in it, and what evidence, if any, she has for its existence. Over the course of 30 full-color beautifully illustrated pages, the two characters go on a search for this magical teapot and on almost every other page, they engage in a form of ‘Socratic’ dialogue. Tim asks her questions not too dissimilar from questions you would find in one of Anothony’s street epistemology videos. Our hope is that young readers will see these questions and then apply it to other beliefs they may have already developed at a young age. 

Illustrated by Anastasia Zababashkina

Tim and Kate encounter various characters throughout their journey. How did you approach the development of these characters to ensure they represent a diverse range of perspectives and beliefs?

When storyboarding the book, we knew from the start that we wanted to have a wide range of diverse characters. While we didn’t want to cram diversity just for the sake of it, we felt having a POC main character, an elderly person, and also a couple of farmers who may or may not represent the LGBTQ community (we do leave a lot up to the reader's interpretation) is a clear reflection of the diversity one would encounter in the real world. We also tried to show that people with different belief systems can, and should, still get along. For example, the grandma in the story is not a believer of the Teapot, she believes in magical ‘Plates’ instead… Nonetheless, she ends up being a pivotal character in helping our duo in their quest to fix the broken teddy bear. 

While the story is aimed at children, you also mention that it resonates with freethinkers of all ages. What elements of the story do you think will particularly engage adult readers?

I should probably mention at this point that originally, the book was written and published in Dutch (as me and my co-writer are both from Antwerp, Belgium). The narration text is written in rhyming style, while the dialogue bubbles between the characters are the aforementioned ‘Socratic Questions’.

Writing a children’s book is difficult. Writing a children’s book that incorporates rhyme is even more difficult. Writing a children’s book that needs to be translated from Dutch, while still keeping the rhyming component was a near mission impossible! Also, we had to keep in mind that the book is aimed at children - so we had to avoid any difficult words and things that a 4-6 year old may not yet understand.

The reason I think this book should be read by both children AND adults is because I personally know far too many adults who would greatly benefit from asking themselves: why do I believe in what I believe?! Whether it is a wild conspiracy theory, astrology, karma, or ghosts - the Socratic method is an immensely powerful tool when it comes to breaking through stubborn dogmatism and faulty doxastic logic. 

What question would you like to leave our readers to think about? 

• At what age should children be introduced to philosophical ideas like skepticism and stoicism? Is there any harm in doing so?

• Do you have any beliefs that would benefit closer examination by way of a Socratic dialogue?

• At what age do you think children should learn about religion? Do you think there should be laws that protect children from religious indoctrination?

• Do you see any drawbacks or faults with the Socratic method as a conversational tool? If so, why?