“…that's what I believe. I don't know what I believe…”
Sir Anthony Hopkins’ new movie role (in The Rite) has brought about a consideration of his personal beliefs—or lack thereof.
It has, most of all, brought into the spotlight the utter lack of logic with which most people—including Sir Anthony Hopkins and whoever happens to be interviewing him—function.
Lastly, it brought about the follies of partial reporting: not meaning reporting with partiality (although this may be a factor) but meaning reporting parts, segments, of statements so that when you read a few articles on the same topic you end up with very different conclusions.
Let us consider some of his statements and then dissect them as we begin by learning that Sir Anthony Hopkin:
slipped a doubter's message into the film…a particular line from the movie that he says encapsulates what he believes…he actually wrote it for his character, the exorcist Father Lucas.
Here's how Hopkins explains the line:
There's a scene in the courtyard after the first exorcism, and I'm talking to the young priest [played by] Colin O'Donoghue, who in his character has grave doubts about [exorcisms]. He thinks it's all a bag of tricks, he thinks it's all mumbo jumbo and maybe there's no such thing, which is the debate: Is there such a thing as anthropomorphic presence of the devil or is it mental disturbance? That's the debate, I guess, in the film and probably in the world.
And after that I say to him the problem with skeptics and atheists, is that we never know the truth. We're always trying to find the truth. What would we do if we found it? And I asked [director Mikael Håfström] if I could write that line. To describe myself as an atheist, as a skeptic which makes the young priest turn [and say], "You?", and I go, "Oh yeah, every day I struggle. Most days. Some days I don't know if I believe in God or Santa Clause or Tinkerbell"…
As Hopkins explains, it's a line that he wrote because it was important for him to find something of himself in Father Lucas…:
It gives a semblance of humanity to somebody who says they don't know...I wrote that. Not because I'm clever. I wrote it because I wanted to fit like a glove a piece of myself in that because that's what I believe. I don't know what I believe, myself personally…
Sir Anthony Hopkins’ personal beliefs are premised upon, and exemplified by, the illogical statement, “…that's what I believe. I don't know what I believe…”
Likewise statements are ubiquitous as in one interview he reiterates this and adds some elucidation,
I know nothing…I don’t know what I believe…I don’t know anything…I know nothing. And that gives me an openness and an access to all kinds of possibilities.
What of, specifically, his views on God? This is one case in which various interviews leave one with various conclusions:
Einstein and Darwin believed in some great intelligence in the back of everything and I believe that myself. I don’t have a personal God but I used to be an agnostic, I guess…I don’t know. I am pretty open-minded about everything. I don’t have any certainty and strongly-defined knowledge about anything…
“Do you believe in God?” To which Hopkins replied, “Yes, I do. I do.”
Sir Anthony Hopkins [stated that he] “couldn’t live with” the certainty of being an atheist…
I don’t know what I believe. I just couldn’t believe in certainty and I don’t believe that there is a divine intelligence looking after my personal little problems…
Apparently, tying it together, he is not an atheist, but believes in “God” with the soft agnostic twist of never knowing who or what “God” might be—except that he knows or, does not believe that God would have concern for him.However, we also find that he is a very, very strong agnostic—an absolutist, in fact.
FYI: in essence, a soft agnostic would say, “I don’t know, I certainly don’t know with certainty, but there may be a God and we may someday ascertain God’s nature and being” whilst a strong agnostic would say, “I don’t know, you don’t either, no one does and I know that we will never know.” (consider the definition of the term “atheism” for some background).
As for some of Sir Anthony Hopkins’ background:
“I wasn’t brought up in a religious household. My father was an atheist. My mother wasn’t but my father was and he told me it was all rubbish. I went along that and then gradually, slowly, I’ve come to believe that”…
Hopkins explained that about 35 years ago he felt the need for God while he was going through a crisis and prayed to Him even though he considered himself at the time to be an atheist.
“I was hell bent on destruction. And I just asked for a little bit of help, and suddenly, pow. It was just like, bingo,” recalled Hopkins. He said that while in New York he had a drinking problem that was so bad that it almost felt like he was possessed.
“It was like being possessed by a demon, an addiction, and I couldn't stop. And millions of people around like that. I could not stop.” Out of desperation, Hopkins asked for help and a woman told him to just trust in God.
The point of not knowing comes to a sudden halt when it comes to considering what we can know with certainty. At least it would halt if his thinking was consistent:
All I am aware of is that it would be far from me to refute or ridicule, as it is fashionable today for people to ridicule religion. It would be arrogant for me to say they are lunatics and I would hate to live with that sort of certainty…
There are people who (think they) know everything: The cynics of the world. They say the debate is over. What the hell is that? The arrogance! They know nothing! “Be well-advised and like (the word) nothing,” he further added. “Say, I know nothing, and stop all the bickering and hatred…”
Let us further note something further about his views on the certainly of uncertainty or the uncertainty of certainty and also “all the bickering and hatred.” One reporter referred to the following as “his eloquent explanation”:
Anyone who says they know, like Colin the young priest [who] says, "I believe in the truth." Oh, the truth, oh yeah, lot of trouble that got us into, didn't it, over the last maybe thousand years? Hitler knew the truth, so did Stalin, so did Mao Zedong, so did the Inquisition. They all knew the truth and that caused such horror. Certainty is the enemy.
It's like anyone saying "the debate is over." Who says it's over? "The debate is over. We know." We? Who? Human beings, we know nothing. And someone says, "But are you an atheist?" Well, I don't know what I believe. But who would I be to refute someone like [German pastor Dietrich] Bonhoeffer who sacrificed his life for his church and ended up in Flossenburg being executed by the Nazis? The great martyrs who died at the stake, destroyed for their personal beliefs. So who am I to refute anything?
"I would hate to live in a world of certainty. Have a closed circuit, a windowless room where I know for certain; like Jean Paul Sartre's [idea] that we're living in Hell, a closed dungeon. I'd rather live with uncertainty because Socrates was told that he was the wisest man in Athens and he said, "Well that's not likely." So he went around looking for people who were wiser than him. And he found one who said, "I'm glad I don't know anything." I think it was Plato who said "Be kind because everyone is fighting a great battle." Whatever the Devil is or is not, I think when we turn our backs on our own frailty and our own humanity and say we know for certain, we know the truth – we are in trouble."
Lastly, and to further compound confusion, one reporter noted:
Lest it be misunderstood, Hopkins was not trying to influence anybody on his belief. He was only trying to share his thoughts on faith and religion as it relates to the transformation and the crisis of faith his character goes through in the movie.
Does this elucidate matter? Is the character Father Lucas or Sir Anthony Hopkins speaking? Is Sir Anthony Hopkins speaking of and for himself or for and of Father Lucas? Keep in mind that he purposefully infused his personal views into his character.
In any regard, the views of whomever, can be dissected. Recall that it was George Lucas, of Star Wars fame, the illogical and contradictory statement “Only a Sith deals in absolutes” into the mouth of Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi. Thus, life imitates art and art imitates life when directors, actors and writers purposefully inserting their personal views into the mouths of characters so that you can no longer think, “It’s just a movie.”
Let us consider the quip that “I don't know if I believe in God or Santa Clause or Tinkerbell.” This sentiment is tantamount to many ubiquitously promulgated well within the box atheist groupthink talking points de jour whereby a, shall we say, philosophically necessary being such as God is equated to Santa Clause, Tinkerbell, etc. Having authored an essay on this issue, the interested reader is directed to: On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.
The issue is that statements which correlated God with Santa Clause, Tinkerbell, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, etc. are merely betraying a tremendous amount of ignorance of natural theology aka general revelation.
Next, the bottom line issue with Father Lucas’/Sir Anthony Hopkins’ views is that to know that he does not know is one issue—soft agnosticism—but to know that we, no one, can ever know is another—hard agnosticism.
Part of the issue may be (“may,” since we cannot know his motivations lest he reveal them) that he is seeking lack of ultimate, transcendent, accountability by hoping to please ignorance via a loophole of attempting to maintain an agnostic status which rather than amounting simply to “I don’t know” ends up amounting to “I don’t want to know.” After all, he tells himself that it is not knowing that gives him “an openness and an access to all kinds of possibilities.”
Apparently, it is a qualified “all” since one possibility that he is not considering is the possibility that we can know. Although, since he is certain that he knows that we do not know then he is open and hold to an absolutist position in any regard.
To further buttress this, recall that he stated, both, that he said “I don’t believe that there is a divine intelligence looking after my personal little problems” and also that it is this divine intelligence to whom he turned for a final resolution of his “personal little problems” since, “about 35 years ago he felt the need for God while he was going through a crisis” and put his “trust in God.”
Moreover, there is a very narrow line between stating “I don’t believe that there is a divine intelligence looking after my personal little problems” and meaning by it that you cannot imagine an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who could possibly be concerned with you (beware of the argument from incredulity) and stating “I don’t believe that there is a divine intelligence looking after my personal little problems” and meaning by it that you hope that this is the case so that the divine intelligence will not bother looking after your personal little problems and thus, will disregard your sin.
Futhermore, it does not necessarily follow that not knowing leads to “an openness and an access to all kinds of possibilities” unless, that is, his lack of knowledge is actually open and not a mere facade. The issue is that, as a recent example, those influenced by the deleterious effects of the New Atheists claim to be soft atheists (essentially the same as soft agnosticism) rather than hard atheists (those who positively affirm God’s non-existence).
This is the case even though New Atheists can be found making statements commensurate with hard atheism and their soft atheists appears to be a merely facade which they drape over their absolute materialism when they run into logical trouble. They do not want to be asked to prove God’s non-existence when they make the claim to know that God does not exist.
Thus, they make hard atheism claims whilst preaching to their choir and back off when confronted by people who will actually challenge their views. They are cenobites who preach the pseudo-gospel of liberation atheism (see Being an atheist: the best reason is that it feels oh, so good) which turns out to be nothing but miasmatheism.
So back to the issue of “an openness and an access to all kinds of possibilities”: if I am quite certain of God’s existence, I can accept the fact that (and this is the very premise upon which the fields and methods of science were intelligently designed) since a rational God created a rational creation I can ascertain its functions since God created a universe according to which material cause is followed by material effect. If it used to be though that “God'did'it” with regards to something or other but we now find a material “explanation” (beware and be aware of the explanation fallacy and of the equally facile “evolution'did'it”) I can think, “Oh, so that is how this something or other functions in God’s creation.”
Meanwhile, even if presented with all of the evidence in the world that a miracle, for example, has taken place; the hard atheist and hard agnostic will simply say, “Well, some day, oh someday—may thine kingdom not come—we will find a materialistic explanation.” This is because their minds are trapped in a worldview that will not allow them to see anything that does not find within its narrow parameters. This is the windowless room of which Sir Anthony Hopkins spoke (for elucidation of this, see: Atheism and Science - Is There a Relation?).
It is somewhat difficult to pin point whether faced with such evidence Sir Anthony Hopkins would demand that he still does not know because he is committed to not knowing or whether he would decide that he can now know with as much certainty as he now claims to know that no one knows.
Lastly, let us consider more things about which Sir Anthony Hopkins is, somehow, utterly certain. We ought “stop all the bickering and hatred” and truth be damned since it was supposed certainty of truth which motivated Adolf Hitler (who relied on Darwin’s theory of evolution and the occult), Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and the Inquisition which spawned horrors. What makes him think that they did anything wrong, anything condemnable? Whence comes such certainty?
He claims that “When…we…say we know for certain, we know the truth – we are in trouble.” But he is claiming to know for certain that he knows the truth that their actions were condemnable.
Yet, let us be extra fair on this point in particular and consider his context which is that “when we turn our backs on our own frailty and our own humanity and say we know for certain, we know the truth – we are in trouble.”
Indeed, granted and agreed.
And this is the true nature of true Christian meekness, true Christian humility: while we claim to know for certain that we know the truth, we do so with full acceptance and cognizance of the fact of our own frailty and our own humanity. This is how and why we say wretched man that I am and consider ourselves to merely be beggars telling other beggars where to find food. We see ourselves as serving a God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.
Jesus said,
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him (Revelation 3:20).
Sir Anthony Hopkins please share in that meal.
Let us leave with the words of ex-atheist, the late, C. S. Lewis as he touches upon issues of vague notions of “God” which he refers to, variously, as Life-Force philosophy,Creative Evolution orEmergent Evolution (Mere Christianity, Chapter 4: “What Lies Behind the Law”):
One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences.
When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest.
If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children.
The Life-Force is a sort of tame God. You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you.
All the thrills of religion and none of the cost.
Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?
For more info, see these elucidating books:
Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Albert Mohler, Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists
Ravi Zacharias, The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists
Jonathan Morrow and Sean McDowell, Is God Just a Human Invention?
Edgar Andrews, Who Made God? Searching for a Theory of Everything
Vox Day, Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens
For when and where The Rite is playing in Albuquerque, see:
Albuquerque Movie Theaters, Movie Times & Tickets - Zvents
Century 14 Downtown Albuquerque Showtimes and Tickets
Albuquerque Movie Theaters and Film Times
Century 14 Downtown Albuquerque Showtimes & Tickets | Eventful Movies
---------------------------------
References:
Alasdair Wilkins, Anthony Hopkins reveals the secret atheist message he put into The Rite
Josephine Vivaldo, Anthony Hopkins Talks about Finding God, Alcohol Addiction
Raymond de Asis Lo, What does Anthony Hopkins believe in?
Huw Twiston Davies, Sir Anthony Hopkins: I couldn’t be an atheist
If you enjoyed this article Examiner can keep up to date with this Examiner page by subscribing (for free) at this link.
Comments