WallBuffyAngel1.png

Guides | February 18, 2009 | Comments (105)


When I was a kid, Sunday morning meant going to church. Every week, year after year, until I went to college and lapsed into proper heathenhood. I never really fought going, unless pretending to be asleep the first six times I was told to get dressed really counts as fighting. It meant too much to my mom, and even in the depths of teenage anger boys don’t screw around too much with the things that really matter to their moms. Freud said something about it, but he also had a few words about those sixty foot steeples stapled onto every church.

It’s a simple equation to solve, really. You add an overly intelligent child to a room with uncomfortable seats and a parent policed prohibition on sleeping and he’s going to read a book if it’s sitting right in front of him, there’s just not much else to do. So I read the Bible. Cover to cover. Over and over. Year after year.

It didn’t stick.

The New Testament was fairly boring except for Revelations, but the Old Testament had some deliriously fucked up parts. You ever read Maccabees? Them ancient Israelites were some crazy sum bitches. So I arrived at atheism and agnosticism through a rather Christian route. Those poor Jesuits spent a lot of years teaching the devil to quote scripture.

Spirituality is something distinct from religion: the search for meaning is not the same as the acceptance of god. Joss Whedon is an atheist. So is Russell T. Davies. David Shore isn’t, but he’s a Jew so he’s halfway there. Atheists write some of the most deeply spiritual works because they have thought about it, tortured themselves over it. It’s like how the greatest coaches were always the mediocre players, because nothing came naturally to them, they had to obsess over and analyze every detail, fight for every inch. It’s that struggle that imparts insight and wisdom. Atheists are amongst the most spiritual because they have not found an answer, their struggle for meaning never ends by definition.

Staggering through the wasteland of television, there are a few shows that have stuck out over the years:


“Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Angel”

“If there’s no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters … then all that matters is what we do. ‘Cause that’s all there is. What we do. Now. Today. I fought for so long, for redemption, for a reward, and finally just to beat the other guy. Because, if there’s no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.” — Angel, “Epiphanies”

Joss Whedon has said that “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” is the story of a teenager growing up and that Angel is the story of a twenty-something becoming a man. They are stages, waypoints on the path. They’re not just universal stories, they are the story of our society.

We were young once, toddlers, we followed the rules under threat of immediate punishment: follow the priests or they’ll cut out your tongue and stone your ass in the temple square. Morality enforced by spanking. Then we grew up a bit, had a renaissance, wrote some philosophy, religion and the state got divorced, we became tweens: follow the rules under threat of eternal damnation, do what the church says, or god will get you when you die. Morality enforced by grounding when dad gets home.

Buffy starts growing up the moment she starts sneaking out at midnight to do what she thinks is right, when she fights the darkness regardless of the consequences with her mom, with Principal Snyder, even with Giles. The point of no return comes on that night when the door to hell almost opens, when her mother tells her that if she walks out the door it’ll be for the last time, and Buffy does anyway, heart broken, mind made up.

The industrial age came with all the bluster and violence of machinery and ideology. Civilization as a teenager. Stole the keys to the car, got drunk, plowed through some pedestrians. We issued thunderous proclamations that no one preceding us could possibly understand our agony, trashed our room and then scrawled endless bad poetry about our angst and pain. Morality is dead, they say. We need the old ways they say. This is what you get when you kill god, when you don’t listen to your parents anymore.

Buffy sleeps with Angel. The world nearly ends. She watches Faith kill a man, helps her cover it up. These are the things that happen when we stop listening to our parents. She stabs Angel through the heart to save the world, blows up Sunnydale High to save her friends. These are the ways we find our own path, our own morality.

We’re a civilization trying to figure out what the hell it means to be a man. We’ve grown up, got those world wars out of our system, but we moved out on our own. There aren’t parents anymore to tell us what to do. Insisting that society cannot have a concept of morality without god is like insisting that an adult cannot have a concept of morality without parents. The opposite is true. In reality, it is only as adults, free and unfettered adults, that we truly adopt any sort of meaningful and mature morality. That’s the morality that comes from deciding to be the kind of man we want to be. Not because our parents say so, not because god says so, but because that’s the kind of man we want to be, that’s the face we can look at in the mirror without flinching. Society works the same way. We have labored so long trying to live up to the morality of god, that we finally threw down and had the crazy teenage rebellion clusterfuck of the last two centuries. We’re fucking hungover as a species: the car’s parked in the yard, we somehow vomited on the couch and shit in the sink, vaguely remember beating the crap out of someone at a bar, and we really can’t stand to look in the mirror. That’s the challenge of the next century: to build a society we can respect, whether it lives up to the old religions and ideologies or not.

Angel goes to L.A., 200 years old and with a river of blood staining his hands, but still needing to learn to be a man. He watches friends sacrifice themselves. He becomes a father. He tries to help people, he tries to find some measure of redemption to dispel the darkness. But the more he fights for absolution, the more it slips away. The indifference sets in, the cynicism that rises up in self defense against the banality of evil, scoffing at him. “I just can’t seem to care.” It’s that crushing nihilism that sets in when you move to a city alone for the first time, no parents, no friends. It doesn’t matter what you do. No one is watching, no one is keeping score. But that’s the seed of real morality, that’s the epiphany: when nothing you do matters, the only thing that matters is what you do.


“House”

“I find it more comforting to believe that all this isn’t simply a test.” — House, “Three Stories”

“You took a chance, you did something great. You were wrong, but it was still great. You should feel great that it was great. You should feel like crap that it was wrong. That’s the difference between him and me. He thinks you do your job, and what will be, will be. I think that what I do and what you do matters. He sleeps better at night. He shouldn’t.” — House, “DNR”

Man creates god. Man is less than god, man is equal to god, man is superior to god, man kills god.

There is a notion that our concept of god comes from the gaps in our knowledge. We rationalize god as the reason for things that we cannot understand. In ancient times, those gaps were immense, so wide and deep that we didn’t even know for sure that they had bottoms, that they even could be understood by mortals. Even Newton ascribed to the hand of god phenomena in the universe that his theories could not explain. But at some point we passed a critical threshold in the comprehension of science, and we realized that while there are still gaps, while the remaining gaps may even exceed by orders of magnitude the safe areas we understand, the gaps are not special. There is a distinction between unknown and unknowable. They are knowable, even if we haven’t managed it yet. The conception of god becomes irrelevant once we realize that the universe is knowable. God is no longer needed as a variable to balance the equations.

Gregory House is a scientist. There are no miracles, only things not yet understood. There is always an explanation. Some would say he is the farthest thing from spiritual, a bitter and narcissistic atheist, but he lives by the nuance that took Angel a couple centuries to tease out of the universe: what we do matters. If there is a god, then what we do doesn’t matter. Then it’s just a game, and as long as we’ve tried our best, everything will be ok. We will receive absolution. But if it’s not just a game, if there are no do overs, then what we do counts.

There’s a corollary to this understanding: if our failures are not our fault, then neither are our triumphs. We can’t have our cake and eat it too. We don’t get to celebrate our success if our failures aren’t really our fault. Watch “House,” really watch the moment when he figures something out: every discovery is an epiphany, that height of spiritual experience when the universe makes sense. He will pursue a miracle, break it down and figure out why it wasn’t a miracle, why the laws of the universe still held true. This isn’t cynicism or shallowness, this is faith at its most pure. Faith that the universe can be known, that there is no cheating, no cosmic sleight of hand.

Atheists are often accused of being deadened to the wonder and mystery of the universe, but “House” is the paragon of how atheists are the ones most conscious of the majesty of this universe. A six thousand year old earth at the center of the universe? A playground designed for us by a benevolent and loving personal god? And yet somehow House is the narcissist? Wonder at the mystery and unknowablity of the universe is the impulse of a child. Wonder at how vast and complex the universe knowably is, is the impulse of an adult.


“Doctor Who”

“He’s like fire and ice and rage. He’s like the night and the storm in the heart of the sun. He’s ancient and forever. He burns at the centre of time and can see the turn of the universe. And … he’s wonderful.” — Doctor Who, “The Family of Blood”

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit priest early in the twentieth century whose writings the Catholic Church proscribed, forbidding publication until after his death. His posthumous works were then unceremoniously declared heretical and denounced. Clearly Teilhard was on to something since the Vatican didn’t get that worked up about The Da Vinci Code convincing a billion people that Jesus was into orgies.

What Teilhard hypothesized was a reconciliation of Darwinist and Catholic doctrine, introducing a meme he called the Omega Point, a singularity towards which all of evolution was propelled. Atoms begat molecules which begat cells which begat animals which begat man which will someday through further iterations beget the Omega Point. All of evolution has been an interminably long process of life evolving to be so advanced as to become one with god. God is not an entity, he is a destination.

The Doctor is a realization of that meme, a living breathing Omega Point beyond everything we have ever known. If House is the present, the Doctor is the future. He is the embodiment of the removal of the gaps, the laying bare of the knowledge of the universe. Like House, he cannot leave well enough alone, striving to understand the cause and effect, always straining to find the man behind the curtain.

He’s not a pacifist, though that might be a fair first guess at his philosophy. He is a warrior, responsible for the death of his race and another. It is his reluctance that makes him a moral figure. An atheist understands that if there is no god, no heaven, no hell, if this really is all that there is, then the greatest crime is murder and the greatest stupidity is war. God won’t sort out his own, they won’t go on to a better place, they will simply be dust. Life is the most precious thing imaginable in a universe with no god. The greatest joy for the Doctor is when he saves a life, the greatest sadness when he must kill.


The Abyss

We have no idea what this place is that we are born into. It is strange and terrible and unfair. There are those who say that atheism is stubborn and easy, and it is, in the same way that realizing that you’re gay in rural Alabama is a choice. Atheism is not an easy path. By acknowledging that there is no greater point, we shoulder the burden of every moment. There is no absolution waiting for us. If we fuck this up, we carry it forever.

There is an abyss underneath us, the yawning chasm of animal chaos. Everything we have, everything we are, is built on top of that abyss. We can build and build but there is no underlying foundation except us. We have bootstrapped order out of chaos.

The most terrifying moment in a person’s life is when they first live on their own and realize that there is not anything actually stopping bad things from happening. Oh sure, there are laws and such to discourage people from doing bad things, but nothing actually physically restrains them. But there’s a flip side to that, as there always is: it also means you are absolutely and totally free. Nothing can stop you from doing what you want, other than your own will.

I think our humble little species of upstart monkeys is standing on that precipice right now. Our art reflects that, Buffy and Angel and House and the Doctor are us, individually and as a group. Our choice is whether we fall back on the old rules, dig ourselves into those comfortable holes watched over by a concerned parent, or whether we choose to make our own path and grin back at our own reflections in the mirror.

A billion years from now when not even an echo of the memory of man remains, it will not have mattered what we did, except in so far as it matters now.

Stipe42 is the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. He is a hopeless romantic who can be found wandering San Diego’s strip malls and suburbs looking for his mislaid soul and waiting for the revolution to come.


Pajiba Love 02/18/09 | The Best Movies of the Aughts Diversion





Comments

Wow dude. Just.....Wow.

That was truly awesome.

Posted by: admin at February 18, 2009 2:10 PM

and Doctor Who?

Fucking Pajiba.

Posted by: Jay at February 18, 2009 2:12 PM

Great piece. It's always great to find the writings of another non-believer, or rather, a searcher for the meaning of now.

I know this was a television piece but the films of David Cronenberg speak to me about the specialness and natural absurdity of evolved life since there is no other life beyond now. I wish I could express it a well as you have.

Posted by: pausner at February 18, 2009 2:17 PM

Way to put one of my favorite House quotes ever in here (Three Stories is perfection), and then follow it up with Tim Latimer. It's like you're looking at my soul.

Posted by: Nicole at February 18, 2009 2:23 PM

Wow. This might be my all time favorite Pajiba post. Ever.

Thank you!

Posted by: 42ndWF at February 18, 2009 2:27 PM

Amen brother, preach it!

Posted by: maples at February 18, 2009 2:28 PM

Oh... stipe42, I think you just became my hero. What a beautiful and eloquent explanation.

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at February 18, 2009 2:30 PM

Also, I'm surprised that Jay didn't have something more to add to this:

The greatest joy for the Doctor is when he saves a life

because it automatically made me remember River Song at the end of "Forest of the Dead:"

"Some days, nobody dies at all. Now and then, Every once in a very long while, every day in a million days, when the wind stands fair and the Doctor comes to call, everybody lives."

Posted by: Nicole at February 18, 2009 2:30 PM

So wonderfully and perfectly expressed, I actually had to comment as opposed to just lurking like I usually do. Well done.

Posted by: christine at February 18, 2009 2:31 PM

Impressive, Stipe. Very impressive. I know more than a few devout believers who would do well to consider some of your points. Everybody needs a little perspective.

Posted by: Sean at February 18, 2009 2:31 PM

An Eloquent, indeed. Well played, Sir.

Posted by: BouncingBetty at February 18, 2009 2:39 PM

Very nice Stipe!

Posted by: Julie at February 18, 2009 2:42 PM

Stipe, you have outdone yourself.

Posted by: jamiepants at February 18, 2009 2:42 PM

Oh, Stipe, that was just lovely! I came back from lunch to find this and it was a wonderful dessert.

Posted by: Lainey at February 18, 2009 2:46 PM

Very interesting. I love reading just about anything to do with spirituality, real and imagined.

Posted by: Cindy at February 18, 2009 2:48 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmm, Buffy, Angel, and Dr. Who. Yes.

It reminds me of a joke, that's actually not funny. Maybe it's not a joke.

A man walks up to a famous athiest and announces, "I'm an athiest, too."
The famous athiest says, "Have you read the Bible?"
The man says, "No."
"Have you read the Koran?"
"No."
"Have your studied Hinduism or Buddism?"
"No."
The athiest says, "You are not an athiest. You are an ignoramus."

Posted by: BWeaves at February 18, 2009 2:48 PM

I can't stop believing in God more than I can change my eye color or my shoe size. Religion is at the very core of who and what I am and that will never change.

That being said, I pretty much agree with everything you've said, and I think not only are the writers listed incredibly skilled at the points you've raised, but it makes them enormously talented creators as well.

Posted by: twig at February 18, 2009 2:49 PM

"A six thousand year old earth at the center of the universe? A playground designed for us by a benevolent and loving personal god? And yet somehow House is the narcissist?"

I'm continually disappointed by the way in which some people choose to willfully conflate Evangalists who take the Bible as literally as possible with everyone else who considers themselves religious. I think that you'll find lots of people among believers who also fully accept scientific principles and discoveries. If you believe in an ordered universe, there's not much of a difference between people who think it spontaneously happened and people who think it was created. I'm a Catholic, and yet I don't really believe in God's physical intervention on this earth. I think everything we consider a miracle has an explanation, that the possibility for it was built into the fabric of the universe from day one. Basically, what House said. That doesn't make it any less wondrous, and I can be religious and still feel that way.

In addition, just because you believe in an afterlife doesn't mean what you do in THIS life doesn't matter. There are no do overs for the religious, either, I guess unless you believe in reincarnation. The idea that "If there is a God, nothing matters" is actually in direct opposition to almost all religious teaching, and also in direct opposition of the human experience.

I respect and admire the contemplative agenda behind this post, but it's hard not to chafe against the prevailing idea that if you're religious you're a fool. Just as Stipe42 insists that atheism is not an easy choice, true faith is not an easy choice, either, because with faith comes doubt and doubt can often lead to despair. Being told that you will be forgiven by a loving God is not the same as feeling as though you are deserving of forgiveness, and belief that there is a life after death does not erase the fear that there may not be. Everyone feels the presence of the abyss. EVERYONE. If we give the world over to entropy, it will crumble and fall. Even the religious believe that.

Posted by: Anna at February 18, 2009 2:52 PM

Well put.

Posted by: Matt at February 18, 2009 2:54 PM

Seriously fantastic.

Posted by: Snath at February 18, 2009 3:02 PM

"I'm continually disappointed by the way in which some people choose to willfully conflate Evangelists who take the Bible as literally as possible with everyone else who considers themselves religious. I think that you'll find lots of people among believers who also fully accept scientific principles and discoveries."

That's true. You will find religious people who accept science, but you will find that those same people are alarmingly silent while their brethren attempt to push creation, ID, and 'academic freedom' into public schools.

Posted by: acbug3 at February 18, 2009 3:13 PM

you will find that those same people are alarmingly silent

Let me introduce you to Slacktivist.

Posted by: twig at February 18, 2009 3:16 PM

Overwrought and pretentious. And I'm an atheist.

Posted by: CatBallou at February 18, 2009 3:16 PM

I appreciate the depth of thought that went into this point. As a Christian, I obviously disagree with a large portion of it, but it's always good to read posts like this. They're quite a change from the majority of dreck on these here internets. I just want to clear up a few things.

First, just as there are "easy athiests", there are "easy Christians", who haven't read the Bible, and are just content to assume that there's a "man upstairs" who'll "forgive them" because "that's what he does". Being a Christian is just as difficult as being an athiest. Christians understand freedom (except some calvinists), and also understand that freedom to do does not mean freedom from consequence. Adam and Eve were free to eat fruit, but not free to escape the mortality that was a consequence of the fruit. So, anybody who thinks that Christianity is a simple cop-out or crutch has only a limited understanding of Christianity, no matter how much time they've spent perusing the scriptures. Christianity is entirely about altruism, about laying down one's life for one's neighbor and one's God, which is why Ayn Rand, for one, hated it so much.

Second, and most importantly, Christians do not believe that their work on earth does not matter. In fact, believing in eternal consequences, I'd argue, means more of a focus on the individual decisions and actions that makes up a life. But frankly, I'm not ready to get into an argument on that.

Obviously, you, as an athiest, will believe athiesm is superior just as I, as a Christian, will believe that Christianity is a superior way of thinking and living. But can we ge

Posted by: jmag at February 18, 2009 3:17 PM

As a Christian (more or less, there is always doubt and conflict in my world) I found this article fascinating. Firstly, it's really well-written and was a pure joy to read. Secondly, it raises interesting points without being overly condescending to other views. And that is rare. And anything that makes connections to some of my favorite TV shows makes me happy.

Personally, I believe there is a God. But I also believe that every action matters. Not because they're all being tabulated and organized in a spiritual realm, but because they just do. For all our scrapping and bitching on this site, I'm fairly certain that doing good when and wherever possible is not a lost concept among us. And sometimes that provides the comfort I need.

Posted by: Sharon at February 18, 2009 3:18 PM

Ohhhh you know my snide self, Nicole. If The Doctor was the one in the picture then I might.

Posted by: Jay at February 18, 2009 3:18 PM

Sweet holy fuck. Marry me Stipe, that was fucking incredible.

Posted by: Jeremy Feist at February 18, 2009 3:20 PM

Personally, I believe there is a God. But I also believe that every action matters.
I should have clarified, these two concepts are by no means mutually exclusive.

Posted by: Sharon at February 18, 2009 3:21 PM

A'ight. You're confusing the fuck outta me, today, stipe.

All of the above makes me want to rescind part of what I said, a few minutes earlier, in the other thread. There may, yet, be Hope...

You're spot-on with this... brilliant, in fact; this is what I have grown accustomed to, from you.
This is Gold.

I'll leave it at that...

Posted by: Rykker at February 18, 2009 3:22 PM

I appreciate the depth of thought that went into this point. As a Christian, I obviously disagree with a large portion of it, but it's always good to read posts like this. They're quite a change from the majority of dreck on these here internets. I just want to clear up a few things.

First, just as there are "easy athiests", there are "easy Christians", who haven't read the Bible, and are just content to assume that there's a "man upstairs" who'll "forgive them" because "that's what he does". Being a Christian is just as difficult as being an athiest. Christians understand freedom (except some calvinists), and also understand that freedom to do does not mean freedom from consequence. Adam and Eve were free to eat fruit, but not free to escape the mortality that was a consequence of the fruit. Further, Christians don't (or in my view, shouldn't) define the search for meaning as an intellectual pursuit, nor as a pursuit that ends. So, anybody who thinks that Christianity is a simple cop-out or crutch has only a limited understanding of Christianity, no matter how much time they've spent perusing the scriptures. Christianity is entirely about altruism, about laying down one's life for one's neighbor and one's God, which is why Ayn Rand, for one, hated it so much.

Second, and most importantly, Christians do not believe that their work on earth does not matter. In fact, believing in eternal consequences, I'd argue, means more of a focus on the individual decisions and actions that makes up a life. But frankly, I'm not ready to get into an argument on that.


Obviously, you, as an athiest, will believe athiesm is superior just as I, as a Christian, will believe that Christianity is a superior way of thinking and living. But can we get past the romantic conception of athiests as the "brooding thinkers", the "only true spiritualists", the ones who live for the moment and understand the world around them? There's no need to denigrate people who think differently. Look, I love pajiba, but I understand that my worldview isn't necessarily shared by a ton of people here (though that doesn't stop us from sharing a mutual love for the Wire).

Posted by: jmag at February 18, 2009 3:23 PM

I don't think I've ever pulled off the rare double post with one half-completed. It's a proud day, America.

Posted by: jmag at February 18, 2009 3:26 PM

Thanks for writing this, stipe42. Right now I'm trying to figure out how to look myself in the mirror and reading that atheism is an honorable choice is...well, freeing. Thanks for such an eloquent and thoughtful post.

Posted by: zoƫ at February 18, 2009 3:26 PM

Anna, I don't think the intent of the post was to call believers fools, rather it was meant as counterpoint to what many non-believers have been told since day one. And it did so in a very intelligent and creative way.

In fact, the only issue that I may take with your counterpoint, is that there are no do overs for some of the religious either. Later in your post you expound upon the concept of forgiveness and I was always taught "ask and ye shall receive". My understanding of this is that it means that I could be the biggest cuntnugget on the planet; but when the day comes, ask for forgivness and it shall be granted, hence a free pass or do over.

Other than my little issue your position is very well said.

Posted by: admin at February 18, 2009 3:26 PM

Beautiful. I hate when people assert that atheists and agnostics can't possibly have a sense of morality because they don't believe in God.

The "everybody lives" line was also used at the end of "The Doctor Dances." Both were written by the brilliant Stephen Moffat, so I can't wait to see what Doctor Who looks like while he's running it.

Posted by: lorent at February 18, 2009 3:26 PM

"The New Testament was fairly boring except for Revelations.."

Mmmm I don't know, First Corinthians is a pretty good read.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 18, 2009 3:27 PM

*slow clap*

Posted by: s. pisaster at February 18, 2009 3:28 PM

Stipe42 that was brilliantly put together, well thought out....and beautiful. You have taken several of my favorite shows and characters, people who I thought I was already intimately familiar with, and shown a brand new light on them.

Now, how does Al Swearengen fit into all of this?

Posted by: dammitjanet at February 18, 2009 3:29 PM

Heavy. That was so heavy I think it's become its own sigularity. Bravo, Stipe.

Posted by: Green Lantern at February 18, 2009 3:29 PM

Great piece. I agree with just about all of it.

I am an agnostic who has gone through confirmation class at a presbyterian church and decided that I just didn't buy it. Since then, I've read the Koran and have looked into Buddhism, too with the same response.

I don't think that anyone can argue that religion isn't powerful and I honestly don't think that being religious, agnostic, or an atheist is in any way superior to any of the others. That said, I sort of don't think it is really that much of a choice-either you believe or you don't. I believe there's something, but I just don't think it's anything that I've seen presented in any religious texts I've seen thus far.

As a scientist, I think it might be particularly difficult for me to just take something on faith. However, that goes for both religion and atheism-both take equal amounts of faith, thus, the agnosticism.

Posted by: tanotice at February 18, 2009 3:46 PM

nicely said. I wish I could linger over this but I'm at work and I'm having to just glance, but really, very nicely said. Also, very nice counterpoints as well.

We had a somewhat similar discussion at work not too long ago. I'd recently seen a rerun of that show wifeswap where a New Age mom was swapped with a very religious mom, and how even I, an atheist, was insulted by how moronic they made the religous mother. Granted, she was fucking crazy. [seriously off her rocker, even Jesus would shut the gates in her face, cah ray zee) No question. but why did she have to be the face of Christianity? The very nice and normal religious folks in my office were quick to point out that not every Christian is like that woman, but still, seems like anyone who is religious is viewed as a nut, and atheists are viewed as immoral loose cannons.

anyways, my keyboard is running low on batteries, cuz i keep dropping letters....

Posted by: Stella at February 18, 2009 3:48 PM

Whenever anyone asks me, how I as an atheist can have morality without religion, I will be referring to them this article. Namely the Buffy part. It actually made me tear up.

Posted by: Nimue at February 18, 2009 3:54 PM

Delurking to say wow. Just, Wow. Thank you.

Posted by: MarMar at February 18, 2009 4:07 PM

God is not an entity, he is a destination.

Well, damn. That's the only definition of God I've read which has ever rung true to me! Thanks, Stipe.
I can see that my education has been sadly deficient, and I am now going to make it my business to read up on old PTdC. Because strangely enough, the nuns at my Catholic school didn't mention him at all...

Nicely written, man. Nicely written.

Posted by: Tarn at February 18, 2009 4:31 PM

Very well put. I actually had a conversation about this new culture of cynics with my philosophy prof earlier today, and he raised the same point: this generation's challenge is going to be creating something that doesn't disgust us, in a world full of things that do.

Posted by: LankLank at February 18, 2009 4:39 PM

I was raised Catholic. I consider myself spiritual. I believe what people think of as God could also be called the living universe, of which we are all a part. There is no life after death, but energy cannot be destroyed. There is no pre-destiny, yet the spark of the Big Bang had within it the potential of me writing this on my computer today, and we are headed, inexorably, toward the last "effect" of that cause.

All that being said, I still feel as though those clinging to organized religion, and even personally worshiping the old idea of god in anything remotely resembling an anthropomorphization, are like the Star Wars fans living in their mother's basements at 40, when everyone else is making their own families.

Posted by: puppetDoug at February 18, 2009 4:48 PM

Aw, don't put on a pseudonym, Dustin! Pussy.

Procreation's overrated anyway.

Posted by: Jay at February 18, 2009 5:02 PM

I love how we lost morality. I never really liked the brandon-walsh's of the world. I love how we've come to love people with flaws.

Posted by: mario at February 18, 2009 5:03 PM

I don't really think "flawed" and "amoral" are fungible, if that's what you're saying.

Posted by: Jay at February 18, 2009 5:05 PM

"I'm continually disappointed by the way in which some people choose to willfully conflate Evangelists who take the Bible as literally as possible with everyone else who considers themselves religious. I think that you'll find lots of people among believers who also fully accept scientific principles and discoveries."

"That's true. You will find religious people who accept science, but you will find that those same people are alarmingly silent while their brethren attempt to push creation, ID, and 'academic freedom' into public schools."

Not silent. Just not obnoxious enough to be heard by people who have already made up their minds.

Posted by: dg at February 18, 2009 5:09 PM

Beautiful post, Stipe. I don't agree with all of it, but I think this thread is one of the most interesting and friendly discussions of religion, spirituality, and television that I've come across on the over-excited and under-thought internet.

I personally am a Jewish agnostic who believes only in the possibility of God, and is constantly agonizing over the search for meaning.

Posted by: dsbs at February 18, 2009 5:15 PM

I confess, I have never watched Buffy or Angel. I never got interested while they were in their original runs, and the DVD's are on my "I'll get around to them sometime" list. However, your post may move them up on my list.

I just can't get into "House." I've worked with too many asshole doctors in real life to be interested in one on TV.

Posted by: rlr260 at February 18, 2009 5:36 PM

Very nice, Stipe. Thank you.


Oh, and CatBallou is a straight-up twat.

Posted by: firedmyass at February 18, 2009 5:52 PM

Stipe, one of the best ever. If Pajiba doesn't have a hall of fame, they should start one for this post.

Posted by: DavidMcTaintwaffle at February 18, 2009 6:10 PM

I am always impressed by atheists trying to stamp meaning were there is none. This was especially impressive -- but equally meaningless.

Tell me: how does the atheist justify the statement, "An atheist understands that if there is no god, no heaven, no hell, if this really is all that there is, then the greatest crime is murder and the greatest stupidity is war."

I'm asking -- because just saying it's true doesn't make it true, in spite of guys like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens crowing such inanities as if they were making some point.

I may be from the country, but I can smell bullshit a mile away, and this was quite a load.

Posted by: hater from siloam springs at February 18, 2009 6:28 PM

And before you bring the hate, remember something specifically: Joss Whedon (for example) is an absurdist -- which means he doesn't posit stupid shit like heroism and virtue as necessary but in fact absurd.

My call to Stipe here is that his piece is absurd in the extreme because it sees something(s) heroic which, in the best case, ends in death. Feeling like it's heroic is just one way of dealing with it -- and perhaps not the "best" way, if you measure "best" by "the results it gets".

Now back to your hate.

Posted by: hater from siloam springs at February 18, 2009 6:37 PM

Fantastic! Thanks for putting some of my thoughts into words.

Posted by: SilverDeb at February 18, 2009 6:38 PM

I was calling Stipe fantastic, not the post before mine.

Posted by: SilverDeb at February 18, 2009 6:42 PM

God, I've loved Doctor Who and Angel (and Buffy by proxy) for years. Only recently got into "House", so thanks for making me feel that wasn't outta leftfield, Stipe!

Posted by: Teresa at February 18, 2009 6:57 PM

This will be the first time I print out a post to keep. I was raised in Southern Baptist trad, too, which is where I refined the art of "going away in my head" to pass the time. Big ol' smooch to stipe42!

Posted by: Another Lurker Uncovered! at February 18, 2009 7:04 PM

It is amusing to see atheism get called trumped up bullshit.

Posted by: Jay at February 18, 2009 7:17 PM

Tell me: how does the atheist justify the statement, "An atheist understands that if there is no god, no heaven, no hell, if this really is all that there is, then the greatest crime is murder and the greatest stupidity is war."

I'm not an atheist, but I'm not a member of any religion either, so I'll take a shot at it. If there is no afterlife, then how is ending a life not the greatest crime? No reincarnation, no playing in the fields of paradise, no heavenly reward - by ending a life, you have taken away every potentiality. What crime could be greater?

I think that the greatest stupidity is war, regardless of whether or not one believes in a god. It is the crime of murder compounded, a willing perpetration of a cycle of anger, fear and violence resulting in wanton destruction of humanity. Why does such a statement require justification when there is so much history to prove it true?

Posted by: Reba at February 18, 2009 8:47 PM

As an agnostic who loves studying religion and being transported by art and spiritual meaning, I salute you. You have put into words the feelings I have always had but have never possessed the eloquence to properly express. And all through some of my favorite bits of television. I find that it's always the depth of thought, no matter whether devout or atheistic, that yields real spirituality, and that that pursuit of knowledge is what allows people of all belief structures to work towards a more peaceful coexistence.

Okay, so that last part was really hippy-dippy, but you get my point. Definitely one of my favorite posts to date.

Posted by: kalexal at February 18, 2009 8:55 PM

I believe in God, but when I get up there He has some 'splainin' to do.

First question: What were You doing before "In the beginning ..." and why did you take so long? I mean, presumably infinity stretches in both directions. So before there was any "there" there, did God just float around in the absolute black nothingness for untold gazillions of years until one day 6,000 or 4 billion or 14 billion years ago He decided "I'm pretty bored with this," and set the Big Bang in motion?

Second question: The God of the Old Testament was a vengeful God. He slaughtered 99.99% of humanity in the flood, and he dropped seas onto armies. Then along came Jesus with "I show you a new way" and "Love those who persecute you," to the point of allowing himself to be abandoned and nailed to a cross. So ... was Jesus saying God was wrong? How could God be wrong, especially if Jesus and the Father were each one-third of the Trinity?

Lots more questions, no good answers.

I could, I suppose, answer them by not believing. But why take a chance? Would I live substantially differently if I thought there were no consequences in the afterlife? Probably not much. So, might as well.

Posted by: bucdaddy at February 18, 2009 9:04 PM

Thank you stipe! What a wonderful read!

Posted by: gapingmaw at February 18, 2009 9:15 PM

Nice thoughts stipe, though no the human race has officially matured, I'm wondering whether it is going to make it to old age and get cut off too soon through a substance abuse habit it couldn't shake from it's teen years. You guys should read Pharyngula.

Religion has yet to bury Atheism, yet it's funny how many gods have "passed on" in the same timeframe. Odin? Thor? Zeus? Jupiter? I guess those civilisations were clearly high when they conceived of those obviously magical beings.

I'm an atheist who doesn't believe that death is the end. I am made of the same matter that built the planet and the sun that gives it life. Even though my consciousness won't survive the transition, my dust will go on to become the building block of something else, as it has done for millenia. I take comfort in that.

Posted by: Dave Shepherd at February 18, 2009 9:29 PM

Stipe, I don't like everything you've written, but bravo to you for writing this guide. (And Rowles & co. for guesting you.)

Your final image of humanity on the edge of the abyss, well, it doesn't quite agree with me. But I honestly can't say I disagree with it, and it is thought-provoking.

Loved your breakdown of each show. You've touched upon the reason I suspect some of us connect so strongly with these shows, and others, and countless movies and albums, too. Spirituality comes in many forms, even geek-centric.

You are right to say that spirituality is not religion, and searching for meaning is not acceptance of a god. You are wrong to imply that the search and the acceptance are mutually exclusive; they are not. Many believers struggle for meaning, not against their faith, but with it. I don't know how to explain, but doubt can be a part of faith.

Someone a long time ago taught me that religion is a question, and you are obligated to explore and probe and therefore honor your religion. Blind faith is simply ignorance. Atheists ARE amongst the most spiritual, but they are not the only ones who are spiritual or searching for answers. Please don't confuse fundamentalist parrots with all religious believers (and they can stop confusing atheists with the immoral unenlightened masses destined for hell).

[Funny you mention David Shore; the person who taught me this was Jewish. Jews really welcome doubt in a special way, but I think other religions embrace it also.]

Holy hell Stipe, I'm going to credit/blame your post for getting me to write all that.

Posted by: rebeck at February 18, 2009 9:36 PM

I used that House quote from "Three Stories" in a religion paper at BYU and supported its ideas. Interesting thoughts, Mr. Stipe.

Posted by: kelsy at February 18, 2009 9:52 PM

"Those poor Jesuits spent a lot of years teaching the devil to quote scripture."

That was my favorite line, I think, because I've always believed it to be true.

I love Buffy, I love Angel, and I love House- I'll admit, I did not read the rest. But I liked what I did read, so two thumbs up to you.

Posted by: dene chen at February 18, 2009 10:09 PM

I think your idea here is good, and I applaud anytime that the products of godlessness are pointed out, if only because they are quite frequently co-opted by deists, but that comparison of civilization to human development was just too much. The abyss section was also a little much. Overwrought and overplayed would be a good description. :/

However, These are just stylistic quibbles, my preference for bluntness and pragmatism in speech and argument shouldn't be seen as detracting from a work's value.

Posted by: Julian at February 18, 2009 10:20 PM

Stripe42, as someone who has regularly read your comments, I can honestly say this is one of the best things you've ever written. It was beautiful, be sure to keep it up, and one day, you may even be able to surpass this.

Posted by: George at February 18, 2009 10:26 PM

I absolutely loved this post. I agree that this is one of the best things ever written on this fine site. It's nice to see something positive.

Posted by: bob at February 18, 2009 10:28 PM

Beautifully put Stipe42...you've always had a flair for the language.

I'm a Christian, spiritual to a degree, but under all that I'm a pragmatist.

"The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry." -Robert Burns

Heroism, in and of itself, is a flawed pursuit, which generally ends in disaster. Not to belittle the actions of heroes, because they do mean well, they do! I think that most people of a religious bent ascribe to their beliefs from habit, from a familial and environmental need to pin the ills of the world on someone other than themselves. But bear in mind, the atheists and agnostics are no better or worse, they just err on the opposite side of the spectrum. It makes them no less sanctimonious.

I wouldn't have posted, because this is one of those things I generally don't get involved in, mostly because I like my beliefs, and I like you having yours and being happy with them. I don't necessarily think the twain shall meet, as it were, and I would certainly never force such an issue. But Anna's post made me think about people such as myself, the reasonable Christians, as I like to think of us. Perhaps if we weren't so reticent, so retiring...but if 'wishes and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas'. Or Hanukkah. Or Happy Holidays. Or whatever.

I've gotten a little far afield here, back to pragmatism. As I said, heroism is a flawed pursuit, and (this may be viciously cynical) generally one that isn't sought after by people with the best interest of others in the forefront of their minds. I think that's why I like the quote by Angel in your piece Stipe. He never sought a life such as he was given. He's no hero, just a guy, well vampire, trying to make his way, become a man, all that rot.

Joseph Campbell once said that "Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble." It applies to all spiritual and philosophical thought, really.

When push comes to shove, I think that we, as a creature, as an entity that exists in a vast universe, place ourselves a little too high on the ladder. We're quickly losing the ability to laugh at ourselves, to make informed decisions about what exactly is important, and for one reason. Because people, fallible, heroic, human people, on both sides of the invisible fence, think they know the answer.

Atheism has no more real value than religion, to be brutally honest about it. I think the agnostics come closer than anyone, because at the very least, they acknowledge that man is not the do all, end all, be all. And that's what it comes down to...nonbelievers and evangelicals, in my view, put their faith in the same thing. That man is chosen, of all the possibilities in the universe, to be it. I've never heard an atheist or a hardline fundamentalist of any religion give any being, God or otherwise, the status of being more than man.

It seems a very lonely world they inhabit.

Posted by: Smokin at February 19, 2009 1:28 AM

The atheist I have met share one trait that is common amongst all of them, and that is they are all very arrogant.

Posted by: Pookie at February 19, 2009 1:30 AM

A sublime post Stipe, I feel a little enlightened and can walk away with a tad more perspective to life now. Not sure how much will stick but it does make me think, you know those thoughts that don't really need to be answered or solved.

I use to think Organised Religion was for one thing and one thing only. Hope, it gave us the impression that there is more to this life then what we have at the moment, that there is something waiting for us on the other side. Obviously it's easy to take a nihilistic approach to everything but there is one constant. The idea of Death invokes Fear, It's much easier to accept death if you truly believe there is something waiting for you when your heart stops beating.

I still think Religion is important, without Hope the World would just dissolve into absolute Chaos.

Posted by: RonnyK at February 19, 2009 1:34 AM

Am I mistaken, or is the author of this article calling religious belief childish (at the end of the "House" section")?
If I'm not mistaken, I'm wondering what Pajiba's goal with this article is? Does this fit into criticism? Is this "guide for what's good for you" telling me that abandoning any form of faith (other than that science is what got us and everything in the world here) is what is good for me?
Stipe42 has his finger on some compelling questions that would lead to some great discussion (probably not on the internet), and application of the shows seems relevant and insightful (I haven't seen any of them), but creating a straw-man of religious faith hardly seems worthy of a Pajiba Guide.

I love Pajiba, often because the viewpoints are so different than my own... and because they are almost always well-stated and respectful. However, this Guide misses those marks.

Posted by: dg at February 19, 2009 1:37 AM

Mostly pretty good post, except that I don't find atheism a burden. It's all freeing, no burden. At the risk of seeming patronizing (and it is, a little), I feel sorry for actual religious people - meaning people who sincerely believe, not the assholes who just pretend to believe for their own purposes and cynically take advantage of the belief of others. Man, it must be exhausting, feeling unworthy all the time. Assuming guilt where there is none, punishing yourself for things that aren't your fault. If you get joy from religion, good for you, and I am almost never inclined to debate the merits or lack thereof of religion, I have better shit to do, but religion seems to make people miserable far more often than it makes them joyful. Or moral.

Posted by: Slash at February 19, 2009 2:14 AM

Stipe you are a fraud, a charlatan, your vanity will be your undoing. You pollute the pages of Pajiba with your proclamations and pronouncements pandering to the populace from your perch.

Posted by: Pookie at February 19, 2009 3:06 AM

Pookie, you smooth talker, you... I think I fall in love with you a little more with every comment.

Posted by: Slash at February 19, 2009 3:28 AM

Reba said:

If there is no afterlife, then how is ending a life not the greatest crime? No reincarnation, no playing in the fields of paradise, no heavenly reward - by ending a life, you have taken away every potentiality. What crime could be greater?

Your assumption here is that life is valuable and suffering is bad. I can see how a person who has no inclination to say that all life is created and human life in particular is created for a purpose could say, "my life is valuable to me" and "I think my suffering is bad." But after that, to then transfer that personal need of one's own life into a need for all people to have the same value is a little more than a little iffy. You certainly might somehow feel that way, but you have no way to make it a moral standard about which you can convince others.

In fact, I also would say that the blanket "to suffer is bad" statement gets pretty raggedy pretty quick.

Let's say that there's a guy in your neighborhood who is able to kill one person per year. At age 40 he decides to try it out, and people in your neighborhood start to disappear. First it's the homeless guy, who nobody misses. Then it's a traveling salesman who nobody around here misses. Then it's an old lady in the house across the street. Then one year finally it's someone's kid and people start asking questions -- but as they suspect that it's this guy, they find out that he has fortified his house so that to take him into custody or to take him out, it'll probably cost about 100 lives to end his little reign of terror -- he's rigged his house to blow up the whole neighborhood if someone tries to shut him down.

Given that he started his little crime spree at age 40, he probably won't have more than 30 or 40 victims. So is expending 100 lives worth it to end the loss of maybe 4 lives? Before you say, "well, that's a stupid example," that's the kind of choice we have to make when we go to war against someone like Hitler or Pol Pot -- it's going to cost more lives to end his reign of terror than we can possibly save.

So is it true that all suffering is bad -- or can we say that some suffering is actually justified and necessary to achieve desired results?

The fact of an "afterlife" is not the key fact: the fact that life came into being on purpose rather than by happy (or absurd) coincidence is how one establishes value in something other than a subjective way. And that includes whether or not we can figure out is any suffering is worth the cost.

I think Reba's shot here is the atheist best shot. I think that it doesn't understand what God represents very well, and that's how it misses the mark.

Posted by: hater from siloam springs at February 19, 2009 3:47 AM

It is at these moments of solitude that I am forced to deal with my mortality. Some nights I lay awake pondering the questions that have dogged man since the beginning of time. What happens when life ends? What happens when we shake off this mortal coil that bounds us to this world? Three years ago my mother was sick and had to go to the hospital, she knew she would not live much longer. One night after she entered the hospital I was home sleep, around four-thirty in the morning something woke me up and told me to call the hospital, I did and the nurse said my mother had just passed away.

To an atheist that story may seem coincidental, but to me it has a much larger meaning. I don't know if there is life after death, only the dead know. Having studied and practiced different religions, I can now say with a certainty that I am finished with religion.

I know my writing is scatter shot, but that is only because most of the time when I write it is not for the benefit of the reader but for a way of letting me say what is on my mind at any particular time. And to a lesser extent, I just don't have the patience to sit here and compose a well-reasoned argument against whatever it is I'm arguing against.

Posted by: Pookie at February 19, 2009 4:39 AM

stipe, that was just....elegant. And a pleasure to read. Possibly because you incorporated my favourite jossverse quote ever (weeellll - it's a tie between that and "...we shall call it...THIS land") but mostly because it was the best sort of commentary on popular culture and art - how we use it as a combination mirror, growth chart and slap around the back of the head.

Posted by: Oztraylienne at February 19, 2009 5:21 AM

"I'm continually disappointed by the way in which some people choose to willfully conflate Evangelists who take the Bible as literally as possible with everyone else who considers themselves religious. I think that you'll find lots of people among believers who also fully accept scientific principles and discoveries."

"That's true. You will find religious people who accept science, but you will find that those same people are alarmingly silent while their brethren attempt to push creation, ID, and 'academic freedom' into public schools."

"Not silent. Just not obnoxious enough to be heard by people who have already made up their minds."

I gave up fighting a long time ago. Because the more I fought the more frustrated I got with the fact that some people seem blind to reason and evidence. At some point, they will tell you your argument against them doesn't count because actually, you aren't a Christian and therefore you're wrong and they're right. At which point there is no arguing anymore. And saying 'fine then, go fuck yourself' generally makes them think they have proved their point. Besides all this, someone reasonable and rational doesn't make an interesting news story. Some dickwad standing out the front of a church proclaiming that God will Smite the Faggots does, apparently...I'm worried what this says about society...

This was a great review, by the way. Whilst I believe in a God and consider myself a Christian, sadly I see more truth in your words than I see from so many 'religious' folk. Which isn't to say I'm convinced there is no God. I just think that we go about God entirely the wrong way more of the time.

Posted by: rach at February 19, 2009 6:11 AM

I just remembered... Buffy did go to heaven, though.

Hm.

Posted by: twig at February 19, 2009 8:57 AM

Well thanks a lot, twig, YOU JUST RUINED THE ENTIRE ARTICLE WITH YOUR BUFFY "FACTS."

Shame on you.

Hehe.

Posted by: Snath at February 19, 2009 9:26 AM

Well, the way I see it, pain exists. It just is. You don't have to be taught to feel physical or mental pain. I believe love, in all its gradients, simply is and you don't have to be taught to feel it. Humans are obviously not the only animals who show concern for one another. It's just what conscious beings do. Everyone knows what pain is, and if you're fond of someone you don't want to put them through it. You don't have to be taught empathy. By the same token, one tends to be fond of others who do not cause them pain, and responds in kind. Other animals don't need a spiritual code to understand that being friendly with each other makes their own lives less painful, sometimes literally. Religious philosophies agree with that stance, that you're just gonna have a much better time if you're not an asshole to everybody else, but you don't need religion to realize it. Call it morality, call it karma, call it good sense, it's what works. Thus I don't feel I have to believe in any gods in order to feel like there's a right and wrong way to conduct myself, and being "good" is ultimately in one's self-interest.

Posted by: Jay at February 19, 2009 9:41 AM

stipe, I just wanted to let you know that my friend Doug posted this on Whedonesque...thought you might want to read the comments.
http://whedonesque.com/comments/19156

Posted by: jamiepants at February 19, 2009 9:54 AM

Someone before me said that it is not easy to be a Christian. Yes, it must be difficult in year 2009 to do mental exercises straight out of Orvell's 1984, to believe 2 contradictory things at once. and it's a slippery slope: Earth was created 6000 yrs ago/Earth obviously wasn't created 6000 yrs ago because thousands of fossils prove otherwise. Then comes the argument that the Bible cannot be read literally. And then if you ask "Well, at which point do the metaphors stop?", you cannot get an answer from the religious folk. Does it stop with Mary's virginal conception? The crossing of the Red sea? Abraham almost killing his son because a voice told him to do it and that voice was god? Because if it's all a metaphor, what are all the ceremonies for? If Jesus was just a philosopher and an aspiring politician who had some good and some not so good ideas and was killed, why did he have to become the son of god for his ideas to become important?
In my first class of Philosophy and Anthropology, my professor mentioned that the main postulate of philosophy is its perpetual search for answers and that the main problem of religion is that they are convinced that they have not just an answer, but the answer to all questions, the ultimative answer.
Stipe, this was a beautiful article - keep them coming.

Posted by: marija at February 19, 2009 10:07 AM

I just remembered... Buffy did go to heaven, though.

And didn't the Doctor battle Satan? Or at least a possible Satan.

Posted by: Sabrina at February 19, 2009 10:08 AM

I think that it doesn't understand what God represents very well, and that's how it misses the mark.

Thinking you know what God represents is hubris beyond measure. Right up there with assigning a name or positing that the way you believe is the only way to salvation. I would not follow such a limited god. Your dismissal of my beliefs, apparently without understanding my point at all, is a prime example of why I no longer go to church. All those people so very certain that they are right, that they have found the way, completely missing that faith is a journey, not a destination. At least, it is for me. I would no more tell them how to think or believe than I would allow them to tell me how to do so. But an actual conversation on the nature of faith is a lovely thing. Alas for the opportunity lost.

Posted by: Reba at February 19, 2009 10:08 AM

There's only one thing I know for certain. It's that one of two things will happen when I die. There's either an afterlife (and we've been told heaven's pretty cool if you're a believer, and I'm a believer, though I think I like what the Muslim martyrs have waiting for them a little better than the angel wings and golden streets and houses of many mansions we Christians do); or there's oblivion.

And somehow I'm comforted by both of those possibilities. Either will be an end to worry, and fear, and hurt.

I've told my family that I'm not afraid of death. What scares me is pain. And if the time comes that they have to make some serious decisions about me, they should act accordingly.

Posted by: bucdaddy at February 19, 2009 10:33 AM

Incredible piece.

I'm personally a Buddhist, and even something of a deist, yet I believe life MUST be about how we grapple with it. What we do IS all that matters, no matter what else we might find beyond this life. I don't believe in empty moments, or tests for the sake of tests.

It's why I love Doctor Who, and the collected works of Mr. Whedon. I've only caught a few episodes of House this far, but I've been delighted and intrigued for the very reasons you describe here.

I was also fascinated by the idea of the Omega Point, something I'd not heard about before now. But again--that's EXACTLY why the Doctor is my favorite TV hero ever. I've literally been watching Who since the day I was born (long story), and the Doctor's questing, scientific, life-embracing spirit has always been my guide. It sounds so fanboy when I type it out like that, but the philosophy you expose here is just why the character reverberates in me so hard.

Thanks so much for these thoughts.

Posted by: John Clifford at February 19, 2009 11:38 AM

Why can't atheists treat the "religious" with respect? They always come off as scoffing at those who believe in a creator. This article, while well-written, closes the door to discussion on the topic by painting "believers" as wide-eyed, ignorant, children. I love open-minded discussions on the topic, but respect should go both ways.

Also, if you marvel at how everything is in such a delicate balance and order in the universe (as I do), isn't it a greater leap of faith, to declare it a coincidence? Our cells just know to divide themselves? The sun just knows to rise in the east and set in the west? etc. etc.

And science...why must the argument on science be limited to "science made everything," or, "there is no science, only a magical God!!" Science is a necessary tool to explain the workings of the universe. For example, Science lets us know the temperature water will boil at, and we can do amazing things with that knowledge, but can science ever change the temperature water will boil at? Science MUST follow rules. Something that is slave to rules, hence, limited, can't have created the delicate balance the universe needs to maintain.

If all else fails to make you believe, science has failed Nic Cage and Brendan Frasier from convincing us that what's on their head is not implanted ass-hair. That can only be the wrath of a vengeful God.

Posted by: phyke at February 19, 2009 12:11 PM

This is a great article.


Except for one phrase: "A civlization trying to find out what is means to be A MAN." (Emphasis mine.)


I fear you're right. Maybe if our civilization tried to think about what it means to be a person, or even what it means to be a mother of the future human race, we wouldn't be so effed up.

Posted by: Michelle at February 19, 2009 12:46 PM

Posted by: marija at February 19, 2009 10:07 AM

Quite presumptuous take on "Christians" and "religious folk" there. There are plenty of both who can reconcile their belief with scientific fact. Apparently you just haven't met them yet.

As far as your question about the ceremonies (by which I assume you mean the holidays and such), why not ask why we celebrate anything, for that matter? For centuries, people managed to get along just fine without birthdays, Mother's Days, and Administrative Assistant Days. Ceremonies, when you really think about them, are always pointless.

As someone on the Whedonesque board said, no one ever brings up what seems to be a pretty important question: what is the definition of "god", big G or little g? It is a huge old bearded guy with a lightning bolt ready for your ass, or the "gaps" in human knowledge, or a monkey named Steve?

Take this situation: a busload of people crash on the same day a child recovers from a deadly illness. Regardless of your view on it, you are not going to convince the family of that child that it is somehow less miraculous because of the bus crash. In fact, depending on the family, they will probably believe in some sort of divine interference even more. Perspective has to be taken into account here. It is just as ludicrous to some people that the universe came out of total nothingness as it is to others that a cranky deity got lonely and blew it all out of his nose (or nasal equivalent).

In my first class of Philosophy and Anthropology, my professor mentioned that the main postulate of philosophy is its perpetual search for answers and that the main problem of religion is that they are convinced that they have not just an answer, but the answer to all questions, the ultimative answer

Isn't that true for jerks in general? As has been discussed, there are plenty of atheists who feel their way is the only way. The ultimate answer to all questions is....nothing. Nada. Zilch.

True people of faith do have it hard, because they DO listen and DO accept the "contradictory" evidence. It is easy to dismiss something you have set yourself against. It is harder to accept it and still find reason to believe.

The believer is relentlessly pessimistic; the humanist is stubbornly optimistic. Both are deluded to humanity's position in the universe. Because, if we were to excise any ego from the matter, humanity doesn't mean squat in the grand scheme of things. We are dust and stars, and we know it, and yet we still try to ascribe more value to ourselves. The idea that life is precious and important is ludicrous without this necessary ego.

Posted by: Vermillion at February 19, 2009 1:31 PM

Stipe, I went over to the link supplied by jamiepants http://whedonesque.com/comments/19156 and I'm amazed at what a chord you have struck with thoughtful, literate, and considerate commentators of a variety of beliefs and non-belief at both sites. Not a single "I don't agree so you suck" variety comment anywhere. Brilliant post and great comments. Bravo!

Posted by: Sharopa at February 19, 2009 2:54 PM

Atheism? Maybe. I'm sure that God loves the atheists too.
Intelligent Design? Possibly. Me, I favour Intelligent Conversation. That's why I come here.

Personally, I don't think God would respect us if we didn't doubt him.

Posted by: Odnon at February 19, 2009 3:36 PM

I stayed out of the comments section on this, because as you may have noticed, I was allowed to ramble for quite a while about my opinions on the matter.

I did want to post one thing before the article falls off the main page: thank you all for your responses, both those who agreed and those who did not. I have read every one of them (including the stack over on Whedonesque) and could not have imagined such a level of response when I wrote the article. As Sharopa noted a couple comments up, the discussion has been astonishingly thoughtful and nuanced on all sides, and both the yeas and the nays have pointed out ideas that are rolling around in the back of my mind now.

No one even mentioned balls or boobs, which I must confess, confused me a little (this is still the internet right?). Ya'll rock.

Posted by: stipe42 at February 19, 2009 5:37 PM

Awesome!! This is a good news~~~Many moviegoers are in a state of excitement at -Richromances.com-. A hot discussion heats up over there.

Posted by: lawrence at February 19, 2009 11:04 PM

We place no reliance
On Virgin or Pigeon;
Our method is Science,
Our aim is Religion.

Aleister Crowley

Posted by: Glenn Hauman at February 19, 2009 11:38 PM

It was a great thread stipe42, and well put forward. And just for you: boobs. hehehe

Posted by: Odnon at February 20, 2009 12:27 AM

short, spaced, gentle clasping of the hands... increasing in duration and speed and then volume, louder and faster and louder and faster...

Posted by: dmo at February 20, 2009 3:28 PM

That was really good, better than Jeremy's Brokeback Mountain better than Dustin's Elizabethtown even better than Pookie's blockbusters.

Thank you all for the most civilized debate the interwebs have ever witnesed.

Posted by: Thaf at February 21, 2009 12:02 AM

It is somewhat ironic that the writer of this piece, Stipe42, sees to the depth of the TV Show Buffy, yet doesn't have that same depth into the Bible (book of books).

Of course, it is the sad truth that those who have been brought up by faith as a child, are those who really don't 'get it' and who quickly get swallowed up by society and the worldly view. Some tragically become Atheists.

Yet even though they claim to be non-believing, they do believe in something's. A TV show, or their own labeling of themselves as is the case with Stipe42 calling himself (last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods). There is a belief there, but they choose to not believe the truth. some delusion.

This is not any different from historical accounts, where many people turned away from God. Not only are these documented in historical accounts, but documented in many books of the Bible. His wrath was slow, and his patience was strong. Until at last there was no one good, no one with any moral values. Then the town would be leveled.

This may be why this writer is so interested about Revelations, because it is a prophesy that has not happened yet. And is the last book in the Bible. All the signs in our current society are there, and it is coming. But as I said before many don't get it. To quote a piece from the Bible, "The way is narrow" and many do not find it...

Those who did not believe but then come to Church later in life, even those as teen agers, have such a grasp on the truth, yet those who were brought up get this sense as it was "their mom made me do it" mentality or "Gee, I was forced to go..." Well, unfortunately that was your reality. Self made I may add. You didn't make it your own, you made it your moms. You didn't listen for the Word of God, you chose to ignore it.

Posted by: J T at February 22, 2009 3:41 PM

Wow. I came here from reddit and was really impressed by this. This had to be one of the BEST essays on real life atheism that I have seen in a long time. Thank you so much for expressing these thoughts. Hopefully others will see just how thoughtful and spiritual atheists can truly be. Continue to write. It suits you.

Posted by: Elizabeth at April 14, 2009 9:52 AM

I am impressed by your comparison of entertainment to philosophy. Also, I enjoyed your analogy of the progression of human knowledge to the maturity from youth to adulthood. Fascinating.

Posted by: Clint at April 16, 2009 7:48 PM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.