Ricky Gervais on Atheism

If you’ve seen Ricky Gervais’s stand up shows, then you’ll get a vibe for what his opinions are on atheism. He pens a piece in the Wall Street Journal blog entitled ‘A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I’m An Atheist’. It stands, not as a deep conversation on atheism, but as a good summary and introduction to the topic for a person who might not know much about it. Highlights.

Arrogance is another accusation. Which seems particularly unfair. Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate. For better or worse it finds things out. 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. If it did, you wouldn’t get a shot of penicillin, you’d pop a leach down your trousers and pray. Whatever you “believe,” this is not as effective as medicine. Again you can say, “It works for me,” but so do placebos. My point being, I’m saying God doesn’t exist. I’m not saying faith doesn’t exist. I know faith exists. I see it all the time. But believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

Posted under: Skepticism, Religion
Posted on: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:33 PM
« Scenes from New Zealand | Home | Evidence of other bubble universes »
Share this post: email it, bookmark It, digg It, kick It

Comments

  1. Posted by: Mith on 12/22/2010 5:31 PM
    Gravatar
    An interesting insight into his beliefs (or lack of...), but again I find reason to disagree. I'm sure some asshole will crawl out of the wordworks and start screaming though. Personally, I'd prefer a more in depth discussion and atheisim, but that's just me. Although truth be told, I'm more interested in other faiths. Nothing personal, it's just that you can only hold my attention so much with an empty room.
  2. Posted by: Ray on 12/24/2010 3:15 PM
    Gravatar
    One of the basic premises of an argument from ignorance is not only that it asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false, but vice versa as well. Saying with certainty that God doesn't exist because there is no proof of said existence is just as arrogant as saying with certainty that God does exist because there is no proof of non-existence. As Carl Sagan said: "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
  3. Posted by: Mark on 12/25/2010 1:29 AM
    Gravatar
    @Ray

    If you cannot rule out things that do not have evidence, from life, then you will become catatonic and will not be able to accurately assess reality. We all discount things that do not have evidence in many aspects of life except religion.
  4. Posted by: Leroy on 12/25/2010 4:00 AM
    Gravatar
    I disagree with Ricky,

    THe problem I have with most scientists is they can never admit that they have completely changed there mind are might be wrong. For example most scientists are now claiming are current cold winters are proof of climate change without mentioning they once claimed the opposite that previous warm winters were proof of climate change. Check George Monibot at the Guardian if you don't believe me. It's the utter certainty he made both claims that is particularly annoying. Scientists are definitely not humble, few can admit that they don't know everything
  5. Posted by: Mark on 12/25/2010 4:39 AM
    Gravatar
    @Leroy

    Scientists and science are not one and the same. Scientists are human animals, vulnerable to pettyness and bias like all humans are. Science is a collective enterprise which encapsulates the best method of mankind to find out the truth about our natural world.
  6. Posted by: Adi on 12/25/2010 2:56 PM
    Gravatar
    Awesome link, Mark.

    As for the climate debate, the earth's atmosphere is a little more complicated than our living rooms. There are inevitably going to be varying or contradicting opinions but that is a GOOD thing. The only time it gets bad, is when people cling to a viewpoint regardless of it's implausibility as religious believers do.

    Science is not only the best, but the ONLY reliable way to advance knowledge and understanding. Even in areas that have nothing to do with science such as sports, scientific study has advanced them more than anything else.
  7. Posted by: Mith on 12/28/2010 6:36 PM
    Gravatar
    Um, last I checked, the whole global climate change thing is in a major debate as to which side is right. Nor is your argument really a good point to make, considering that it's a scientist's job to change his mind if that's the way the evidence leads them. They're supposed to be impartial--and when they do back a certain theory against another one, it's because from their POV, it is correct.

  8. Posted by: Adi on 12/28/2010 10:34 PM
    Gravatar
    Last time I checked, the only debate about climate change was the exact circumstances and under which it is taking place. The only people who still debate the reality of it, are right wing conspiracy theorists or those who could suffer from policies to reduce CO2 emissions (such as oil companies etc).

    But there is no way that is good enough reason for me to doubt the existence of human influenced climate change. There are always some people who debate or deny something no matter how much evidence points to it. Take evolution for a really good example. There are many people who actually think evolution is just some sort of vague idea. There are probably also people who think they'll find all the decimals of PI. That doesn't mean those questions are under scientific debate. They're not.
  9. Posted by: Mark on 12/29/2010 10:42 AM
    Gravatar
    My position on climate change is that I would like to see more evidence of its anthropormorthic nature, but I will accept it based upon the overwhelming scientific consensus. I feel like there are a lot of hysterics who are overamping its supposed effects far beyond what the scientists, who are usually more measured, are saying. These hysterics normally have a political and emotional reason to accept the very tempting catnip of climate change and are using it to pursue damaging political solutions.

Post your comment




(this will save your form settings for the next time you comment)

Please add 7 and 2 and type the answer here:

The umbrella in particular is remembered as the symbol of the nineteenth century’s disturbing obsession with individualism. In Bellamy’s utopia, umbrellas have been replaced with retractable canopies so that everyone is protected from the rain equally.
“In the nineteenth century,” explains a character, “when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.”