Finding Truth in “The Invention of Lying”

In the 2009 film, “The Invention of Lying,” there does not appear to be any form of religion prior to Mark Bellison’s prophetic revelation. This is to say that religion, because it is not truthful, would not exist in a world uncorrupted with falsities. Likewise, the “man-in-the-sky” religion that Mark creates is a lie. Religion and truth are incompatible as natural selection, survival of the fittest and nihilism are the normative worldview. Furthermore, characters in the film still engage in nihilistic tendencies in the wake of learning that their good life promises them a paradisal afterlife. All of these serve to satirize religion, with particular attention to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Rather than pointing to a different transcendent “truth,” the normative systems of Mark’s world are examined and found to be arbitrary. Despite this grim interpretation of truth and religion, the film provides a particular truth that Christians can support: without Christ, religion is false and no more hopeful than atheism.

Ricky Gervais plays Mark Bellison, a single, struggling writer in his forties. Mark lives in a world where everyone compulsively tells the truth; lying, even omissive lying, has never occurred. When attempting to withdraw money from his bank, Mark tells the first lie ever and it drastically changes his life. Because all anyone knows of is the truth, everyone believes Mark’s lies.

Mark uses his newfound power to con banks and casinos and to write a fictional epic that makes him the most successful writer at his company. He has no moral qualms about these actions because he counteracts these negatives by providing hope to hopeless people. He eventually tells a lie that radically changes the world. As his mother lay dying before him, Mark gives her visions of heaven as opposed to an “eternity of nothingness.” Mark must explain his knowledge before the public and in doing so, creates religion.

As Mark lines out his new religion, the satirization of Judeo-Christian beliefs ensues. When addressing the public, his tenets are written on papers attached to pizza boxes, which is a blatant connection to Moses’ Ten Commandments on stone tablets. While some of Mark’s explanations are based on Christian tradition, they are mostly condescending as he condenses the system to a pseudo-heaven-and-hell scenario. The people are told that they are permitted three wrong actions before they are condemned to the “bad place.”

There is no gospel, no redemption, no Christ.

Religion has not appeared prior to Mark’s “man-in-the-sky” because the film is suggesting that religion is a lie; Mark makes up this new religion as he goes. Construing religion as a lie renders it meaningless and arbitrary.

The moral code that Mark explains is assumed to be independent of religion, i.e., it existed prior to religion. He explains that bad things are along the lines of rape or murder, showing that these horrid actions are considered evil apart from religion.

Likewise, the rewards of this religious system are only extrinsic: those who do not act abhorrently get a mansion in the afterlife. Sanctification and other intrinsic gains, in general, are absent. People will act good enough to get a mansion but not enough to better themselves; people have no reason to better themselves.

This explanation of religion makes Christianity seem wholly deterministic as the man-in-the-sky controls and causes every action. Furthermore, the explanation presents this god as an arbitrary agent who alternates between benevolence and evil. Someone asks Mark if it was the man-in-the-sky who saved his life when his boat capsized. Mark says it was. Then the man asks if it was the man-in-the-sky that capsized the boat. Mark, again, says that it was.

While Christians would acknowledge that God gives and takes away, they would also say that he cannot engage in an evil action. God may allow an evil act to occur but that does not make him the cause of that evil.

The film begins with a date between Mark and Anna McDoogles (Jennifer Garner). Upon first glance, she is already unimpressed with him. She wants a husband for children but poor genetics and financial instability are all she finds in Mark. Despite this, Anna still enjoys his company and the pair eventually become best friends, though, not lovers.

As they continue to spend time together throughout the film, Anna eventually admits that she loves Mark but cannot be with him for the aforementioned reasons. Instead, she dates Brad Kessler (Rob Lowe), a handsome, successful man that poses a good genetic match. This is an apparent reference to ideas such as natural selection and survival of the fittest wherein by mating well, offspring will have a superior advantage over others.

While Anna is shallow, Mark sees beyond appearances. Though he uses his newfound success to appeal to Anna’s shallow sensibilities, he never utilizes his ability to lie to win her over. Love prevails in the end as Anna’s perception of beauty and success is altered by Mark’s view of the world.

When we meet Mark’s neighbor, Frank (Jonah Hill), he can find no meaning in his life and wants to commit suicide. He is fearful of death as it is thought by everyone to be an “eternity of nothingness,” which prohibits him from actually killing himself. When Mark discovers he can lie, he begins to think differently towards Frank and comforts him by saying everything will be alright.

Frank finds meaning in the care Mark has for him. As Frank rides Mark’s coattails, he becomes a drunken lawn ornament beside his pool. Frank, despite looking forward to a mansion in the “really great place,” has lost all meaning in his life. He drinks away his sorrow with the rationalization that his alcoholism will bring him to his death, and mansion, sooner. Frank’s nihilism, while usurped momentarily, resurges despite his adherence to the man-in-the-sky religion. Frank would say that he is happy but his only motivation in life is eternal happiness in a mansion after he dies.

Furthermore, while the film sets forth a standard of truth, it is unclear at times what counts as a deviation from that truth. In the picture above, Mark’s assistant, Shelley (Tina Fey), and rival, Brad Kessler, wish him goodbye after he is fired. While doing so, they also insult him. Brad tells Mark that Shelley thinks he is an “overweight homosexual.” Shelley corrects Brad, explaining that what she actually said was “fat faggot.”

This misspoken quote is not portrayed as a lie despite Brad saying an untrue statement. Perhaps it is rather a misrepresentation of the truth due to Brad’s own belief, i.e., what he had believed Shelley to have said.

Similarly, people’s opinions cannot be objectively true or false. After Brad walks away, Shelley says, “He’s awesome,” to which Mark replies, “Your opinion.” The statement, “He’s awesome,” is true upon Shelley’s beliefs but false among Mark’s. Because opinion plays a large role in how people act or interact with others, what interests them, etc., it seems arbitrary that one opinion should be valued more than another.

The supposed arbitrary nature of truth is a theme that runs throughout the film. Towards the beginning of the film, a man stands on the sidewalk and shouts questions concerning the arbitrary nature of human life at passersby. He asks questions like why humans wear clothes if they are animals. In the same scene, a homeless man has a sign that says, “ I don’t understand why I’m homeless and you are not.”

The demonstration of the arbitrary culminates in Brad and Anna’s wedding scene. Mark objects to the marriage and asks those questions that persist continually in the film. It can be summarized as “Why should what is ‘better,’ which entails an opinion, create the dominant ideology of the world?” Here, Mark refers to Brad’s appearance and genetic lineage but religion is under question as well. Shortly after Mark’s speech, he explains to Anna that he made up the man-in-the-sky.

At many points in the film, characters blurt out their thoughts, such as a hostess saying she is “threatened” by Anna’s beauty, but these are based on the supposed ideologies that Mark is challenging. These supposed truths are merely opinions with the appearance of truth. This further demonstrates that truth is what society says it is; truth is a construct built upon arbitrary ideas and beliefs.

Everything examined thus far produces the conclusion that truth is arbitrary in many ways. While there are some truthful statements in the film, truth is not as objective as one would think. Of course, analytic truths remain unchanged even in this alternate universe.

By presenting a reality of truth that has an arbitrary foundation, “The Invention of Lying” does much more than satirize religion. It shows that many conventions by which humans abide are dependent on popular opinion. I have mentioned that Social Darwinist ideas such as natural selection dominate over religion but even these concepts are questioned throughout the film.

In my opening statement, I proposed Christ as an alternative to false religions, nihilism and the arbitrariness found in the world. Surely someone will reject this and say that Christianity is as arbitrary as the man-in-the-sky religion; they may go so far as to say that both contain the same level of truth. It is no wonder that nihilism is prevalent if the truth is arbitrary.

As a Christian philosopher at a Baptist University, I have been made familiar with similar objections to Christianity. Rather than refuting these objections with arguments for the Judeo-Christian God, I can instead reflect upon the counter-arguments made in this film. These are real objections that need to be considered.

Fellow Christians should notice that the version of religion portrayed is hopeless in this life; there is no conversion, justification, sanctification, hope or truth without Christ.

The goal of Christianity has instead been diminished to the “be a good person and you’ll go to heaven” philosophy that is so prevalent among believers and non-believers alike. Christians should know that there is so much more to their faith than that. As shown in the film, followers of the man-in-the-sky religion may become more nihilistic as they wait for the mansion they receive in the afterlife.

As for the Social Darwinistic tendencies of natural selection, while this is not inherently anti-religion, it has often been associated as such. I have shown that as it is displayed in the film, this Darwinian idea is merely an adherence to practicality and convention. It may be assumed that evolution is the prevailing ideology as genetics are heavily stressed in relationships. Again, this objection is not an altogether problem for Christians as many have found peace with the theistic evolutionist view.

Finally, what can be said about the arbitrary nature of truth? Well, there are some routes that Christians can take. One method would be to find scripture that talks about Christ as truth. These verses are numerous and while this is a correct response, it doesn’t always feel like a satisfactory answer. Another route may be to reject the arbitrariness and declare that God has divinely orchestrated these things. This response can also feel unsatisfactory as it only rephrases the same problem; this response pushes the question back a step as it only asks why God would act in such seemingly meaningless ways. The final method would be to accept that because Christianity is true, the arbitrariness that seems to develop from human convention actually finds meaning in its adherence to that truth. Hope can be found as long as there is meaning.

While the film “The Invention of Lying” pokes fun at Christians, it also makes serious points concerning reality and, subsequently, the outlook on life. In evaluating this film, my intent has not been to war against the opposite viewpoint, but rather to engage and understand its value as charitably as possible. At its core, the film is a comedy set in an alternate universe, but it masterfully integrates existential questions in the background. Christians can perceive the film as an attack on their religion or they can use the film’s criticism of truth to bolster their beliefs.