Ask A Genius 1494: Rick Rosner says, “Fuck Theology,”or More on Theology, Free Will, and the Politics of Religion

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/15

In this candid interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, writer and television personality Rick Rosner delivers a sharp rejection of theology, arguing that religion in the United States has been hijacked by Christian nationalism and weaponized against humanist values. Rosner critiques theological defenses of free will, ultimate purpose, and divine creation, instead emphasizing science, informed will, and the causal chain of human decisions. The discussion also explores generational shifts in behavior, addiction to technology, and the manipulation of low critical thinking skills for political power. A thought-provoking exchange on atheism, metaphysics, and the misuse of faith.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I want to pivot briefly to theology. We often focus on humanism and humanist values, along with the international declarations that enshrine those values. We have also discussed artificial intelligence, robotics, and automation, and how these intersect in possible and implausible ways. However, what if we take another angle and apply theology?

Rick Rosner: Right off the top of my head, I have to say: Fuck theology. I reject theology at this point. Here in America, Christian nationalism has hijacked much of Christianity. Millions call themselves Christian while supporting a cruel, anti-humanist, racist agenda. On the other hand, science works.

The same people pushing a Christian nationalist agenda are often profoundly anti-science. So, at least where I live, I have little patience for religious arguments, because religion here is being weaponized against the people. Moreover, I do not hear many loud Christian voices denouncing these false Christians. Where are they? Are they ducking down?

I admit, I duck down sometimes, too. I post less on social media now because my wife insists I avoid trouble. She worries we could be arrested or turned away at the border when we return from visiting our child in the UK. Moreover, I see her point, so I have pulled back. However, even if I am quieter now, I still wonder: why do we not hear pastors denouncing Trump and his agenda, calling out the fact that those who support him are fake Christians? I am sure there are some, but why are there not more?

Jacobsen: So go ahead. Outside of politics, what is your general stance on theology—beyond “fuck theology,” political concerns, and safety concerns?

Rosner: If this were a different time, I might be willing to entertain some arguments. However, not the standard ones—not the mainstream religious claims that Jesus had special powers, or that Muhammad had special powers. I do not buy any of that.

Now, you can talk about possible theologies of creation. Powerful beings could exist in our universe, or even in other universes. However, I do not believe powerful beings are necessary for creation. I think civilizations and beings could survive for millions—maybe billions—of years. 

Over that span, they could become highly knowledgeable and able to do extraordinary things, even harnessing cosmic forces. They might be able to travel to the centers of galaxies and manipulate vast energies—perhaps even alter the informational fabric of a universe. They would appear to have the powers of gods, but they would not be gods. They would not transcend physics.

So I am not very patient with theology. We can talk about philosophies of existence, but I have already explored that topic extensively. Science is incomplete, but that does not mean the missing pieces are mystical or theological. I do not think we should be patient with people who argue mysticism, because misapplied religion is one of America’s problems right now.

As I have said many times, fifty years ago conservative think tanks realized it was easier to manipulate and anger people with low critical thinking skills—and to make them politically active—than to mobilize the more thoughtful. They cloaked this manipulation in religion and patriotism. Now, the Republican Party is thick with people easily swayed by nonsense.

Every time something happens politically, conservative pundits churn out low-IQ, bad-faith arguments. Their base eats it up, even knowing it is false, because they enjoy seeing their political enemies angered. They support nonsense not because it is true, but because it irritates rational people. So no, this is not a time to sing Kumbaya with the misuses of Christianity.

Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on theology’s attempt to defend free will—a libertarian sense of free will?

Rosner: That is horseshit, too. There is no free will. There is informed will. Your brain makes decisions based on the information it has gathered. Ideally, your brain makes the best decisions possible with the information available. You do not want your brain working against you with an agenda separate from your conscious mind.

However, often it does. Your brain makes decisions that are not perfectly aligned with your conscious wishes. The easiest place to see that is sex. People make bad decisions when driven by sexual impulses—horny choices that are terrible in hindsight. Everyone does, or nearly everyone. Now Gen Z—well, you gave me some survey results on that a couple of nights ago.

The surveys show that Gen Z is having less sex, hooking up less, and even masturbating less. They seem to have stepped into a world dominated by technology—social media, streaming, video games—at the expense of following the biological imperative to, as you put it, “get the jizz out.” You also mentioned that Gen Z is not drinking as much. Is that the best possible outcome? Are they exercising informed will, or are they simply seeking the serotonin bursts that come from TikTok, video games, and the endless dopamine loops of social media?

Much of the digital content delivered through our phones has evolved to addict us. It provides short-term satisfactions we find compelling, even addictive. So yes, even when tech replaces drunken, horny behaviour, it is still addictive in its way, pushing us toward behaviours that are not in our long-term best interests.

Rather than talking about free will—which suggests some magical, transcendent power to make decisions independent of information or causation—we should talk about informed will. There is no “magical deciding juice” that exists on a higher plane, free from influence. The world is the world, and it is the only thing we have to live in. The best you can do is make the best decisions possible for yourself and recognize where your brain may struggle to align with your conscious goals.

Human beings are not outside the causal chain. We are part of it. We are not independent sources of causation in the universe.

Jacobsen: So human beings are not a source of causation in the world?

Rosner: We are part of chains of cause and effect. Take me, for example: when I get tired, I sometimes pick at myself—my scalp, my skin. I can observe myself doing this and say, “Get up, break the cycle, and do something else.” That is will. However, it is not free will. It is informed will—my brain observing a pattern, recognizing it, and triggering me to stop.

I used to bite my nails. Now I pick at clogged pores. I can get stuck in that cycle for half an hour. However, when I recognize it, I sometimes break out of it. That is not free will; it is my brain using self-observation to redirect behaviour.

My OCD plays into this, too. It drives me to go to the gym multiple times a day. From the outside, it looks like tremendous willpower. However, on the inside, it is also quirks, compulsions, and a preference for routines and numbers. It is both discipline and disorder, all fitting together.

It is the same argument. There is no free will. There is no mystical determination juice existing on some higher level that says, “You are going to do this.” No—I act for reasons tied to the information my brain has collected and the way my brain functions.

Moreover, that is fine. You can call it will, you can call it other things, but you cannot call it free will. Humans can be sources of causation—links in the chain of events—but not free agents.

Take Nelson Mandela. When he decided to form the ANC and devote his life to ending apartheid, without him, events would not have unfolded in the same way. He was an agent of causation—a nexus for change. However, he was not a “free” agent; he had countless forces acting on him.

Jacobsen: What about the metaphysical and theological arguments for a final or ultimate purpose—teleology—for the universe?

Rosner: No. Not. There is no ultimate purpose. Some things persist better in the universe. For example, rocks can last billions of years under the right conditions. Physics favours stability—planets in stable orbits, galaxies not colliding. The way physics unfolds allows some structures to persist for vast periods.

Now, when creatures evolve that can model the world in consciousness, they gain a different kind of existence. Specific forms of conscious life perpetuate themselves, following emergent principles that arise from basic ones. Things that are not contradictory to physics can exist and persist. However, that does not imply teleology.

Convergent evolution shows this clearly. Eyes have evolved independently in countless species. That does not mean the universe “wants” eyes. It means the physics of light makes eyes evolutionarily advantageous, and so eyes develop in similar ways wherever conditions allow. Physics does not want anything. Principles of existence do not want anything. They permit, without intention.

It is hard, when speaking casually, not to sound as if evolution “wants” something. However, it does not. Evolution is not an entity. It is a process—an uncountable number of events affecting uncountable organisms. Because of physics, certain regularities emerge, but that is not the purpose. That is not teleology. 

Jacobsen: What about the idea of God as the sustainer, maintainer, and creator of the universe—a theological metaphysics?

Rosner: No. Not. No. Fucking no. You keep asking me the same question. You do not need a God. In some situations, perhaps a synthetic universe could be created by some advanced being in another universe—but that creature would not be God. It would be a biological entity in its world, capable of creating simulations. That is not divine. It is more like a video game developer building an intricate program.

Existence can always be traced back to something that plausibly arose naturally. At some point, the distinction between a “natural” and a “synthetic” foundation may blur—like turtles down, where you cannot tell if one layer is “natural” or “synthetic.” However, none of this implies God. None of these layers requires a transcendent, mystical being. Everything can unfold through emergent principles of existence. 

Jacobsen: What about the argument that reality is unitary, and therefore reality is God?

Rosner: I do not even know what “reality is unitary” means. If it means everything is one thing, then fine—you can call it one thing. 

Jacobsen: Science studies the principles of existence. They are unified enough to allow consistent laws of nature and physics. 

Rosner: But does that make it God? No. It is not mystical. It is not transcendent. 

Jacobsen: Christopher Harding pointed this out to me in his last interview—possibly the last interview he ever gave before he died. He said that whether you call it “nature,” “the laws of physics,” or “God,” at some point you are just talking about the same thing in different words. These terms break down.

Rosner: Yes, I could call my dick God. That does not make it God. You can call anything “God,” but naming does not transform it into divinity.

Jacobsen: But Rick, if you call your dick God, you have got it all backwards, you dog. Final question, based on your responses today about metaphysics, biology, and God—are you finding yourself less tolerant of theology, less inclined even to give airtime to God-talk?

Rosner: Yes. Definitely. Because of what has happened—the left in America, or more broadly, people who are not Trump supporters, the non-assholes—have been tolerant. They have waited for a workable majority of Americans to stand up for decency.

Moreover, what has that tolerance gotten us? The loss of decency. So yes, I am not willing to entertain arguments that get misused by assholes.

Jacobsen: Would you say you are leaning more toward atheism or agnosticism at this point?

Rosner: I do not love the label “atheism” because many atheists are assholes. However, in practice, yes—I am an atheist in the sense that I do not believe in a transcendent creator, which is part of a reasonable definition of God.

That said, physics is incomplete. Metaphysics is incomplete. Does that leave open the possibility of a transcendent being? Yes—it is not precluded in my understanding. Do I think one is necessary, in my limited understanding? No.

However, discoveries hundreds, thousands, even millions of years from now may point to or even prove something beyond current comprehension. I do not see that in today’s landscape, however. 

Jacobsen: And we are out of time.

Rosner: Yes. I will see you tomorrow.

Jacobsen: See you then. Thank you.

Rosner: Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.