Here is a quotation from a paper Bertrand Russell wrote:
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 an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
There has been a lot of debate about this illustration. The problem is it is a false analogy. It does not describe religion.
Imagine a spaceship visited the asteroid belt and found a teapot in orbit around the sun. They bring it on board and find it is not an asteroid with an odd shape or an alien artifact but a genuine teapot with a date and attributed to Josiah Wedgewood on the bottom.
We would have to conclude that it got there somehow, that a path of causation led to this teapot getting into orbit. We might never discover the path of causation and eventually might have to accept it as a mystery. A mystery but not a sacred truth. Why should it be?
Even if it were affirmed in sacred texts (unlikely as teapots haven't been around for that long) it would not in itself be an object of worship or reverence. Why? Because it is an everyday item in a peculiar place and that is all.
No-one would worship it because it very obviously is not worth worshiping. That is not to say people do not worship bizarre and fantastic things; they are called idols. Some claim their idols are God or Jesus and others don't call them God but worship them anyway. The market place with its invisible hand is perfectly acceptable in many otherwise rationalist circles.
The point is we worship God the creator, not the created. Sometimes we make an idol out of God the creator, what this means is we make a created thing out that which is not created.
Idols are things we believe in. God the creator is not believed in, we cannot believe in God without creating an idol. I suppose Christians use the word faith instead. This word does not mean the same thing as believe.
Faith is living as if there is a God. We do this by prayerful reflection on Scripture and the world as we find it. Experience builds up our faith. Our faith like science is empirical, according to John Wesley.