God Exists: Therefore I Laugh

By Dan Mielke [1]

The subject of humor and the analysis behind what makes things funny has been an underdeveloped field of study. “Despite the number of thinkers who have participated in the debate, the topic of humor is currently understudied in the discipline of philosophy.”[2] Humor and its connection to theology has received even less study. The goal of this article is to introduce the reader to the theological implications of humor. As the theories behind humor are not readily studied, this paper shall include a brief summary of the major theories of humor, before looking at the theological ramifications of humor and the doxological and practical purposes of humor.

Theories of Humor

The study and definition of humor is difficult as philosophers and researchers are rarely in agreement regarding the classification of humor. Humor is the Platypus of thinkers as it defies classification and borrows from fields as vast and varied as linguistics and neuro-science. “When looking at theories of laughter, on the other hand, one finds no such agreement on the basics. Some have classified laughter as an emotion while others have insisted that laughter is incompatible with emotion.”[3] Humor in a way is much like the Pre-Newtonian era of science where gravity was understood to exist, but a working definition and explanation remained elusive. As E. B. White famously remarked, “Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies.”[4] This first section of the paper will not focus so much on a definition or classification of humor, but it will give the four major theories of humor with an emphasis on the author’s preference.

The oldest and first recorded theory of humor is the Superiority theory. This theory was postulated by Plato. “The oldest, and probably still most widespread theory of laughter is that laughter is an expression of a person’s feeling of superiority over other people. This theory goes back at least as far as Plato, for whom the proper object of laughter is human evil and folly.”[5] What makes a person laughable, according to Plato, is self-ignorance. Because of Plato’s influence many thinkers adopted the idea of laughter as a sign of ignorance.

The famed philosopher and inspiration for Calvin’s stuffed sidekick in the comic series Calvin and Hobbes, Thomas Hobbes, developed the most well-known version of the Superiority theory. Giving emphatic expression to the idea, Hobbes said, “[T]he passion of laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly.”[6]

The theory defined by many is that humor arises from the knowledge that one is superior to another person or object. According to the Superiority theory, another man stepping on an upturned rake or falling down the stairs would create laughter because the one laughing avoided such snares and would be “superior.” This theory gains much support from anti-theistic thought which views laughter as a physiological response.

Anthony Ludovici in his book The Secret of Laughter explains, “Laughter takes the physical form it does, the baring of the teeth, because originally laughter was a physical challenge or threat to an enemy. The showing of the teeth in laughter, as in the aggressive behavior of dogs, is a way of asserting one’s physical prowess.”[7] Laughter is used to show physical prowess over others.

In superiority theory, many ancient writers such as Plato found laughter a vulgar sort of one-up-manship and discouraged laughter as a hindrance to thought. In summary, the Superiority theory of humor is the gentleman’s slap of the glove instead of a vulgar cave man fist fight.

Another widely held theory is the Relief theory. This theory was spearheaded and developed by Herbert Spencer and summarized in his work The Physiology of Laughter which was published in 1860. In short, Spencer proposed that laughter (not necessarily humor) is the result of energy release. He argued that, “Nervous excitation always tends to beget muscular motion.”[8] Laughter releases tension and built up energy similar to the “flight or fight” response.

This “shaken pop bottle” mentality coalesced with the common scientific and psychological ideas of the day, and the Relief theory was continued by Freud in his work Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious. This theory expresses that jokes are a socially acceptable way to release stored up energy that would otherwise be socially unacceptable. In Freud’s words, “Joke-works receive their most powerful stimulus when strong purposes reaching into the unconscious are present.”[9]

In the Relief theory, the individual has prepared for a mental or emotionally trying situation, and after the climax or tension has passed, the excess energy is let out through laughter. “In joking, the energy that would have been used to repress sexual and hostile feelings is saved and can be released in laughter. Similarly, in the comic, cognitive energy to be used to solve an intellectual challenge is left over and can be released.”[10]

Freud also postulated that hidden desires can be expressed through joking (dirty jokes) in a safe form that would not produce retaliation. In contrast to Freud’s explanation of the Relief theory John Morreall and Noel Carroll make the astute observation, “The most inhibited and repressed people would seem to enjoy joking the most, though the opposite is the case.”

The Relief theory had a brief period of followers that aligned with the scientific thought of the day, yet the theory is riddled with many problems and inconsistencies. First, the theory is not universal. Second, it does not account for sudden humor such as comedians or slapstick style humor. Third, it is very narrow in its application and does not explain intellectual humor. “The Relief theory explained dirty jokes, but not others, like puns.”[11]

The next major theory to appear chronologically is that of the Incongruity theory. “In the seventies, linguists rallied behind a more palatable idea called Incongruity theory: essentially, that people laugh at surprises, violations of expectations. This explained verbal punch lines, slapstick, and other humor, like April Fool’s pranks.”[12]

The seeds of the theory, although popularized in the 1970’s, can be traced back to antiquity. “Incongruity theory is the leading approach (on humor) and includes historical figures such as Immanuel Kant, Søren Kierkegaard, and perhaps has its origins in comments made by Aristotle in the Rhetoric.”[13] Incongruity theory is to be found in the Roman poet and satirist Horace who wrote: “If a painter chose to join a human head to the neck of a horse, and to spread feathers of many a hue over limbs picked up now here, now there, so that what at the top is a lovely woman ends below in a black and ugly fish, could you my friends, if favored with a private view, refrain from laughing?”[14]

The Incongruity theory capitalizes on the idea of what should be, yet is not. According to incongruity, the violation of the norm produces humor.

Primarily focusing on the object of humor, this school sees humor as a response to an incongruity, a term broadly used to include ambiguity, logical impossibility, irrelevance, and inappropriateness. . . . The incongruity theory can be stated as a response focused theory, claiming that humor is a certain kind of reaction to perceived incongruity.[15]

In this theory incongruity is the foundation upon which humor is created. The broadness of the theory allows for humor from all realms of reality, from situational comedy (slipping on a banana peel), to intellectual humor (witticisms, puns, etc.).

“The incongruity theory is the reigning theory of humor, since it seems to account for most cases of perceived funniness.”[16] Research has also shown and suggests that the brain is specifically designed to decipher incongruity. “The Prefrontal cortex plays a vital role in the type of flexible thinking needed to understand a joke. It makes sense of the punchline and produces a strong sense of surprise.”[17] Without the Prefrontal cortex this simple joke would be lost, “What did the fish say to the other fish in the tank? Do you know how to drive this thing?”

Incongruity theory also explains the experiential aspect of humor among differing cultures and sub-groups. Cultures are brought to realize certain expectations, and when they are not met outwardly, humor is often a byproduct. A yodeler at a rock concert would be an example of cultural incongruity. Incongruity also explains the exhilarated laughter in children as they are learning what fits and does not fit the norm.

“Many scholars still champion versions of Incongruity Theory, including such prominent figures as Victor Raskin, a linguistics professor at Purdue University and the founding editor-in-chief of the journal Humor, who refined Incongruity Theory into the Script-Based Semantic Theory of Humor, in 1985.”[18] In 1991 Raskin and a colleague, Salvatore Attardo, again refined the theory into the General Theory of Verbal Humor. “The idea is that every joke is based on a juxtaposition of two scripts. The punch line triggers the switch from one script to the other.”[19] Although refined, Raskin and Attardo’s ideas are based on the Incongruity theory.

This theory of Incongruity is best explained by what researchers and psychologist Dr. Richard Wiseman, after a year-long intensive study, have labeled “The World’s Funniest Joke.”[20] “A man was out hunting with a friend who suddenly had a heart attack. The man called 911 on his cell phone and told them he thought his friend was dead. The operator asked the man calmly, “Are you sure the man is dead?” The hunter said, “Let me check.” The operator heard a loud gunshot and the man picked up the phone, “OK he is dead, now what?”[21] The joke illustrates what Raskin and other incongruity theorists have held to, that of a stepping out of expectancy and normalcy to create humor.

A final humor theory that has been presented in recent years and catapulted to center stage is the Benign Violation Theory. The idea was first proposed by Stanford University Researcher Thomas Veatch. “Veatch proposed that humor emerges when something seems wrong or unsettling but is actually benign. Nobody paid much attention to Veatch’s theory, until McGraw, with a graduate student named Caleb Warren, dug it up a decade later and dubbed it the Benign Violation Theory.”[22]

According to Peter McGraw, humor is a result of a combination of something benign (unthreatening) and a violation of a law or norm. In his rather crude book The Humor Code McGraw explains his theory using the illustration of a friend falling down the stairs without getting hurt as a picture of his Benign Violation theory. This theory has been hailed as the answer to the question that has plagued incongruity theorists, “Why is tickling funny?” “Tickling shows the Benign Violation Theory in action as an act of perceived aggression in a benign format.”[23] On the surface it seems BVT has solved the riddle and answered humorologists greatest dilemma, yet it cannot answer the question why can one not tickle himself, as tickling oneself would qualify for both Benign and a Violation of normalcy.

Currently the Benign Violation Theory has not proven itself on the comedic field as McGraw tested out his theory in a standup comic show and was met with derision and silence. It has also been shunned by many big name humorologists and been labeled by humor giant Victor Raskin as vague and unsatisfactory, “What McGraw has come up with is flawed. . . . [It is] a very loose and vague metaphor.”[24]

Although included among the major four views of humor, due to its age, those holding to the Benign Violation Theory have much refining to do before it can work as a definitive humor theory.

As stated the preferred theory and explanation of humor for this author is Incongruity. Much work can be done to improve this theory, but the theory of Incongruity does seem to have the fewest inconsistencies of the available theories. The following points regarding humor as an evidence for God will be stated with the Incongruity Theory as the model.[25]

Humor as a Clue to the Divine

This article is not so bold as to claim humor as the evidence or proof of Deity, but merely suggests the existence of humor as a clue to the divine, a divine fingerprint or authorial signature. As Allister McGrath notes in Mere Apologetics, “A clue is something that suggests, it does not prove. Clues have a cumulative significant, pointing to a deeper pattern of meaning. . . . Each clue builds on the others, giving them a collective force that transcends their individual importance.”[26]

The issue of humor poses a great problem for the naturalist thinker. Whereas they have been able to provide hypotheses and debate theories of humor and explain what is happening, they are unable to give account for why humor is the way it is. Naturalist researchers have sought to give answers to the development of humor.[27]

Considering laughter to have been a pre-adaptation that was gradually elaborated and co-opted through both biological and cultural evolution. Scientists hypothesize that Duchenne laughter became fully ritualized in early hominids between four and two million years ago as a medium for playful emotional contagion. This mechanism would have coupled the emotions of small hominid groups.[28]

The narrow bounds of naturalistic and evolutionary thought regarding humor restrict the observer to a very rigid premise: “Everything must have a survival reason.” Humor, however, does not seem to have a survival factor. According to humorologist John Morreal in his book Taking Laughter Seriously, “If one asks about the survival value of laughter and how it might have evolved, he also run into problems. Indeed, many have suggested that laughter does not have survival value and that it could only be disadvantageous to a species in which it evolved.”[29] Humor is like the human tailbone; we assume there is a purpose, but are unsure what it might be. Morreal continues, “If the traits that are preserved in a species are those which have survival value, how could something like laughter have been preserved in our species?”[30]

Recently there has been an increase in scientific research and study into the benefits of laughter. Research has shown that there are health benefits as well as social bonding benefits to laughter. Some have suggested laughter evolved as a sign of friendly communication. “Over time, however, smiles became increasingly easy to fake, so a more complex signal was needed. That is where laughter came in. Because laughter uses more neural systems and has greater energy costs, it is more difficult to fake.”[31]

If humor did originate over thousands of years, it is likely that the first few people who attempted a guttural, breathy extrapolation, bearing their teeth in jest, probably would have been quickly murdered by the rest of the primitive clan who wanted sleep, not unlike the fate of a second rate standup comedian.[32] The narrow bounds of a naturalistic thought are too exclusive to account for the facts. Indeed, humor does not have survival value, and thus it could only be disadvantageous to a species in which it evolved.[33]

The atheist is hard pressed to define the purpose of humor. Since humor exists, they must piece together what is known in order to create a viable explanation based on an evolutionary model. An atheist must fit his explanation through the narrow grid of the survival of the fittest and recognize that only the adaptations that are beneficial are able to last. The theist, however, can offer a more thorough and rounded approach to humor, as his premise is not guided by such narrow parameters of survival. The theist is not only able to observe humor patterns, but also able to answer the deeper questions of why humor exists and give answers for the purpose and meaning of humor.

First, humor is universal. Humor exists everywhere. To put it in philosophical terms, “I laugh, therefore, humor exists.” Humor had to have a starting point; therefore, humor needed a starter. This idea is closely tied into the cosmological approach that every event needs a cause. Just as an atheist is hard pressed to account for the beginning of the universe, he must also account for the existence and universality of humor. Humor follows certain laws and principles that are constant. Humor has a predictable outcome. An example of this would be the planning and intense preparation of comedians and script writers. Humor has certain rules that must be followed. Humor, like life, can only exists under certain principles. Humor also rests heavily on its own Goldilocks principle.[34] Even though the precise definitions and laws of humor are still being ferreted out, the fact still remains that the laws of humor had to come from somewhere.

Second, humor as incongruous presupposes normalcy. There must be congruity before incongruity. Comedy and the fact of incongruity shows that there must be order in the universe. The very fact that something is incongruous is proof that there must be something congruent or orderly. If everything is random, then nothing is random. This is a problem which the naturalist thinker inevitably runs into. If the universe is a result of a meaningless beginning, why should mankind see anything as a violation of the norm? If there was a glitch in the system, yet everything in the system had no order, a glitch should not be recognized. As Lewis points out, “If necessities of thought force to allow to any one thing any degree of independence from the Total System . . . then Naturalism is abandoned.”[35]

Where does humanity get its standard for normal? Is anything normal? How does mankind decide if anything is the way it should be? It is true that certain types of humor are dependent on previous experience and cultural norms, yet once again the objective thinker must ask, why is it that certain people view their experiences as normal or abnormal? This is also why off color and raunchy humor is often employed by comedians. It is a sure way to evoke laughter, because at core, people know that certain things are not to be talked about and are private.

Scientist, engineers, and musicians have already been operating on this normalcy principle for millennia. A 747 airplane operates on the normalcy principle that gravity will always be constant, and a musician knows that a note (Middle C) will always produce a certain pitch. How did these constants come about? If they are random then randomness is the new normal and incongruity could not exist. Yet if the universe has a purpose, and mankind is a small part in the universe, man must have a purpose in order for anything to be random.

Third, humor is an art form. Admittedly, this is where humor becomes a little sticky, as it touches on each individual experience. Science can analyze and predict that a Middle C will have a frequency of 256 Hz, but it cannot predict the effect on an individual of multiple notes played in a melody.

The fact that humor is also an art form, however, does not detract from the laws of humor or the need for a designer any more than an artist who preferred a certain color or subject in his paintings could deny the reality of the scene being painted.

Humor as an art form shows forth an artist. The art of humor points to a creative designer. “The beauty of the world is a pointer toward the greater beauty of God, which it reflects as the moon reflects the greater light of the sun, or as a beautiful diamond scintillates as it catches the beams of the sun.”[36] The art of humor points to the ability to appreciate. In the way that humans (not other species such as cows or chickens) can create and reflect on their creation; humor allows for enjoyment. Since one can appreciate and create humor it presupposes that there is an audience with the ability to enjoy the art from. Since one can develop humor, it shows that there is an audience and an appreciation of beauty. Evolution cannot give forth an answer to the appreciation of humor or beauty, as a creature pausing to look at beauty or laugh at a joke would be eaten by a larger animal with a poor sense of humor.

Furthermore, since one can perceive humor innately, it presupposes an intuition outside of itself. “Beauty is something appreciated immediately. When seeing a beautiful composition or work of art, one instantly knows there is something more about it. One [does] not need to be persuaded that something or someone is beautiful; something deep within seems to tell.”[37]

Fourth, humor as a cognitive activity shows forth intelligence. Why is it that humans are the ones tickling rats in labs and not the other way around?[38] “Both humor and philosophy are quintessentially human, requiring as they do the characteristic human ability to transcend one’s self and situation.”[39]

The very fact that mankind is studying and discussing humor shows forth a belief in unchanging laws of reason. “One of the most significant parallels between the natural sciences and Christian theology is a basic belief that the world is regular and intelligible. This perception of ordering and intelligibility is of immense significance both at the scientific and religious levels.”[40] This is why 2 + 2 will always equal “4” and not “chicken.”

Man is so familiar with the fact that he can understand the world that most of the time he takes it for granted. It is what makes science possible. Yet it could have been otherwise. The universe might have been a disorderly chaos rather than an orderly cosmos. . . . There is a congruence between our minds and the universe, between the rationality experienced within and the rationality observed without.[41]

Cognitivity and the ability to produce coherent abstract thoughts show forth the relation to intelligence. In order for humor to exist there must have been some sort of intelligent thought in order to perceive the violation of particular patterns therefore producing humor.

In addition to surveying the cosmological, teleological, artistic, and cognitive aspects of humor the theist is also able to proffer a doxological purpose to humor. In discussing the connection between humor and the Divine, the doxological and practical ramifications of humor will be considered.

Humor as a Purposeful and Worshipful Activity

This article has looked at the existence of humor and some of the traits that would make humor possible and give clues to a Creator; it shall now transition to the purpose and meaning of humor for the Christian. Humor and the participation in it can bring God glory, fulfill mankind’s purpose, and even be a purposeful and worshipful activity.

Many have speculated that if humor results from incongruity (that which does not fit) how can God be glorified in humor? As Charles Baudelaire speculated in what he called “mortal inferiority,” he argued that, “Laughter is Satanic, an expression of dominance over animals and a frustrated complaint against our being merely mortal.”[42] How does the Christian exalt God and follow Paul’s admonition of doing, “All to the glory of God” (1 Cor 10:31) while laughing at the incongruous? God can be honored through expressions of humor in several ways.

First, humor is the tangible expression that man is not God. Mankind is admitting that he did not see it coming. Whether it is a punchline or an unexpected situation, humor and the ensuing laughter is a tangible sign that man is not in control. Furthermore, in laughter, mankind is admitting his realization that things should be different, yet are not.

Second, humor can be a reminder to use God’s gift in an honoring way (Rom 12:1-2). Humor, like any gift of God, can be used to honor or dishonor God. Man can use humor for his own purposes. Man can distort humor in the way that a body God has made can be lent out to whoredoms. An evil action does not make the gift of the body evil. In humor mankind has the ability to remember God by using his gift in a God-centered way (Phil 4:8).

Third, humor as a language can be arranged to glorify God. Humor can lead people to God. Humor was used by Christ (Mark 10:25). Humor can teach deep principles. The logical technique reductio ad absurdum is a humorous way to point out the absurdity of believing falsehood. Humor can go where logical formulas may not have entrance. Mankind is more open to humor, as it is a back door to the intellect.

Fourth, humor can bring pleasure to people. Humor was created by God to be a gift enjoyed through being mortal. It is the equivalent to the RC car given to a child at Christmas. The best way for the gift to be appreciated is for the child to use the gift. Humor, like the ability to enjoy food or other physical pleasures, is a gift given by God and should be received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4).

SUMMARY

After a brief look at the four major humor theories, it has been shown that naturalism and anti-theistic thought is hard pressed to give a cohesive answer to the creation, structure, and purpose of humor. In summary, a theistic worldview can logically explain the existence of humor and points to an intelligent Creator. The existence of humor points to a purposeful, law abiding universe that of necessity needed a purposeful Creator. Second, the existence of humor as incongruity presupposes the normalcy of the universe. Third, the existence of humor shows forth inherent beauty and points to an artist and an audience. Fourth, the existence of humor shows the ability to appreciate humor presupposing a conscious intelligence.

Finally, when viewed through a theistic lens humor also has meaning and purpose through allowing mankind the ability to express his humanness in a tangible form, remember God, communicate truths, and redeem the gift of God through enjoyment. Humor in this light can be a worshipful experience of mankind’s dependence on and enjoyment of God.

Notes

1. Dan Mielke is a student at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal usually publishes one article each year written by a seminary student.
2. Aaron Smutz, “Humor,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed June 4, 2014, http://www.iep.utm.edu/humor/.
3. John Morreal, Taking Laughter Seriously (New York: State University, 1983), 2.
4. Joel Warner, “One Professor’s Attempt to Explain Every Joke Ever,” Wired, April 26, 2011, accessed July 30, 2014, http://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff_humorcode/all/1.
5. Plato, Republic V 452, as quoted by Morreal, Taking Laughter Seriously, 4.
6. Thomas Hobbes, Human Nature, ch. 8. as quoted by Aaron Smutz, “Humor,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed June 4, 2014, http://www.iep.utm.edu/humor/.
7. Anthony Ludovici, The Secret of Laughter (New York: Viking Press, 1933), 62.
8. Smutz, Humor.
9. Sigmund Freud, “The Relation of Jokes to Dreams to the Unconscious,” Bibliomania, accessed July 23, 2014, http://www.bibliomania.com/1/7/68/2025/frameset.html.
10. Smutz, Humor.
11. Shane Snow, “A Quest to Understand What Makes Things Funny,” New Yorker (April 1, 2014).
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Robert Latta, The Basic Humor Process: Case Against Incongruity (New York: Mouton, 1998), 101.
16. Smutz, Humor.
17. Richard Wiseman, “Laugh Lab: The Scientific Search for the World’s Funniest Joke,” Laugh Lab, accessed July 30, 2014, http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/books/psychology-of-humour/.
18. Shane Snow, A Quest to Understand What Makes Things Funny.
19. Ibid.
20. Wiseman, Laugh Lab.
21. Ibid.
22. Shane Snow, A Quest to Understand What Makes Things Funny.
23. Peter McGraw and Joel Warner, The Humor Code: A Global Search for What Makes Things Funny (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014), 10.
24. Joel Warner, “One Professor’s Attempt to Explain Every Joke Ever,” Wired, April 26, 2011, accessed July 30, 2014, http://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff_humorcode/all/1.
25. It must be realized that even if the incongruity theory is disproven or found lacking in the explanation of all aspects humor, that humor is supported by a system, and therefore presupposes normalcy and some sort of structure.
26. Alister E. McGrath, Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers and Skeptics Find Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 95.
27. It is the same issue that naturalist engineers run into. They are able to design great and useful technology through observation of the laws of science, but are unable to determine why the laws are universal in a purposeless universe.
28. Matthew Gervais, “The Evolution and Functions of Laughter and Humor: A Synthetic Approach,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, University of Chicago (Dec 2005): 395.
29. Morreal, Taking Laughter Seriously, 3.
30. Ibid.
31. Lew Harris, “Laughter’s Influence,” Exploration, accessed July 30, 2014, http://exploration.vanderbilt.edu/news/news _laughter.htm.
32. For further study on the evolution and possible health or bonding effects of humor see Matthew Gervais, “The Evolution and Functions of Laughter and Humor: A Synthetic Approach,” The Quarterly Review of Biology 80 (Dec 2005): 395-430.
33. For a more thorough critique see Frank Sherwin, Animal Laughter Study Doesn’t Help Evolution http://www.icr.org/ article/6623/ and The Origin of Laughter http://www.icr.org /article/origin-laughter/
34. The preciseness of the solar system and placement of the earth and other factors rendering the atmosphere not too hot and not too cold therefore allowing life.
35. C S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study. ed. 2 (San Francisco: Harper One, 2001), 12.
36. McGrath, Mere Apologetics, 113.
37. Ibid.
38. Peter McGraw, “Do Animals Have a Sense of Humour?,” www.newscientist.com, accessed July 30, 2014, http://www. newscientist.com/article/dn25312-do-animals-have-a-sense-of-humour.html#.U9lOSLHCfl8.
39. John Allen Paulos, I Think, Therefore I Laugh: The Flip Side of Philosophy, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 163.
40. McGrath, Mere Apologetics, 101.
41. John Polkinghorne, Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding (London: SPCK, 1988), 20-21.
42. Smutz, Humor.