I just listened to that on the radio a few minutes ago. Bravo, Jillette! (non-snarky first comment.) posted by matildaben at 7:01 AM on November 21, 2005
One more reason to keep Penn in my "people who don't suck" list. posted by Meatbomb at 7:04 AM on November 21, 2005
Oh, yes. I am so glad his essay made it on. Let us allow room for reason, and wisdom, and a little kindness to each other in this world, instead of believing in an imaginary hereafter. posted by Savannah at 7:05 AM on November 21, 2005
This believer applauds Penn, as well. posted by jonmc at 7:09 AM on November 21, 2005
He just put into words what I've been trying to explain to myself for years. Thanks Penn! posted by cosmicbandito at 7:09 AM on November 21, 2005
he'll be in heaps of trouble with all insurance agencies now.
nevertheless, serisously sweet it was. posted by psychomedia at 7:11 AM on November 21, 2005
pfft. can't schpell scheriousschly. posted by psychomedia at 7:11 AM on November 21, 2005
Excellent. Much better than Kathy Dahlen where she claims that "Gazing at that mass of gray nerve tissue, I was unable to reconcile the evidences I had known of self-sacrifice and forgiveness, or even this suicide, with the notion that a human life consists only of one's biology. "
It's a touch pill for some to swallow, but as Jillette points out "So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. " posted by cptnrandy at 7:12 AM on November 21, 2005
Hmm...
Is America so religious that this statement can be described as "brave" - or even "mildly controversial"? posted by salmacis at 7:15 AM on November 21, 2005
"He is a research fellow at the Cato Institute..."
1. This is not new. Anybody who knows anything about Penn knows he's an Athiest. He's pretty vocal, so this is hardly groundbreaking stuff for him.
2. In what way is this brave? What risk is he taking? His friends are Athiests, so it's not like they'll abandon him. No one checks on a magician's religious affiliation before they buy tickets, so I doubt that his career would suffer. (Even if it did, he is wealthy enough that he need not worry about it) And this is hardly a theocracy; the Spanish Inquisition is not about to burst through his door dramatically and arrest him for heresy. Pat Robinson does not have theologically inclined ninjas that will take Penn out. In order to take a "brave stand", you actually have to risk something.
3. He's a pretty good magician, though. I wish he'd stop making awful cameos on shows like the West Wing, though. I still have nightmarish flashbacks of his loathsome appearance on Babylon 5. posted by unreason at 7:25 AM on November 21, 2005
Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness...
Even if you do believe in God, that may be all we have. posted by nervousfritz at 7:27 AM on November 21, 2005
I've really enjoyed the revival of the 'This I Believe' series. I really liked the one last week about feeding monkeys despite the fact that its theme is a polar opposite to Penn's essay this week. posted by Alison at 7:30 AM on November 21, 2005
I loved hearing this this morning.
I thought that "...anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God" can be taken as an invitation to find a true, deep spirituality.
The religious people that I respect (and there are rather a few) have found such evidence and can articulate it beyond the "faith" argument. I don't have to agree with them, but I can respect them. I also like it that most of these folks accept my non-faith and respect my position as well.
A civil society is possible. You just have to work at it. posted by mmahaffie at 7:30 AM on November 21, 2005
It could really only be considered a "brave stand" if he was a Republican candidate for a U.S. political office. posted by spock at 7:35 AM on November 21, 2005
this i believe: there is no shift key. posted by Plutor at 7:39 AM on November 21, 2005
hee, that's great - my mom just sent this to me and now it's on metafilter. posted by timory at 7:39 AM on November 21, 2005
It hit home with many people, I would guess. I sent this link to many of my friends too. posted by Red58 at 7:41 AM on November 21, 2005
salmacis: Is America so religious that this statement can be described as "brave" - or even "mildly controversial"?
Yes. (Sad but true.) posted by LordSludge at 7:45 AM on November 21, 2005
Agreed brownpau. For me, that is the most surprising part of the whole article. posted by caddis at 7:48 AM on November 21, 2005
I like that he feels that there don't need to be any hands behind the curtains for the world to be beautiful... it sounds good coming from a magician. posted by ny_scotsman at 7:48 AM on November 21, 2005
Yes, he is brave. He's an entertainer and makes a living by convincing as many people to come see his show as he can. While he's been public about atheism for years, this is very high profile and it will more than likely turn away some people who would otherwise go see his show. He can afford it, sure, but it will cost him.
He'll get a lot of hate mail and get solicited to convert and see the light by people who equate non-belief with evil. He's opening himself up personally to a great deal of criticism for voicing his beliefs. That's bravery. posted by stevis at 7:51 AM on November 21, 2005
Wow, so brave of a celebrity to take a centures-old stand, and to use the most facile, flimsy arguments to defend it. He could even alienate his audience, who, since they watch a show with the word "bullshit" in its title, are obviously devout evangelicals. And no one will vote for him now, and all his outspoken atheist friends will shun him, and he'll be made to feel uncomfortable at parties. posted by eustacescrubb at 7:54 AM on November 21, 2005
Nice, the guy's a piece of work and doesn't mind rubbing salt. So, is there a name for beyond atheism because the movement will never get off the ground without a good name for it, like Scientology but that's already taken. posted by fenriq at 7:55 AM on November 21, 2005
I believe it's a damn shame for America that Penn Gillette is far to smart to ever pursue the presidency. posted by davelog at 7:56 AM on November 21, 2005
It's great that Jillette has found a belief system that works well for him and involves being kind to people.
That said, there's no need for his sneering and derisive characterization of the thought process of (at least some) religious folk: "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do."
Lord knows there are more religious people out there, who have done more harm throughout history, who take such a dismissive view of the other side. That doesn't make it attractive when Jillette does it.
As to whether or not it's brave... I doubt that much of his audience consists of people who would boycott him over this sort of thing, but I could be proven wrong. posted by ibmcginty at 7:57 AM on November 21, 2005
stevis - anyone who would stay away from his shows over this, would already be avoiding him. After all, he is a magician. For the fundamentalists, magic is right up there with Harry Potter, Dungeons & Dragons and Ouiji Boards as a gateway to Hell. posted by bashos_frog at 7:57 AM on November 21, 2005
Fenriq: Secular humanism, maybe? posted by boo_radley at 7:58 AM on November 21, 2005
fenriq - the word you're looking for is Bright. Of course, I think that won't really sell either. posted by stevis at 7:59 AM on November 21, 2005
than likely turn away some people who would otherwise go see his show
Nah. He's popular enough that enough people will still go to his show. Remember, he tries to be edgy, and attract a young affluent crowd. It's not like his primary audience are Bible thumpers from the midwest. And given that he's rich, it's not that urgent a thing that he gets a big audience.
..and get solicited to convert and see the light by people who equate non-belief with evil
Oh noes! His PR agent will have to handle more mail! Poor Penn! How ever will he cope with this hardship!
He's opening himself up personally to a great deal of criticism for voicing his beliefs
But not from his friends, or from his audience, or from anyone he cares about. People like Darwin, who braved ridicule and embarassment, and Galileo, who braved actual persecution were brave. Penn is not brave for taking a risk that a few people won't go to his magic show for a couple of months. I respect his belief system, and I respect that he comes out and says what he thinks, but I see no signs of bravery. posted by unreason at 8:00 AM on November 21, 2005
"It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more."
I like that.... posted by HuronBob at 8:02 AM on November 21, 2005
Somewhat OT: I am also reminded of how Muhammed Ali got in trouble with magicians because his Muslim beliefs required him to show the secret of all the tricks he learned as an amateur magician.
He felt that according to Islam, it was immoral to deceive anyone with magic tricks. posted by bashos_frog at 8:02 AM on November 21, 2005
Penn's a libertarian dick, as well as an atheist dick and a straight edge dick. That doesn't change the fact that he's a great magician, it just makes his books hard to slog through because he's always telling you how great his beliefs are and that anyone who's ever smoked a cigarette deserves to have their stuff fucked with. When Teller writes he's much, much more interesting. posted by klangklangston at 8:07 AM on November 21, 2005
I prefer atheists who disbelieve in a more subtle and less idiotic notion of God. posted by sfenders at 8:11 AM on November 21, 2005
Why brave? He's not going to catch any kickback on this at all.
1 - he presents an apparently genuine reasoned explanation for how he feels, he's not tearing anyone else down, just offering his own view
2 - he's not saying anything that will rock anyone's world, nothing new or remotely shocking
3 - unless Larry King wants him on the tube, most are going to be completely unaware anyway
4 - professionally he's a Vegas kind of entertainer, he's supposed to be 'a little out there', a little 'dangerous' anyhow, even if his audience were aware it would hardly detract from his mystique as an entertainer posted by scheptech at 8:11 AM on November 21, 2005
ibmcginty, I think it's kind of cool that he's so outspoken . Why should religion get such an easy ride? If more people were like him the US wouldn't be in such a theocratic lather. Besides which, if you don't believe in God, religion is ridiculous. And it must get really annoying being patronised by santimonious types on the basis of what you (perhaps not unreasonably) regard as a mass delusion. posted by rhymer at 8:11 AM on November 21, 2005
Regardless of his dickiness, klangklangston, I think that this was well put and gives something of an antidote to George Bush's brand of Christianity.
And even if some object to the word "bravery" regarding this piece, I also think that it takes a certain amount of...something to go against Mainstream America. In this age of "Watch what you say," it's not easy and it's not popular. posted by leftcoastbob at 8:13 AM on November 21, 2005
unreason - You are correct, he is not brave as you have described it. I assumed we were using the standard definition. I'll be looking for your This I Believe essay to show us how it should be done. posted by stevis at 8:15 AM on November 21, 2005
This I believe: nothing.
You believe in god? You believe in democracy? You believe in the family? You believe in yourself? You believe you'll have another beer?
Before you start tossing around words like "believe," figure out exactly what they mean. posted by bshock at 8:16 AM on November 21, 2005
Perhaps it's because I'm not American, but why is that what yet another famous person has to say about religion, or anything else for that matter, attracts so much attention? Why are people so keen to shout "I agree with that!" as if they need someone in the public eye to validate, or worse - formulate, their opinion? He can write, and I like his show; but why does that lend his belief any credence?
"I believe there is no God" is not an earth shattering thing for an atheist to say. His emphasis on belief merely removes the one thing atheism has going for it: rationale. If you need a famous person's take on atheism, take Douglas Adams'.
Celebrity is becoming its own religion. posted by nthdegx at 8:18 AM on November 21, 2005
In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.
This may be the big difference with the U.S. In this country we have militant Christians because they, too, have a desire not to have to think about things too much. "Christianity" is different in this part of the world these days. posted by leftcoastbob at 8:24 AM on November 21, 2005
is America so religious that this statement can be described as "brave" - or even "mildly controversial"?
a professed athiest couldn't be elected dog-catcher in this country... regardless of party.
Legend
A = Australia
C = Canada
D = Denmark
E = Great Britain
F = France
G = Germany
H = Holland
I = Ireland
J = Japan
L = Switzerland
N = Norway
P = Portugal
R = Austria
S = Spain
T = Italy
U = United States
W = Sweden
Z = New Zealand
leftcoastbob: I also think that it takes a certain amount of...something to go against Mainstream America. In this age of "Watch what you say," it's not easy and it's not popular.
I disagree. In some circles, ie, here at Metafilter, it is easy and popular. As I said above, I don't think that Jillette will face much of consequence as a result of this essay. If John Murtha said it, that would be different.
I heard Jillette's thing this morning; later I listened to an evangelist talking about how if you believe in Jesus, you must be prepared to bear suffering. Everybody, from James Dobson to leftcoastbob, likes to imagine that they're a persecuted underdog. Not all minority groups are underdogs, nor are all minority groups persecuted. posted by ibmcginty at 8:26 AM on November 21, 2005
Oh man I just read this great book called "The Brothers Karamazov," it's about this muder-mystery that takes place in the Lourve and eventually ends up about finding the hidden history of the Catholic Church. It also has this great couple chapters on debunking God and some love triangle. posted by geoff. at 8:28 AM on November 21, 2005
Jillette doesn't believe in God or the shift key? Well, I'm halfway with him. posted by LarryC at 8:31 AM on November 21, 2005
That said, there's no need for his sneering and derisive characterization of the thought process of (at least some) religious folk: "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do."
In a way I see your point (especially because, as I often note, not all religious folk are this way)--but unfortunately, I'm encountering this kind of thought process more and more these days (at uncomfortably high levels of government, no less) and it's as sneering and derisive as you claim Penn is in rejecting it.
Granted, I'm dealing on a daily basis with a fundamentalist who's convincing my husband's small children that this imaginary friend should receive more respect and obedience than their father, so maybe I'm bitter--but that's why it feels so good to hear it stated in such absolute terms. It's certainly the kind of terms we plan to use to countermand such brainwashing. posted by dlugoczaj at 8:33 AM on November 21, 2005
Everybody, from James Dobson to leftcoastbob, likes to imagine that they're a persecuted underdog.
posted by ibmcginty
Wrong-o. I didn't say that I agreed with him in his atheism; merely that it's hard to go against Mainstream America in this. I am neither an atheist nor a persecuted underdog. posted by leftcoastbob at 8:48 AM on November 21, 2005
lcb: you are right and I was wrong. I'm sorry for writing that you were claiming to be persecuted.
I stand by the point that it is not hard for an entertainer like Jillette to go against Mainstream America in this matter. It would be different if he were a politician or, maybe, a CEO. posted by ibmcginty at 8:53 AM on November 21, 2005
Okay, ibmcginty, let's compromise on our positions. I agree with you that it is easier for an entertainer like Jillette to go against Mainstream American than it would be if he were a politician or a CEO or even some poor working stiff who had to listen to the holier-than-thou's he might come into contact with on a daily basis at work. posted by leftcoastbob at 8:57 AM on November 21, 2005
I heard this this morning and really enjoyed it. It was definitely a change from the usual feel-good pablum that "This I Believe" generates. I think Jillette has to have some degree of bravery to read it, even though his views are well-known to anyone who listens to him, but the real bravery was shown by NPR in broadcasting the piece. NPR is constantly demonized as being too liberal and antagonistic to religion, and this can only serve to further inflame that crowd; the same crowd that already calls for the end of government funding for NPR and the rest of public broadcasting. posted by TedW at 9:01 AM on November 21, 2005
Penn's a libertarian dick, as well as an atheist dick and a straight edge dick [snip] he's always telling you how great his beliefs are and that anyone who's ever smoked a cigarette deserves to have their stuff fucked with.
posted by klangklangston at 8:07 AM PST on November 21
Yeah, that would explain the episode of Bullshit debunking the dangers of second-hand smoke.
Nice, the guy's a piece of work and doesn't mind rubbing salt.
How is this rubbing salt, fenriq? posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:03 AM on November 21, 2005
*clap*
*clap*
*clap*
God, that was lame. posted by brautigan at 9:05 AM on November 21, 2005
leftcoastbob: Absolutely! I dread the day religion comes up with my co-workers. That conversation would be heavy on the "believe, dammit!" part, and have little emphasis on the "be nice to the poor and visit people in prison" part of Christianity. posted by ibmcginty at 9:07 AM on November 21, 2005
It's interesting that although he claims to go beyond "mere atheism," he doesn't actually offer an argument against the existence of God. Wouldn't that be a part of a rational position? Just a hint, a mere sketch of his thinking, would have been nice.
He's given us his conclusion without showing us how he got there. Wow, what a brave thing to do. posted by oddman at 9:11 AM on November 21, 2005
God, that was lame.
posted by brautigan at 9:05 AM PST on November 21
Kierkegaard disagreed. Guess we will just have to chalk this one up to differences in personal belief and opinion. Both are free to believe as they want; neat how that works. posted by dios at 9:18 AM on November 21, 2005
He could easily have attacked the hypocrisy of modern American evangelicism, the whores of Babylon and all of that. But he doesn't. He just lets all that slide, and says essentially what I believe. What I think most of us know in our hearts is the truth. What is just "too horrible" for most religious folks, whose lives must be held up by faith, that they reject the notion so vehemently.
There is no happy fun land heaven afterlife or a big imaginary buddy who makes universes and stuff. Always been like that. Always will be. That doesn't make it impossible to live. That just makes it even more important that we help each other. posted by mooncrow at 9:20 AM on November 21, 2005
I much enjoyed hearing this on the radio this morning, despite my not being an atheist. I didn't think he was rubbing salt at all. I think he admirably articulated the feeling of being shut down by someone because their beliefs apparently trump yours. posted by grrarrgh00 at 9:22 AM on November 21, 2005
What is just "too horrible" for most religious atheist folks, whose lives must be held up by a rejection of faith, that they reject the notion so vehemently. posted by dios at 9:24 AM on November 21, 2005
he doesn't actually offer an argument against the existence of God
He begins by saying that you can't prove a negative. posted by stevis at 9:25 AM on November 21, 2005
Chief among my favorite atheistic statements of belief, by the way, is Julia Sweeney's story for the "Godless America" episode of This American Life. posted by grrarrgh00 at 9:27 AM on November 21, 2005
the real bravery was shown by NPR in broadcasting the piece
I agree--although the next "This I Believe" is supposed to be someone defending belief in god (I think).
I honestly don't get these comments that suggest there's nothing brave about this piece. Have you looked in a newspaper recently? At a time when Democrats are taking shit for not blathering on about "values" to appease the Bible-thumping crowd and Republicans are stepping up the "government-sponsored nativity displays are awesome" rhetoric in time for the holidays/Alito confirmation hearings, I think anyone who is willing to stand up for reason in place of blind faith is brave. Yeah, it would be much more controversial if it were someone with more to lose, like a pol or CEO. That doesn't mean it wasn't a risk for Penn, or especially for NPR. posted by 912 Greens at 9:29 AM on November 21, 2005
Both are free to believe as they want; neat how that works.
posted by dios at 9:18 AM PST on November 21
Did anyone ever say otherwise? Do you make up things just to argue against them elsewhere, or you just confine it to here? posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:31 AM on November 21, 2005
He's given us his conclusion without showing us how he got there.
Well, perchance he didn't expect a herd of lost, enthusiastic, condescending, thrilled, mocking, excited sheep to skim through the article and then drivel around and about it for half an hour. Maybe he just liked the idea of extra publicity. Perhaps he wants the reader to go figure. He might be having apple tart at this very moment. Maybe, would you believe it, he wants someone to ask him about it so he can follow up with another aero-rticle. posted by psychomedia at 9:34 AM on November 21, 2005
whose lives must be held up by a rejection of faith, that they reject the notion so vehemently.
dios, I don't reject vehemently other silly things like pink elephants since belief in these doesn't harm me or mine.
Religion in the US is different, with ~22+% of the population actively trying to establish laws & precepts from an obscure sheep-herd religion, well, at least the particular laws they find they want to see.
Not that I would particular miss lobster, mind.
I have no problem with people believing in God the Creator, Jesus the Savior, and the Holy Ghost, whatever the fuck he is supposed to be/do; they'll probably be happier in the long-run, though Penn does actually address some of the downsides of belief in the here-after, especially when combined with fundamentalist millenarianism ('we're refi-ing the house again, Marge, the End TImes are certainly coming!"). posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:44 AM on November 21, 2005
And such eloquent disdain.
posted by brautigan at 9:33 AM PST on November 21
You are ridiculous. You call something "lame" without giving any indication that you'd actually heard the spot or read the transcript. That's not helpful, nor is it interesting. It's just being contrary. Granted, there are plenty of responses that are simple statements of support, but it's a lot less annoying to say "I liked it," rather than "lame" with no reason why. posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:46 AM on November 21, 2005
It's interesting that although he claims to go beyond "mere atheism," he doesn't actually offer an argument against the existence of God. Wouldn't that be a part of a rational position? Just a hint, a mere sketch of his thinking, would have been nice.
That is the very essence of belief, of faith. The piece wasn't titled "This I derive from reason."
That said, there's no bravery being shown here - I'm sure that Mr. Jillette would agree. If you want to hear bravery on NPR, the piece that comes to mind is Andrei Codrescu's Rapture bit, which I unfortunately can't find in its entirety. posted by me & my monkey at 9:48 AM on November 21, 2005
Feh. Smells like Fark in here.
I didn't hear a conclusion. I heard "I don't have a conclusion yet, either way. I'm starting with the hypothesis that there is no God (or anything else, for that matter) and I'm looking for evidence - in the meantime, I'm treating this as my only go-around." That sounds like a rational position to me.
Why, exactly, should he have "attacked" or "argued" anything? posted by FormlessOne at 9:52 AM on November 21, 2005
"She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power"
He begins by admitting that you can't prove a negative, true, but the gist of that paragraph is that this is a challenge for the mere atheists. Penn, being beyond them, goes on to assert a great many things. Assert, not prove, not show, not argue for, just assert. This is relevant because he seems to think that if you only want to hold good beliefs, then you should believe something only after acquiring proper objective evidence for it. I didn't notice any objective evidence lying around in that transcript. Did I miss it?
(And, MMM, believing is exactly as rational as inductive reasoning, if you insist that induction is inherently faith based and therefore somehow irrational, so be it. Good luck gaining knowledge.)
So it seems that Penn is an agnostic (can't disprove the existence of God, doesn't except proofs for His existence) with a humanist moral code. Wow, groundbreaking, truly earth shattering. It's not like that position has been around for a few hundred years. posted by oddman at 10:15 AM on November 21, 2005
salmacis: Is America so religious that this statement can be described as "brave" - or even "mildly controversial"?
Yes. (Sad but true.)
I guess they'll be coming to take him away any minute now, then.
And this was especially brave to post on MetaFilter, where any debunking of religion is likely to get one in great trouble! I salute you, ab3! posted by languagehat at 10:20 AM on November 21, 2005
I have no problem with people believing in God the Creator, Jesus the Savior, and the Holy Ghost, whatever the fuck he is supposed to be/do; they'll probably be happier in the long-run
Y,know, I used to say that. Until those beleifs started to dictate policy in this country. Now I feel like I can't afford those blinders anymore. Apparently whatever bizzare fictions other people choose to populate their worldviews with is going to affect me and my family for the rest of my life. So now I make it a point to argue with the religious whenever I feel like they might hear me.
Also, this is brave, but it's a species of bravery that Penn Jillette has been showing for a while now. If you want a real laugh watch the episode of bullshit about the bible. posted by lumpenprole at 10:20 AM on November 21, 2005
"So, I'm saying, 'This I believe: I believe there is no God.' " and "Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future."
FormlessOne, you don't think these are conclusions? They certainly look like conclusions to me. The first sentence even has the handy dandy "so" to signal that it is, in fact, a conclusion. He should argue for them because he paints himself as a rationalist. You simply cannot posit a conclusion, be a rationalist, and fail to argue for the conclusion. Only two of those statements can be true of a single person at one time. posted by oddman at 10:22 AM on November 21, 2005
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force
I've got no particular axe to grind with Penn that I'm aware of, but this is some kinda facile definition of God he's so bravely rejecting.
Piece should be retitled: "This I believe: There is no God in the rigid sense propagated by the blinkered fundamentalist wings of the major monotheistic religions, particularly by the various strains of evangelical Christianity currently ascendent in the United States." Bit unwieldy as a title, I admit, but then the reader/listener would know going in that the only God being debunked is the one that's the least complex and easiest to deconstruct. posted by gompa at 10:23 AM on November 21, 2005
Optimus, any affront to the organized religions by someone of intellect and means is rubbing salt in the open gash that is organized religion. Or maybe that's just me.
That and he's got his trademark Look-at-the-idiots-tone to the piece too. Anyone who refers to God as an "imaginary friend" isn't being complimentary.
stevis and boo_radley, bright works but isn't definitive, secular humanism is actually almost perfect. I think I might just become a secular human myself. Oh wait, already there! posted by fenriq at 10:25 AM on November 21, 2005
So it seems that Penn is an agnostic (can't disprove the existence of God, doesn't except proofs for His existence) with a humanist moral code. Wow, groundbreaking, truly earth shattering. It's not like that position has been around for a few hundred years.
Yeah, nice try. First of all Agnosticism is the weak sister of Atheism. Agnostics might say that Christians are possibly right. If you can get that out of Penn Jillette I'll eat my hat. Because he's done this go-round a million times he starts out by saying you can't prove a negative. I can't prove there's no god. But that's not my job, or his job either. I can't prove there's no planet made from vanilla ice cream either. It's the job of people who believe in invisible superheros in the sky, or planets made of ice cream, to come up with some proof.
The belief part comes where people like Penn Jillette and I don't think that proof is ever going to come, for a big pile of reasons. Sure it's a belief, but for the future. For the present, there's no proof for god, so we live accordingly. Like people matter more than their 'souls'. posted by lumpenprole at 10:29 AM on November 21, 2005
Where is the bravery in stating something that requires nothing of Mr. Jilette other than the ability to open his mouth and let words fall out?
Those who believe in God do so with no ability to provide concrete evidence. It's what faith is all about, and to me it seems far more brave to hold on to faith in increasingly troubled times, when it would be far to easy to say "Screw it" and live however you pleased. posted by genefinder at 10:31 AM on November 21, 2005
Gompa, he has done the complex debunking part. But it wasn't in the '3 minutes to sum up your worldview' format. You're asking for a super complex argument in a simplistic area. The other people who did "This I Believe" didn't get that restriction so neither should he. posted by lumpenprole at 10:32 AM on November 21, 2005
Re: The bravery question and whether or not Jillette will be attacked for his position:
I don't know if the thought-police will be knocking on his door anytime soon (I think it depends on whether or not he has taken out any library books or something), but he's certainly taking a load of abuse on metafilter. posted by mmahaffie at 10:34 AM on November 21, 2005
I don't get it. Personally I disagree with Penn's conclusion but liked what he had to say anyway. In the very small space available he offers a few personal thoughts on his experience in life so far. I decided I liked him more now than previously because he comes across as a warm intelligent human being. For those complaining, what's the problem with him offering his thoughts exactly, and for those who figure he's being brave, what exactly do you think is going to happen to him as a result of sharing his view? My answers: nothing and nothing.
those beleifs started to dictate policy in this country
On the usual religious post derail: what's at the root of this stuff? Current American issues with Roe V Wade, the godwin of any post remotely connected with religion? posted by scheptech at 10:35 AM on November 21, 2005
This I believe: Penn Jillette is a hell of an entertainer, but he can't tell an athiest from an agnostic. posted by Eothele at 10:35 AM on November 21, 2005
and to me it seems far more brave to hold on to faith in increasingly troubled times, when it would be far to easy to say "Screw it" and live however you pleased
Arrrgh. I'm so tired of arguing this point. Look, as an atheist, I hold myself to a much higher moral standard than most of the religious people I know. You know why? Because the only forgiveness I get is from the people who surround me. If I screw up, magic daddy doesn't fix it for me. I don't get to feel self righteous that I've done the right thing even though I made everyone around me miserable.
If you were listening, you would know that he was pointing out that for us atheists we know this is the only life we get, and we have to make it count. posted by lumpenprole at 10:35 AM on November 21, 2005
# For those wanting more assertions on Penn's behalf, remember he only had 500 words.
# I heard this as well on the radio this morning. His talk was buffered by an producer introducing it with "he did a flip to make this a positive statement" and the NPR mouth saying at the end "next week another view...". So, yes, this is still a point of view that, in the US, departs markedly from the usual outlook. posted by sohcahtoa at 10:41 AM on November 21, 2005
That Julia Sweeney piece grrarrgh00 linked to is a good one. Far better, I think, than the essay in the FPP. posted by Pliskie at 10:44 AM on November 21, 2005
.... he doesn't actually offer an argument against the existence of God. Wouldn't that be a part of a rational position?
No. It would be part of a foolish position. Unless he's got some argument I've never heard before.
oddman: I didn't notice any objective evidence lying around in that transcript. Did I miss it?
Getting it all into two minutes might have been a bit of a challenge, even for a skilled illusionist. I imagine he had to cut a bit.
On courage: This took basically none -- well, no extra, at least. Not for Penn Jillette. And I doubt he'd disagree with me. There aren't many people in show biz with more chutzpah than Penn. He can probably take a metaphorical punch as well as anybody in the public eye.
Now, as for the monkeys piece being "opposite" to Penn's -- I don't really see that. The "feeding monkeys" piece was great. What was great about it was that it isn't really about believing that feeding monkeys literally keeps his family prosperous; it's really about the concept of honor for tradition and family and remaining conscious of your good fortune, without giving up on working for it. posted by lodurr at 10:44 AM on November 21, 2005
Penn is God.
* Poof! *
oops. And I liked him so much. posted by mouthnoize at 10:46 AM on November 21, 2005
So, is there a name for beyond atheism
The "strong atheist position" and "antitheist" are often used. "Bright" doesn't really fit, as it encompasses all forms of atheism, including the "weak atheist position".
I'm in the same boat as Penn; I believe that there are no gods. I consider this a rational position. Because one cannot prove an existential negative, the default position must always be that any entity X does not exist. Without evidence for the existence of X, it is rational to assume that X does not exist. posted by solid-one-love at 10:48 AM on November 21, 2005
to me it seems far more brave to hold on to faith in increasingly troubled times, when it would be far to easy to say "Screw it" and live however you pleased
Two things:
1. People hold on to faith in troubled times because they're scared, not because they're brave. It is much much easier to find comfort in religion than in the benign indifference of the universe, or science, or whatever else you've got.
2. A huge point in Penn's piece was that atheism actually forces people to consider very closely how they treat other people. Seeking forgiveness from others, rather than a divine being. There's nothing about being an atheist that necessarily equates with "living however you please." posted by 912 Greens at 10:52 AM on November 21, 2005
Not brave, although he makes a fine (if recycled) case for secular humanism. It is tiring, however, to hear the ritual denigration of the "religious" and their "imaginary friend," every time anyone feels the need to articulate their atheism.
Also, anyone who was inclined to curb their support for Penn Jillette for offense to religious sensibilities must have done so, oh, around the time The Aristocrats came out. The fundamentalists are not running in Penn Jillette circles. posted by kosem at 10:53 AM on November 21, 2005
This I believe: Penn Jillette is a hell of an entertainer, but he can't tell an athiest from an agnostic.
I'm not sure that you can; the two positions are orthogonal. One can be an atheist agnostic ("I lack any belief in gods and believe that their existence is unprovable"), a theist agnostic ("I believe in one or more gods but believe that that their existence is unprovable" -- this was the position held by Thomas Huxley when he coined the term 'agnostic'), an atheist gnostic ("I lack any belief in gods and believe that their lack of exisxtence is provable") or a theistic gnostic ("I believe in one or more gods and believe that their existence is provable"). posted by solid-one-love at 10:53 AM on November 21, 2005
I've been doing this for a long time. It's 30 years, now, I guess, since I decided I was an atheist. I learned at the beginning, and haven't had a chance to forget, that there are few positions that will get you alienated from your present company more quickly than actually expressing the belief that there isn't a god.
And it's not the believers that end up bothering you the most. It takes a few years, but most of the atheists I've gotten to know have agreed that ultimately, the more annoying folks are the ones who try endlessly to convince you that you're not really an atheist -- you're actually an agnostic.
I am not an agnostic. Yes, I believe that it is impossible to prove the negative. It is broadly logically possible that the christian god is real. It is somewhat more possible that there is a god or gods who are interested in human behavior, and somewhat more possible yet that there are "gods" that aren't. That I admit those things really does not mean I'm an agnostic, unless you feel a crying need to force a suspiciously rigid definition of "agnostic."
What I am is an empiricist. Which is to say that if you want me to care whether or not there's a god, you've got to show me some kind of empirical effect that such a being would have on my existence. Then we can test it.
Now, belief in a god -- that has a big effect on the world....
How can this thread have gotten this far without anybody mentioning the dislexic agnostic? (He wasn't sure or not whether there was a dog.) posted by lodurr at 10:54 AM on November 21, 2005
It's the job of people who believe in invisible superheros in the sky, or planets made of ice cream, to come up with some proof.
posted by lumpenprole at 12:29 PM CST on November 21
Why? Why can't they believe in what they choose without having to answer to you?
Personally I disagree with Penn's conclusion but liked what he had to say anyway. In the very small space available he offers a few personal thoughts on his experience in life so far. I decided I liked him more now than previously because he comes across as a warm intelligent human being.
posted by scheptech at 12:35 PM CST on November 21
I agree. I liked it, too, and I found him more likable having read it.
And this was especially brave to post on MetaFilter, where any debunking of religion is likely to get one in great trouble! I salute you, ab3!
posted by languagehat at 12:20 PM CST on November 21
I can't tell if this is sarcasm, but if it is not, then let me say I wholeheartedly disagree. Posting this on Metafilter is void of any quantum of bravery. The piece is merelyone person's opinion, and it doesn't advance the argument any further beyond where it sat over 2000 years ago. No new ground has been made on whether there is a god, and no new ground will ever by made. That another person shared their opinion, and it was posted here as if it was interesting or a new viewpoint and where it has a sizeable approving reception for the underlying point, is not an act of bravery but an act of soapboxing.
People saying "Look, another atheist! Look another proof of evolution! Look, another insult to people's beliefs by mocking them! How many times do we have to explain to you that Christians are insane?" is tired, brings nothing new to the table, and just revisits millenia old arguments that will not be proven here. The irony never ceases to amaze me that people, who accept their atheism as a matter of personal truism yell and shout at other people who accept their beliefs as a matter of personal truism, and in defense of such uncouth behavior, they argue "it is justified yelling at them because they are trying to impose their beliefs on me!" As if the two points of view were any different. Radical atheists are just as bad as radical believers: they both appear to have so much invested in the rightness of their personal belief that they demand others agree with them as an act of vindication. I find both extremes to be revolting to the free mind. posted by dios at 11:02 AM on November 21, 2005
And, MMM, believing is exactly as rational as inductive reasoning, if you insist that induction is inherently faith based and therefore somehow irrational, so be it. Good luck gaining knowledge.
The word "belief" covers a relatively broad span. I believe, for example, that it's about 2pm ET as I type this. My belief is based on observation. Inductive reasoning is based on observation as well. Belief in the existence of God - or the absence of a God, for that matter - is quite a different thing. There is no observation upon which you can base your belief. (Occam's Razor is not an observation.) Surely you see the difference, and are simply pulling my leg, right? posted by me & my monkey at 11:03 AM on November 21, 2005
lumpenprole, if you insist on taking him at face value, then, sure, he is an atheist. My point was that his actual position is agnosticism. Saying you are an atheist doesn't make it so.
Further, the position that "I live by what I can prove" is, frankly, bullshit. Can you prove that you existed five minutes ago? (You can't. At best you can say it is reasonable that if reality works the way we think it does and if there are other people, and there aren't some unusual circumstances, and reason works the way we think it does, then, ceteris paribus, you probably existed five minutes ago. That is a rather weak claim.) Do you live as if you didn't exist then? If you don't, why should you live as if God doesn't exist? In other words, you have no more empirical evidence (memories are not empirical evidence) for the past than you do for God why treat one differently from the other? At best you can claim some phenomenal evidence for the past (assuming it's accurate) and none for God. Of course plenty of people claim phenomenal experience of God, so this line of thought won't get the atheist very far. Lacking phenomenal experience is not normally thought to be evidence against the existence of a thing.
Triode (and lumpy) all I asked for was a bare sketch, a few sentences, alluding to his argument. A person who places reason and reasoning so highly should be able to give us that even in the restricted format of This I Believe.
(And now I bid you all adieu, I have a paper to write. Contact me via e-mail (in my profile) if you wish to continue the discussion.) posted by oddman at 11:04 AM on November 21, 2005
Why? Why can't they believe in what they choose without having to answer to you?
Perhaps because they often set the ground rules in societies to the exclusion of others, along the course of history. Thus their framework for thought and action perhaps deserves a higher level of scrutiny and justification. posted by Rothko at 11:08 AM on November 21, 2005
Metafilter: Void of any quantum of bravery.
solid-one-love, thanks for the summary. It gets even more fun when we have to keep track of the fact that a lot of those 'theist xgnostics' are really deists.
On prev: dios, i would dearly love to be able to just leave this whole damn argument alone. And I usually do. Too much annoyance; too much grief. And you're right (if I'm right that this is what you mean), it's tired on both sides of the table. Do you think there's a prayer in hell [sic] that folks will just drop this thread?
.... Neither do I. But I'm dropping it. Have fun if you stick around. [g /] posted by lodurr at 11:09 AM on November 21, 2005
You are ridiculous. You call something "lame" without giving any indication that you'd actually heard the spot or read the transcript. That's not helpful, nor is it interesting. It's just being contrary. Granted, there are plenty of responses that are simple statements of support, but it's a lot less annoying to say "I liked it," rather than "lame" with no reason why.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 5:46 PM
Jeez O.C. Of course I read the transcript. My plodding applause and lame-calling was directed at Mr Jilltette and his self satisfied statements on being "beyond atheism". My personal opinion is that this column was a waste of words, a load of luke-warm air, lame.
Unless Matt appointed you as some sort of comment moderator then please refrain from pointing out to me what does or doesn't make for good response. Or if you have issues then take it to MetaTalk.
Apologies to others for taking up space with this. Carry on... posted by brautigan at 11:12 AM on November 21, 2005
One last thought: Hardly any of us really try to live by what we can prove. But we all, without exception, live by what we have evidence for.
Without exception. posted by lodurr at 11:12 AM on November 21, 2005
oh shit... god loses 200 points... the rpg may crash...
more seriously, going way back, isn't this what aristotle said v.s. plato? jillette provides a contemporary context for the aristotlean reasoning that we should focus on "what's real", versus plato's insistence on the absolute. so what jillette is saying is not really new, just provided for contemporary laymen in a format that is digestible and evokes thought (which is no small thing) posted by ginbiafra at 11:14 AM on November 21, 2005
There is no observation upon which you can base your belief. (Occam's Razor is not an observation.) Surely you see the difference, and are simply pulling my leg, right?
posted by me & my monkey at 1:03 PM CST on November 21
You do realize that such a statement is mere ipse dixit? It is purely conclusory to discount any attempts for people to contemplate. I personally agree with Kierkegaard that there is nothing that can bridge the gap as a matter of "empirical" truth. But one can point to observations and two different people can come to their own conclusions about it. For instance, a believer might point to the uniqueness of human language as something that might indicate a higher being. To them, that observation is sufficient. But you claim to have a better understanding and argue that there is "no observation" upon which a person could base their belief. Such intellectual hubris!
The argument that there is no room for disagreement is equally off-putting on both sides of this topic. Radical theists demanding people who don't believe are confused and be saved is equally as annoying as people who sit there with their best William James impersonations saying that they know as a matter of empirical fact that people who believe are clearly wrong to do so and need to be enlightened.
And, in reality, what makes these discussions even more annoying is that people claim to know one way or the other for certain, despite the fact that this same argument has recurred since the dawn of thought, and reasonable and intelligent people disagree. But here we are, the latest person wishing to explain how they know the reality and other people are stupid for thinking otherwise.
The linked article is interesting to the extent that we see Penn's mind at work and get to know something about an interesting guy. But to the extent it is offered as if Penn is guy returning to Plato's cave with the light to show us reality, it really is a pointless excercize. Though, I will say, this discussion is one of the more respectful ones I have seen. posted by dios at 11:21 AM on November 21, 2005
The irony never ceases to amaze me that people, who accept their atheism as a matter of personal truism yell and shout at other people who accept their beliefs as a matter of personal truism, and in defense of such uncouth behavior, they argue "it is justified yelling at them because they are trying to impose their beliefs on me!" As if the two points of view were any different. Radical atheists are just as bad as radical believers: they both appear to have so much invested in the rightness of their personal belief that they demand others agree with them as an act of vindication. I find both extremes to be revolting to the free mind.
Yeah, I was going to the bookstore the other day and there was a guy on the corner of Mill & University with a huge sandwich board sign that said "DON'T REPENT"; I tried to squeeze past him but he got right up in my face and said "Whether or not you believe in god you are not going to hell because there is no such place!!!" and then he shoved a blank piece of paper in my hand and said "LACK BELIEF IN GOD AND YOU WON'T BURN IN HELL!"
Then I was leaving and lo and behold, a different group on that same street corner, this time gathering signatures to make heterosexuality illegal.
It's a crazy world.
Unless Matt appointed you as some sort of comment moderator then please refrain from pointing out to me what does or doesn't make for good response. Or if you have issues then take it to MetaTalk.
posted by brautigan at 11:12 AM PST on November 21
Newsflash: people have been critiquing other people's comments here since you and I were knee-high to grasshoppers. posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:22 AM on November 21, 2005
So who's gonna write in for This I Believe: The Flying Spaghetti Monster? posted by iamck at 11:22 AM on November 21, 2005
It's interesting that although he claims to go beyond "mere atheism,"
I think the only reason for that was the guidelines of "This I Believe" are that you must present a positive belief, not just talk about what you don't believe in. I heard this on the radio this morning, and was looking forward to hearing an atheist make positive statements because it's such a bore to hear more about how dumb people who believe something else are... so I was kinda disappointed that he basically used a technicality to make his statement acceptable (to make "there is no god" a positive statement of belief rather than simply an absence of belief), but I did enjoy the second part where he got into the ramifications of his belief.
It didn't strike me as brave at all - it seemed kinda like a cop-out at first, focusing on what is really a lack of belief. I often like the series, even when I disagree, and I think part of that is that people have to find something they actually believe, which is personal and sort of vulnerable in a way that debunking other people's beliefs just isn't. posted by mdn at 11:23 AM on November 21, 2005
I wouldn't call it a lack of belief, necessarily. One could argue that so called "believers" have a lack of belief in objective reality. posted by iamck at 11:32 AM on November 21, 2005
I thought it was a wonderfully written essay, especially considering that it was limited to 500 words.
I don't think that he was trying to convince anyone else to become an atheist. I heard it as an explanation of why he's an atheist, why he believes there is no god, and why being an atheist doesn't mean he's immoral.
I kind of assumed there would be discussion about this piece online today, but I really thought it would be more about whether or not athiesm "makes sense" than about what Penn's motivation for writing the essay was. (i.e. bravery?) posted by INTPLibrarian at 11:32 AM on November 21, 2005
I don't see anything brave about it. He's not telling people of faith anything. He's not out spreading this message to the religous majority. This message isn't for them. It's for his peers. It's for the hip, the so-called informed, the cool.
Points to remember:
1. say there is no God
2. wear your ironic trucker hat
3. wear your ironic high school athletics t-shirt
4. and don't forget to mention you don't watch television
Your ready for a bar in Williamsburg Brooklyn or a night with Penn Jillette... posted by Shanachie at 11:39 AM on November 21, 2005
Brautigan: Optimus is incapable of respectful disagreement. Don't bother expecting it, you'll just find more evidence of churlish opinions and vestigial logic.
Optimus: "Yeah, that would explain the episode of Bullshit debunking the dangers of second-hand smoke. "
Yeah, that would be a non-sequitor. Read his books of dirty tricks and count how many times he positions himself as morally superior for never having drank or smoked, and note how he uses that to justify pranking people. That he went after second-hand smoke (while I haven't seen that episode, I find his "debunkings" to be generally junk science) probably has more to do with his libertarian dickishness than his straight edge dickishness. posted by klangklangston at 11:40 AM on November 21, 2005
I guess they'll be coming to take him away any minute now, then.
Of all the people in the US, Jillette has perhaps staked out the strongest professional and personal position to make this statement.
Outside of the Vegas magician profession, making this kind of public statement would certainly be deleterous.
cf. the Beatles. I don't think this country has progressed much since 1966. posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:41 AM on November 21, 2005
Your ready for a bar in Williamsburg Brooklyn or a night with Penn Jillette...
posted by Shanachie at 2:39 PM EST on November 21 [!]
Someone who's obviously never been to a Penn and Teller show, else he'd know what kind of crowd that those shows attract. The strawmen being thrown around this thread are disgusting. posted by Rothko at 11:48 AM on November 21, 2005
Brautigan: Optimus is incapable of respectful disagreement.
dios: Though, I will say, this discussion is one of the more respectful ones I have seen.
You just had to say it, didn't you? (C'mon guys, prove me wrong and dios right. Please.) posted by lodurr at 11:59 AM on November 21, 2005
Setting aside the question of whether it was "brave" or "new," I for one was genuinely surprised to hear something like this on the radio, even "liberal" NPR. While it's true that this is an old debate, religion seems to have had the upper hand for most of history. I'm a blue-stater who generally runs with a left-leaning crowd. Still, religion is so incredibly ubiquitous in my surroundings. I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad, but I do think that the essentially religious nature of American society affects us all, even those of us who aren't religious. And I for one am not always ok with that. posted by 912 Greens at 12:03 PM on November 21, 2005
"1. say there is no God "2. wear your ironic trucker hat "3. wear your ironic high school athletics t-shirt "4. and don't forget to mention you don't watch television
"Your ready for a bar in Williamsburg Brooklyn or a night with Penn Jillette..."
What the hell is this? You're coming off as a complete moron, here. posted by mr_roboto at 12:20 PM on November 21, 2005
What I Believe is that Penn did better with his 500 words than the entire membership of MeFi did in their est. 8000 words in response. Although I appreciated the links to the other commentaries. So let me add one more. And seeing the eloquent languagehat stooping to the use of sarcasm - as well as the LOL of dios seeming to fail to recognize it.
It's hard to see anything Penn says or does as exceptionally "brave" when his entire career is based on contrarianism. And P&T's openness in revealing how illusions are made certainly don't make them representative of "the Vegas magician population". And that's what I believe... I think. posted by wendell at 12:23 PM on November 21, 2005
I wouldn't call it a lack of belief, necessarily. One could argue that so called "believers" have a lack of belief in objective reality.
well, consider it this way: would he specify a belief in no-god if hardly anyone in the world believed in god? It seems to me that his belief is more of a reaction to the beliefs of others than a positive belief in its own. If he had gone with "I believe the world is wholly accessible through my senses" or "I believe nature is the totality of being" or something, it would have been a positive statement, and it also would have required more reflection on his end - he'd have to figure out what he really believed - it's harder to come to terms with beliefs when you have to state them positively, and not just reject other people's conclusions. posted by mdn at 12:28 PM on November 21, 2005
lodurr:And it's not the believers that end up bothering you the most. It takes a few years, but most of the atheists I've gotten to know have agreed that ultimately, the more annoying folks are the ones who try endlessly to convince you that you're not really an atheist -- you're actually an agnostic.
I just wanted to post that. Bears repeating. posted by uncle harold at 12:35 PM on November 21, 2005
You do realize that such a statement is mere ipse dixit? ... But one can point to observations and two different people can come to their own conclusions about it. For instance, a believer might point to the uniqueness of human language as something that might indicate a higher being. To them, that observation is sufficient. But you claim to have a better understanding and argue that there is "no observation" upon which a person could base their belief. Such intellectual hubris!
I'd dispute your characterization of my opinion as intellectual hubris, since many people of faith would heartily agree. Many people of faith would argue that if you require rationality to support your faith, your faith itself would be without value. Pointing to something that "might indicate a higher being" is not sufficient to say that your belief is founded in rationality. Many people, whether they believe in God or not, would agree that empirical observation is completely unsuitable for answering metaphysical questions.
Further, the position that "I live by what I can prove" is, frankly, bullshit. Can you prove that you existed five minutes ago? (You can't. At best you can say it is reasonable that if reality works the way we think it does and if there are other people, and there aren't some unusual circumstances, and reason works the way we think it does, then, ceteris paribus, you probably existed five minutes ago. That is a rather weak claim.) Do you live as if you didn't exist then? If you don't, why should you live as if God doesn't exist?
While that may be a relatively weak claim in metaphysical terms, it's the best we poor humans can do. It may be weak, but it's exponentially stronger than any claim we can make about things beyond our experience and our senses. posted by me & my monkey at 12:52 PM on November 21, 2005
Wait a sec, these aren't two opposing "belief systems". Refusing to accept the existence of any god isn't a belief system. It's just someone saying "oh yeah? prove it". Believing there is a god that does X and Y and created us all - that's a belief system.
If I say I believe in a magical titty monster that lactated the universe into being, that doesn't automatically make you all part of a belief system that rejects the existence of the Lactating Titty God. It just makes you say "oh yeah? prove it".
Or, to be brutally frank: one person is being rational, the other is making stuff up with no proof. posted by ralphyk at 1:05 PM on November 21, 2005
If you were listening, you would know that he was pointing out that for us atheists we know this is the only life we get, and we have to make it count.
I was listening, and I know that many atheists and agnostics are excellent, kind, loving people. I know a few myself you know. My statement is about what takes courage or bravery. To me, it seems easy to discount the notion that there is an "invisible friend", easy to poke holes in arguments based on faith alone. It is not easy, however, to hold true to your faith in difficult times. I believe that is brave.
Finally, who needs to make this life count more than someone who believes what you do with this life will be judged for all eternity? If an atheist screws up this life, they believe they are done. For a Christian who screws up this life, in the myriad ways it can be done, the price ranges from a long purgatory stint to eternity in Hell. posted by genefinder at 1:14 PM on November 21, 2005
My point is that I find it a bit silly to look at Penn Jillette as some sort of stout hearted culture warrior. While I can appreciate where he's coming from, I find it frustrating that he is described as brave. It feels like there are a lot of people who are following the herd. Right now, if you want people to think you're smart it's hipper to be an atheist. I feel this thread has little to do with a quest for truth and the good of humanity and more to do with who's currently in fashion... posted by Shanachie at 1:23 PM on November 21, 2005
That god poem crashed my browser. And I found the essay profoundly uninteresting. I'm having a tough time here. posted by xod at 1:25 PM on November 21, 2005
An exclusive preview of the hate mail the brave Penn Jillete will receive:
Dear Mr Jillette,
my name's Mandy, I'm 9 years old and I want to write to you to tell you how sad it makes me feel that you have no imaginary friend! I have one that I talk to when I'm sad and when I'm happy I tell him how happy I am! and when it's my birthday I write in my diary what I want for presents and then I get the presents. And then, when a girl in my class is cuter than me, I pray to my imaginary friend that he makes her ugly and he does! Lucy got boiling water on her face the day after I made a wish to be prettier than her. So you see my imaginary friend is really real. You MUST have an imaginary friend too, Mr Jillette, it's sooo much fun. If you want I can lend you mine!
Please write back soon!
Mandy
xxx posted by funambulist at 1:26 PM on November 21, 2005
Actually, for a real sneak-peek into Penn's mailbag, take a look here. That's some of the mail that Bob Henderson, creator of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been getting. posted by papercake at 1:45 PM on November 21, 2005
Grumblebee, he's talking about an existential proof. Carrier's essay actually supports Penn. posted by solid-one-love at 2:06 PM on November 21, 2005
And seeing the eloquent languagehat stooping to the use of sarcasm
I've tried earnest rebuttal, I've tried pleading, I've tried high-minded analysis, I've tried jokes, I've tried randomly opening fire with an automatic rifle—nothing stops these goddamn "religion is dumm" threads! posted by languagehat at 2:09 PM on November 21, 2005
I don't mean this to come off as a backhanded snark, but here's something I never thought I'd say: I agree pretty much wholeheartedly with dios.
He's right that this is an apparently irreconcilable debate as old as humankind's ability to look at the stars and ask each other questions about them. What are those? What are they doing there? Our inability to answer those questions beyond the shadow of a doubt has fuelled the debate from then until now.
And I'm with dios, too, in that I've yet to see someone make a case for atheism that isn't guilty to some degree of the same arrogant absolutism that characterizes the ardent theists who are allegedly so deluded. Which is to say that if you accept that there are limits to human knowledge - which there empirically are, and probably always will be - then you're bound by the same enlightened reason that makes you highly doubt the existence of something beyond your ken to accept that it's possible, however unlikely, that there may be forces shaping our existence that we can't perceive.
Maybe these forces are invisible benevolent bearded dudes, or flying spaghetti monsters, or a vast soap-operatic pantheon of fighting and fucking superheroes, or a singular plane of higher consciousness in which the interconnectedness of all life is made manifest. Or none of the above. Maybe consciousness is nothing but an extraordinarily elaborate series of chemical reactions and God nothing but a human invention to justify the strange thoughts of uniqueness those reactions cause. But if you believe that this last version is unassailably true, you're basing that belief on incomplete knowledge and a couple of enormous suppositions (show me "zero" in the tangible universe).
So if you're willing to concede that there are things even within our limited perception that are unknowable - which is pretty much where 500 years of Enlightened scientific investigation have brought us - then you're halfway down the path to Aquinas. And even the fallback response that science will fill in all blanks in time suggests a faith in a god called Science that is being invested with similar powers to the ones that Aquinas gave to his diety. posted by gompa at 2:13 PM on November 21, 2005
I like Penn, and I'm glad someone is pointing out that atheists aren't necessarily depressed or depraved. But his essay is spin -- which is just a polite way of saying it's dishonest (or at least misleading).
He may be accurately describing his own feelings, but he also seems to be saying that his feelings are the inevitable (or at least likely) results anyone would obtain if they embraced atheism. I'm also an "atheist who has gone beyond atheism," but I disagree.
Most honest theists would admit that believing in God leads to both great joy and great hardship. Honest atheists should do the same. If atheism was 100% the party that Penn paints it to be, there'd be many more atheists in the world.
I'm not going to waste space here explaining the good parts of being an atheist, because Penn has already done that, and I agree with him. Here are some bad parts -- and I wish Penn had been REALLY brave. Really brave people look reality square in the face and admit it's a mixed bad. In a truly random universe, how could it be anything else?
-- When your wife/child/husband/dad/mom/lover/friend dies, you will NEVER see him (or her) again. He's gone.
-- Since no one is running the universe, there is no cosmic justice. Your "fate" is pure luck. So you can spend years being good and still wind up being hit by a truck and spending decades as a quadriplegic. And many horrible people will have a life of happiness. Of course, some won't. And some good people will get rewarded. But it's all random and arbitrary. Nothing you do will affect the outcome. The universe doesn't care if you're good or bad.
Every times someone says something like, "I know you're lonely, but don't worry... there's someone out there for everyone. You'll meet someone eventually...", all they can mean (unless they believe in fate) is that there are many people in the world, so the odds are in your favor. But you're not BOUND to meet someone. And, via the luck of the draw, some people won't ever find love. And you might be one of them.
-- There's no cosmic law. If you feel something is right or wrong, that's just your opinion. (Sure, it might be based on genetics or reasoning about what makes people happy or your culture -- but so are all opinions.) And if you force someone to live by your morals (i.e. if you put murderers in jail because you think murder is wrong), you are simply showing that might makes right (because you are able to force them into prison against their will). You are dominating other people based on your own opinion, nothing greater.
-- There's no free will. Perhaps some of the universe is random, but randomness isn't choice. If it's not random, and if there's no God magically allowing free will, then it must be determined. And if the universe is determined, there's no free will.
-- Life has no purpose. You might create some sort of feeling of purpose for yourself, but you're not part of some larger picture. You are just a happenstance.
Certainly there are atheists who would disagree with some of this, but most thoughtful atheists surely must at least grapple with some of these issues. And, of course, there's the social negative: as an atheist you're doomed to be part of a tiny minority. You either have to lie about your feelings or, to some extent, become a social pariah. (This will, of course, differ somewhat depending on the norms in your community.) posted by grumblebee at 2:15 PM on November 21, 2005
I'm more than willing to concede that there are things that are unknowable, that hardly sets me "halfway down the path to Aquinas". Saying "we don't know what is really true" is not the same as saying "there is a magical being who created the world", it's not even close.
We don't need to "make a case for atheism", we have nothing to prove, it's not a thing that we have "faith" in, we just don't believe your story. You want to say that a giant bearded man made the world? Fine. Say it. We don't have to believe you. posted by ralphyk at 2:22 PM on November 21, 2005
There's no free will. Perhaps some of the universe is random, but randomness isn't choice. If it's not random, and if there's no God magically allowing free will, then it must be determined. And if the universe is determined, there's no free will.
I don't see how this follows at all. It is completely backwards from the "conventional atheist wisdom". Because of chaotic effects and quantum mechanics, nothing at the fine scale is deterministic. Thus, free will is possible. posted by solid-one-love at 2:22 PM on November 21, 2005
Carrier's essay actually supports Penn.
I realize this. But I hear "you can't prove a negative" at least once a week, and it's generally clear the speaker hasn't really thought through what he's saying. Penn is a smart guy, but if the only thing I'd ever read by him was that essay, I'd assume he either was ignorant or trying to con me (re: his elephant example).
No one should be allowed to say, "you can't prove a negative" unless they can explain what's wrong with this (which is why I linked to Carrier's more thorough essay):
A: I have no money in my pocket.
B: You can't prove a negative.
A (turns pocket inside out and shows that it's empty): See. posted by grumblebee at 2:23 PM on November 21, 2005
That whirling sound you hear is C.S. Lewis spinning in his grave. posted by spock at 2:23 PM on November 21, 2005
I like Penn. I've seen Penn & Teller live a few times. I like "P&T: Bullshit", although I dislike the selective editing techniques they sometimes use to make stupid people look even stupider.
I used to call myself an atheist. I no longer do. When asked about my personal beliefs, I tell people that I believe in chaos and probability, and that everything else is frosting and cotton candy.
A universe without a deity is a hard pill to swallow for many people. Some need to define that for themselves with labels. Some need the imaginary friend(s), the hypocrisy of religions, the flashlight in the darkness.
Some of us enjoy the darkness, and are quite content without labels.
Penn likes to talk about his belief in not believing. The religious like to wax poetic about their beliefs. I find both equally boring. In fact, I find what I have written above on the subject quite boring.
Meh. Time for a beverage. posted by weirdoactor at 2:27 PM on November 21, 2005
this is some kinda facile definition of God he's so bravely rejecting . . . the only God being debunked is the one that's the least complex and easiest to deconstruct.
In my experience, "forward thinking" theists, otherwise rational, are quite fond of the argument that the god that I'm rejecting is a narrow and inacurate description of god, and that that's not the god that they believe in. They also usually refuse to define the god that they believe in, becuase that would be selling that god short.
Bullshit. You're clinging to your blankey. If something has no definition, then it's not a thing, its a nothing.
There, choke on that strawman. posted by mikrophon at 2:27 PM on November 21, 2005
Which is to say that if you accept that there are limits to human knowledge - which there empirically are, and probably always will be - then you're bound by the same enlightened reason that makes you highly doubt the existence of something beyond your ken to accept that it's possible, however unlikely, that there may be forces shaping our existence that we can't perceive.
But without evidence for the existence of those imperceptible forces, there is no way to rationally accept even the possibility of their existence. Actually, the essay that grumblee linked to explained it much better than I could. There is nothing arrogant or absolutist about this viewpoint. Most Christians will claim "there is no Zeus" or "there is no Amaterasu Omikami", absolutely. The strong atheist position merely takes that one step further, and is inclusive of all entities for which there is no evidence.
It's really just the default existential positivist position. posted by solid-one-love at 2:29 PM on November 21, 2005
solid-one-love, though free will CAN'T exist in a determined universe, non-determinism isn't enough for free will -- at least not a free will that acceptable to me (and, I suspect, to most people).
For me to have free will, I must be able to clearly see two possible choices and NOTHING should push me to make one choice over the other. It's fine for me to be lobbied (the devil and angel can sit on my shoulder and make cases for choice A vs choice B), but ultimately, I must be unimpeded from CONSCIOUSLY making either choice. (And the choice I make can't be based on randomness or some force that's so small and far back in the chain of causation that I'm unaware of it.)
I don't see how you can have this sort of free will without magic (and I don't see how any other sort of free will is "free" in the emotive sense people generally mean when they talk about freely choosing to do something).
First of all, this supposes that there's a me that can have a will. This Cartesian personality is, as I'm sure you know, pretty out of vogue.
But even if there is some sort of me, what aspect of me is making totally uncaused choices? It's fine -- I guess -- if the choices are influenced by my genetic inheritance, cultural baggage, laws of physics, etc. But after all this, there must be SOME thing (a soul?) that is capable of saying, "Yup, my genes and upbringing and thoughts and feelings are compelling me to do X -- but I'm going to thwart them all and do Y instead."
What is that thing if not magic? posted by grumblebee at 2:35 PM on November 21, 2005
I also reject my inaccurate spelling. posted by mikrophon at 2:35 PM on November 21, 2005
(Just to sidetrack a bit, while I like Penn's act, I find it hard to take anyone seriously who names his daughter Moxie Crimefighter Jillette.) posted by solid-one-love at 2:36 PM on November 21, 2005
Saying "we don't know what is really true" is not the same as saying "there is a magical being who created the world", it's not even close.
But that's not what atheists, or Penn Jillette in this essay, say. Instead, they say "we believe that there is no magical being who created the world." That's what differentiates atheism - a belief - from agnosticism. Atheism is faith in the nonexistence of God.
Because of chaotic effects and quantum mechanics, nothing at the fine scale is deterministic. Thus, free will is possible.
The existence of chaos is no guarantee for the existence of free will.
But without evidence for the existence of those imperceptible forces, there is no way to rationally accept even the possibility of their existence.
Why not? After all, that's what "possibility" means - we don't have enough information to rule something out. Maybe we'll have more information in the future. When it comes to metaphysics, I kind of doubt it, but right here in the plain ol' physical world, there are plenty of historical examples that fit this pattern. posted by me & my monkey at 2:39 PM on November 21, 2005
What is that thing if not magic?
As the creationists would say, what created the universe if not a Creator?
"I don't know" is always a more intellectually honest answer than "Its magic!" I don't have to prove "I don't know". You do have to prove "it's magic!" You can't. So I'll stick with "I don't know." posted by solid-one-love at 2:40 PM on November 21, 2005
The existence of chaos is no guarantee for the existence of free will.
Good thing that I never made that claim. I said that it was possible, not guaranteed.
Why not?
I have adequately explained why earlier. posted by solid-one-love at 2:42 PM on November 21, 2005
Most Christians will claim "there is no Zeus" or "there is no Amaterasu Omikami", absolutely. The strong atheist position merely takes that one step further, and is inclusive of all entities for which there is no evidence.
I agree with this, and the common theistic comeback is something along the lines of, "Well, if you reject EVERYTHING you don't have evidence for, then you must ultimately reject everything. Even science is based on assumptions about a material world..."
Maybe so. And maybe that's a problem for people who "believe" in science, but that still doesn't address the problem with theism. I think it's fine for theists to trust their feelings, but if they insist on using logic, I think they do need to grapple with the Zeus problem. And pointing out that non-theists share the problem doesn't solve the problem. posted by grumblebee at 2:42 PM on November 21, 2005
Everybody just go read The Demon Haunted World, then come over to my house next week for a glass of bourbon and a chat. posted by mikrophon at 2:49 PM on November 21, 2005
Atheism is faith in the nonexistence of God.
Maybe for some atheists. Not for me. I don't have "faith" in anything. I simply see no evidence for God's existence, so I don't believe in Him. If you show me some (compelling evidence), then I will believe in Him.
Subscribe
posted by matildaben at 7:01 AM on November 21, 2005