Atheism Needs More Penn Jillette’s And Less Jodie Foster’s
Firstly let me explain the title. I am not having a go at Jodie Foster’s acting talents, she is one of my favourite actors and I have utmost respect for her as an actress. What I am having a go at is her views on atheism and religion. It seems that there are two distinct groups in atheism these days, the people who are “all out” atheists and continually argue against the irrationality of religion and belief, and those who are almost apologising for their atheism.
Jodie Foster is one of those in the latter group. She freely admits to being an atheist, but in doing so, always relates herself back to organised religion in some way, so it seems less of a “controversial” issue.
I don’t follow any kind of traditional religion, but I have great respect for all religions. I spend a lot of time studying divine texts, whether it’s Eastern religion or Western religion. I only have questions so far and no answers. [1]
The usage of the word “but” is probably the most conclusive evidence in this quote. She describes herself as an atheist (rather, one who doesn’t follow a religion), and then tries to cover up for the fact by showing her “respect” for religion in general. Many would argue it’s a minor piece of evidence, but how would the quote look if she had said “and” instead of the “but”, or some other passive conjunction? Instead of some kind of apology for being an atheist, the statement becomes one where the emphasis is not so greatly strained on the religious side.
Perhaps I’m being slightly too analytical, but it leads me onto the type of atheist I think we need more of: Penn Jillette.
Penn Jillette is the speaking half of the comedy magician duo “Penn & Teller”, and although Teller is equally as open and “loud” about his atheism, it is Penn who always does the talking. He has debunked Christianity on his television show “Bullshit!”, joined the “Blasphemy Challenge” started by the Rational Response Squad, and has a license plate on his car that reads “DOG ON” (“NO GOD” backwards so people looking in their rear-view mirrors will know the truth).
It is people like him that are opening atheism up to the world. People might complain that this isn’t doing atheism any good on the whole, and that continually arguing against faith is just making people hate atheists even more, but I don’t believe that is true. The only reason atheism is more widely accepted these days is because people like Jillette have come out and publicly admitted their atheism, and have ridiculed religion and exposed it for the lying money grabbing scam it truly is.
In the U.K, the leader of the Liberal Democrats party is an atheist, but he has publicly stated that
he had “enormous respect for people who have religious faith”, that his wife is Catholic and that his children are being brought up Catholic.
Notice again, the frank apology for his beliefs, which I guess is in order to gain votes from the religious majority in the country. I would have hoped that in secular England, a politician wouldn’t have to sink this low to gain votes, but then again politicians have sunken lower. I would never wish my children to be brought up Catholic. I would wish them to be brought up knowing all the facts, and for them to be able to make a rational decision by themselves. If they work out there is no God, I’ll support them, and if they belief that there is more to the universe than science and want to join an organised religion, I’ll support that too, but for goodness sake let the children decide!
Here’s hoping that the world produces more aggressive atheists. We’ll need them to combat the growing number of aggressive anti-secular, anti-atheist believers who want nothing more but complete religious control over the world.
It doesn’t seem to me that Penn is engaged in “continually arguing against faith” in a tone befitting, say, Richard Dawkins… he’s more of a realist, in a sense. While calling people out as stupid or irrational, he also manages to find some humor in society and mankind.
I just don’t see much value is “aggressive atheism,” to use your terminology. While I enjoy reading viewpoints from every perspective, of course, I think Sam Harris’ style is more beneficial than the attack dogs of radical atheism (a group I would not put Penn in, btw). Harris still sees some value in spirituality and is curious about why our brains seek those experiences, but his exploration doesn’t strike me as Hollywood vanity or a calculated attempt to not offend.
I do wish people would be able to express their lack of belief without apology or dismissal. On that point you are spot on!
I agree that more Sam Harris’ would be a good thing as well, but I don’t think it will increase the atheism movement as much as people like Penn Jillette. I think the main difference between Richard Dawkins and Jillette is that Jillette has the shock factor, and whereas Dawkins often appears timid though intellectually sound, Jillette gets more attention, and therefore increases the awareness of atheists on the whole.
Dawkins wrote a book about atheism, but the only people who are going to read it, save from a few open minded believers, are atheists. That is not the way to go if you want to increase public knowledge. Taking someone like Jillette, you have the attitude and personality to go with the message, and as you put, the humour factor.
I would like to know why you wouldn’t put Jillette in with the “attack dogs” as you call them, because in my eyes he most certainly is, possibly more so than Dawkins is. I really don’t think Jillette’s attitude is for “Hollywood vanity” either, since it posed more a risk to his career when he started doing it. I don’t think he had any personal goals in mind, but just wanted to get the message out, and have the ability to voice his opinions.
I guess I wouldn’t put Penn in the “attack dog” camp because I like his approach. I think I read “attack dog” with a negative connotation, when in this instance it appears you meant it as a compliment… :)
But you may be right – to most people he could be seen as direct, harsh, offensive, etc. No quarrels there. And he certainly took a risk by speaking out as directly as he has, being genuine and forthright in describing who he is, and he has all of my respect for living in such a way.
However, while more approaches like Penn’s might increase the atheism movement, but I wouldn’t want that approach to be the only line of “attack.”
I’d say a balanced strategy is more promising, and maybe that’s why it appears to be working over the past couple of years :
• You have the intellectual crowd being encouraged to be more outspoken by Dawkins, Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett (the “four horsemen”)
• You have the non-believing-entertainer crowd (Bill Maher and Penn Jillette, et al) bringing humor and irreverence to the debate
• And you have an entire generation of everyday people (with unfettered access to more transparent information than ever before) who are weighing the evidence in their own lives of the effects of religion and making their own choices about how to raise their families in the 21st century.
Progress is being made every day… I have hope that someday soon we will all be able to share our beliefs (or lack thereof) without apology or qualifiers. Websites like yours are part of that progress… thanks!
I totally agree with totally when you say we need a balanced strategy, and yes it has worked in recent years. I guess what I was trying to get across was it seems that there are more well known atheists who apologise for their beliefs than there are who openly admit to them being exactly what they believe. I think we’ll get further ahead with people who are committed to their views and don’t waver from the point.
I’m not saying we should shun these people completely, nor that we shouldn’t silence the intellectuals, because by being atheist these people are spreading a message. I just think we are lacking in the proper aggressive offensive department. Other than George Carlin and Penn & Teller, I can’t think of many people in the public eye who strive to fight religion.
Yeah, other than Carlin and Penn, Bill Maher… not sure who else is as vocal as the three of them (in terms of people in the public eye).
As a celebrity, Ms. Foster must protect her image. Her earnings are directly tied to it. So while I agree that her statement was unfortunate, I don’t hold it against her for making it.
I would prefer if Ms. Foster would have said:
“I don’t follow any kind of traditional religion, but I have great respect for PEOPLE WHO DO.
This differentiates between people and certain beliefs they hold, and I think it would have had the same effect of making and concession to endear herself to the religious, without compromising her integrity. There are many wonderful, intelligent people who believe in god(s), and surely all of us believe some false things.
Mike,
As I have argued, Penn Jillette and George Carlin get away with it, and their reputations and images haven’t been damaged in the slightest. George Carlin got famous through his criticism of religion, so I can’t see how people like Jodie Foster will be affected.
Well I don’t know how much they each make, but my gut feeling is that Jodie Foster commands a much higher salary than Penn or George Carlin. She is a more mainstream celeb. We all know how many religious people there are. It’s easy to damage a reputation. I think it’s easy to imagine she could be affected if she positions herself as not just an Atheist, but one who is hostile to religion. I’m just suggesting that while constructive criticizm is good, we shouldn’t attack “our own”.
Penn & Teller have a blog now. They posted some deleted scenes from last weeks the War On Porn episode. I have to say my favorite post was of a Mother/daughter interview at a porn convention. Heartwarming…
Check it out:
http://bsblog.sho.com?source=m_ptbs6_bsblog_blogs
I cannot imagine why any one would have any respect for some one because they have religious beliefs. Why would I respect anyone who thinks the world was created last week and all the dinosaurs drowned in a flood?
I have yet to meet a “Christian,” who practiced what the bible preaches :) And as for the latest Christian to hit the headlines, : Sarah Palin, who wants creationism taught in schools, well, words almost fail.
The more people who stand up and ridicule believers, the better.
It is fun also :D