 |
Penn Jillette is the taller, louder half of the magic and comedy act Penn and Teller. He is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and has lectured at Oxford and MIT. Penn has co-authored three best-selling books and is executive producer of the documentary film The Aristocrats. |
In this editorial article found on NPR’s wesite,Penn Jillette announces “This I believe: I believe there is no God.” He then goes on to tell us why he believes there is no God. I think that I am a bright fellow, not especially smart but enough to see through colander arguments (arguments that do not hold water). Penn continues to pronounce that,
“Believing there’s no God means I can’t really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That’s good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.”
I have read this over and over again and I cannot figure out what he means… it is as though he thinks that being nice and thoughtful to people is the way to happiness. Penn also goes on to say that believing in God leads him to be less solipsistic or the theory that only the self exists or can be proven to exist. He says,
I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I’m wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate.
If none of us believe in a God, Penn states we can all agree on reality… What is reality then the one we live were all cultures and people are shaped by their beliefs in God or gods… This is the one common denominator in all cultures… Only since the scientific driven modern age has this view of Atheism really taken root, a beleif that was soon uprooted by the failings of science to answer all the questions of life. We now stand at a crossroads where the hope in science has failed and the hope in God has been refused. So what have we? Penn has his family, and his self-made life, full of love, rainbows, and hallmark cards. We are now falling into the age of self-diety where all we need is around us to make us a God of our own universe… which leads us to want to help others…?
What I believe is the Love of the Creator, who not only knit me together in my mother’s womb, but knew my name and called me his own. Penn leads us to believe that belief in God leads to suffering and conflict, but this was not the intent of the message of Jesus – who preached a revelutionary nessage of love. This love sent him to the cross, and this love will send those who believe to the cross… we must die daily to live a life of love, for loving is not easy nor does it come natural. It is the conquest of the heart to defeat the nature of the flesh -which is the antithesis of love: hatred, jealousy, wrath, envy, et cetera.
I hope that Penn will soon find that the belief in no God is no belief at all, but rather a justification that his way is the best way…
…and man did what was best in his own eyes.” – Dueteronomy 12:8
No Comments on "i believe…"
Penn is interesting. Rob Bell writes an interesting discourse that seems to be the converse of Penn’s belief in the book “Velvet Elvis.” Because we are christian, we can accept reality. We see reality clearer in God, who made it, and because of the freedom of binding and unbinding the scriptures (interpreting, agreeing with and discoursing over) we are freed to claim truth wherever we find it.
Paul read the cretian poets and grabbed onto a lot of their truth. Christians in Ephesis grabbed onto the pagan culture and made it their own. …hmm…more on this when I can grab the book from my apartment..it’s really quite interesing how these two beliefs hang almost mirror image from each other.
“Only since the scientific driven modern age has this view of Atheism really taken root, a beleif that was soon uprooted by the failings of science to answer all the questions of life.”
Yep! Right on.
Ah salvo in what could be quite a discourse that has been had be many a thinker for ages… and depending on your point of view, as so often is the final decider in such discussions, there is and isn’t a correct supposition. My dear friend, it’s a bold statement to make of the antagonist’s argument when your own may be just as full of holes. But then again, a colander wasn’t designed to hold water, but rather drain the excess for nice clean fruits and vegetables (or al dente pasta!). Perhaps you missed the intent of colander arguments? : )
To be honest Sam, I think you may have misunderstood his statement, which you say as much before attacking his belief. Short of asking him yourself, and him relaying his meaning directly to you, don’t you think it a bit harsh and unfair to criticize and make assumptions of a statement that you, by your own admission, do not understand? And then to continue an argument for your side by substituting his intent and meaning with your own interpretation which is something that favors your argument or at the very least puts in a light easier for you to cast a shadow over?
Not knowing his full intention as well, I submit my interpretation of his statement which you may take into consideration and form a rebuttal. I took his statement, “Believing there’s no God means I can’t really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That’s good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.” as this…
The sins committed against your fellow man aren’t forgivable by asking God to forgive you. Without God to turn to, you are left with forgiveness only being granted by those you sinned against. And that forgiveness may only be granted by kindness (you making amends to the person you sinned against and in their kindness they would forgive you) or by faulty memories (that enough time has passed that the bearer of your transgression no longer feels the pain or has forgotten about enough so as to forgive you) And knowing that your only salvation comes at the hands of those you sinned against rather than a God who may grant mercy upon you by saying a remorseful prayer, that might make you more inclined to make sure you treat people right when dealing with them. No where does he assert that happiness is attained through treating people kindly.
Of course, one may argue, if you were truly living righteous you’d treat people right the first time around regardless. But we all know that isn’t reality. Many people, including Christians, will mistreat and allay their guilt (if they feel any) by asking for forgiveness from God and then may even feel justified enough that they never feel the need to make amends to actual person they mistreated.
The next statement you quote, “I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I’m wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate.” I think is again a bit misjudged. True it is a solipsistic approach, but I don’t think (again my conjecture) it’s one of the self-indulgent variety but more so of the only being able to verify the truth of one’s on existence, that is to say the only thing that is truth for both you and others is that fact that you exist. I think it’s more inline with the idea that instead of predicating our existence and behavior on a deity whose truth only comes from the power of belief, we should probably rely more on the fact that we exist here now and that in reality all we have is each other to count on. That there is no God orchestrating our lives but the sheer chaotic interaction of many individual truths. It’s a scary proposition if you’re searching for an answer to why you’re here or what happens when you die. The answer may not come from imploring God upon high who may or may not divine your inspiration but rather what you do with your life here on Earth and the legacy you leave behind.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say belief in God or gods is the one common denominator in all cultures, so obviously because at a minimum there are those that don’t believe in such. But perhaps they are just outliers and mutations in the natural order of things. I would submit that spirituality, a feeling of being a part of something bigger than oneself is more a commonality among peoples rather than a specific belief in God or gods. I will even go so far as to posit the God and/or gods are constructs of man. The irony! Our almighty Creator, in fact, created by His very own creations. What we know to be absolute truth is that we exist. Everything else relies on our reason, belief or interpretation. Is truth something we believe or is it something that’s irrefutable by all regardless of their belief? In other words, is truth internal or external? Or must it be both?
I think other aspect of the quoted statement above is that by removing the constraint of a particular dogma, you’re free to think of other ideas and beliefs without having to conform them to your own. Ideas and beliefs are then subject to circumspection on their own merits, not whether or not the fit within your own mold of what and how things should be. Now to your opinion the modern scientific drive. I wouldn’t say that it has only been in this modern age that Atheism has taken root. Personally I believe Atheism is a bit suspect itself, because the truth that God does not exist isn’t infallible either. But regardless, science itself, I’ve long argued, isn’t well suited to explaining the why of things, but merely the how, where, when and what. In conjunction with introspection (as a person and society), philosophy and honest, objective discourse we may arrive at better understanding the mysteries of science. But to dismiss science as a tool to finding the answers to life is extremely premature and I’d say a bit prejudiced.
I wouldn’t say science has failed to give you all the answers you seek (and that’s not even to say, perhaps it has, maybe you just don’t feel it’s a sufficient answer), but perhaps it’s just still working on it. Has God given you all the answers you seek, or He still working on it? This idea that because science hasn’t come up with definitive proof of whatever your supposition is, it must be failed is rather myopic. I’m sure at every point in a generation, we’ve come to a crossroads of reason and belief. And every time thus far it turns out we need both to continue in our search for answers. However, the process of science lends itself to test and retesting. It is able to, for lack of a better word, evolve with our capability to understand. God requires something quite the opposite it would seem. Belief in Him requires boundaries of thought to be set up and to fit everything else within those limits. It’s a static formulation of ideas in which the ultimate goal is to create a vacuum of existence. A singular thought process and a singular understanding, which is actually quite contrary to human nature no wonder it’s hard. If God made us the way we are, then why subject us to a life that goes contrary to it. To test us?
So at this supposed crossroads, it would seem we have quite a bit more than your conclusion. For Penn and his family, he’s found what he believes works best for him and his existence. And as much as you believe you’re way is right, so to does he believe his way is right. And that is what the core of this argument seems to be about. You believe in what you deem to be the truth. He believes in what he believes to be another truth. Yet you also suppose that in the absence of believing in God, you must believe or deify something else, and in your estimation he believes himself to be his own God. I personally find that a faulty conclusion especially since no where does he indicate that’s his belief. It’s merely his personal ideaology that life would be better without believing in God, but believing in humanity and that our actions might be better served with that fundamental idea than putting faith in an omnipotent, omniscient being that will guide us to a better life and society (to date still hasn’t done so, in fact the results have been quite contrary). Why it is that one must believe in God or be a Christian in order to have some success of wanting to help people? To better the lives of others? To see society move forward in its understanding of life? Are you implying that without God or acceptance of Jesus, you can not be a positive influence on humanity? I certainly find that to be a very false premise.
You state that it is your belief that God created you, destined you for something of import, which is great if that’s what you believe. Must it be something I believe as well in order to understand why I’m here? Must it be something I craft for myself in order to gain an understanding of my existence? And what if I reject that premise or simply cannot find that faith it takes to believe such a thing without proof? Am I lost forever?
You know, it’s not such a hard connection to make between the belief in God and the suffering of others. If I were to believe in God but in a different way and call Him by a different name and you were to believe in the same God but worship him differently and call Him by a different name, who is right? And if we were to war with each other, claiming the same God to be on our side, who is right? The one who prevails or the one who suffers most because only through this suffering can he prove is true faith? Perhaps the intent of Jesus is a life of peace and content, but through the ages, it’s been more of struggle and strife. I’ve seen too many things carried out in the name of Jesus and God that go so contrary to this notion of peace and fulfillment it’s a wonder why people continue to hang on and pray that change will come eventually. Has it come yet? In the eons of worshipping Him, has it come yet? And if those that truly believe His message of love, why are they so eager to carry out sins against humanity in His name. A misinterpretation of His message perhaps? Then where are those to rise up and correct the message?
So you say Penn’s lack of faith in God is a justification for him to claim his belief is better? Better for whom? Better for him, you, society? And are you saying your belief in God is justification for you to tell me and others that your way is the best way?