Penn Jillette's 10 Commandments...For Atheists
There’s some surprisingly good stuff in his 10 comm’s.
But the burning question is, if you’re an atheist, why? Why should doing any of these things be better than not doing them?
But the burning question is, if you’re an atheist, why? Why should doing any of these things be better than not doing them?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
… that Jillette (despite the name of the magazine in which this appears and unlike the original he cribbed from) offers no reason(s) for this list.
“Thus saith Penn Jillette who is fairly entertaining” just doesn’t seem all that authoritatve to me.
EDIT: boy, I’m a slow composer.
“Thus saith Penn Jillette who is fairly entertaining” just doesn’t seem all that authoritatve to me.
EDIT: boy, I’m a slow composer.
Ironically, given the God-ordained function of His true law, Penn’s “Law Lite” will prove to be just as impossible to carry out for an atheist as the Ten Commandments are for a believer. Why? Because nearly all of Penn’s Law is cribbed from what God had already written in his heart (cf. Romans).
An atheist who believes in evolution (are there any other options?) would have a hard time saying that these should make up the moral code when the prime objective of any living creature is to pass on its DNA. Why should I help someone else get out of their burning house when I may endanger my own life? Survival of the fittest, right? Why should I be faithful to one partner? More partners means more DNA. Why should I tell the truth? What if telling a lie advances my progeny?
It’s fine to plagairize God (he doesn’t copyright his words), but Mr. Jillette should admit he’s doing it and stop pretending a world without God has even a flagellum to stand on. I read part of his book and he was from a church that didn’t allow any questions about their religion. I tell my fellow church members and family all the time: “Ask away.”
It’s fine to plagairize God (he doesn’t copyright his words), but Mr. Jillette should admit he’s doing it and stop pretending a world without God has even a flagellum to stand on. I read part of his book and he was from a church that didn’t allow any questions about their religion. I tell my fellow church members and family all the time: “Ask away.”
One old solution to that is the concept of enlightened self interest. It basically argues that a highly evolved creature like a human being should ponder, “How would my own chances of survival be improved if everybody behaved like I do?”
The theory is that the man would then reason “My chances of survival are increased if everyone behaves heroically to protect the lives of others. Therefore, I will behave this way,” etc.
There is just enough truth in this to keep many God-rejectors from becoming homicidal psychopaths. … that and the gift of the conscience God gives to every man. (Darkened though it may be—Romans 1)
The theory is that the man would then reason “My chances of survival are increased if everyone behaves heroically to protect the lives of others. Therefore, I will behave this way,” etc.
There is just enough truth in this to keep many God-rejectors from becoming homicidal psychopaths. … that and the gift of the conscience God gives to every man. (Darkened though it may be—Romans 1)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
That makes some logical sense. However, if “survival of the fittest” depends not on the propogation of my society, but on my own existence, it does not follow that acting heroically does anything to benefit me as surviving. History may thank me for helping to preserve society, but what has posterity done for me lately?
I wish people would be honest about such moral categories and simply admit that they don’t logically flow from atheism or naturalism. It’s a bigger fairytale than they claim the Bible is.
I wish people would be honest about such moral categories and simply admit that they don’t logically flow from atheism or naturalism. It’s a bigger fairytale than they claim the Bible is.
Yes, there are flaws in the whole “enlightened self interest” approach. If there must be atheists, I’m glad some of them pursue “enlightened” ethics, for the sake of the rest of us, but one flaw in the approach is that what’s really in my own best interest (from a strictly human point of view—enlightened or not) is for everybody to act heroically except me.
That is, comparing these two options which is better for me?
- Everybody acts heroically/sacrificially, including me
- Everybody acts heroically/sacrificially except me
I clearly come out ahead if I can manage the latter.
So ELS really argues for faking concern about others so that you encourage a caring world in which you benefit from others caring but have none of the liabilities/risks of being a carer yourself.
But please don’t tell the atheists! ;) If they think it’s more evolved to actually care about people, they’ll at least be better neighbors.
Of course, for us, it’s not at all about how well the ethical principle works. It’s about Whom it pleases and glorifies. So we do unto others, not because they will be more likely to do unto us, but because it’s what our Lord wants from us.
That is, comparing these two options which is better for me?
- Everybody acts heroically/sacrificially, including me
- Everybody acts heroically/sacrificially except me
I clearly come out ahead if I can manage the latter.
So ELS really argues for faking concern about others so that you encourage a caring world in which you benefit from others caring but have none of the liabilities/risks of being a carer yourself.
But please don’t tell the atheists! ;) If they think it’s more evolved to actually care about people, they’ll at least be better neighbors.
Of course, for us, it’s not at all about how well the ethical principle works. It’s about Whom it pleases and glorifies. So we do unto others, not because they will be more likely to do unto us, but because it’s what our Lord wants from us.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
So, given this description, ESI is a lot like “Survivor.” Teamwork until I can be the last one.
It would be funny if it weren’t true. I would love to find out where the “ought” of highly evolved beings comes from. Doesn’t “ought” assume rules, and don’t rules presuppose a Rule-Maker? Who is to say that acting heroically is a virtue? What if I find a society in which cowardly actions are held in high esteem? It seems as though that is as far as Mr. Jillette can go.
I think his partner Mr Teller would have something better to say than he does. Mr. Teller is usually silent.
It would be funny if it weren’t true. I would love to find out where the “ought” of highly evolved beings comes from. Doesn’t “ought” assume rules, and don’t rules presuppose a Rule-Maker? Who is to say that acting heroically is a virtue? What if I find a society in which cowardly actions are held in high esteem? It seems as though that is as far as Mr. Jillette can go.
I think his partner Mr Teller would have something better to say than he does. Mr. Teller is usually silent.
Discussion