I have a huge appreciation for the actor-comedian Ricky Gervais.

“After Life,” which Gervais created, wrote, produced, directed, and played the lead role in, is a brilliant piece of dark comedy-drama.

(Note: if you’re easily offended by profanity or “mean” humor, this show won’t be your cup of tea. At all. Don’t even start watching it.)

For me, it’s laugh-out-loud funny, frequently quite moving, and deep. Not simple things to pull off. Gervais does it here, over and over, in three very strong seasons of storytelling, with themes that matter.

Gervais is not just funny, he’s a smart man. He has strong opinions about things, which he expresses fearlessly.

If you didn’t know, he’s an outspoken atheist.

I don’t hold that against him.

I am not an atheist. But my theism is pretty unorthodox and non-dogmatic. It isn’t easily offended.

I don’t believe I’ve been offended by anything Gervais has said about the non-existence of God, the serious harm religion and religious people have perpetrated, or the general stupidity of the human race and how it so often shows itself in religious bigotry and violence.

However, I think there are ways in which he is blind to his own dogmatism. Clearly, science is his religion. Rationality is his god.

Let me be clear. I’m a huge fan of science. Rationality too. They are magnificent tools that help us understand our world and ourselves. They help us improve medical technologies that save and prolong life. They’ve given us heart transplants, vaccines, electric cars, GPS, smartphones, and the Internet. Maybe they will one day save the planet from humankind’s self-destructive idiocy.

On the darker side, science and rationality have also given us Oppenheimer’s bomb and biological warfare. So, it’s a mixed bag.

What I’m saying is, I’m not in any way anti-science.

However. There are men and women who are every bit as smart (likely a great deal smarter) than our friend Gervais, who find good reasons not to worship at the altar of science. They recognize that it is not agenda-free, nor is it free of bias. It should be, of course. And when it’s doing its job it does indeed operate that way.

 “The truth” should always be the goal of science. Ricky Gervais insists it is.  

But scientists are people. People need money and grants. People have biases. People often set out to prove things they already believe and are reluctant to look closely at evidence that contradicts long-held dogmas. Scientists who research or publish non-mainstream data are often criticized or even ostracized.

Consider the work of these folks: Iain McGilchrist, Rupert Sheldrake, Rupert Spira. They are obviously very intelligent. They each have tremendous, complex, thoughtful questions for our materialist friends.

Gervais is missing the simple fact that (though he would for sure say I’m wrong about this) atheism is a belief and a faith.

It’s faith that non-life generated life. Faith that something unconscious and unintelligent gradually built living things that are conscious and intelligent. Faith that (in the Big Bang) everything came from nothing for no reason.

There’s a colossal cause and effect problem. What came before the Big Bang? What observable, testable cause is sufficient to have brought about the effect of the Big Bang? How is it that this “infinitely dense” matter just happened to contain all the ingredients for two trillion galaxies that would unfold to produce systems perfectly suited to produce and sustain hyper complex, self-aware life?

I’m not saying the Big Bang didn’t happen. I’m not saying evolution didn’t happen. I’m quite comfortable that both things did happen.

But Ricky has faith that these events “just happened,” they caused themselves. This is where his dogmatism could use a pinch of humility.

This isn’t necessarily that saying, “God did it” (as I do) makes more sense. It’s just that saying, “Nothing did it,” doesn’t make sense either. For me, it makes less sense. It’s a leap of faith.

On the simplest level, Mr. Gervais “believes things that can’t be proven to be true,” which is the definition of faith. Even he would admit that. But he sees it as a reasonable belief because it’s grounded in the material world.

Ricky will say that, well, science keeps getting closer to the truth and may one day have all the answers.

Perhaps.

In the meantime, he is welcome to his “belief” in rationalistic materialism. I still respect him. And I’ll keep right on enjoying his work. I’m sure he really cares about that.

Rock on, Ricky.