Glenn Beck on Penn Jillette's new book about atheism


Recommended Posts

I do think Ron Howard did a fantastic job with The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons. I've heard conflicting stories about whether he is or is not directing Dan Brown's latest--The Lost Symbol. I certainly hope so.

Not having read The Da Vinci Code, I can attest to a very high degree of translation of Angels and Demons. He did a hell of a job on that movie!

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm curious, do you know in what way Nietzsche was influenced by Kant?

I don't have a specific textual reference with respect to Nietzsche and Kant, but Nietzsche basically accepted Kant's epistemological framework. However, he pushed it in a more skeptical direction. He passed this Kantian-Skepticism onto the postmodernists (via Foucault) and one of my University professors was a Foucault scholar, and she informed me that Foucault was a Kantian metaphysically/epistemologically.

As for the rest, it basically comes down to different premises, as usual. My most important premise as to evaluating intellectuals is:

1. Irrational con-jobs are everywhere. People trying to fool you into jumping off the cliff are the norm. And neither do they known that they do it, nor do they have a low IQ. They are just resentful and sub-consciously thinking in the evil direction. I'm especially distrustful if it comes from loners and people who never successfully practiced a solid profession - they have reasons to be resentful. The rest have reasons to believe their profession and their lifestyle is the center of the universe.

On top of that comes:

2. When someone is difficult to understand (especially on something that should be rather simple) I am even more distrustful. There has to be a good reason to give this person the benefit of the doubt.

3. Whether someone believes himself good/pro-reason/libertarian/individualist is largely immaterial, as the understanding of these terms is extremely bad(supposed we two even agree on a meaning).

4. When people are liked by a majority and the wrong kind of person (net-tax-receivers), it's time to get worried.

5. When then other, later intellectuals are quoting the guy positively and also fall into this category a candidacy for arch-villain status should be considered. Those other intellectuals will never be slavish reproducers, they wouldn't be noteworthy intellectuals if they did. The only thing that matters is that they exhibit the same characteristics listed so far and *like* the former intellectual. (Yes, liking is all, they don't even need to take any single actual idea to make me suspicious.)

Okay, now I'm going to say a few things which you might think are critical. These are disagreements with your premises about evaluating intellectuals.

1) "Irrational con-jobs are everywhere" and "people trying to fool you into jumping off a cliff are the norm" are both expressions of an (in my experience) unjustified level of pessimism. Saying that they are subconsciously evil and resentful is an EXTREMELY malevolent picture of the intellectual world... one I can't share. And if you're distrustful of loners, well you might as well toss out everything I say. "Loners are evil" is an awfully anti-individualist premise.

2) I agree with you to an extent. Some issues get complicated fast and what one person thinks is complicated, another person can intellectually handle.

3) To some degree you're correct, but if someone is an actual libertarian/individualist (in principle) then they're likely to at least have a point.

4) You get skeptical about people that are liked by a majority but are also skeptical of 'resentful loners.' This seems contradictory. And "net tax receivers" being "the wrong kind of people" sounds a bit mean, to be honest. Just because someone is using social services doesn't mean they can't make a reasonable point for anything at all.

5) Your criteria for "arch-villain" candidacy is extraordinarily loose.

I don't object to any single fact you mentioned, and I suppose I could give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is point 1 and 2. If it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, why would I waste my time with an autopsy?

If you're going to accuse someone of being "the most evil man in history" or the like, you need to be able to justify such a wildly hyperbolic charge. Making such grand, final, sweeping moral condemnations of one man is the kind of thing that carries a huge burden of proof. This means that yes, you have to do the autopsy and be willing to prove your case.

The evidence shows that the German Idealist tradition has been the intellectual force behind some truly monstrous things. But laying it all at Kant's feet and treating every German Idealist as merely swept along inexorably by a zeitgeist Kantian premises is both 1) a denial of individual free will, and 2) an ironically Hegelian position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to accuse someone of being "the most evil man in history" or the like, you need to be able to justify such a wildly hyperbolic charge. Making such grand, final, sweeping moral condemnations of one man is the kind of thing that carries a huge burden of proof. This means that yes, you have to do the autopsy and be willing to prove your case.

We're probably not too far away from each other. I don't believe it's all Kant's fault. I merely think there's a good chance he shares more guilt than the others.

Then there's the alleged contradiction: It's not a contradiction. I'm a loner myself in some way, I'm just sceptical of other loners, I know many leftist activists who don't get along with anyone. There's the mob and there's the intellectual leader of the mob. Only the latter is a loner and whether the mob likes what he says is important (this is a simplification, of course).

The last thing is the most important I believe and that's where we really can't get together, point 1. I wouldn't call it pessimism. I'm more optimistic than people in this forum, for example. The world's going to be great, I can't share all the gloominess that is often expressed here.

But it's true, my picture of the intellectual world is much more malevolent that Rand's even. But I'm very optimistic: I'm sure they've lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) "Irrational con-jobs are everywhere" and "people trying to fool you into jumping off a cliff are the norm" are both expressions of an (in my experience) unjustified level of pessimism. Saying that they are subconsciously evil and resentful is an EXTREMELY malevolent picture of the intellectual world... one I can't share. And if you're distrustful of loners, well you might as well toss out everything I say. "Loners are evil" is an awfully anti-individualist premise.

There's one argument I want to add: Rand herself is still not accepted as an intellectual. The humanities keep excluding her, branding her as a populist novelist not to be taken seriously. If they weren't evil, why would they do that? Even if you disagree with 80% of her statements, she's still way above all the vodoo that's going on in the social sciences and philosophy departments.

And again, it's only the universities I'm talking about, and it's not pessimism. Beck & Coulter are intellectuals too, but they pay their own bills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's one argument I want to add: Rand herself is still not accepted as an intellectual. The humanities keep excluding her, branding her as a populist novelist not to be taken seriously. If they weren't evil, why would they do that? Even if you disagree with 80% of her statements, she's still way above all the vodoo that's going on in the social sciences and philosophy departments.

That would be true of anyone who retained the good sense he was born with past his/her 20 th birthday.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be true of anyone who retained the good sense he was born with past his/her 20 th birthday.

Plus she's regarded as a philosopher by a lot of people outside the universities.

Many sciences have seen heretics who were laughed out first. If they were right, they gained a following, sometimes only after their death. But eventually their heresies became accepted into the canon and stopped being heresies.

But Rand's already enormously successful outside the departments. She's probably the most influential intellectual in American history.

And they still won't admit that it might have something to do with her ideas being true - they just keep ignoring and ridiculing her.

That is the main reason why I don't trust the respective faculties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they still won't admit that it might have something to do with her ideas being true - they just keep ignoring and ridiculing her.

You mean like life being a self generating process? That violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Here’s Penn’s address to the Reason Rally. He speaks, disparagingly it seems, of “pinko commie lefty socialists” and “whackjob nut Ayn Rand Objectivists” in the same sentence. His approach to ethics in this brief statement smacks of the Kantian deontological approach.

If that puts you in a bad mood continue watching, because the comedy set by Tim Minchin that follows is a real winner, it’s Tom Lehrer level, top quality stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How inspiring that this pathetic sack of manure talks about how atheists must “grab the moral high ground” while he mocks and trashes men of genuine achievement like Nathaniel Branden on his disgusting, foul-mouthed TV show. He displays his admiration for Ayn Rand by talking about what a “great f__k” she would be.

He talks about how much he likes Atlas Shrugged in one breath, then labels all Objectivists nuts and “whack jobs” in the next.

Penn Jillette is an embarrassment to the causes of secularism and liberty. I would much prefer he was a leftist like Michael Moore. I’m sure they would welcome his filthy, addle-brained, contemptuous approach to philosophy and ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How inspiring that this pathetic sack of manure talks about how atheists must “grab the moral high ground” while he mocks and trashes men of genuine achievement like Nathaniel Branden on his disgusting, foul-mouthed TV show. He displays his admiration for Ayn Rand by talking about what a “great f__k” she would be.

He talks about how much he likes Atlas Shrugged in one breath, then labels all Objectivists nuts and “whack jobs” in the next.

Penn Jillette is an embarrassment to the causes of secularism and liberty. I would much prefer he was a leftist like Michael Moore. I’m sure they would welcome his filthy, addle-brained, contemptuous approach to philosophy and ideas.

I'm sure they already do.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He talks about how much he likes Atlas Shrugged in one breath, then labels all Objectivists nuts and “whack jobs” in the next.

This called to mind something I read on the Valliant Comrade Sonia cat fight thread:

http://blog.dianahsi...mment-490945084

I have to say I have become ashamed. Not of Objectivism itself, the system of thought, but of the culture that has grown up around it. "Objectivist" now to me has come to mean two things, one is an adjective denoting agreement with Objectivism, the other, a noun meaning "a member of this insanely dysfunctional subculture." (Which some call a "movement.") And as the nth iteration of this sort of bullshit transpires, I find I am less and less interested in being a part of that subculture, defending it, or trying to save it from itself.

I was at the Reason Rally and Penn Jillette and Bill Maher chose, in lieu of personal appearances, to send video greetings to the rally. Both of them took a swipe at Objectivists.
What was my response? Did I turn into an ultraviolet-hot searing tower of outrage over how these folks are trashing the good, and all that? No. I simply shrugged. And I had to do some introspection as to why, when I thought about it later. Given Maher and Jilette's likely concept of what an Objectivist is--they see people who display all of this pettiness, this pointless vindictiveness over personal squabbles--I simply cannot blame people in the wider culture for thinking Objectivists are a bunch of, well frankly, dickheads and nutjobs.

I assume this SteveD is the same as Steve D'Ippolito from OO. One point to add to it is that the people most likely to self-identify as Objectivists to someone like Penn are going to be the James Valliant's and Ed Cline's of Rand-land. I normally wouldn't, I mean what am I, a Moonie? Actually in Penn's case I might, but that's because he's already broken the ice, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How inspiring that this pathetic sack of manure talks about how atheists must “grab the moral high ground” while he mocks and trashes men of genuine achievement like Nathaniel Branden on his disgusting, foul-mouthed TV show. He displays his admiration for Ayn Rand by talking about what a “great f__k” she would be.

He talks about how much he likes Atlas Shrugged in one breath, then labels all Objectivists nuts and “whack jobs” in the next.

Penn Jillette is an embarrassment to the causes of secularism and liberty. I would much prefer he was a leftist like Michael Moore. I’m sure they would welcome his filthy, addle-brained, contemptuous approach to philosophy and ideas.

Dennis,

Does this mean you don't care much for Penn Jillette?

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He talks about how much he likes Atlas Shrugged in one breath, then labels all Objectivists nuts and “whack jobs” in the next.

This called to mind something I read on the Valliant Comrade Sonia cat fight thread:

http://blog.dianahsi...mment-490945084

I have to say I have become ashamed. Not of Objectivism itself, the system of thought, but of the culture that has grown up around it. "Objectivist" now to me has come to mean two things, one is an adjective denoting agreement with Objectivism, the other, a noun meaning "a member of this insanely dysfunctional subculture." (Which some call a "movement.") And as the nth iteration of this sort of bullshit transpires, I find I am less and less interested in being a part of that subculture, defending it, or trying to save it from itself.

I was at the Reason Rally and Penn Jillette and Bill Maher chose, in lieu of personal appearances, to send video greetings to the rally. Both of them took a swipe at Objectivists.
What was my response? Did I turn into an ultraviolet-hot searing tower of outrage over how these folks are trashing the good, and all that? No. I simply shrugged. And I had to do some introspection as to why, when I thought about it later. Given Maher and Jilette's likely concept of what an Objectivist is--they see people who display all of this pettiness, this pointless vindictiveness over personal squabbles--I simply cannot blame people in the wider culture for thinking Objectivists are a bunch of, well frankly, dickheads and nutjobs.

I assume this SteveD is the same as Steve D'Ippolito from OO. One point to add to it is that the people most likely to self-identify as Objectivists to someone like Penn are going to be the James Valliant's and Ed Cline's of Rand-land. I normally wouldn't, I mean what am I, a Moonie? Actually in Penn's case I might, but that's because he's already broken the ice, so to speak.

It's amazing what tripe people get involved with when they have little to say and too much time on their hands.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reluctant in his admiration for Rand - but it's there, not that I care one way or the other.

As ND said somewhere, Penn is just as likely to refer to himself as a "whackjob".

True, I reckon.

Then possibly, it's a back-handed compliment to her and O'ism.

Whatever: I think his ambiguity is lacking in integrity, and he's playing the hip post-

modernist game to his audience. Like some atheists I know who don't see that getting

rid of the dogma in one's past, does not mean that nothing is really serious any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penn Jillette is an embarrassment to the causes of secularism and liberty. I would much prefer he was a leftist like Michael Moore. I’m sure they would welcome his filthy, addle-brained, contemptuous approach to philosophy and ideas.

Dennis,

Does this mean you don't care much for Penn Jillette?

:smile:

Michael

Whatever gave you that idea, Michael? :rolleyes:

Penn is the walking incarnation of a gross, noxious fart. Aside from that, I'm sure he is a lovely person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s Penn’s address to the Reason Rally. He speaks, disparagingly it seems, of “pinko commie lefty socialists” and “whackjob nut Ayn Rand Objectivists” in the same sentence. His approach to ethics in this brief statement smacks of the Kantian deontological approach.

Penn’s address to the Reason Rally is pretty muddled-up both epistemologically and and ethically :smile: -

but then this is a comedian, where the audience will expects certain amount of broad-brush sarcasm and 'skewering'. This seems to be a typical bad-boy-type to whom 'nothing is sacred', not even the philosophy he himself happens to admire.

I have the feeling that this is the type who, even if he were, let's say, a Nietzschean, still would make coarse jokes about Nietzsche and Nietzscheans, including himself. His 'dark humor' manifests itself also in the name he gave his daughter: "Moxy CrimeFighter".

Excerpt of Penn's address:

"Atheists don't gather together around a philosophy, a political philosophy, or a moral philosophy.

We do not have one unified thing that goes with being an atheist.

But we do have morality.

So why should we band together?

Why should people who are based on a negative ("There is no God") band together?

Why should people who might be left, might be right, might be in the middle, band together?

Because the simple fact that there is no god does matter. [How can he know that this is a fact?]

And the simple fact that there are atheists in the Unites States of America matters.

And we need to be counted; we need to be a minority that has some guts and some power, and we need to make it okay to be an atheist.

And the way to do that is to band together, even if our politics and morality, and our philosophy are different.

We have to band together and simply say: "Some of us in this country believe there is no God because there is no God." (Penn Jillette)

Bottom line: X (a God) is believed not to exist because non-existence ef X is simply declared as a fact. :rolleyes:

It's a piece of propaganda, not an epistemological justification for atheism; but then Jillete would probably say that he uses propaganda because it is a good deal more effective with an audience, the end justifying the means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line: X (a God) is believed not to exist because non-existence ef X is simply declared as a fact. :rolleyes:

It's a piece of propaganda, not an epistemological justification for atheism; but then Jillete would probably say that he uses propaganda because it is a good deal more effective with an audience, the end justifying the means.

Penn Gillette is a stage magician, comedian, and all around entertainer. He is not a trained philosopher, although he does have some interesting philosophical insights derived from his years working as a stage magician. If you want to read the best epistemological justification for atheism, read the works of George Smith. George is the quintessential authority in this area.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penn Gillette is a stage magician, comedian, and all around entertainer.

The first part of my # 92 post addresses that. Which is why, If I were an Objectivist, I would not be annoyed about some of his coarser jokes, maybe even get good laugh if he makes a real good one. :D

If you want to read the best epistemological justification for atheism, read the works of George Smith. George is the quintessential authority in this area.

Ludwig Feuerbach and a few others are not to be scoffed at either. :smile:

I have the impression that atheism meets with even more resistance in the US than in Europe because large parts of the population (e. g. in the Bible Belt) still actively practice their Biblical faith, and that for some reason, the 'seed of doubt' has not yet been planted in the minds of many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0">http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" />http://admin.brightcove.com" />http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=724192463001&playerID=1187410652001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAGuNzXFE~,qu1BWJRU7c2zPXB5pnS6ytF42ALvFXD6&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="640" height="360" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash">

 

http://bigthink.com/ideas/20809?utm_source=Big+Think+Weekly+Newsletter+Subscribers&utm_campaign=8ac1e02794-Sun_6_24_Zizek6_18_2012&utm_medium=email
 

 

 

Transcript

Question: Is religion responsible for a lot of the world’s problems?

Penn Jillette: What you've said, "a lot," sure. If you want to go to "most" or "all," then no but there is certainly people...  there's a great quote by the physicist... What's his name? Weinberg. Steve Weinberg. The quote of with or without religion good people do good things and bad people do bad things but for good people to do bad things that takes religion. I'm not sure that's word-for-word, almost certain it isn't, but it's important. I think it's not religion. It's much deeper than that. My beef is not with religion per se; my difference of opinion is with objective and subjective reality.

Einstein said the big question is when you turn away is the tree still there? And I talk to Richard Feynman about this and Murray Goodman, there's a feeling that in particle physics the "experimenter effect," a lot of that stuff is distorted. I believe very strongly that there is a physical reality that my perception does not change. Now you can make the argument that we're all just brains in jars, the Matrix, and all of this is an illusion and that is an airtight argument. You can't refute it but let's just say it's not that. I think there's a real reality out there and the people who say "I believe in God because I feel that there's some higher power in the universe"—the problem I have with that is that once you've said you believe something that you can't prove to someone else you have completely walled yourself off from the world.

And you've essentially said no one can talk to you and you can talk to no one. You've also given license to everybody else who feels that. If you say to me "I can't prove it Penn, but I have a feeling in my heart that there is a power over everything that connects us," why can't Charlie Manson say "I can't prove it but I can have a feeling that the Beatles are telling us to kill Sharon Tate and that the race riots are coming?" Why can't Al Qaeda say "I have a feeling in my heart that we need to kill these particular infidels?" Why can't the men who tortured and disfigured Ayaan Hirsi Ali—why isn't what they feel in their heart valid?

The problem is if you have a sense of fairness simply by saying you believe in a higher power because you believe in it, you've automatically given license to anyone else that wants to say that. So I would rather be busted on everything I say and I am, you know, when you've put yourself out on television and on radio as someone who really does believe in objective truth there is not a sentence that I will say in this interview that won't get three or four tweets of somebody with information busting me on it. And they're right, you know, very rarely am I busted on something where I'm right. If someone is taking the trouble to let me know I've said something wrong, chances are I'm wrong.

But that's the world I live in. I want to live in a world of a marketplace of ideas where everybody is busted on their bullshit all the time because I think that's the way we get to truth. That is also what respect is. What we call tolerance nowadays, maybe always—I'm always skeptical about the "nowadays" thing. I don't think things get that much different. What we call "tolerance" is often just condescending. It's often just saying, "Okay, you believe what you want to believe that's fine with me." I think true respect... it's one of the reasons I get along so much better with fundamentalist Christians than I do with liberal Christians because fundamentalist Christians I can look them in the eye and say, "You are wrong." They also know that I will always fight for their right to say that.

And I will celebrate their right to say that but I will look them in the eye and say, "You're wrong." And fundamentalists will look me in the eye and say, "You're wrong." And that to me is respect. The more liberal religious people who go "There are many paths to truth you just go on and maybe you'll find your way"... is the way you talk to a child. And I bristle at that, so I do very well with proselytizing hardcore fundamentalists and in a very deep level I respect them and at a very deep level i think I share a big part of their heart. I think in a certain sense I'm a preacher. My heart is there.

Recorded on June 8, 2010
Interviewed by Paul Hoffman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've lost all respect for these guys for the stupid number they did on self-esteem and Nathaniel Branden. They cannot apologize enough for what they did to him, especially considring how he was when they did it.

--Brant

flush

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Tremendous interview between Glenn and Penn ...there is a freedom song in there someplace...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/outspoken-provocateur-penn-jillette-to-glenn-beck-every-problem-we-have-should-be-solved-with-more-freedom-not-less/

These are the men that I stand with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now