This week British comedian Ricky Gervais asked a number of famous friends, including Conan O’Brien, to publicize “A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I’m an Atheist.” Written as a post for the Wall Street Journal’s Speakeasy blog, the rarely-serious Gervais tries to give a “sensitive, reasoned answer” to questions about his disbelief in God.
While I’m not an atheist, I agree with Gervais on a few central points. First, he notes that it doesn’t make much sense to bookend ontological truth statements such as “God created the world” with qualifiers like “it’s true to me.” He says, “Believing in something doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t.” Gervais is absolutely right here. Either God created the world or God didn’t – whether I believe that to be true does not change its ontological status. The need to qualify truth-claims of any sort with “for me” is a feature of the democratic society that we occupy – it shows how uneasy we are with the introduction of “comprehensive doctrines” into public conversation (to use a phrase from philosopher John Rawls).
Gervais also describes the gifts of atheism – “The gifts of truth, science, nature. The real beauty of this world.” He adds later that “the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, in the end leads to liberation and dignity.” I was struck how closely both of these points resemble central insights in the Christian faith. A passage from the gospel of John reads, “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Ancient poetry from the Psalms marvels at the beauty and wonder of the natural world. I, too, see truth, science, and nature as great and beautiful gifts. When speaking of his religious childhood, Gervais says, “I loved art too. And nature. I loved how God made all the animals. They were also perfect. Unconditionally beautiful. It was an amazing world.” It sounds as if atheism has only served to sharpen his youthful attentiveness to this wonder and beauty.
In spite of these points of agreement, I become uneasy when Gervais sets the beauty of truth, science, and nature over against something called “tradition.” He says:
“Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. … Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know. It bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence – evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn’t get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge. It doesn’t hold on to medieval practices because they are tradition.”
I suppose I’m unconvinced that the history of scientific discovery bears sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that “it doesn’t get offended when new facts come along.” This is partly because I see our modern understanding of the intellectual discipline called “science” as a tradition in itself. A number of philosophers (e.g., Michael Polayni, Thomas Kuhn) have presented some deeply challenging questions to the presumption that science is a strictly “objective” pursuit liberated from the kind of blind arrogance Gervais wants to associate only with religious tradition (e.g., “You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts”).
Where I think the flaws of this approach come most sharply into view is his suggestion that the real problems with religion emerge “when belief starts infringing on other people’s rights.” He continues, “I would never deny your right to believe in a god. I would just rather you didn’t kill people who believe in a different god, say.” I was surprised that immediately after placing “the burden of proof” on the one who believes in something for which there is “absolutely no scientific evidence,” Gervais appeals to the language of universal rights. How might we go about justifying the existence of “rights” on the basis of strictly objective factual scientific evidence? Replace “God” with “rights” in one of his earlier statements and you get this: “Why don’t I believe in rights? No, no, no, why do YOU believe in rights?”
Let me say, before I am misunderstood, that I am not in favor of killing people for differences of religious belief (or for any other reason) and that I think the language of rights can in some cases be useful for articulating a common moral vision among people who do not share a common moral foundation. But I do not believe that “rights” are any more scientifically provable (or tradition-independent) than “God.” The language of universal rights stems from a particular philosophical tradition (political liberalism) that has been employed (by my country and Gervais’ country, among others) to justify killing people who did not stand within that same tradition. Killing in the name of religion may have a longer history than killing in the name of universal rights, but that’s not a very firm moral high ground.
My reason for making this point is to challenge the suggestion that only the religious among us are embedded in traditions and marked by commitments beyond the realm of provable science. Gervais says of such belief, “If it was just a case of spirituality this would be fine.” But that criticism is too easy. A neat divide between public and private never holds for long. It’s never “just a case of spirituality.” Not with those who believe in Jesus. Not with those who believe in universal rights. Not even with atheists.
Perhaps then it’s best to end with a few more of those points on which Gervais and I agree. “No one owns being good.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a good rule of thumb.” “Forgiveness is probably the greatest virtue there is.”
Well said, Adam. This is a really great response, with an argument that is philosophically strong yet is written in a tone of respectful dialogue rather than sharp retort. Thanks!
Thanks for this, Adam. I always seem to get tongue tied in these conversations, and your clearly-worded discussion helps me a lot. Merry Christmas!
I enjoyed the depth and thoughtfulness of this response (as I enjoyed the original article), so thank you, Adam. I wonder, though, if your criticism is that well-targeted.
First, I don’t see Kuhn’s critique of science (I’m less familiar with Polanyi’s) justifying your seeming implication that the process of science might be infected with “blind arrogance”. There is a significant difference between the process of science in an ideal sense, which valorizes and requires the willingness to admit one is wrong in the face of new evidence, and faith in the form it has often been presented, which celebrates belief in spite of the lack of evidence to support its claims, or even in the face of contrary evidence which would normally be seen to demolish it. There is no sense in which “blind arrogance” could be said to be a virtue from within the scientific community.
Second, you seem to take Gervais as being committed to the actual existence of “rights”. I see nothing in his post which suggests he takes this view. If he, as I suspect he does, thinks of rights simply as useful shared language with which to talk about our responsibilities towards each other, then your criticism sails past its intended target.
Finally, it seems to me the main thrust of the piece is to take issue specifically with belief in god, and not with people’s commitments in other areas of life. So when you say “My reason for making this point is to challenge the suggestion that only the religious among us are embedded in traditions and marked by commitments beyond the realm of provable science”, I reply “maybe”, but Gervais doesn’t seem to claim otherwise.
He simply points out that there is dignity to be found in accepting the truth, and that the truth as far as all the evidence suggests is that God is an unnecessary construct at odds with the best understanding available of our experience and of the world.
James, thanks for reading, and for your comment. I’ll add a bit for clarification.
I don’t think Kuhn attributes blind arrogance to science; I understand Kuhn to be challenging the idea that the discipline of science is strictly objective and follows a linear trajectory of discovery of truth. Gervais, however, made a point of contrast between religion and science by saying, “Science is humble.” He also says that the question “Why don’t you believe in God?” is a euphemism for “How dare you say I’m a fool and I’m not going to heaven, f— you!” There he is clearly attributing a kind of blind arrogance to religion that he thinks is entirely absent in the scientific community. I think that’s an unfairly critical assumption about all religious people and I think it’s a overly generous assumption about the whole scientific community.
My point about his use of “rights” was that Gervais’ own language betrays elements of what he most despises in religion – argument outside the realm of scientific evidence. In a Q&A session on this article, he says “I make none of my moral, social, or artistic decisions based on any god or superstitions.” If by “superstition” he means “that which is not provable by scientific evidence,” then I still think rights language is an awkward moral foundation to fall back on.
The above quote by Gervais, incidentally, may also undermine your suggestion that he is here taking issue “specifically with belief in god.” There he’s clearly talking about scientific rationalism governing every aspect of his life, not simply his atheism. I’ll stand by what I said previously, which is that public and private distinctions never hold for long.
Here’s the Q&A:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/22/does-god-exist-ricky-gervais-takes-your-questions/
I think, first, that it’s important to remember that Gervais is a comedian, and has a distinctive comedic voice which is clearly in play in the article. He does not “despise” anything about religion from what I can tell – he is explicit about this in the article – and some sections (like the part about jumping out the window) are clearly intended for comic effect. I think this is also the case for the overstatement regarding “How dare you say I’m a fool…” I hear a comedic slant in this, not an aggressive tone which seems to be your take.
But regardless of tone, I’m unsure if your comment, which suggests that some in the scientific community display “blind arrogance”, is quite on point. The point Gervais is making, as I read it, is not about scientists or individuals within the scientific community, but about science as a process of thought and a tradition of action. It is this tradition which, it seems to me, has a necessary built-in guard against blind arrogance”, and crucially, this is not the case for religions or faiths.
I also think you make a rather odd interpretation of what Gervais means by “superstition”. It reads to me that, in the context, he is not saying that any ” argument outside the realm of scientific evidence” is illegitimate. I can’t see anywhere where he explicitly or implicitly endorses such a position. Rather I imagine he is ruling out moral, social or artistic decision based on things like gods, fairies, lucky charms etc. So I just don’t see him taking the position you object to.
What liberating knloewdge. Give me liberty or give me death.