Title: God, No! Signs You May Already Be and Atheist and Other Magical Tales
Author: Penn Jillette
Publisher: Simon & Schuster
Penn Jillette may be best known to the world at large as a world-class magician, the larger (and louder) half of the magical duo, Penn & Teller. In atheist circles he is also known as an outspoken advocate of atheism. And he may be known to some as the author or co-author of five previous books. In his latest book, God, No! Jillette offers his atheistic take on the Ten Commandments of cinematic and biblical fame. The book’s introduction opens with these words:
You don’t have to be brave, or a saint, a martyr, or even very smart to be an atheist. All you have to be able to say is, “I don’t know.”
Jillette moves from that statement to contrast atheism as a position of humility with theism, which he describes as an arrogant stance that purports to know, not merely believe, what a god or gods expect of humankind. As an example of theistic arrogance, Jillette discusses prayer:
Some think that god will answer prayers. They think that their prayer can influence the behavior of an omnipotent, omniscient power….
The idea that someone can claim that they know there’s a god because they feel it, because they trust a book that they were raised with, because they had an epiphany, and then ask this god to change its mind about its plan for the universe is arrogant.
Jillette also provides as clear an explanation of atheism as one will find anywhere:
Being an atheist means you don’t believe in god. When someone asks if god exists and you humbly say, “I don’t know,” you’ve answered honestly.
Once you’ve answered “I don’t know” to the existence of a god, the answer to whether you believe in god pretty much has to be no. That doesn’t mean you’re saying it’s impossible for there to be a god, or that we couldn’t have evidence of a god in the future. It just means that right now you don’t know. And if you don’t know, you can’t believe.
After a strong start in the introduction, Jillette organizes the heart of his book into ten chapters, one for each biblical commandment, which Jillette offsets with “one atheist’s suggestions:”
The Bible’s Commandments
- Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
- Thou shalt not make for thyself an idol…for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God….
- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy god in vain….
- Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days thou shalt labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the lord thy god…For in six days the lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.
- Honor thy father and thy mother….
- Thou shalt not kill.
- Thou shalt not commit adultery.
- Thou shalt not steal.
- Thou shalt not lie.
- Thou shalt not covet….
One Atheist’s Suggestions
- The highest ideals are human intelligence, creativity, and love. Respect these above all.
- Do not put things or even ideas above other human beings.
- Say what you mean, even when talking to yourself.
- Put aside some time to think and rest.
- Be there for your family. Love your parents, your partner, and your children.
- Respect and protect all human life.
- Keep your promises.
- Don’t steal.
- Don’t lie.
- Don’t waste too much time wishing, hoping, and being envious; it’ll make you bugnutty.
Even though God, No! is well-written and very well-edited, the quality of the book’s content is uneven. Fortunately, the good outweighs the bad. The part that I found least amusing, enlightening or moving was the section in the fourth chapter in which Jillette describes his experiences of having sex while scuba diving. Yes, I get how this account fits into a chapter dedicated to the ideal of taking time to rest, relax and enjoy life, but this section left me feeling like Jillette was working way too hard at being funny and ended up being tedious instead. Another part of the book that I found uninteresting was the sixth chapter, throughout which Jillette strives, with an astonishing lack of clarity and precision compared to the rest of the book, to explain his libertarian political views. I found it ironic that, in the section entitled Penn’s Bacon and a Kiss Airlines, Jillette blatantly disregards his own second suggestion, as he appears to have put his libertarian ideals above the humanity of Muslims. Here’s an illustrative sample:
So at my airline, there would be no embarrassing time-wasting scans and put-downs. No profiling. But before you get on the plane, our lovely host and hostess would offer you a piece of bacon. Nice, fresh, piping-hot, crisp, glorious bacon. If you don’t want to eat the bacon, you don’t get on the airplane without a full strip-search. Eat the swine, or bend over and take the glove.
Now, I realize that this paragraph (and most of what follows in this section of the book) should be read as comedy and not taken literally. And maybe others will find this section sidesplittingly funny. But, I don’t. I just find it tasteless and boring. I find it especially confounding as it comes from the same man who, in the book’s first chapter, writes with striking compassion about the struggles of Hasidic Jews who no longer believe the dogma held by their families and peers in very tight-knit, nearly closed communities. He also writes compassionately about Muslims in the book’s afterword. Given these facts, I’ll just identify this section of the book as a bit of black humor that, in my opinion, misfired.
Having said enough about what I didn’t like about the book, I’ll highlight some bits that struck me as particularly insightful, enlightening, or touching.
In the third chapter (which explores the idea of saying what one means), Jillette takes a position that may surprise some atheist readers: he endorses proselytization. Even though he finds religious proselytization personally annoying, he understands the moral imperative that drives religious zealots to convert others to their ways of living and thinking. Jillette views religious proselytization as one segment of the marketplace of ideas, a segment that he counters by proselytizing for atheism. Later in the same chapter, Jillette takes agnostics to task for being, as he sees it, unwilling to acknowledge their lack of god-belief, i.e., their atheism. In doing so, he puts forward a nice discussion of the differences between questions of ontology (what a state of affairs actually is, i.e., whether a god exists) and epistemology (what one actually knows or believes one knows). He says:
If I ask you, “Do you believe in god?” the question is…specific. It’s asking you to report on your thoughts…. It doesn’t matter how sure you are of your belief…. None of us can really know for sure if there’s a god, but belief is, if not an action, then at least a state of mind you can report on in real time….
“Is there a god?” can be answered, “I don’t know.” “Do you believe in god?” needs to be answered yes or no, even though you haven’t made up your mind for sure. None of us has made up our mind for sure….
Jillette follows this exhortation by challenging agnostics to state their belief positions honestly, and closes by proudly, forthrightly declaring, “I am an atheist.”
The part of the book that I found the most moving and enlightening was the fifth chapter, in which Jillette revealed much about his personal and family life. This chapter offers a deep view into Jillette’s heart and mind. For example, in discussing his mother’s terminal illness and death, Jillette wrote,
Understanding [her] suffering as random was hard for me, but I could never have understood it as part of an all-powerful god’s “plan.” If a god had planned that for my mom, I would have turned to Satan. There’s no plan I’ll get behind that includes that much suffering for anyone.
Jillette makes it clear that, in his view, an atheistic understanding of suffering is far more compassionate than any theistic proposition put forward thus far. If you read nothing else in this book, this chapter alone is worth the purchase price. Jillette demonstrates powerfully throughout the chapter that people don’t need divine directives to teach them how to care for each other. Read it to get a good taste of atheist family values (as expressed by one atheist speaking solely for himself, but in a way that will undoubtedly resonate with many atheists). Jillette makes it refreshingly clear that religious believers do not have a monopoly on affection, respect, loyalty, compassion and love.
Jillette closes the book with an afterword entitled, Atheism is the Only Real Hope Against Terrorism. In his opinion, faith is the enemy that rational people must overcome. He says,
Being religious means being okay with believing in things without evidence…. Once you’ve condoned faith in general, you’ve condoned any crazy shit done because of faith.
Jillette’s counter to faith is this:
The only real argument against religious terrorism is to try to share the reality of the world. The world is plenty We have each other. We have love. We have family. We have art. We have time. We have an impossible universe full of awe and wonder. We have an infinite number of questions we can work on. We have all the glory that is real and is us. We must stop glorifying faith.
I have no doubt that many atheists will agree wholeheartedly with that thought.
Readers looking for profound insights into atheism or killer arguments against theism and other forms of woo and superstition won’t find them here. What they will find is one atheist’s unapologetic point of view. God, No! is not a classic of atheist literature, but it is entertaining and, at times, thought-provoking. Readers who enjoy light fare that strikes a nice balance between chuckles and tears will find plenty to satisfy them in this book.
– the chaplain
Spanish Inquisitor
August 17, 2011 at 9:19 am
Two of my favorite pastimes: Sex and Scuba Diving.
I guess I’ll have to read this book.I’ll bet Tommy would like it too. He’s an avid scuba diver. Not sure what his affinity for the other is.
But seriously, I can understand his apparent hypocrisy with that Bacon Resolution. What he’s saying is: At the moment, there is one thing that all terrorists willing to hijack planes and fly them into buildings have in common – a fervent belief in the Islamic god. But belief, being a mental process is not something you can isolate with, say, a metal detector. If there was a device that could read minds and determine whether an airline passenger had the requisite belief, it would keep all but the believers from having to put up with intrusive checks at the gate.
Eating bacon is his tongue-in-cheek belief detector. Crude, but he makes his point.
the chaplain
August 17, 2011 at 9:41 am
SI:
I think you’d enjoy the book. I’ve never gone scuba diving but I’d love to give it a go. Maybe I’ll take some lessons when we go back to Jamaica next month.
The funny thing about the Bacon Belief/Bullshit Detector is that I actually agree with most of Jillette’s position in this section. As you may have guessed, it’s a diatribe against the TSA’s Security Theater nonsense that makes flying in the USA such a pain in the ass. You may recall that I wrote a post about this same issue last year. When we returned home from Jamaica last spring, I had to go through both the scan and the grope in Montego Bay (to be honest, neither was overly invasive, just annoying). I don’t know if that was because they confiscated a bottle of rum I wanted to bring on board…
tommykey
August 17, 2011 at 12:28 pm
I believe in separation of sex and scuba. There’s all kinds of critters swimming around down there. No need to expose your parts to them!
During my dive trip to the Bahamas last month, a guy proposed marriage to his girlfriend underwater. He wrote the proposal on a dive slate, and when she nodded yes, he took the ring out of the pocket of his BCD. I took a picture of the dive slate and will put it up in my next post, hopefully tonight.
Chaplain, you can go on a discovery dive before taking lessons. They’ll give you an orientation and then take you on a dive that won’t be deep. If you like it, then you can decide to get certified.
Spanish Inquisitor
August 17, 2011 at 12:40 pm
That’s how I got into it. My wife and I and another couple went on a discovery dive in Bonaire, where they showed you a videotape, taught you a few basic fundamentals, then took you no deeper than 40 feet. I was hooked.
Came home, took the PADI course at a local high school and got certified. You can actually take the course up here, then do your open water dive necessary for certification at the resort on vacation. That’s what the other couple we went with did.
Kagehi
August 17, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Snort.. Since Libertarianism has *never* been described in a way by *anyone* I have ever seen in a coherent, consistent, or rational, way, its hardly a surprise that Penn fails to do so himself. Everything I have ever seen from anyone on the subject has ranged from naivety about what *other* libertarians actually think, and how they act, to justifications for those opinions and actions that make the people presenting them look like self serving sociopaths. Somehow.. they can’t seem to come up with a definition, or even an explanation, of the political stance that doesn’t either try to include economics along with social ideas, and fail horrible, due to the former ***not*** working, or where the later is used to justify things on the former, than can, do, have, and will hurt people.
Yeah. Not at all surprised that part of the book would be incoherent.
Adam Lee
August 17, 2011 at 8:52 pm
I enjoyed this book, but I thought it was more about Penn Jillette than it was about atheism. Fair warning: There were two chapters that struck me as pretty explicitly pornographic, the scuba-diving story being one of them (his visit to the gay bathhouse was the other).
Spanish Inquisitor
August 18, 2011 at 8:11 am
I know you weren’t really criticizing it for being partly autobiographical, Adam, but I think there is a place, and a badly needed place, for autobiographical books by atheists. It’s all part of the coming-out-and-being-accepted-by-the-masses process that gays went through. If people who are so insulated by their religion (and that’s part of what a church community does) have no contact with atheists, of course we’ll continue to be sub-human in their eyes. But if relatively famous, otherwise admired people start writing openly and honestly about what makes them atheist, and they read those books, it really adds to the acceptance factor.
Books written by humorous people are even more widely accepted and read. George Carlin, I’ll bet, has de-converted more people than Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens combined.
the chaplain
August 17, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Tommy & SI:
You guys have got me nearly convinced to tackle scuba diving. If I do it, I’ll give you a report. There’s a scuba shop just a few miles from my home, so I’d have easy access to lessons, scuba outings, etc.
Kagehi:
It’s too bad that Jillette lost his way in that chapter, because he made some good points along the way, but they got lost in the muddle.
Adam:
I agree with your assessment that the book focused a lot more on Penn Jillette than on atheism. I guess I read the book with the expectation that it would be primarily autobiographical, so that didn’t bother me too much. It could just be me, but I couldn’t discern any connection between the scuba sex and gay bathhouse stories and atheism. I’ll leave it to readers to decide for themselves how much of those stories were autobiography vs. wishful thinking…
tommykey
August 17, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Chaplain, I’ve started to put up some posts on my otherwise neglected blog about my trip to the Bahamas if you’re interested.
Spanish Inquisitor
August 18, 2011 at 8:13 am
Yes. And they’ve got me salivating for a scuba trip myself. I haven’t been underwater since early 2010. Need another trip.
PhillyChief
August 18, 2011 at 12:53 am
Ideas sometimes have to come before people, so I don’t agree with him. I also don’t agree with respecting and protecting all human life. There are sickos in the world.
Some of what you quoted I agree with, but some of the morality feels like it’s coming from someone out of touch with the real world, and I think that’s what is often off-putting about liberal views for a lot of blue collar folk.
I’ve always found it ironic when the religious call us arrogant, for the reasons he describes as well as arrogantly dismissing facts and evidence because they just know what the real truth is. Yeah, we’re arrogant. Ok.
Kagehi
August 18, 2011 at 3:46 am
Yeah Chaplain, the problem isn’t that there are not some semi-good points in libertarianism. Its just that as a practical system its… non-viable. There was another post on PZs news site recently on how teachers in Texas are directed to handle kids that belong to say, the football team, but learn jack shit in class. To me, this is a perfect example of how the “market” they talk about works in reality. The purpose of schools is to educate. To educate you need money. The best way to get money, because of all the idiots running things, is to have sports stars. Actually having people in class, learning, interferes with the ability of them to be on the football field. Therefor, the logical solution is to a) make pretense at teachers having the right to grade students, b) strongly hint that an “incomplete” is better than an F, since the later would result in the star football player not being able to play. Just to make sure, the board can “review” the teachers grading methods, and determine if an “incomplete” should have been given, instead of a failing grade, thereby allowing the student to keep playing, making the school money, and thus… uh, wait, what was the point of this process again? I forget.
Oh, right, and the government is even playing its “proper” role. The Fed is staying out of it, and letting the “state” determine what is taught, to what standard (mostly), and how and when, and the state.. is handing money over to schools, depending on how big their sports curriculum is, and if they seem to be successfully producing students that go on to make the state proud, by ending their carrier as anything more than a fast food worker, by playing for the state colleges, and, in most cases, failing at it, with nothing else to fall back on, including the basic education their where “incompleted”, then coached, probably by the same person teaching both English and football, to pass the tests.
Ah, paradise!
Spanish Inquisitor
August 18, 2011 at 8:25 am
Doesn’t libertarianism (with a small l – hell, maybe even the big L type) say that the individual has a right to be ignorant if he wants to be, and that the government should not even be in the business of education?
Take that to its logical conclusion, and only the rich get educated, because school if they exist, exist in areas where there is a sufficiently prosperous upper class, and are run for profit. It then fosters more class division, becuase the rich run the country for their own benefit, while the poor are left to a life of hickdom and yahooness. Sort of like pr-Revolution aristocratic Britain.
And what would that do to our football programs. Well, the rich schools would give “scholarships” to the most athletically able, who, once their glory days were over, would probably not be any more educated (though they might have a degree, but most likely would flunk out) and would be back among their class, passing their genes onto the next class of scholarship recipients.
Geez, am I feeling cynical this morning. Need another cup of coffee.
Kagehi
August 18, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Yeah. That is another fun thing about it, and another example of why it might sound good, but not work in reality. Madison, who insisted, and didn’t have a lot of trouble convincing, the other founders that we *needed* educators, and an educated populous, would love these fools. Of course, standard trope for them would be to claim that it was merely that they didn’t take advantage of non-existent education, or work hard enough to become rich. After all, it would hardly matter if 90% of the population decided to be stupid (or didn’t have much choice but to do so, by making their kids work to make up for pay short falls), and that entire school districts closed as a result. No, it would purely be there fault for not going where the schools still are. :p
Ahab
September 18, 2011 at 11:38 am
“Being an atheist means you don’t believe in god. When someone asks if god exists and you humbly say, “I don’t know,” you’ve answered honestly.”
Not to nit-pick, but doesn’t this describe agnosticism, rather than hard atheism?
Having said that, this sounds like a fun, thoughtful book. Thanks for bringing it to your readers’ attention.