Penn Gillette On God
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in ReligionThe vocal half of Penn and Teller talks about his beliefs:
I believe that there is no God. I’m beyond Atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can’t prove a negative, so there’s no work to do. You can’t prove that there isn’t an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word “elephant” includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?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. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The Atheism part is easy.
But, this “This I Believe” thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life’s big picture, some rules to live by. So, I’m saying, “This I believe: I believe there is no God.”
It’s an interesting essay, and he brings up some good points, especially about people using religion as a crutch to forgive their bad behavior. That point I enjoyed quite a bit.
Here’s the thing, though. I do believe in a creator. I don’t know if it’s God or Allah or Buddha or Ronald McDonald, but it has to all come from something. Logically I can’t get around the paradox of everything coming from nothing. This is not to say that things are intelligently designed. I’m much more inclined towards the idea of Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover:
Aristotle believed there was a supreme Form that existed separately from matter which was responsible for sustaining the universe. However, as everything in the universe was in a continual process from potentiality to actuality the supreme Form would not be subject to such processes and would be perfect. In fact it would be self-absorbed, merely reflecting on it’s own perfection. To be anything other than this would imply it was lacking in some way and so involve it in the flux of potentialities. Thus the supreme Form is immaterial, perfect and without motion (an Unmoved Mover).[...]
Aristotle’s ‘God’ is pure mind and has no participation in the world except as a sustaining influence. However, it does draw people towards its own perfection and as such is the goal of the universe’s movement and ambition. Thus the goal (telos) of humanity is rational reflection with everything else designed to enable them to achieve this.
What do you believe?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005 and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:55 am
I believe in God because, given the enormous quantity of evidence regarding the supernatural, I think it is the simplest explanation of existence. Where Penn, and many atheists, runs astray is in thinking evidence of the scientific sort is the only sort of evidence. Going to law school helped me to see things differently: I started off with “you mean we ‘prove’ things just because somebody says so? Wait a minute: that’s not ‘proving’ something!” But that’s the point: all we have, for instance, to “prove” the existence of Julius Caesar is hearsay. Lots of different kinds of hearsay, but still hearsay. It’s not scientific proof. Which is when we move into the realm of evaluating the *quantity* and *quality* of the evidence, which is not as black and white as scientific proof.
Penn Jillette approaches stories of the supernatural from a literally prejudiced perspective: since these stories do not agree with established scientific knowledge, they are a priori false and unworthy of serious consideration. It is true that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,” but some claims simply *cannot* be proved in the scientific sense, and never will be. But proving something in a legal and/or historical sense is an entirely different matter, and in my humble opinion it is an error to dismiss such evidence out of hand without evaluating it.
I acknowledge that it is probable that not every word of the Gospels is literally true history. But the claims that every bit of it was just made up are, in my opinion, considerably less plausible than acknowledging some sort of supernatural influence operating. Same goes for, for example, Fatima. I could also go into the arguments contained in books such as “God: the Evidence” by Patrick Glynn.
Others (obviously including Penn Jillette) conclude differently, and that’s okay. It does not mean I think they are fools, or stupid. Since I readily acknowledge that I could be wrong and they right I ask that they grant me a similar courtesy. You know what they say about arguing on the internet: I learned some time ago that doing so was futile, so will not engage in a debate.
November 22nd, 2005 at 11:32 am
Interesting that Penn seems to have trouble saying “I believe this” without prefacing it with “Because I don’t believe in God”. Perhaps he isn’t quite so far beyond atheism as he thinks? Or maybe he was just having a bad day when he wrote the article. In any case, he’s entitled to his opinion and I still love his acts.
I’m a devout Methodist (I know, that’s an oxymoron) with a physics degree. Oddly enough, I have never found my scientific training and my faith to be in serious conflict. I attribute this to two things:
1. I believe the Bible to be inspired, bur I don’t take it literally. There are too many internal contradictions, not to mention the scientific problems. The Bible was written to teach us about God, not creation, and it was written with an eastern mindset. To apply a rigorous western interpretation to it leads to problems.
2. I don’t believe that science can say anything about the supernatural. Science is a tool we have developed to explain creation, and has nothing to say about the creator or anything else.
Scientists who would have us believe it tells us about origins or ultimate outcomes are at best fooling themselves. At worst, they are false prophets handing out metaphysical comfort food to the masses. They do a discredit to science just as religious crazies do to religion. On the other hand, I cannot understand how one can be a serious scientist and take the Bible literally. I know there are some who claim to do just that, but I have never found their tightrope to be one I could walk.
November 24th, 2005 at 11:53 pm
The whole of Penn’s essay was basically an “athesim as self-help or self-improvement” theme. Paraphrasing, “I don’t believe in forgiveness, so I have to be more careful in my actions the first time around” and “I don’t believe in any deity (my cup is empty) so I’m liberated to consider and tolerate more ideas, philosophies, religions, exc. — which I don’t believe in because I’m not hampered by faith in anything.”
He should stick to magic tricks. It is little more than bubble-gum yuppie existentialism. Too bad both of them aren’t mute.
December 27th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Logic tells me that it is impossible for anything to exist anywhere.I would hope that someday someone will figure it out in a way that no one can dispute.If our world exist long enough maybe the answer will come.When I think that some being is directing all this mess I cannot believe any religion as I know it.I sometimes think that everything has to be some way so there must be some influenceing factor or does all existance just look for the easy way to adapt.
December 28th, 2007 at 1:37 am
I do not believe in god. For me, the evidence isn’t there at all. I feel sorrow for my fellow men who believe in this magical man in the sky who made it all with magic.
How sad.
I’d rather “believe in” real things like gravity, or evolution, or space – time. Why not draw wonder from the real? Why is there a need to make shit up?
December 28th, 2007 at 5:16 am
Between the universe & god, who’s more powerful?? God ehh?? Then if the universe must have a creator then how about god?? How can he have no creator??
If everything must have come from something, then how about that something?? Must it not have come from something else??
If some feature of life is so awesome that it’s for now beyond the explanation of the evolution theory and therefore “implies” the existence of an “intelligent designer” that “designed” it, then how about the “intelligent designer” himself?? He must be more “awesome” than that feature because he designed it. So like that feature or even more than it he must have been “designed” by a still more intelligent designer. And who’s that more intelligent designer??
December 28th, 2007 at 6:50 am
There is only one honest answer…”I don’t know.”
December 28th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
No sane person would claim that any human devices – no matter how small or simple – created itself over a period of billions of years, evolving from nothing into a regulated, fantastic piece of machinery (even a simple watch). Sadly, that same person that believes a Mac or a SUV needed an initial ‘inventor-creator’ and the aid of other people/machines to put it together and make it functional, believes the hogwash that is evolution.
A person’s skepticism has more to do with one’s refusal to believe in someone bigger than himself, because if God does exist then accountability follows.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
I intend to investigate the matter personally.
January 1st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
David has it correct, the only honest answer is we don’t know. Theists keep falsely claiming theism provides the ultimate explanation but in fact God is nothing more than an empty declaration. Atheism is an honest we don’t know answer in the sense that it doesn’t pretend we have the ultimate explanation. Theists keep asking how there is somethingness from nothingness as if it is a fact that there was some initial default state of complete nothingness. We don’t know that there was an initial default state of complete nothingness. Modern physics depicts our physical universe as being ruled by uncertainity, randomness, virtual particles popping into existence, vacuum instability, and the like.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Where to begin.
That last post is a mishmash of ideas and misinformation.
According to Matt, pleading ignorance makes one correct. Shall we apply that in all areas, or just those things one has little or no knowlegde of?
While David is free to form any opinion he likes, that doesn’t qualify it as right.
Then Matt pronounces:
“Atheism is an honest we don’t know answer in the sense that it doesn’t pretend we have the ultimate explanation”
Perhaps, you are unaware that *atheism* is a religion that denies the existence of God. A far cry from your “honest we don’t know squat” claim.
As to the rest, I think you should do some research before advancing such balderdash:
“Modern physics depicts our physical universe as being ruled by uncertainity, randomness, virtual particles popping into existence, vacuum instability, and the like.”
Last but not least, can you differentiate between a theist and a creationist?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Elisabetta is confused. Atheism is not a religion. It is a label that shouldn’t even be required to be used. After all, you might call people who speak French “French Speaking People” but you would not need a label for someone who does not speak French. It is so limiting to think of an invisible man in the shy who watches and determines everything you do! What evidence is there for the existence of God? None. Yet there is significant evidence that the tenets of most modern religions are just plain wrong, so any search in supposed holy books for proof of God’s existence is similarly misguided.
In any event, Elisabetta’s summary of modern physics is not correct, because it isn’t uncertainty or randomness that govern the universe. Don’t confuse theories that have yet to be fully proven as advocating uncertainty or randomness.
The bottom line is that there is no evidence of the existence of a God and this cycle of people thinking it is fine to suspend rational thought and believe in preposterous things for the sake of believing (i.e., faith) is contributing to most of our world’s violence.
January 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Martin, you ascribed to me Matt’s words when he summed up the universe is ruled by uncertainty and randomness. Talk about confused!
Your opinion that God does not exist can be respected, but is in no-way proof. As is your other claim that those that believe in God have committed intellectual suicide – as opposed to those that deny God. Quite self-serving.
Au contraire, true belief in God requires engaging your brain more so than clinging to unbelief. Christian faith is based on facts that are historically grounded. When Jesus and the apostles called on someone to exercise faith, it was not “blind faith” but rather an “intelligent faith.” Jesus said, “You shall know (not ignore) the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32)
The belief of a person involves: the mind, the emotions and the will.
As Paul Little wrote: “Faith in Christianity is based on evidence. It is reasonable faith. Christian faith goes beyond reason but not against it.â€
Your example is faulty and n/a to the situation at hand. Although, it is widely understood the French typically speak French, the Italians…Italian; the Americans… American, and so forth. That also infers the “others” do not necessarily speak those languages. Occasionally, people who claim to be French, Italian and so forth, also do not speak the language of the nationality they associate themselves with. In those instances they are categorized as “non-speaking French, Italians….â€
An atheist is one who denies the existence of God because he has chosen to endorse a certain set of beliefs. Add to that, the faith and fervor that consume many atheists and you have a religion.