This I Believe

Penn Gillette

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? Listen or Read

i was recently asked the question of the influence or success of a confrontational and perhaps tactless approach to my ideals. here's an amusing video when dawkins was asked the same thing.

Science of the Soul? ‘I Think, Therefore I Am’ Is Losing Force

By CORNELIA DEAN

Published: June 26, 2007
NEW YORK TIMES

In 1950, in a letter to bishops, Pope Pius XII took up the issue of evolution. The Roman Catholic Church does not necessarily object to the study of evolution as far as it relates to physical traits, he wrote in the encyclical, Humani Generis. But he added, “Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”... more

Chris also brought up questions about the adjacent quote:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you’d have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

a short explanation:

no, the quote is not detailed enough to account for the gray area you speak of--though i wouldn't hold that against it. otherwise you can toss in a few "sometimes" after each claim, and what you have as result is a pointless, null statement.

take women's suffrage. which message gets the point across more clearly? "women should vote" or "women should vote according to the law and by means of the necessary legislative stipulations." no doubt we can agree on the effectiveness of sharp, tidy messages. the ten commandments are particularly notable in this regard. "thou shalt not murder." many accept this, though we know this statement is plagued with fine print and thorough exceptions that don't exactly fit well if you're creating a marketing campaign for morality.

the point, and the reason i like this statement, is that it shows that many evils come as result of religion that might not otherwise occur. there is no good deed that cannot be performed by a non-theist, and there is no reason to believe that religion alone is responsible for good deeds, or that the concept of good deeds will dissolve with the passing of religion.

but there is a great many evil deeds that people perform that would not occur if not for spiritual justification--and perhaps if such justification can be thwarted, we might be able to deal directly with law and morality, un-muddied by fundamentalism or religious objectivity. non-theism would promote good for good's sake; no cracker-jack prizes necessary. sure, there is secular evil, as stated, but it would be exactly that--evil. religion makes the line between good and evil a rather blurred one. many claim secularism does this very thing--but i've made many arguments against this claim elsewhere.

note that i do not mean to discredit a thorough examination. your questions and points are valid, and most certainly would be helpful and effective in the execution of an ideal, but you would be absolutely worthless in the marketing department.

Chris asks:
I'm quite curious, what do you think of a person like me, someone who is disturbed by religion as you described it in this past post, yet still has their own different sincere religious experience? Someone who also fully embraces science/evolution/etc., has no problem questioning anything (including their faith, which they realize is a faith), and is (or at least thinks she or he is) more than willing to reject parts or all of their faith if they ever find enough reason to (as for example, I've rejected certain ideas that I was taught early on as a Christian but now consider to be close minded and untenable)? (See comments from previous post for full text)

Good question. First of all, I will submit that I think people can have authentic, sincere spiritual experiences. Even I can--that is, as long as that experience doesn't come with rules and collection plates. It's probably inhuman to be unimpressed by the beauty and wonder of nature--so much that people, the little egomaniacs that we are, will want to project such wonders as yet another great invention, if not by us, then by our gods. it wasn't enough for adam in genesis to live within nature--he had to rule it.

i could easily take all the examples of your scrutiny and skepticism towards fundamentalism and faith, and apply it to myself at one such point. as you know, several years ago i did consider myself a christian. only, in this case, the skepticism lead me to completely rid of it, as opposed to keeping some self-made version of it, which i tend to really dislike in people, albeit quite common to find. there really comes a point where your point-of-view evolves to the place where you don't know where the religion ends and your own thoughts begin.

that's why i think that most who consider themselves christian, really fall into some hybrid version of it, that they have allowed to flex around their own world view. what's the point, then, if you're going to take some of the tenants of religion and not others? is it an insurance policy? are people really that duped by pascal's idiotic wager? it goes without saying that it really bothers me, then, that some will have the audacity to use the whole kitchen sink against others, when they themselves are only using a dish rag.

i suppose in terms of your question, i can't say i would be against skepticism, but i find it curious that through all of it, you could still hook your star to an implausible celestial being. it seems the very conclusion that would contradict such honest questioning and philosophical discretion. perhaps being religious really is a genetic trait that is impossible to shed--the most common case of OCD--that even the candidates who might seem as if they've mutated and evolved past religious belief, are still held captive to it?

9 out of 10 reasons people give for believing in god can pretty much be objectively debunked by science, history, or philosophy. that 1 remaining reason would simply be that god can not be disproved--which is true. but this concession that god can't be disproved doesn't even begin to explain it, let alone provide justification for the tenants of modern christianity.

but is it okay for you, with everything you know, to still play that supernatural lottery game and come out a winner? i think, considering all, you wouldn't be an immediate threat--no doubt your output into society might be as beneficial or detrimental as a non-believers might be. that's assuming you respected our constitution, didn't evangelize your faith to others, and let your children make their own choices regarding the matter.

but as i always harp on, i think your potential could be all the greater if only you pulled out that little thorn in your toe and accepted what is most likely the most probable perspective of the universe and our roles within it (or lack thereof). religion belongs to the dark ages of our history--many of its positives easily replaced and improved upon by non-theism, and all others simply debunked by modern science and moral philosophy.

i think it's probably a matter of time before this is concluded by all--and statistically, atheism is climbing. would the world be a better place without religion? in a word, yes.

what is good, and what is easy.

does your god belief make life easier for you?

it's one claim that's always being presented to me: that without god, we would have no concept of right and wrong. we would have no hope. we would live a life without meaning. there would be no comfort in times of need, no love in times of despair.

i would jest that, yes, some things are easier, particularly in our society, if one bears total solidarity towards their religion. it is, unlike many other things, above a level of scrutiny. your faith is protected and sacred--whereas my criticism would seem tactless and disrespectful. is it so much to ask that such a thing could be scrutinized as harshly as anything else? we expect our cars, our airplanes, and our prescription drugs to be thoroughly studied and tested to the fullest, to ensure the integrity of the product. somehow, i doubt you'd be impressed if the pilot of the plane you'd about to fly on bore no credentials or license, and tried to win your confidence by only his "belief" that he could fly.

but that is exactly what you are expected to do, and what you expect of others, when it comes to your blind faith.

and in this society, it is easier, in many ways, to just believe. you will rarely, if at all, experience religious persecution. you will earn the trust and love of your family, if they too are believers. you will take comfort, if you could in such a thing, that there is a celestial force above you, who created the universe for the sole reason of placing you in it. you could even become president.

disregard infinite space, black holes, supernovas, thousands of galaxies with meteors and planets which bear no life, and the one we now live on which barely does that, and which will not some day in the future. this was all for you.

and probably most importantly, you can take comfort that death is merely an illusion...a passing towards eternal servitude in heaven with all your loved ones and your creator. for many, this is enough, if you go for that sort of thing.

in these ways, your belief in god can help you, whichever you happen to choose (yes, you have thousands of options, thus forcing you to be an atheist towards the rest.)

but what are the downsides? many struggle with original sin, and never being able to achieve a fascist standard set beyond human ability. you would have to squirm every time you read another scientific discovery, and either completely discredit it or contort until it somehow becomes compatible with your ancient dogmas. you have to justify the common wickedness of your holy books into either allusions or the (gasp) evolution of one's own creator from angry to loving (islam has yet to make this transition.) you have to accept miracles and supernatural events can occur, and yet wonder why they never happen in your neighborhood. if you are a woman, you have to accept a spiritual pecking order that believes menstruation to be "unclean" and a broken hymen to be even more contemptible. you would have to believe that every embryo that spontaneously aborts from a mother's womb was sentenced to limbo for being unsaved (or where ever else.)

as a non-believer, i simply don't have to consider such issues, and have them weigh heavily as society advances and makes it seem all the sillier, and having to defend it and keep my faith in a vacuum untouched by technological advancements. (i am, however, quite sure that in a moment of physical distress at a hospital, you'd rather find an evolutionist with a clipboard than a creationist with a holy book.)

it is not that a non-believer does not consider such issues of morality. in fact, we do even more so, and have a long history of philosophy concerned with it. we simply do not need a celestial surveillance camera, and i simply detest anyone who claims they are only moral because of it. it is not the kind of person i would want to live next to.

and for many, asking such questions as i have laid here, would be a sin in itself. many households keep religion for sunday, and the rest of the time it is stricken from conversation.

what an grand assumption about existence to bear so nonchalantly!

could it be, for the fact, that many embrace the social benefits of religion, but in secret know that it is truly mythology propagated by fear and social control? and even as i have rid myself of such a thing, i have received a level of resistance that i'm sure women received when asking for suffrage, or blacks when asking for freedom, or homosexuals when asking for acceptance.

what wickedness, what utter cruelty do we bear in silent obedience, as we shuffle in and out of our pews, to treat our wives to subtle misogyny, our children totalitarianism, our enemies a refined sense of entitlement.

to rid of it all, to live not as a hypocrite but as a human being in a world of wonder and greatness, is a breath of fresh air i wish everyone could experience, instead of toiling in servitude to a celestial being that simply mirrors mankinds worst deeds and deepest fears.

let my people go

it is quite impressive how little people actually know of their chosen (or inherited) faiths. when discussing christianity with people whom i know is christian, i find that their overall knowledge of the actual subject is quite limited, both historically and literary. i do not pretend to suppose that i am a religious scholar, but nonetheless it is often the case that i would have a better grasp to argue even for the validity of christianity than the trivial commentary of the faithful.

these conversations almost always end with the faithful wriggling out, in even a casual tone where i am not being aggressive but merely conversing over christian ideals objectively. i recently had a conversation with someone who proclaimed their total obedience and respect for the ten commandments--though when i rhetorically asked the individual to state all ten of them, the wriggling began. ironic, how something so iconic and beloved in the faith can never be recited verbatim by most--though i'm sure many of them could sing back several kelly clarkson songs to me without missing a beat.

no doubt, for the more apocalyptic-minded, you'll find a great admiration for the pulp and silly left behind series, but i'm sure they have not so much as a read one pass through the entirety of revelations. the laws of god are cherry-picked and watered-down into marketable, hollywood fiction--so much, i am pressed to think that a reading through exodus can be easily summarized in a charlton heston film for many.

i think an easy observation would be that it takes that kind of commitment to actually believe in such a thing. and is it not fear of finding the profane, the irrational, the ludicrously stupid, that keeps people from delving into their holy books and finding such ghastly scripture that they'd most certainly censor and abhor in secular contexts?

in fact, some of my most beloved arguments against the validity of christianity occur in those very holy texts--from the book of job, to ecclesiasticus. i doubt many have even read these texts beyond a paraphrased reference by a pastor, or a lively coloring book at sunday school (and i am quite sure that sunday schools can't keep enough red crayons on hand.)

of course, in what other study or field of thought could ignorance not only be admitted, but praised as virtuous? not any worth mentioning, except for the malevolent strategy of government totalitarianism that abhors rationality and instead instructs blind obedience, backed by laws impossible to be followed.

it took until the new testament to really take hold of the people's fear of death, and trade it for a euphoric but equally problematic gift of immortality. and perhaps, setting aside obvious cultural and historic justifications for the continuation of faith in an otherwise educated society, it is this very fear of death that keeps the collection plates full, and which keeps the human potential from climbing beyond its infancy.

suffer the little children

children, in many respects, serve as a continuation of the human species, a society, or a way of life. we hear a lot of fuss about them, particularly on evening talk shows. it seems, it our so-called "secular" society, that half of us are protecting our children, and the rest are attempting to physically and mentally rape them of all inherent innocence.

because children are looked upon as valuable objects for the above reasons, many view them as personal property that they are assigned to protect and, likewise, serve.

one of the popular ways in which we protect and serve our children is to indoctrinate them with our belief systems at an incredibly early age. in fact, many evangelical units operating in our fair country considers it an empirical part of spreading their superstitions.

and what are the attributes of children? trusting, naive, impressionable--not quite enough life context to differentiate fact from fiction, particularly when they are inundated (or primed) early on with mythical beings such as easter bunnies and santa clauses. when i was but five years old i knew who satan was, and i knew of a place called hell where i might be sent if i stole another cookie from the cookie jar.

is this fair of us to herd our children to these churches, sunday schools, and confirmations, to be so indoctrinated? do children have the necessary means to truly understand, discuss, and critically consider the dogmas of our choosing?

i suppose when you are dealing out absolute truth, the phrase "critical thought" doesn't have much stock. the impressions, no doubt, are quite deep. and those lucky enough to have their conscience raised above such dogmatic beliefs can never quite shed the slightest stab of guilt for doing so.

but it was god who claimed that everyone should approach their faith as children--who are meek, naive, and trusting. what other, but religion, requires its followers to be so dim?

Mark 10:14 Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God.15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

A Letter

(from unknown source)

Dear Mr Robertson,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.