Big Think

Mark Darbyshire on February 27, 2009, 2:42 PM

Touching story. Kind of sad to lose your innocence about religion, but also about your parents, at such an early age.

HerbieP on February 28, 2009, 1:02 PM

Mr Gervais is an eloquent raconteur, this is his area of expertise. He manages to articulate the contemporary atheism of the layman. No need for elaborate philosophical arguments, no need to discredit the ‘science’ of faith. A generation ago deep down Mr Gervais’ mother knew it was a con, so do we all.

Mark why is loss of innocence sad? We wouldn’t want to remain innocent for ever would we? Aren’t we delighted when our children learn?

Musycks on March 1, 2009, 4:20 PM

for once…
Mr Gervais avoids the dry and academic without resorting to his forte, the comedy of embarrassment, to make some great observations.
As an artist he points out that the beauty in the universe touches athiests deeply and that we have ‘trancendant’ experiences that are not indebted to some celestial dictator.
Music, Art and literature are 3 more powerful and enduring inventions of man than the idea of god, which is one of our worst, born of ignorance and fueled by tribal territorialism.

thanks Ricky, poignant and real.

Richard Oakes on March 1, 2009, 5:52 PM

All such stories of revelation have an element of pathos. I stopped believing is Santa Claus at about the same age.

It is a pity that Mr Gervais isn’t a better informed atheist. Most evolutionary biologists would bridle at the idea of human evolution being “accidental”.

Duke Amboy on March 3, 2009, 3:55 PM

Richard, I think his use of “accidental” was meant more as “not by design” rather than “oops, I’ve evolved”.

Musycks on March 3, 2009, 6:29 PM

yeah, I took it to mean that evolution is the explanation and the mechanism by which this is the only universe that could have evolved. Either way the strength of Gervais is not to get into the science per se, just to say that his instinct led him to a conclusion other than what his cultural programming would have.

Richard Oakes on March 3, 2009, 6:57 PM

Hi there Duke and Mus.
You are right about the Mr Gervais intentions.
However, the term “accidental” is frequently in Intelligent Design polemics. They are misrepresenting the science by claiming the evolution is random, when in fact there is an identifiable process at work.
This really gets the nose of people like Richard Dawkins.
Cheers,
RO

Richard Oakes on March 3, 2009, 6:57 PM

Hi there Duke and Mus.
You are right about the Mr Gervais intentions.
However, the term “accidental” is frequently in Intelligent Design polemics. They are misrepresenting the science by claiming the evolution is random, when in fact there is an identifiable process at work.
This really gets the nose of people like Richard Dawkins.
Cheers,
RO

Mitch Brown on March 3, 2009, 7:28 PM

They are misrepresenting the science by claiming the evolution is random, when in fact there is an identifiable process at work.

—

You really need to brush up on science 101 to avoid coming across as completely ignorant.

If there were an ID behind evolution the only obvious thing about it would be its sadistic cruelty.

Musycks on March 3, 2009, 8:40 PM

Mr Brown… you need to read Mr Oakes a little more carefully… he states the exact opposite of what you accuse him of.

Richard Oakes on March 4, 2009, 12:18 AM

Sorry Mitch. I don’t quite get your point.
While I would not concede being “completely ignorant”, I have to own up to being “very ignorant” on many subjects. If you can explain yourself more clearly, I am happy to be corrected.

Mitch Brown on March 4, 2009, 1:07 AM

Obviously, you don’t and never will until you stop relying on bible class for your education in science.

Richard Oakes on March 4, 2009, 2:00 AM

Musycks
I think that I can forgive Mr Brown’s misunderstanding. I must have been on drugs when wrote that posting…

Thanks Mitch
I found your last comment rather funny. If God reads my actions as you do, maybe I will be “saved” after all!

Musycks on March 4, 2009, 8:30 PM

I hope they were good ones!
and I thought you were saying that the indentifiable process in evolution was natural selection, but then again I know your take on the bible.

Mitch… on another post when someone put a bible quote in brackets Richard said..
‘I love Bible quotes, it’s one place where the punctuation outweighs the content’!
That should give you some idea of RO’s estimation of it’s worth.

Caleb Arnold on March 5, 2009, 9:08 PM

Mr. Gervais is a humble and decent man from what I know, but how can he base his whole life on the hunch of his older brother. When I was a young boy my older brother would constantly contradict my mother to try to sway me away from her rules and thinking and that is what a lot of older brothers are out there to do, it is as if it is in their job description. I may understand how he feels about God or lack thereof but what if God isn’t there to please our every need and he only comes to us when we somehow go after him. Also, I can’t imagine all the thousands and millions of people dying over the course of the history of the earth over religion if it is not even real. In this day of being open minded to everything; those same people say that religion especially Christianity is a waste of time and are close minded to that.

Musycks on March 5, 2009, 10:12 PM

but I think Mr Gervais took that as his first big clue, and his instincts have since been confirmed in what he’s experienced and observed. religion is real enough, it’s the objective proof of what they say exists that is in question. In my opinion your ‘millions of people dying’ were every one of them unable to give objective evidence for the truth of the entity for which they gave their lives. If you have some please forward it.

If Ricky sussed it at 8 years of age that it was a fraud then all that’s done is save him some time.

Alex Lipton on March 15, 2009, 12:47 PM

Mr. Gervais, you couldn’t have been more reasonable and articulate.

Caleb, the very fact that there are many different religions, many of which have absolutely contrary views on the universe should sound some warning bells in your mind that they can’t all be true, or “real” as you put it. How do you determine which one, if any is true? What makes more sense, going to heaven and meeting St. Peter at the pearly gates or flying to heaven on a winged horse?

Neither makes sense to the rational mind, one that hasn’t been distorted with indoctrinating religious dogma. Just because someone dies for a belief does not make that belief true. If I kill someone in the name of “O” the omnipotent omniscient all loving (and tasty!) cheerios God it doesn’t mean that “O” really exists, or that I make him exist by believing in him. That sort of ontological argument was discredited centuries ago.

It’s not Christianity specifically that’s a waste of time, Caleb, it’s any ridiculous, stone-age mentality or belief that is simply incompatible with the 21st century rational, educated mind.

Jordan Service on April 9, 2009, 11:55 PM

Mr Gervias I find it hard to believe that at 8 years old you were already a scientist. I find it even harder to believe that you base your life on a 19 year old boy, and a “working class woman”. I would challenge you that you never had faith, your faith was only based on your mother’s and once you saw that she didn’t have faith you lost it your self. You never believed in any thing greater than your mother.

You also set up a split between religion and science. “I was a man of science”, is that to say rather than a man of religion? I guess you can’t be both then… I wonder why.

I see God in science, in the wonders of physics not in mere nature, but in the underlying system. Why when I get out of bed every morning the giant mass of mostly empty space that makes up my foot, touches the mass of mostly empty space that makes the floor, and yet I do not fall through it. Science is faith, faith in math, physics, biology the wonders of evolution. Everything is either a miracle, or it is ordinary, it is only a mater of perception.

If there is “no fact only perception”, why do we always choose the pessimistic view?

Bryan Cridlebaugh on April 10, 2009, 3:19 AM

I like this dude. I heard his ideas on another show.. before this one. I’m not an atheist any more, I’m way more open-minded. But, I like his style.

James C on April 10, 2009, 6:38 AM

Hi Caleb,

A religion can have real consequences, even if the [Gg]od[s] it claims aren’t correct. For example, the economic consequences of the Reformation, described in “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, by Max Weber.

catspajamas on April 11, 2009, 11:42 PM

I can completely relate. I remember saying my prayers as a little kid, in England – God bless Mummy and Daddy and Nana – and not thinking much of it. It was the thing you did after brushing your teeth at Nana’s house. We never really went to church much as a family, although sometimes Nana would take me. Sometimes you’d end up in the local church hall for Pie and Pea Suppers and the like, but I never really thought a lot about religion and the concept of God. It was just kind of accepted – at a certain age you just believed in God and Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. At least there was “evidence” of the existence of the latter two: presents and sixpence under the pillow.

For some reason when I was about 8 I ended up going to Sunday school for a while and I remember quite clearly one day thinking that none of it made any sense. I can’t remember what the teacher had been talking about – probably something “miraculous” – loaves and fishes or burning bushes – and I thought that’s just silly. And I went home and said as much to my Mom. She kind of danced around it, and I could tell she was uncomfortable and ambivalent about the whole thing – it was like she thought she should believe, because of the neighbours, or because it was the done thing. And I knew right then.

Sadly I hung on to the Santa Claus thing for another year after that. He kind of made more sense to me.

Musycks on April 13, 2009, 11:16 PM

Mr Service…. with roughly 83% of scientists professing non belief it seems that it’s difficult to do both? Hanging on to the cultural conditioning of religion is a different argument to whether it is true or not though. How does your etherial god interract with the causal universe and what evidence do you hacve that it does? that’s why the 8 yr old Gervais was a scientist, he could not believe in the invisible sky wizard of love as you seem to do.

tim hall on April 19, 2009, 6:12 PM

I grew up the same as Lesley and was very suspicious of the religion thing by the time I was eight. I had a hard time of not believing it to a certain degree. After all, when 500 million people believe you could be going to hell, that is not something to blow off without doing some extensive study. I finally went to collage at 48 studying graphic design. Well, we had to do a year of art history. Art history is 80% religion, 15% war and 5% other. Plus I had to study all about scribes and every source of communication that humans ever used. I could not help myself in digging deaper and studying what the linguistic angle was on the subject. I ended up a darned Atheist, what ever that is. But through my studies I came to the conclusion that humans have some sort of connection. It seems that the more they connect the better off they are. Folks that study ancient history including religion without accessing the professional linguist and archeologist are only fooling themselves.

Jim Stiene on April 24, 2009, 6:11 PM

I’ve probably always been somewhat agnostic, even growing up in a catholic family. But I can’t say it would surprise me if science itself realizes the Big Bang, life, the cell, proteins and numerous biological systemes within systems are too sophisticated to have happend on accident. Much in the way the probability against a single big bang in a single universe creating even matter was very low because of things like the difference between the strong and weak force.

I don’t believe in any existing conception of God, but I haven’t written the possibility off. I mean, who the hell knows?

Al Cadena on May 15, 2009, 2:47 AM

Thanks to Ricky Gervais for sharing his personal story.  What a great storyteller!

I grew up agnostic and didn’t think much about religion until someone shared with me that faith and reason (science) are always in harmony.  It’s common sense.  Common sense actually comes from true religion.  Unfortunately, true religion gets the bum rap as the clergy of commercial, mainstream religion are often blinded by their own ego or misunderstand what was in the holy books and thus misinform the public.  Shame on the clergy!  They are the ones causing much of the discord and ignorance in the world!

For those of you who dismiss religion altogether, I completely understand—I was there.  But I invite you to a different party:

1. If you think outside the box and start thinking that there has only been one religion throughout time, with many chapters that might seem familiar (e.g. Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc.), then things will start to seem a little clearer.  Common sense. 

2. If you then realize that the spiritual core of these chapters are all the same (e.g. The Golden Rule, Don’t be Evil, etc.) and immutable, but it’s only the social teachings (e.g. kosher laws, baptism, jihad, etc.) where they differ, then you’ve reached the next step.  Again, at their core, they are in harmony. 

3.  Let’s face it, we evolve, and so does religion over time, as our collective consciousness evolves too. 

4. The clergy can’t see this, because they are too vested in their own position to see the truth.

Bypass the clergy, media, and others, and investigate this.  You owe it to yourself!

Musycks on May 19, 2009, 8:49 PM

Albert Roark on June 8, 2009, 9:45 PM

Debbie on June 10, 2009, 12:59 AM

I’m a proud atheist. It is my best understanding of reality that there are no gods….just people that believe in them. I agree with Dawkins that there is a bit of a mass delusion going on. To me, it is almost intolerable. However, I have no choice other than to “live and let live” – except when the religious try to control science or lifestyle choices, but I am becoming increasingly concerned about the fact that the religious are teaching their children to believe in myths.  The indoctrination is unnecessary, and exacts a huge toll as they mature. They struggle to overcome the indoctrination, live in constant ambivalence, or give in to a judgmental and fearsome sky-god.  I suppose there is comfort in knowing that “god loves you”, but the price that society has to pay for this childlike need for love and acceptance is just too high.  

Debbie on June 10, 2009, 1:06 AM

It is time to evolve beyond religion….not to create another version of it!!!!  There is absolutely nothing in the universe that makes me need or want a relationship with an imagined “power” or “god”.  The whole idea is ludicrous.  I understand wanting a magical friend, or a sense that we are not alone, but these are lies! Everything I want and need is here with me NOW…the love, the companionship, the ethical and moral values (which have been refined much further than the teachings of most holy books).  I do not need stories of creation or miracles to make me appreciate the almost impossible fact that I am alive - given all the many things that had to happen to make it so!!

Ricky Payne on June 10, 2009, 4:16 AM

Evolution is indeed accidental. It is unintentional and happens by way of completely random events..

Linda Bell on June 12, 2009, 11:27 PM

I always thought of the difference between spirituality and religion as one whereby ‘man’ can control the human population in the name of ‘God" (portray human jugement and often, limited human breadths of vision, as God’s laws); and spirituality being an understanding or belief that a non-judgmental entity is the Source that has existed through the ethers of time and that as individuals, we subconsciously use It to direct (or destroy) our lives. In fact God may not be one single entity – but actually 6+billion individuals that all have the same access to this original Entity that religion calls God! Evolution is just the passage in time where we explore our ability to ‘evolve out thinking’, to intentionally or unintentionally, create our life paths …

Linda Bell on June 12, 2009, 11:40 PM

I should add that if one believes in ‘cause and effect" then evolution is not so much accidental, but the result of an effect responding to a cause (which one might label as random – because every single response is different when an ’individual’ or living creature is the cause and/or the effect).

sean quinn on June 25, 2009, 8:15 AM

I think that Ricky expresses himself brilliantly. The idea is clear, belief is an interpretive tool for a child’s mind. We’ve always used it to morally and socially reinforce a positive direction, it is because of the success of that direction that one day when a child grows they will hear the truth, as Ricky did at eight, and it seems self evident that the whole thing is a construction, not necessarily bad, but false.

As Dawkin’s points out, once you make the connection and it is internalised you have no incentive to return to belief even when you crave the simplicity. It would be like requesting to be put “back in the Matrix”, you’d know it for the lie it is and it’s power to comfort would be gone

Peter Stanton on July 25, 2009, 9:38 PM

Poking holes in various religions or pointing out the things that annoy you about these same religions does not disprove the existence of a god.  The fact is, the energy and matter in the universe seems to have come from nothing.  To me that sounds like a creation event by something or someone transcendent of time and space as we currently understand them.

I can only prove Christianity to a point with some circumstantial  and historical evidence.  After that it is simply a leap of faith.  I guess I’m an agnostic who just took the leap.  It makes me feels better and act better.  Science also shows it has health benefits.

Why are atheists always so angry?  Your lack of a belief is in fact just another unproven worldview so how are you hard core atheists any different from a Bible literalist who is “sure” he is right?  People who are “sure” they are right scare me.  

Erik Lars on August 1, 2009, 4:24 AM

Raligion is about faith.Science is about fact. You can’t confuse the two.

<a href=“http://www.iphonezz.net/iphone_download_site_review.html”>Iphone download site review</a>

<a href=“http://www.iphonezz.net/iphone_downloads.html”>iphone downloads</a>