Arrogance of Theists
Another day, another meme… I recently saw this one featuring my fellow countryman, Ricky Gervais:
The Number?
Before we talk about the argument being made in this meme, does anyone know from where Gerais obtains the number 3,000? If you know the source, please leave a comment, I’d love to find out…
Personally, I think that it would probably be better to count theological systems rather than gods. I say this because I find it hard to believe that a polytheist would have believed in Zeus and yet deny the existence of his son, Apollo. The two were part of the same theological system. Likewise, I wonder if, in this numeration of gods, the Greek gods and their Roman counterparts were counted separately or together, since they were essentially the same gods under different names. Maybe the 3,000 figure has indeed conflated some of the gods. After all, depending on who you count them, Hinduism alone has up to 330 million!
The Argument?
So, what should we make of the meme’s actual argument? Well, honestly, there’s a logical leap in this meme which I don’t quite understand… Is he saying that because there have been many gods in human history, we can therefore say that no gods exist? If so, I don’t really see why that’s a logical consequence. Does the presence of counterfeit money in the USA prove that there’s no such thing as a one dollar bill?
The Category Error?
It is tempting to point out the problems with comparing the Greek and Roman gods to what Christians mean when they speak of “God”. However, for brevity’s sake, I don’t plan on doing that in this post. If you would like to know more about this line of argumentation, I would invite you to watch this video by Fr. Barron.
The arrogance?
What I find interesting about this meme is that it attempts to shame theists for what is perceived to be their arrogance. “All these gods in history and yet yours is the only one that exists?! What makes you so special?”
I find this underlying message a little ironic since I would argue that the atheistic position appears, at least to me, to be the more arrogant. I say this because for most of human history people have believed in deity. Even today, belief in the supernatural is still the majority view, even if it isn’t always grounded in some formalized religion. While this isn’t proof that God exists, it should give one pause for thought. Doesn’t it seem to be at least a little bit arrogant to believe that, on this fundamental question, 99.999% of humanity has been wrong and that it is only the atheist who is smart enough to see the obvious truth?
And the answer to his objections is “Yes!”
That’s kinda his point.
It’s an argument from incredulity, which is very weak. One could have said something similar to Darwin or Fr. George Lemaitre about their own explanations for life (Origin of the Species and the Big Bang, respectively):
“All these other explanations for existence and you think *yours* is the one that’s right?”
Along with not having given up his childish nickname, he seems unwilling to give up his childish views. Only a child thinks he’s the end-all, be-all. Only children refuse to acknowledge that there is something bigger than them that is in control.
There was a great comment on the Facebook Page relating to this post which I wanted to share:
Ricky is not saying he believes there is no God… he is saying he does not believe there is any God.
It is really important to address the position actually held, or theists are no better than the atheists who say Catholicism is ritual cannibalism and Catholics believe in blood magic. Shouldn’t theists be better than that?
Also … it is not proved that anyone has been able to recognize the existence and providence of God by any means. It is even Biblical that some people and civilizations worship false gods and do not recognize Him. So it is actually a point of doctrine that the reverse is true!
Also also…
How do we *know* that what “Every civilization in the history of the world has been able to recognize the existence and providence of God simply through the natural order of the world” is in fact the existence and providence of God. Couldn’t they have been mistaken as they have been mistaken about which god is being “recocnized” through the natural order of the world?
Are we so infallable that we think we could not possibly have got it wrong?
Hey Simon, welcome to Restless Pilgrim.
Sorry, but this really seems like hair-splitting. I see little difference between the two statements and find such arguments fruitless, diving more into someone’s psychology rather than truth about reality.
Firstly, the quotation said “recognize”, not “prove”.
Secondly, it depends what you mean by “proved”. Personally, I have been convinced by many of the arguments for God’s existence (e.g. Argument from Reason, Argument from Motion etc.), even aside from my personal experience.
I’m not sure why you think this is an argument in favour of the atheist. I’d suggest it actually strengthens the case of the theists because,while these people did not worship the God of Abraham, they still interpreted these elements of life within a supernatural framework.
While the original statement is a little hyperbolic, can you think of any civilizations devoid of spirituality?
Possibly, but naturalistic, materialistic explanations would then have to be offered which offered a better explanation and more explanatory power.
Post makes a common mistake about the atheist position.
Let me just play atheists advocate a bit here…
If we want to understand Ricky’s argument, it is important to know where he is coming from… or we end up, perhaps unintentionally, arguing a straw man.
The position is not that there are absolutely no gods, but that they. the atheists, do not have sufficient justification to believe there are any gods. Maybe there is a god or three floating around… they have insufficient reason to believe so.
This position is often called agnostic atheism.
As opposed to concluding that there are no gods, in the sense that we also conclude there are no unicorns, pixies, or fairies. That would be hard atheism, sometimes called “gnostic atheism” by people who have not heard of the gnostic heresy.
How is admitting that they have no good reason to believe, an *arrogant* position?
Compared with the Catholic one … from their POV: that there is a single God who is the Almighty Ruler of all Creation, who is specifically interested in you personally, your sex life, who you date, what you eat…
By comparison, isn’t owning that they could be wrong but not drawing conclusions where they don’t have sufficient reason to a humble position? Atheists do not claim to have the answers: theists do. But theists do not support their answers without appealing to faith, which atheists find “unreliable paths to truth”.
If I told you you were wrong, and I was right, with no good reason for you to believe me… then I’d be arrogant. If I just said I didn’t believe you … but maybe you are right… that’s not arrogant.
The equivalent theist position would be agnostic theism … you don’t know for absolute sure there is a God, but you believe anyway: you just have to hyave faith. Sound familiar?
This way of viewing atheism at odds with the classical philosophical definitions of the terms, but Risky is not arguing classical theology here: he is putting on a comedy show. It’s rhetoric, not logic. If we don’t like the definitions then we are free to reject them… but having rejected the label, we still have to adress the position they were using the label (incorrectly in our view) for.
I think it is unbecoming for a Christian to go all smug on this point. Let them do that.
As to your question, the “3000” figure is, if anything, a wild underestimate.
Anthropologists, for example, identify something like 18000 independent deities or theist systems by the standards of their field. It is not hard to find this sort of figure in the anthropological literature.
It should come as no surprise to a Christian that there are many false gods… how many false Gods does the Bible consider are worshipped?
Ricky is not making an argument exactly … after all, just because 2999 others have got it wrong does not mean we have too. The challenge here is to come up with sufficient reason to support belief that we have got it right and all these others have got it wrong, that, and this is crucial, cannot be used by any of the other religions to support their ideas.
Example: “Its in our Holy book?” … well other religions have their holy books too.
You’re already made this sort of argument in another post, so I’m not really sure why you’re rehashing it. I also think this sort of argument is a waste of time. I’ll call anyone what they want to be called. I don’t really care about someone’s personal psychological state, but about claims about reality, which everyone makes.
That’s not really what is often claimed. Positive claims about reality are made and those who believe in the supernatural are derided, despite the fact that this has been the majority position for the majority of people for the majority of human history.
If there is a God, it would logically follow that a Creator would care about the activities of His creations, just like a parent has an active interest in his children.
This is a caricature and doesn’t correspond with my experience of either group.
…and in the next breath you straw-man the opposing position.
It’s almost like you didn’t read what I said regarding this number. However, out of interest, can you give an example of anthropological literature which makes such a claim? I’m interested to see what they regard as independent.
Never said it was and this, again, is a point you’ve already made.
It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand claiming that he’s just a comedian, but on the other demanding that he be treated like a serious philosopher.
This is straw-manning again.
1. Religions don’t simply claim that because they have a book that their religion must be true.
2. Are you seriously suggesting that all holy books have equal claims to historicity?