Atheism – The Positive Affirmation of Penn Jillette

Penn Jillette wrote an essay for NPR’s essay project “This I believe.” It is an interesting description of the sect of atheism to which he adheres. Yet, he is of a sect that cannot seem to define or describe their personal interpretation of atheism without belittling those with whom they disagree—along with the obligatory generalizations of theists and fallacious comments.



Here is the entirety of his essay:

“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.’

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.
Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, ‘I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith.’ That's just a long-winded religious way to say, ‘shut up,’ or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, ‘How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do.’ So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.”

Let us parse this essay and so consider its implications:

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:
I always find it refreshing when an atheist just comes right out and states “I believe that there is no God.” The New Atheist sect has encouraged people who are in reality agnostics to call themselves atheists.
Penn Jillette’s positive affirmation of God’s non-existence is not really beyond atheism, it is a sect of atheism known variably as strong atheism, positive atheism, explicit atheism or critical atheism.[1]

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?:
I may be nitpicking but it may be informative: the question is posed in the present tense and so I could prove that there isn't an elephant by looking right then and there. But how about a moment later well, then I would have to check again when it comes out of hiding. His heartfelt definition is irrelevant because in asking me prove that there isn't an elephant he is asking me to look, listen and feel around. He is asking me to engage my senses to the task of searching for a physical object, a tangible being.


What he is getting at is an atheist complaint that claims that when they are asked to look for God they do so and conclude that there is no God only to be told that they were not looking in the right place, or in the right way. However, the issue is to begin by asking what would be considered evidence of God’s existence? If we do not know what God is we cannot begin by assuming that God gives off physical evidence? For example, let us presume that God is a non-physical being, with natural theology concludes, why should we assume that a non-physical being leaves behind physical evidence? Does a dry object leave behind wet evidence? This is the question of finding “some objective evidence of a supernatural power” of which Penn Jillett wrote.

I'm not greedy:
He is presuming that greed is not virtuous. But why not? As an atheist he can make epistemic statements about morality but not ontological: he can make any moral statement that he wishes but cannot provide any grounding except for his own personal preference (what if my personal preference disagrees?).

…everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more…I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day:
Everything in the world is plenty for his and he has not only won the genetic lottery but the financial one as well. He is a millionaire with adoring fans. He literally does have everything in the world and thus he is satisfied. This is not surprising, especially for a reductionists he believes in absolute materialism and has absolutely all of the material goods he could ever want. Note that he is saying that he has everything and so it would be rude to ask for more. He is not saying I have some, or very little, and it would be rude to beg for more. Yet, if reality is that this “world” is not all that there is then it is not asking for more but merely appreciating everything that there is to life, a life that would just happened to occur in this “world” and beyond.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around:
This is one of the fallacious comments since it does not follow that belief in God leads to purposefully not treating people right the first time. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Note his qualifier “I have to try.” Well, as Yoda, the Jedi Master, stated, “Do, or do not. There is no ‘try.’” What if you try and fail? Well, the surely you can be forgiven “by kindness and faulty memories” whatever that may mean—he appears to be saying that he just excuses himself. Note that again, he is asserting morality: “That's good,” “more thoughtful,” “treat people right” but why?


David Fuhs, An atheist defends Christian values made some very telling points (Posted: October 5, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern):

“not all atheists are ‘anti-theists.’ I am an atheist and have been one for a loooong time…I hope that I am, nevertheless, a moral man – due in part to my early exposure to things like the Ten Commandments and due in part to being raised in a primarily Judeo-Christian society…I am not the type of atheist who feels the need to denigrate another man's religion, or who feels the need to try to ‘prove’ that God does not exist. These people are not simply atheist, they are ‘anti-theists,’ and I hate those people…I recognize the value of (most) religions…In a society, religion is absolutely essential to provide a common foundation of ethics, morality, decency and LAW.”

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures:
This is simply a non sequitur since believing that there is a God does not stop anyone learning from all different people from all different cultures. In fact, speaking from a Judeo-Christian perspective, the more scholastically and theologically one becomes involved in Christianity the more one tends to learn about all different people from all different cultures. That some of those ideas as rejected is another issue—with regards to both for theists and atheists.

Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate:
How can we agree on reality without God since he is without God and we disagree about reality. Well, because he is basically stating that if we were all atheists, of his sect, and we all believed the same things then we would agree. Yes, agreed: if everyone agreed then everyone would agree. Yet, even on an atheist view we could not agree about reality when you consider that for example, Immanuel Kant claimed that we cannot know reality as it is (note that he claimed to know for a fact that the reality or reality is that we cannot know it—circular self-refutation).

I don't travel in circles where people say, ‘I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith’…‘How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do’:
This is a generic statement and self-servingly narrow as it one relates to those who make such claims as that they believe because they were brought up that way—to believe in an imaginary friend, God.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen…isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future:
Here again we encounter moral assertions: suffering is bad and we should do something about it. But why? His reasoning is also fallacious and self-servingly narrow: he concludes that God does not exist, at least in part, due to the two options which he considers: either God isn't bothered to help or is just testing us. He also implies that it is God who causes suffering. But what about free will? What about what God is doing and claims that He will ultimately do? “No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future” and “God means the certainty of no suffering in the future.” The fact is that atheism does not alleviate us from suffering and it makes it worse by guaranteeing that there is no reason for it, no purpose or meaning, and no redemption. You suffer, you die, goodbye.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have:
This is simply fallacious. How does believing in God make less room? In fact, it is my experience that belief in God is the sure premise upon which to have “belief in” (whatever that may mean in this context) family, people, love, truth, beauty, and even sex and Jell-O.


Overall, Penn Jillette’s essay was interesting and an informative window into his beliefs. Yet, is it sadly tarred by typical assertions, fallacies, narrow thinking and self-serving generalizations.

[1] This is the basic definition of “atheism” offered by The Academic American Encyclopedia, The Random House Encyclopedia-1977, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy-1995, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995, The Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996, The World Book Encyclopedia-1991, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967, The Encyclopedia of Religion-1987, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II, Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I, Webster's New World Large Print Dictionary, et al.