Why I don’t believe what Penn believes
December 7th, 2005 ~ Orthodox perspectiveA while back the Conciliar Press blog had this post about Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller fame) laying out his case for categorically rejecting the notion of God. As Penn says (and here is the complete transcript of his one-minute “apologeia” on NPR), “I’m beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can’t prove a negative, so there’s no work to do.” In other words, he doesn’t just disbelieve in God — he places all the weight of personal faith in the belief in the absence of God.
You have to admire the honesty of that, and the rest of Penn’s short essay is concise and clever, as I would’ve expected. Most people these days vaguely reject God in this theologically-challenged society (as the Conciliar Press post author noted), but shying away from committing themselves to belief or non-belief. Makes them feel like they’re not closing any doors, I guess, but it makes them frustrating to talk with, because they express some vague doubt and/or vague faith about all kinds of mutually exclusive things. I can at least give Penn credit for being true to his own outlook, and even — to judge from his essay — deriving a kind of joy from it which is rare among atheists (or whatever he would call himself).
All the same, I don’t think he’s being as logical as he thinks. In order to have his belief, consider all the other things you would have to believe:
- Almost everyone else is wrong and always has been wrong — The belief in some kind of god is nearly universal, extending from the most primitive tribes of hunter-gatherers to the most complex modern societies and covering every conceivable demographic. Theism extends from the earliest recorded history of humanity to the present, and there isn’t a lot of reason to think it won’t continue well into the future. In order to believe as Penn does, you must say that all of these people all around the world and throughout history have been wrong. They just didn’t think it through, and you have. They just didn’t have the advantage of your intellect. You have gotten it right and everyone from Socrates to Gandhi to Mother Theresa (not to mention Pythagoreas, Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein) got it wrong.
- Nothing can be known by intuition or abstract thinking — Penn says he believes in reality, and I know from his television show that there’s one other thing he believes in: science. No, not all science, only “good” science (we’ll leave aside for right now that that’s a value judgment that shouldn’t have much meaning in a Penn universe). So he believes only in absolutely provable empirical evidence, the day-to-day evidence of his five senses and … reality. But that statement immediately begs a question that he doesn’t want. What is reality? Is it relative? An insane person believes in monsters: does that make them real? And more to the point, what happens to all the scientific advances that came about because someone had a hunch, or stepped out in faith, or made a leap of logic?
- Life’s big questions can’t be known, so forget about them — Why are we here? Where do we go when we die? Where did the universe come from — not just matter and energy, but intelligence and goodness? Why is there so much good in the world but so much bad as well? A true atheist can’t permit himself to ask any of those questions, because even to ask would be to admit that there is something important that science can’t do. (Not to say that a Christian has all the answers, but they know Who does, and that makes an enormous amount of difference.)
- The fact that atheistic societies (what few there have ever been) haven’t produced great art, music, poetry or scientific advances is just a fluke — You have to ignore the evidence that tells you that atheism does not, in fact, produce better, freer, more lovely people who go on to do all kinds of good things. The Renaissance in Catholic Europe produced an artistic, creative and scientific explosion. Communist Russia and China have produced none of those things. That might suggest that it is not as liberating as it seems. But this is evidence that you have to ignore.
Actually, once I start this, I could go on and on. I know exactly the progression of thinking that brings a person to this kind of conclusion, and it can seem like it just makes the world your oyster. But that’s only if you pick and choose your facts, live comfortably with all sorts of conflicting information, disregard all the things that point to another conclusion … in short, it seems to me to require a lot more effort and faith to believe in the absence of God than to believe in His presence.
Contents available under a
December 7th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
…”in short, it seems to me to require a lot more effort and faith to believe in the absence of God than to believe in His presence.”
Ah, but has anyone ever asked Penn to describe the god he does not believe in? I’ll bet I don’t believe in that one either… Most atheists don’t believe in a god they have created in their own heads. They reject an idol they conjured or imagined that bears little or no resemblance to the True God that exists outside their heads.
December 7th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
Well, when I started trying to even articulate an argument against his point of view, it all seemed so inconsistent that it was difficult to talk about (plus, to be honest, this isn’t really something I’m good at). Even the whole “I’m beyond atheism; I believe in not believing in God” thing is just bizarre.
But yes, I would think it’s a very fair question to ask what the properties are of the god he doesn’t believe in. I don’t think you’d get a fair answer though. And that’s not to say that he would mean to be unfair, or that he’s not a good enough scholar. But I think folks of this stripe are always in denial. They have always had to consider some facts and reject others to get what they wanted, which is an excuse to reject the complexity and the responsibility of having an immortal soul. Good luck to them, I’d say. But I’d also stay out of their way. I find their ability to play head games with themselves as frightening as they consider our “blind faith” to be.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:33 am
Good point. It kind of makes me wonder what vice he is involved in that is precious enough to deny a god….or is that too judgmental?
December 8th, 2005 at 11:28 am
God only knows (and I’m going to say we’re not being judgmental to ask, since this is really all fairly rhetorical — sound like a good excuse? ;-) )
I have noticed that the extremely hostile Christian-o-phobes seem to be the most afraid that Christians will just waltz into their lives and convict them of sin. It assumes that we don’t have anything better to do than worry about other people’s sin, and if that impression is at all factual, then God help us Christians as well.
But I think it isn’t all that factual, it’s just them running from their demons.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:53 am
“They reject an idol they conjured or imagined….”
Or, sadly, they are also rejecting the god they were given as children, a god from a faith tradition that never transmitted the fullness of the Christian life. I can’t remember it off the top of my head but a recent book was written arguing that militant atheism (naturalistic materialism + a distinctly anti-Christian worldview) is a distinctly “western” phenomenon.
December 8th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
I heard his pronouncement, but quickly changed the channel (over the voice of my nine year old going “*I* believe in God!)
December 8th, 2005 at 11:21 pm
Karl:
That’s a good point. I actually would love to ask Penn a little bit more, but I’d want someone to pump him full of buffalo tranquilizers first. His personality is, um, a *little* too abrasive for polite dinner conversation about his religious beliefs. (or the lack thereof. Or the presence of anti-beliefs. Or *whatever* the heck he’s talking about.)
December 8th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
Mimi,
Thank goodness for nine-year-olds! :-)
I didn’t look through all the other transcripts of “This I Believe,” but I think the other ones would’ve been a little more uplifting.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
There was a really good one about “Always Go to the Funeral” I’d recommend.
December 10th, 2005 at 8:06 am
THe article Karl is thinking about is Klamiros’ “River of Fire”
December 10th, 2005 at 8:39 am
s-p:
Ooo, y’all are good. And all I can contribute is a link to it that I found online. Looks like some good reading:
http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html
December 10th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
When I was in college, there were always a group of students majoring in drama, philosophy, or psychology who would say stuff like, “I’m not into rational post-existential nihilism–it’s just too restrictive for me.” I always suspected that the ideology was less important than how cool it sounded to say something like that. (Oh. My. Gawd. You’re so clever!) I imagine that’s how Penn’s comment is. He’s just too cool for school, as my ten-year-old might say. It’s less about his processed beliefs, and more about how progressive and enlightened he is. That being said, the dude still puts on one heck of a magic show. . . .
December 10th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Actually, now that I think about it, there is something deliciously ironic about a man who specializes in deception discussing the non-existence of belief in God. . . .
December 11th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
I’m glad atheism as a positive creed has so much potential. Its a clever article if we pretend such creeds have never been tried before on a national scale.
The history of social systems bases on such non-belief teaches us that Jillette’s creed doesn’t convert folks into or create clever, witty thinkers like him. On the contrary, they created religious bigots. And literally millions were killed and put into gulags by people who did not want to believe in God.
I stood on the edge of atheism once and it did not open a new utopia of ethical possibilities. On the contrary, it offers only the right of raw power. Believing in no God gives me the ethical ability to kill and eat my own or someone else’s children if I want to, the only thing holding me back is the power of local government. It offers free license to be a religious bigot towards any fellow human who believes in anything not scientifically measureable.
When fleets of atheist charity organizations show up after the next tsunami, I’ll take Jillette more seriously.