Posted by Hemant Mehta in Ricky Gervais has been making the media rounds the past few weeks to talk about his new movie The Invention of Lying.
In the movie, lying leads to, among other things, the invention of religion.
So, Gervais has been talking about religion in many of the interviews he’s done:
When [Gervais' character] Mark Bellison learns to lie, he learns it can be used to comfort people, not just for personal gain. Something close to Gervais’s heart.
“I’ve been an atheist all my life,” he continues, “but I always knew that if my mum asked me when she was dying if there was a heaven I’d say yes. I’d lie. I think that’s how religion started – as a good lie. If you’re not an atheist you can watch this film without getting angry. I watch films about angels, love ’em. I don’t think you have to treat something that comes down on one side as propaganda.”
[Link]
…
Gervais insists he isn’t worried that his views about religion could ruin his career.
“I’ve never tiptoed around the subject, not even in America,” he said. “I say it on TV in America; I say it on radio in America. I nail it to the mast. I did Inside The Actors Studio and the students were taken aback.
[Link]
…
“I don’t see why we would ever get hate mail,” [Gervais] said at the movie’s press conference. “We decided that in this world, that’s how religion started. It’s an alternative world. It’s in no way atheist propaganda. I love films about angels and things like that and I wouldn’t go, ‘Oh, they’re coming down on one side here.’ Like ‘It’s a Wonderful Life.’ I don’t leave the cinema with my faith or lack of it challenged. I don’t think people should take this as anything other than an artistic choice.”
But as might be expected from a Gervais-led panel, every serious pronouncement about the film is countered with something funny. [Writer/director Matthew] Robinson adds, “I wrote this film to denounce one organized religion in particular and that’s Greek mythology. Because Zeus is not real. I don’t believe in him and I don’t think anyone else should.”
The ever-earnest [Jennifer] Garner embraces the prospect of controversy. “Isn’t it great if [the film] does start a conversation? Religion is something worth examining and your faith is something worth questioning. So I think if this movie asks that of people, that’s not a bad thing.”
Gervais prods Garner for her own belief system. “Yes, I do believe in God,” she confirms. “Thank you for making that clear.”
[Link]
Gervais’ appearance on Inside the Actors Studio can be seen here (with transcript).
(Thanks to Deanna for the link!)
From the historical evidence, religion started as a means for the ruling class to dominate everyone else. Early conceptions of heaven tended to be along the line “the ruler gets good things after death; everyone else either gets nothing or bad things depending on how well they served the ruler.”
Miko, I’d like to see your historical evidence about how “religion started”. No rush.
I like this concept for a movie. It neatly shows why small lies are important so that, as Terry Pratchett famously pointed out, we can believe in the really big lies, like “justice” and “democracy”.
I have to point out (1) that historical evidence starts with writing which doesn’t exist until after a ruling class exists and (2) the lower class wasn’t doing the writing.
The lower classes will sometimes subvert the ruling class religion. US slaves got the Bible (especially the bits about slaves obeying their masters) but then looked at the stories of the exodus of Hebrew slaves from Egypt to dream of their own freedom.
Miko that seems like a pretty bold claim. As I’ve understood, and this seems fairly obvious to me, religion started as a way for primitive people to explain the world around them. Somehow I doubt that early nomadic tribes had a ruling class that could really benefit from religion.
I like this movie idea.
Love Gervais. Great cast!
If only more believers could be like her. I may not agree with her conclusion, but at least she doesn’t fall into the trap of refusing to ask any questions.
Damn, almost had my full fantasy fulfilled there. Jennifer Garner as an atheist… oh well…
Gervais is a funny guy. I’d love to see the full “Inside the Actors Studio” he did. Maybe they’ll rerun it at some point.
Most people are atheists. This can be confirmed, not by asking them, but by examining their behavio(u)r.
Jason is correct.
Everyone is an atheist.
Christians who don’t believe in Zeus, Ra, Odin, etc. are ‘atheistic’ about those gods. Those of us who don’t find the evidence for any gods persuasive just go one god further than the christians (or muslims, jews, hindus, etc.). If even committed believers in this or that religion are atheists about all other religions, then atheism is arguably the most popular of all possible ‘religious’ worldviews.
I will readily concede that this is a slightly facile semantic argument, but I think it makes an interesting debating point.
“Most people are atheists. This can be confirmed, not by asking them, but by examining their behavio(u)r.”
Considering most are good/decent people, I agree.
Question on “evolution:”
With over 150 years since Darwin introduced his theory, evolutionists have had ample time to pin down specifics regarding translations from one animal species to another. OK?
So, can you specifically identify two successive species in a direct translation over time? That is, tell me one species that is known and identifiable and the very next identifiable species that “evolved” from it. Then, tell me how many part-one-species/part-next-species hybrids have been found to confirm this specific translation. If this evolution took thousands or millions of years to occur, then there must have been many millions of hybrids of varying proportions generated over that time. So, where are they?
No “haystacks” of generalities and obfuscations, please! I want to know a specific case of two successive species that have been positively proven that successively evolved from one to the next.
If no one can provide this evidence, then I say “evolution” is an empty dream with no support whatsoever in fact. Science requires positive evidentiary proof. I am a retired engineer, and my work required proof, also.
[...] see this movie for the longest time. Then, an article in Entertainment Weekly, which is summed up here, brought my attention to the true point of the plot. It seems that in order to comfort the [...]
Eugene, even if there were absolutely no fossils, (we are extremely lucky to have so many, look at how the whale evolved for an example)there would still be overwhemling evidence in many different fields that confirm the means of evolution by natural selection to be true.
What about something like the following:
Consider the two species
Homo sapiens and Ardipithecus ramidus.
After a careful examination of the fosil record including mitochondrial DNA, it appears that the followng transisional species can be found between them (starting with Ardipithecus ramidus:
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo sapiens
Of curse things are only absolutly proven in the mathematics. In science, one gathers evidence. The work continues to gather more and more evidence.
I got the lineage above from this link.
Eugene,
Complete misunderstanding of Evolution. Can you show me where any evolutionary scientist of repute (Dawkins, Coyne, Darwin, and many others)EVER says that evolution would look like what you describe?
You are either misled, or willfully ignorant of the topic. Evolution of species occurs as populations drift, minor changes grow into major changes over hundreds of thousands of years, and eventually the members of one drifting group are no longer capable of mating with the other group. Voila, new species.
Go read a credible book on Evolution, like Dawkins’ new “The Greatest Show on Earth” or Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True.”
Eugene, I second what Rob S says above but you may also be interested in reading up on Ring Species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
I hope that points you in the right direction.
Guys, Eugene Keech is using standard Creationist troll ploys here.
Let’s check the scoreboard:
Posting on a dead thread? Check!
Posting off topic, which is about a COMEDY MOVIE STARRING RICKY GERVAIS. Check!
Totally disproves 200 years of biology with a blog comment. Check!
Bonus points: ENGINEER!!! Salem Hypothesis!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis
Folks, call these people out, and don’t spend too long engaging them. They post on old posts on purpose…. so nobody will call them on their bullshit.
Oh, and standard creationist M.O. says he’ll never respond to this thread. That’s one thing that is everpresent with creationists. They always bail after you’ve taken the time to be patient and try and walk them though things thoughtfully and respectfully.
Well, A Christian said it, so it must be true! This is a full scale assault on Christianity.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/stkarnick/2009/10/02/invention-of-lying-anti-christian/
Eugene Keech:
Eugene, there is a saying that any idiot can ask questions that ten wise men can’t answer. You are one of those IDiots!
And who would really be bothered trying to get anything into your thick, goddidit skull?
Awesome link hhkdharmon!
Hemant, you should run this article.
I thought that the film had some ribbing in it about religion. But that link from hhkdharmon is awesome! It makes this film sound like it’s the anti-christ!
He keeps railing about “blashphemy!” That’s AWESOME. A guy can’t make a film about a universe in which God doesn’t exist so a man invents religion!
I think Gervais is right, I don’t get all upset when people make a film like “It’s a Beautiful Life” or “Damn Yankees” or “Angels in the Outfield”.
This is HIL-arious.
Plus Jenifer Garner is in this movie. That means it will now be Hemant’s favorite movie of all time.
You know me well, sir
I think people will get very upset.
‘Believers’ feel very threatened when their world religous view gets questioned. that’s why they ’spread the word’ with such enthusiasm. I can’t wait to watch the film. I hope it’s not Ofiice’esq cringey!
Let’s not get upset with Eugene. Atheists all know the illogic of Creationists.
Well I saw the movie last night and I thought it was very clever and quite amusing. However, I was bothered by the way its agenda was hidden until you are well into the movie and by its obvious attempts to offend believers and belittle them. I am a believer and I don’t mind atheism expressing their views, I do however take issue with the tone and tactics that is often used to do so. This movie being a good example. It seems to me that atheists tend to resort to mocking believers in their efforts to express their views. I don’t dismiss science or people who believe in evolution as morons, I just don’t believe they hold the complete picture. I believe science is a study of God every bit as much as religion is. Atheists may not believe in God, but to mock those that do is not acceptable behavior. We are not all brainwashed simpletons believe it or not. Many of us freely develop our own thoughts and beliefs without being told what they are by some guy on a throne in Italy or Utah
Oh and I love a good debate. Especially if anyone can do so by some other means than referencing flying spaghetti monsters…
As a child, I used to think we all lived in separate universes – Venn diagrams, if you will, with intersection sets. That was the only way I could reconcile that there was no God in my universe but there was one in my friends’.
Of course, the best way to test a ‘true believer’ vs. the whole CS Lewis ‘hard won belief’ thing is to use the phrase ‘Christian myth’. Now, myths are stories designed to explain the world, and that certainly describes the Bible. But my friend in university (I still don’t know why he didn’t get rocks and start smiting me) who believed dinosaurs were planted by god to test our faith, that abortion was always to be illegal even if mother and child would both die and the mother might conceivably have a healthy child later and that even one second of doubt meant an eternity in hell (behold, you are neither hot nor cold, so I spit you from my mouth…well, it’s a possible take), got livid at this turn of phrase and said the bible and christianity were truth, not myth (note: it’s not as though I think any religion is truth for me). And, of course, his argument for the Bible being true was that he and it both said it was.
Well Cepheus,
There are many ways to debunk god, but references to the FSM raises a good, key point.
Of course it’s easy to illustrate without FSM – one could use fairies, a celetial teapot, invisible pink unicorn, or the easter bunny.
I posit that the Easter Bunny exists (and the one true Easter Bunny.) When our parents told us He was not real, it was merely a test of our faith.
Once you prove the Easter Bunny is NOT real, I will use those arguments to prove God is not real…
Or you could take the logically correct route, and demand I prove the Easter Bunny exists as it is I who carries the burden of proof.
Ditto for God. If you’re convinced with the evidence that currently exists you need to raise your standards.
Religion can be a good thing, but…
I’m an atheist in the classic sense: I don’t believe in any supernatural beings.
In my first sentence I’m saying that religion does provide some good things for people. The common person who goes to church and prays and feels good. Or the sick churchgoer who gets a fundraiser for an operation, etc.
But I say that we would be much better off without it and this is why. Look at the state of the world now. We had George Dubya with his hands on the most powerful military force on the planet saying things like he’s on a mission from Dog to save the world and free the middle east. And you have the other side saying that Allah (peanut-butter sandwiches?) tells them women are property and must be stoned to death if they get out of line.
Well ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know about you but I want to live and I want my kids and neighbors to go on living too. The last thing I want is some nut-job like Bush pressing the button because in his mind some imaginary cloud-hopper told him to do it.
Although the other side of the coin is that its an atheist pushing the button, but generally its the people with a disposition towards believing in religion that end up causing the most harm in the world. You want proof? Look at Scandinavia Religion in Scandinavia one of the most peaceful parts of the world today.
Anyway… I think I’m right… just like the rest of you.
I will certainly be the first to agree with you John. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of God and Christianity, but that does not say anything of his existence one way or the other, nor does it say that if He exists He endorsed any of these men’s crimes in His name.
Mark I’m afraid I don’t have much of a response to you. Just rehashing the FSM argument with a substitute creature is still the same thing. If there was direct proof that God existed there wouldn’t be many atheists around, nor forums such as this. I can neither prove, nor disprove string theory. Can you? How much more could I prove the power responsible for the creation of the strings in the first place? In order for science to prove the existence of God would require following science all the way to its logical conclusion i.e. knowing all there is to know about our universe or perhaps all universes, whatever the case may be. Remember science said the universe was eternal until they discovered the Big Bang and then all of a sudden the universe had a creation after all!
Tim people that are right because they say they are bug me no matter which side of the God debate they come down on. People such as that do little for their respective views and if anything tend to push people further the other direction.
Well said Cepheus.
To counter then if we don’t know what ‘He’ thinks is right or wrong based on our personal interpretations then how could anyone follow any organized religion? What if the interprers (church) got it wrong?
Why are there so many different Christian denominations and so many religions? They can’t all be right. Doesn’t mean that they are all wrong. But the fact that other gods have come and gone throughout history signals to me that this god is just another phase in human evolution that will eventually mutate into oblivion since there is no real benefit to survival.
I stumbled across this thread looking for any discussion of the religious commentary in “The Invention of Lying,” which I greatly enjoyed. I thought it was imaginative and thought-provoking. It kind of petered out in the last part, but most of the time I laughed my head off.
And, yeah, I’m a devout Christian.
I’m a convert. I was an atheist once. I don’t judge. I have nothing against atheists, atheism, or the separation between Church and state. I understand atheism’s principled rejection of metaphysics and its equally principled embrace of moral living for its own sake. Atheists are some of the best and most generous people I know.
I believe in evolution; I believe in a Big Bang; the difference between my understanding and an atheist’s is that, yes, I believe that God authored the very miracles behind evolution and the Big Bang. But I am not anti-science.
I don’t understanding suffering, evil or the long history of oppression and outrage in the name of our loving God and Christ. Anyone who reads the Gospels and really tries to live their Word should be appalled by the behavior of so many Christians in history. Should God be blamed for the errors of humans? Jesus explained pretty clearly how we’re supposed to live: love one another, give to the poor, don’t judge, have faith. But we continue to ignore that message and screw things up.
No, I can’t cough up “hard” evidence that God or an afterlife exists. But I know they do. I’ve witnessed too many gifts and mysteries in my life not to believe that we are all eternal beings — no matter what mistakes we make and how stupidly we behave while we’re alive. There are many earthly windows into the Divine: the grip of a baby’s hand, the beauty of Bach, the inexplicable sense of love and eternity that can overtake the darkest grief. I can’t measure it in a beaker. But yes, I know it’s there.
Life is a struggle. Faith is a struggle. I agree with Jennifer Garner’s sentiments. We should always be open to new ideas. We should always ask questions about our faith and be willing to answer them honestly.
Anyway, life’s too short not to laugh at a Ricky Gervais movie.
Bravo Phillip. You expressed exactly the things I wanted to, I just never found the right words to get it across