Ricky Gervais On Atheism

I saw someone recently post on Twitter that the video above was the most logical display of dismantling religion they had ever seen. So, is this clip a TKO against the Christian worldview? I’m often a fan of comedian Ricky Gervais, especially when he ruthlessly roasts celebrity culture at the Golden Globes and then refuses to apologize to those he offends. I’ve heard Gervais say plenty of profane and offensive things about religious believers like myself, and I would respect him less if he apologized for it. I want him to enjoy freedom of speech, just as I want to exercise that right myself. However, what he says in this interview, while interesting, has some cracks.

1. He has no compelling answer to why there is something rather than nothing.

He says the question is not “why” by “how.” But isn’t searching for the method also assuming a source/cause? Surely the universe doesn’t have to exist? It is not necessary, but here it is nonetheless. So what happened? He says he doesn’t accept any explanation for a “prime mover” outside of science and nature. Science is a method of study, not a causal agent, so that’s not a good candidate for prime mover. And since nature is the very thing whose origins we are trying to explain, it makes little sense to assume it brought itself into existence. I think this is what Colbert is getting at, and Gervais basically says, “That’s not a good question.” I disagree. It may be one of the most important questions we ask, because the answer we come to will have wide-reaching ramifications for our worldview.

2. He claims to be an “agnostic atheist,” but this is misleading.

Theoretically, an agnostic withholds accepting or rejecting something as true until they feel there is enough evidence. How much evidence is “enough?” That’s a hard call, since people are subjectively convinced by different things. Pascal said, “There is enough light for those who wish only to see, and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition.” So when people like Richard Dawkins claim there is “No evidence for God,” what he is really saying is, “There is no evidence…that is convincing to me.”

The problem with being agnostic is that it’s not very practical. Gervais is not withholding judgement about God; he is actively living his life as if there is no God. If agnosticism is simply admitting “I don’t know for sure…” then everyone is agnostic. None of us have absolute certainty about our beliefs, but that doesn’t keep us from acting on them. I’ve never liked the term “agnostic.” If it applies to all of us, then it actually clarifies very little. It’s just another way of reminding us to hold our beliefs with humility. Even those who claim to “not know one way or another” live as though they know.

3. He claims that atheism is not a belief system, but this is misleading.

Similar statements have been made by other public atheists like Michael Shermer and Richard Dawkins. They say that atheism is simply a rejection of the supernatural, without also accepting the positive beliefs that result from that. They use “atheism” to describe what they aren’t rather than what they are. Does atheism imply other beliefs? Gervais asks Colbert, “Can you prove that?” which assumes a few structures in his worldview: that he bases belief on evidence, that he presumably relies on empiricism and rationality to provide that evidence, that he believes reality is actually there and not just an illusion, that we can trust our own rational faculties to determine truth, etc.

Furthermore, if Gervais doesn’t believe in the supernatural, then all he is left with is the natural, and that plants him firmly in a worldview called “naturalism.” This worldview colors many other beliefs that flow from it. For example, if there is no God to ground morality, then morality must find its grounding somewhere else, presumably in moral agents like ourselves. Or, if there is no God behind the creation of the universe to give it purpose, then the universe is purposeless except for what we imagine for ourselves (Existentialism). Gervais’s rejection of God leaves him with limited other options, and atheism and Naturalism often come as a packaged deal.

4. He claims to simply believe in one less God than Colbert, but this is a weak argument.

It’s the classic “We’re not so different, you and I” line of thought. It can be leveled against any belief. Gervais disbelieving one more God than Colbert says nothing about the truth of what Colbert believes. Imagine an argument between someone who believes in the Moon and someone who doesn’t. The skeptic says, “I don’t believe in any moons. I’m just like you. You don’t believe there are any other moons orbiting Earth except one. I just take it one moon further.” The problem is, they would still be wrong. Imagine a jury trying to determine the murderer out of 10 suspects. There is a big difference between saying “none of them are guilty” and saying “One of them is guilty.”

The truth is not determined by all the possible things that are not true. In fact, for every positive truth claim you make there are likely endless possibilities of claims that are not true in relation to it. Think of a positive truth statement like “The human body requires water to stay alive.” There are endless statements we could make framed by “The human body requires ________ to stay alive” that we would reject, like soap, chocolate (well, this is debatable…), orange juice, hand lotion, etc. It would be foolish to say, “Well, I don’t think the body needs any of these other things to stay alive, and I just take it one step further and reject water too.” They would be wrong. Accepting the truth of one God is not the same thing as accepting all gods, nor is it the same as rejecting all gods. The question remains: “Is the God you accept real?” The answer to that question is not dependent on how many other gods you accept or reject.

5. His line about scientific facts remaining true even if all textbooks were lost is a false equivalency.

The Bible is a text birthed out of historical events, while science is predicated on being able to reproduce experiments under similar conditions. That’s impossible with history. So yes, if we lost all our science textbooks, chances are someone would eventually perform an experiment under the same conditions as previous scientists and arrive at the same conclusions. Condemning religion because it cannot do the same is asking it to be something it is not. How could Jesus come and die on a cross in the 1st Century Roman Empire now that we’ve moved on to the 21st Century? However, one would think that God could (and would) continue to act in history in new ways to make Himself known (or remembered). Neither Gervais nor anyone else knows what theological conclusions we would come to if all religious records were expunged from society.

This also fails to account for Natural Theology and those truths about God that can be known through observing the natural world. Such an approach has led prominent scientists such as Francis Collins to come to faith by asking questions about God based on their observations.

5. Stephen Colbert is not a great apologist.

Gervais probably sounds convincing because he has an English accent and because he is not thrown any hardballs by Colbert. Liberal theologians often struggle with apologetics because they concede too much and are too “squishy” on what they actually do believe (a recent example of this is Why I Left, Why I Stayed by Tony Campolo and his son Bart). Colbert feels a sense of gratitude, and whatever it is that he directs this towards is “God” for him. A feeling of gratitude does make sense if we have been created with a desire to know our Creator, but it is too general to be an effective argument for a particular God, as there are endless things you could direct your thanks towards.

Colbert is, however, right to point out that Gervais relies on faith by trusting the wisdom of scientists and other experts. Psychologists like Johnathan Haidt claim that none of us are as rational as we think we are. We all rely on faith (and emotion), and Gervais is no different. The difference is what we choose to put that faith in.

In the end, Ricky Gervais is a smart (and often funny) guy, and I appreciate his thoughts on religion. While his criticisms are certainly not new, they are important to engage with, because they get to the heart of life’s most important questions, and these are certainly conversations worth having. Here’s hoping we see more, not less, conversations about God on high profile shows like this.

“If God is real, then why did he make me an atheist?”

I saw an interesting video clip on Youtube the other day. It was an interview with comedian Ricky Gervais (recent M.C. of the Golden Globe Awards) in which he was discussing his lack of faith. Gervais reminisced about his childhood in which Jesus was treated much like Santa Clause. Gervais was working on Sunday School homework one day when his older brother broke the news to him that God was not real. He recalls his mom angrily trying to shush the out-of-line sibling, but that moment signified the death of his belief.

Gervais, in the interview, goes on to ask, “If God is real, then why did he make me an atheist?” It gets a few chuckles from the audience, but there is no twinkle in his eye when he says it. Indeed, he goes on to admit that he wishes there was a God, but he just can’t bring himself to believe.

So, does God make atheists? I think the fact that Gervais can even ask that question says that God doesn’t. No doubt “belief” is a complicated thing, and I completely agree when atheists say that can’t simply make themselves believe. However, Gervais and other unbelievers must understand that the choice to pursue the question of God with a truly open mind is still theirs.

When the psalmist wrote “The fool says in his heart, ‘God does not exist.'” (Psalm 14:1) I do not believe this “fool” is completely ignorant. It is not like saying “That two-year old is a fool because she does not understand String Theory!” It is dealing with a choice to remain in unbelief. 1 Corinthians 1:20 says, “Where is the philosopher? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made the world’s wisdom foolish?” Perhaps this is the difference between an atheist (one who has determined in his mind there is no God) and an agnostic (one who tries to remain neutral until convinced one way or the other). The world offers “wisdom” that has no place for God. When you start with a worldview that says “no God,” it becomes very difficult to entertain honest discussion and inquiry about Him! Perhaps a worldview of “maybe God?” is a better option.

But, it seems as though many atheists have determined in their minds not to believe—no matter what. They are like Ebeneezer Scrooge when he tries to justify his vision of the ghost Jacob Marley by saying it is a hallucination caused by some undigested food. Although their experiences may point to one conclusion, their presuppositions steer them in another.

Does God make people atheists? No. He has left evidence for those who are open to see it. Sadly, the Apostle Paul spoke truly of his culture and ours when he said, “For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them.” (Romans 1:18-19)

Let us not approach questions about God with closed minds, since that will always lead to dead-ends. Perhaps an honest skeptic should ask his or her questions while taking the advice of the philosopher Blaise Pascal, who challenged unbelievers to live as if it were true for a time while keeping an open mind. Perhaps once they immerse themselves in the world of faith, they will see things they never saw from the outside. It is true that people cannot believe in something they truly no not believe in, but it’s amazing what can happen when you open up your mind to the possibility that it just might be true.