Two British comedians on their atheism

I came across these 2 really interesting YouTube videos, on the  and beliefs of the comedians Stephen Fry and Ricky Gervais, 2 of Britain's best loved comedians:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqibqD4fJZs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dknumOcNVcU&feature=related


Please watch them for yourself - but here are some of my thoughts on each one. I don't want to dissect them as that is always unfair - they are only short youtube videos and not comprehensive papers!

Ricky Gervais

Ricky Gervais describes the day he lost his faith in God, when as an 8 year old, he sensed by her body language that his mother didn't want him to investigate why he believed in God, and thus was hiding the fact that he didn't exist. In his words, from then "he just knew". He then briefly discusses that now he thinks that is it an impossibility that God exists. Gervais is a good example of a person who lost their faith as a child, and since then, has not worked to investigate whether God does indeed exist, or if Jesus is his revealed son and word. It is sad that there are many people who are living their life on this - the knowledge in a particular area (in this case theology) of an 8 year old. If this is you - then I encourage you to investigate whether there is good evidence that God does exist, rather than listen to comedians, who while sincere (and Gervais is sincere and honest in this video which is commendable) may be wrong. 

Stephen Fry

Stephen Fry is an extremely intelligent man, and a very sharp comedian. Here however he makes some remarkable comments:

Firstly, he says that even if it is true that there is an afterlife, we must not believe in it, but must live as if it isn't true, so that we are not intellectually lazy and make the most of our opportunities to learn and grow as people in this life. Whilst it is rightly admirable that Fry wants people to come out of the intellectual sloppiness and laziness that pervades much of modern western society, it seems odd that if it is true that there is an afterlife, we should believe that there isn't one - i.e he wants us to believe a lie, even when we know the truth. This is more than intellectually lazy, it is deceitful!

Secondly, he moves on to why he does not believe in God. His argument is the argument from evil - i.e how can god exist when there is so much suffering in the world. He uses animal suffering as an example. He says that we must take it both ways - we cannot just point to the beauty of creation as evidence for god and ignore the suffering. He is right of course - we cannot ignore the evil in the world: "The wonder of nature must be taken in its totally...we wonder all the way". 

Then he moves onto a criticism of a kind of moral argument - the idea that we don't know what is right or wrong unless we are told it from a book written 2000 - 6000 years ago is absurd. And of course he is right about this too. However that is not the classical theistic moral argument. It is clear that humans have a moral perception - we can discern moral values and duties for ourselves (we don't need a book to tell us for example that torturing a child is wrong). The argument is is that unless there is a transcendent basis for those moral values and duties, they are not objective. If God does not exist, then why is torturing a child objectively wrong? Of course - I agree that torturing a child is wrong, but on atheism (of which Fry's humanism is a sort), there is no objective reason why it is wrong. On atheism our moral values are just social conventions that have developed over the course of human history to aid our survival. But that is all they are - just convention. If someone should come along and decide not to abide by convention because they do not care for human survival, who is to say they are wrong. It is just one person's opinion against another's. There is no independent basis to judge who is right. This leads to the moral argument for God (which is a logical argument using the rule modus tollens):

1. If God does not exist (P) -> Objective moral values do not exist (Q)
2. Objective moral values do exist (¬Q)
3. God exists (¬P)

I think Fry accepts #1, since he talks about people having the responsibility of "maintaining and...creating our own ethical and moral frameworks". God does not exist, so objective moral values do not exist - we need to create our own.

However he then starts talking about 'right and wrong' in an objective sense, when he says "the idea that we don't know right from wrong..but we have to take it from words...in a book..is absurd". So he seems to accept that there is a realm of morality that he can discern apart from ourselves - i.e that is is objective. So he may agree with #2 as well! So logically he would have to accept #3, that God does exist. 

Going back to his argument from animal suffering - which he takes to be objective (else why would he be so indignant at it!). If the argument above holds (it is logically sound and the premises are more plausible than their negations), then you can actually use it to prove the existence of God:

1. If God does not exist (P) -> Objective moral values do not exist (Q)
2. There is animal suffering in the world (R)
3. There is evil in the world (S)
4. There are objective moral values in the world (¬Q)
5. God exists (¬P)

So, far from disproving God's existence, animal suffering, and evil in general actually shows that there is a god, since it is objectively wrong.

Fry is a very sharp man, and I have guessed at his assumptions in the moral arguement (what else can you do with a short youtube video), but I imagine that he has not really heard the good reasons for god's existence, only the poor arguments that are all too present in christian circles (particularly in the UK where the state of christianity and religion is all too unintellectual - what would the church father's say were they to see this!)

I hope this encourages you, having the resources to think and research the question of if God exists to do so thoroughly. I like Stephen Fry and Ricky Gervais, but it is dangerous and misleading to just rely on comedians and celebrities to answer questions such as this for you!