While the (more traditional) strands of negative theology in Pete Rollins’ first publication, How (Not) to Speak of God, form a type of ‘believing in God while remaining dubious about what one believes about God’ (p.26), more radical implications can be drawn, since there can be not just doubt about ‘who or what God is’ but, further, ‘doubt about if God is’ (interview with Pete for my PhD thesis).

Rollins’ second book, The Fidelity of Betrayal, follows the deconstructive theology of Derridean philosopher John D. Caputo (see here, here and here) to make a distinction between, on the one hand, the name and being of God and, on the other, the event of God (see Caputo’s The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event). This distinction is made in order suggest a betrayal of religious beliefs and practices that emphasise the existence of God in fidelity to those that encourage the transformative event of God.

There are both more radical and more traditional elements within Pete Rollins’ work.

The latter can be placed squarely within the tradition of negative or apophatic theology, according to which ‘we ought to affirm our view of God while at the same time realizing that that view is inadequate’. The result is both a theism and an atheism, an “a/theism” that is ‘not some agnostic middle point hovering hesitantly between theism and atheism but, rather, actively embraces both out of a profound faith’ (Rollins, How [Not] to Speak of God, p.25).

For Rollins, this is

a deeply religious and faith-filled form of cynical discourse, one which captures how faith operates in an oscillation between understanding and unknowing. This unknowing is to be utterly distinguished from an intellectual lazy ignorance, for it is a type of unknowing which arises not from imprecision but rather from deep reflection and sustained meditation (p.26).

Examining their theories of religion in the “Atheism for Lent” Course, we have seen that for Freud religion is primarily ‘ontological weakness seeking consolation;’ for Marx it is primarily ‘sociological power seeking legitimation;’ and for Nietzsche it is primarily ‘sociological weakness seeking revenge’ (Merold Westphal, Suspicion and Faith, p.229).

But perhaps it is also possible for a hermeneutic of suspicion to interpret these critics’ sceptical atheism similarly? Perhaps atheism is also wish-fulfilment? Does atheism also function as an oppressive ideology? Does it also operate within slave morality?

The claim that atheism – the “new atheism” of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, etc. in particular – is also a form of religious (i.e. dogmatic) belief system is often made in Christian rebuttals of atheist critiques of religion. But perhaps atheism and religion are alike in more radical ways than this.

Atheism for Lent: Religion as Lie (Ricky Gervais 1)

Atheism for Lent: Religion as Lie (Ricky Gervais 2)

Atheism for Lent: Religion as Lie (Ricky Gervais 3)

Atheism for Lent: Religion as Lie (Ricky Gervais 4)

Atheism for Lent: Religion as Lie (Ricky Gervais 5)

The supposition at the heart of Ricky Gervais’ (2009) The Invention of Lying is that religion is so closely linked to story-telling and historical embellishment that it is understood as lying.

From Scepticism to Suspicion

In this film, the distinctions made by Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche in their critiques of religion (see here, here and here for “Atheism for Lent” Course material) between appearance and reality, or manifest and latent meanings, becomes that between lies and the truth. But in the world within The Invention of Lying there are no such terms; there are simply “things that are” (the truth) and “things that aren’t” (lies), just “the way things are” and Mark’s new-found ability to say “something that wasn’t”. This language of being or existence denotes Gervais’ scepticism: ‘God doesn’t exist… Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true’ (Gervais, “Why I’m an Atheist”).

But Gervais’ suspicion is also apparent in the ways that Mark’s theological inventions function as

psychological wish-fulfilments (Freud’s critique of religion),

oppressive ideologies (Marx’s critique of religion), and

vengeful morality (Nietzsche’s critique of religion).

Can Gervais’ film help us to understand the critiques of religion by these three great atheists?

Once framed in the sceptical language of falsehood and lies, is it now possible to more clearly identify the functions that critics suspect religion plays?

If religion existed in a world where we (like Mark) knew it to be deceitful, which of our religious beliefs and practices could we more readily identify as harmful?

In other words, if religion is a lie…

…what happens to my faith?

Hi, I’m Bob. I’m the spokesperson for the Coca Cola Company. I’m here today to ask you to continue buying Coke. I’m sure if you drink it, you’ve been drinking it for years, and if you still enjoy it, well, I’d like to remind you to buy it again some time soon. It’s basically just brown sugar water. We haven’t changed the ingredients much lately, so there’s nothing new I can tell you about that. Uh, changed the can around a little bit, though. You can see the colours are different there and we’ve added a polar bear so the kids like us. Coke’s very high in sugar and like any high calorie soda, it can lead to obesity in children and adults who don’t sustain a very healthy diet. And that’s it. It’s Coke. It’s very famous. Everyone knows it. I’m Bob, I work for Coke and I’m asking you to not stop buying coke. <drinks> It’s a bit sweet. Thank you.

Trailer for The Invention of Lying (2009).

Ricky Gervais’ (2009) film The Invention of Lying is set in a world where human beings have not evolved the fictional gene that allows them to lie.

Not only can’t they lie – which precludes the possibility of story-telling, mythology and, therefore, religion – but it seems that they have to actively tell the truth, which means that characters air their thoughts without regard for how these thoughts are received by others, since this is how the world has worked throughout centuries of human history.

Individual self-interest is palpable in this world, with the central female character, Anna (Jennifer Garner), primarily concerned with finding a sexual partner who is a good genetic, social and economic match (like Rob Lowe’s Brad). This leads unattractive, overweight, anti-social losers like Mark (Gervais), Greg (Louis C.K.) and Frank (Jonah Hill) to despair, drunkenness and depression, respectively.

When Mark one day evolves the lying gene, he hopes it will help him attain the wealth and status to attract Anna.

But the ability has worldwide theological and ethical consequences when he is overheard lying about life after death in an attempt to console his dying mother.

After his “holiday message” in The Wall Street Journal Speakeasy, there was a Q and A with Ricky Gervais, “Does God Exist? Ricky Gervais Takes Your Questions”. It further demonstrates his sceptical atheism, but as the week progresses I’ll also illustrate his hermeneutic of suspicion (see here on scepticism and suspicion).

Question: In your piece you write that, “Science is humble. It knows what it knows and it knows what it doesn’t know”. In fact, mainstream scientific thought has sometimes been wrong, and it is constantly changing and revising itself. So how can you be so sure that science supports your belief that God does not exist?

Ricky Gervais: Science doesn’t concern itself with the non-existence of something. The periodic table of imaginary things would be too big for a classroom - infinitely big in fact, and rather pointless. It’s not trying to prove the non-existence of anything supernatural. All it knows is there is no scientific proof of anything supernatural so far. When someone presents a jar of God, it will test it. If it finds some evidence of “godness”, it will follow the evidence till it knows everything it can.

This Wall Street Journal Speakeasy “holiday message” from Ricky Gervais provides another good introduction to his sceptical atheism, that can frame later discussions of his hermeneutic of suspicion and his critique of religion as a lie:

Why don’t you believe in God? I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time consuming and pointless. People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary. They are happy with their belief. They even say things like “it’s true to me” and “it’s faith”. I still give my logical answer because I feel that not being honest would be patronizing and impolite. It is ironic therefore that “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe”, comes across as both patronizing and impolite.

The next few posts in this Atheism for Lent series will focus on Ricky Gervais, and can act as preparatory material before watching his (2009) film, The Invention of Lying.

It’s better to know the truth… My Mum only lied to me about one thing. She said that there was a God… I wish there was a God. I wish there was. It’d be great. From what I’ve heard, he’s brilliant… But you can’t believe in something you don’t. Also, if there is a God, why did he make me an atheist? That was his first mistake. Well, the talking snake was his first mistake.

Ricky Gervais, on “Inside the Actors Studio”.