Briefly Noted: The Redemptive Nature of Laughter (Or, Why an Atheist Can and Can’t Get Jokes)

Now this one caught my attention. In a recent edition of Times Literary Supplement Tim Lewens reviews Daniel C. Dennett’s recent book on the nature of humor, Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind.[1] It caught my attention because Dennett is an atheist, which I think uniquely handicaps him in trying to understand humanity in general, and the comic dimension of humanity in particular.

Lewens notes three main theories of humor. Superiority theories “say that humor illustrates the inferiority in some respect of the joke’s butt” so that one laughs when one feels (at least a bit) superior about someone or something else. Release theories claim that humor provides “a sort of relief from build-up of nervous tension.” Incongruity-resolution theories “assert that humorous situations involve the presentation of an incongruity that is subsequently involved.” Dennett and company offer a version of this theory, arguing that humor is that “we find things funny when our expectations are overturned.”

The “expectations overturned” theory offered in Inside Jokes builds upon three principles. First, humor “requires committed expectations that are subsequently overturned.” Something is funny when it does not fit with the normal rhyme and rhythm of one’s day, and the expectations that come with it. Second, the overturning of expectations must ‘not be accompanied by any (strong) negative emotional violence.’ That is, there is a point at which funny crosses the line into “not funny.” Third, humor “requires that our expectations are swiftly overwhelmed.” Those with a quick wit tend to get more laughs than those who describe a humorous experience with long-winded, plodding, and pedantic prose (get it).

Lewens reflects upon Inside Jokes and offers several strengths and weaknesses this theory. He argues that its strengths are the importance placed on comic timing and shared-knowledge–something isn’t funny if no one knows what the person trying to be funny is talking about. Its weaknesses, though, are in the button-downed approach to humor: it may be too cognitive-based. Is there room in this cognitive theory for slap-stick or even the juvenile side of humor?  Some things are funny because they fit within a conversation, book, show, or film that intends to be funny. That is, Inside Jokes may ignore the genre of humor itself for the sake of a theory of how it works.

In response, I’ll agree with Dennett & Co. that the comic dimension of human existence is captured best by an incongruity-resolution theory of some sort. However, I’ll depart from Dennett & Co. by offering an additional theological insight: laughter is redemptive. Laughter is best understood within a Christian theological framework because it is one of God’s gifts to a fallen world.

In his book Redeeming Laughter, sociologist Peter Berger laughter is universal, that it is a signal of transcendence, and that it is redemptive because it makes life in a fallen world easier to bear.[2] He further argues that humor is best understood in terms of incongruity and resolution.

Where does the incongruence lie? Berger notes that most or all humor revolves around anthropological or ontological incongruence. In an instance of anthropological incongruence, we recognize that we are incongruent with ourselves. We are the only animals capable of standing outside of ourselves, and we live in the tension of being able to do so. In an instance of ontological incongruence, we laugh when we notice our location in the universe. The comic provides us laughter and, in so doing, presents briefly a world without pain.

Our recognition that we are incongruent with ourselves and our longing for another world (one without pain) can be made sense of most fully by a Christian theological framework, one in which God’s redemption extends to God’s (incongruent) imagers but also to his (fallen) cosmos. When we laugh at ourselves and at our location in this painful world, we have a brief respite from the painful realities of life in after the Fall. Our humor is proleptic, anticipating the new heavens and earth to come. As Helmut Thielicke once observed, if humor was given a place in theology, it would be under eschatology.

[1] Tim Lewins, “Around the Fire” in Times Literary Supplement (Dec. 7, 2012): p. 24; Matthew M. Hurley, Daniel C. Dennett, and Reginald B. Adams, Jr., Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind (MIT, 2011).


[2] Ibid., 205ff.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. dr. james willingham   •  

    Good reference to Thielicke and humor having its place in eschatology. There is an instance of this in Rev.7:9, where the original is that, “no one can number the elect,” not even God? Could God be the speaker, saying it for absurdity, to provoke laughter in his discouraged troops who are feeling the pain of trying to win the whole earth to Christ for a 1000 generations (I Chron.16:15) and Dan.2 concerning the stone becoming a great mountain and filling the whole earth along with Isa.11:9 and Hab.2:14 where reference is made to filling with His knowledge and glory as the waters that cover the earth. Which reminds me of a poor woman who had suffered all of her life from not having enough of anything. Someone took her to see the ocean for the first time in her life. When she saw it, she just sat down and stared. Finally, she sighed and said, “Well, this is the first time I ever saw anything where there was more than enough of.” With all the promises in Jonathan Edwards’ Humble Attempt, which were pleaded by Carey and others and led to the launching of the Great Century of Missions and the Second Great Awakening, we could get prayer started for a Third Great Awakening, the one in which the whole world is won to Christ and every soul on it, and then it continues for a 1000 generations and anywhere from 20,000-900,000 years and perhaps Millions and Millions of planets (Thank John Owen in his Death of Death in the Death of Christ and a reference to the value of Christ shed blood and the inhabitants of numerless worlds. Also look at Spurgeon’s Evening by Evening Devotions for Aug.6th and Dec.24th in which he prayed for every soul on earth and the conversion of the whole world. And thank God for the question of a layman from Eastern Kentucky who did 10 years of research in Baptist Church History, mostly just reading church records and got excommunicated for his pains. He asked me: “Have you ever thought about the fact that at any one time every last soul on earth could be the elect of God?” I answered, “No, I had never thought of it.” How could I, when my eschatology was pre-trib, pre-mill, following my ordaining pastor, Dr. Ernest R. Campbell and Dr. Robert G. Lee. I could not for seven years and then one day, Jonah in 3 and his message, “Forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” and the King’s question, “Who can tell?” blew my eschatology to pieces. An uncondition declaration of Judgment that was not fulfilled, that was intended to the cause the people to repent so God could spare the city, and Jonah expected such a thing though he did not want it. Hmmm.

  2. Bruce Ashford   •     Author

    Dr. Willingham, thank you again for a thoughtful reflection. No, I had not thought about Rev 7:9 as an instance of humor. Thank you for raising the possibility. I do think Scripture is rather full of statements that show the incongruence inherent in a fallen world, and many of those statements are comic. I think of the prophets showing the silliness of worshiping idols that had just been fashioned by human hands. And so forth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *