Science vs. Religion in Modern Mythology

My dad asked me today to order him a book called "War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality."  This, I'm sure is an interesting book, and I'm a bit jealous that I haven't had the opportunity to write at least one chapter for a book like that.

It's an interesting subject, and one that has popped up for me several times recently.  To summarize my view, I believe science is wonderful, but ultimately inadequate to whole understand the world we live in.  After all, no one hears a beautiful song, watches a sunrise, or hugs their child, and understands these experiences scientifically, or logically.  These are experiences that have to be understood intuitively and emotionally.

If you look at it in the terms of "one versus the other" it seems science and faith have always had a tenuous relationship.  Science and religion have struggled against each other for hundreds of years, and this is a fight that acts itself out in a myriad of ways.  I was considering this never ending struggle and how it plays out specifically in modern mythology

For instance, Frankenstein, a myth about as old as modern science, depicts a scientist that tries to create life and is capable of only creating an abomination.  In this myth science is the enemy of natural creation. 

In Planet of the Apes Dr. Zaius hides archeological evidence to protect his religion; skewering Christians who refuse to believe in evolution.  

These are two stories that I think really crystallize each side of the fight; however I think the two opposing viewpoints may be melding, at least in mythology, in recent years.

In modern classic films such as Blade Runner and Ghost in the Shell, machines literally become human.   In these stories science and faith no longer struggle against each other.  The boundaries between creator and creation blur to the point that one is indistinguishable from the other.  There is no longer any moralization against scientific creation, or denial of the human soul.

This is an amazing viewpoint.  No longer is one side railing against the other; only acceptance.  The process simply plays out, for better or worse, with or without consent.  We are as powerless to stop the intrusiveness of scientific creation, or even to deny the existence of the "Ghost" in the machine,  as we are to stop the passage of time.

I feel it is important to point out that these stories are not set in idealized futures, as one might expect, but in very realistic "cyberpunk" settings.  That being a future of extremely complicated technology existing simultaneously with squalid poverty, violent crime, and low culture.

These myths also seem to be a modern sort of Pinocchio story, that also say a lot about the bond between creator and creation.   In Genesis God created man "in His own image."  In Pinocchio the puppet wishes to become human.      

I don't think it is helpful for  science and faith to be seen as opposing forces, but that one should learn from the other, because neither by itself is capable of understanding the universe or our human experience.                                                                                                                          

The Last Circus- Movie Review

I've been really excited about this movie, and haven't seen much hype about it since the trailer release so I thought I'd review it myself.

I'm not even going to try to attempt to give a plot synopsis.  The most important aspect of this movie is a love triangle between a sad clown, a happy (yet sadistic) clown, and masochistic attention seeking woman (the happy clown's wife).  This is the lone coherent plot thread throughout the series of crazy images and happenings in the film.

The most interesting aspect of the movie is that of the woman enjoying torturing the sad clown by flirting with him endlessly.  She wants him to love her, (which isn't hard to get him to do considering that the sad clown is so fat and hopeless)  however she has absolutely no interest in reciprocating.  When he pursues her she resists, when he pulls back she flirts and teases again.  She returns to her husband over and over again, because the sad clown can't satisfy her sexually.  She can't can't be happy with her husband because he abuses her. 

Is this just pure misogyny or some sort of social or politcal commentary?  I have no way of telling.  The beginning of the movie is set in the Spanish civil war.  It's something I have no knowledge of and so I'm guessing any political commentary this film may have will be lost on an American audience.  I really can't say I understood any of this movie, yet I would personally rather watch a movie and not understand any of it than watch something that has already been done to death. 

Most genre films have one act, and the first act gives the rational for everything that happens for the rest of the movie.  This movie has a minimum of 5 acts, none of which didn't appear to have much of a rational flow to them.  This will probably turn off a lot a viewers.

When you are watching a movie like this, which seems to be a parade of nonsensical and illogical events, the sense of direction of the film becomes lost, and frustrating to follow.  Not that this is a bad thing.  In a movie that is purposely illogical and directionless I think the viewer needs something tangible to hold on to, and the love triangle provides enough stability that the movie doesn't entirely run off the rails, and the imagery in the movie was strong enough to keep me interested.

On the downside this movie was marketed as a crazy exploitation film and it really isn't.  It's more of a twisted love story.  There is sex a violence to be had, but the movie is prudish compared to the intentional sleaze of a true exploitation film.

On the upside this is the most original movie I've seen all year, and the acting is very solid.   It follows on the heels of several extremely strong foreign releases such as Attack the Block, Troll Hunter, and I saw the Devil, and solidifies my opinion that if you really care about finding all the best horror movies than you will have to get used to watch a lot of foreign movies. 

I give The Last Circus a solid "B" for it's originality, imagery, and strong performances.

The Problem with Suffering

Someone recently stopped me on my way out of the campus library wanting me to answer a question on camera for his church group:  "We're asking people whether or not they believe in God, and if they do what tough questions they have about Christianity that they would like answered.  A lot of people ask why God would allow suffering..."

I almost roll my eyes.  Suffering the most difficult problem people have with Christianity?  Really?  That question seems so...simple.

It's not that I can think of anything genius to ask.  The  best I can come up with is: "Why does God seem so angry and violent in the Old Testament, and so loving and forgiving in the New Testament?"  Something that satisfies the level of abstraction I want to wade in, and I suppose also takes a shot at orthodox religion.   I half-expect to be reprimanded by the interviewer, but they simply turn off the camera and walk off; no longer interested in my theological viewpoints.       

But now that I can reflect on the question a bit, is the question really that simple?  If I'm really honest with myself, I probably don't have a great answer.

Even though I am quick to point out that some suffering can be beneficial, considering the fact that it can be corrective and instructive, there is a lot of suffering that seems to serve no purpose.

In the Secret Revelation of God, evil exists in the world because of spiritual blindness.  For instance Christ forgave his persecutors because "they know not what they do."  This is the kind of spiritual ignorance that causes literally all suffering.  But this type of suffering seems to serve no greater purpose.  Man continues to inflict the same evil over and over onto the world.  No one learns anything, and this suffering is no longer instructional, only ironic.

The subject recently came up on spiralinward.com, where I sometimes like to discuss these things.  I'll paste some of the conversation here.  The text in quotes is from other posters.

"how is suffering justified? it can't be. it is irrational."

"Maybe the human condition really is epitomized by the figure hanging from the Cross."

i think there is a lot of truth in this. i feel like our physical realm, like our spirits, is one that needs to be rectified. if the physical world is the realm of yalda/satan then i think this problem has to be rectified at some point.

"Gnosticism just washes it's hands of the whole thing. The world is evil, so by necessity anything that happens in the world is going to be evil. Pain, suffering, distress, damage, death are all byproducts of being here, and we are aliens in a place we don't belong."

i believe this is true also. i used to think that suffering was solely our choice and singularly self inflicted. i guess now that i've grown and learned a bit; i feel that is only part of it. certainly a great majority of our suffering is self-inflicted, however i believe it is an illusion that we could escape our suffering simply by ceasing to wound ourselves.

we are all born into the same problematic world, like numbers entered over and over into the same mathematical equation, and we all face the same questions, traps, and decisions. i think there is a real and designed reason for this process, and if we could somehow stop destroying ourselves than it would change the equation to the point where it doesn't serve it's purpose. (does this make sense at all? i'm having a hard time describing my thoughts).

i think the theological question people always ask is: how could a loving God allow us to suffer?

i feel like this only seems like a contradiction because suffering is not inherently evil; it is simply an amoral state of being.

however i have to ask is God being evil by allowing us to suffer needlessly and excessively? i guess the way i answer this question is by believing that our existence is purposeful and our suffering is meaningful in some way, even if it is an unfortunate one. i have said this before, and i still believe it to be true, that God would not allow us to suffer a wound that He could not heal. I believe this is the purpose of resurrection, the purification of not only our souls but our physical realm.

"Being Almighty and infinitely creative I'm sure god could
Have come up with a better way to teach His children
Rather than let them be raped and abused and tortured mentally
Everyday reality for many, with no hope but death, no comfort but oblivion"

human suffering is miserable now, but what will the perspective of our suffering be when we look back on it from the afterlife? in a million years? in a trillion years? will it seem as unjust then? i used to hate my father spanking me (almost daily) when i was a child, but now that i'm an adult it's not something that i think about.

maybe God has done things differently in a different world...but in our world we have to suffer.

i think it's perfectly healthy to question the process, or even to be angry at God; but ultimately we have to accept that these decisions were made for us.

in this world you have to die to be resurrected...

---

The original poster brings up the most important question of "justice" because bottom line, that is the most important issue.  Justice is absolutely everything here.  Every other attribute of God that seems to conflict with suffering is secondary.  Love, mercy, graciousness, etc.  All of these things have to fall in line after justice, because these other attributes are impossible to examine without it.

So what is justice in this instance?  In an evil twisted world filled with nearly infinite suffering, how can we define justice?

I guess the way I answer that question for myself is that "justice" is a return to balance.  In this instance, where we live in a world that does not belong to God, but to Sammael (the blind archon, or devil), then not only our souls have to be resurrected through Christ, but also the physical world.  The crooked will have to be made "straight," so to speak.  If this restorative type of balance is returned to our world at some point than suffering is then "justified."

Maybe this isn't a great answer, but it's the best one I have.  




                                                                                                                                                                     

Metal is an Emotion

Recently the musician Tori Amos issued a challenge to metalheads everywhere, stating something to the effect that no metal band in the world could go head-to-head with her because of the emotion she brings to her music. 

“I don’t think that just because I talk about emotional stuff that it's not motherf---er stuff. I’ll stand next to the hardest f---ing heavy metal band on any stage in the world and take them down, alone, by myself,” she said. “Gauntlet laid down, see who steps up. See who steps up!

“I’ll take them down at 48. And they know I will. Because emotion has power that the metal guys know is just you can’t touch it. Insanity can’t touch the soul. It’s going to win every f---ing time.”

My first thought is this has to be some kind of marketing trick, and if it is, it’s a damn good one.  The prospect of seeing a pianist/singer in a battle of the bands with, let’s say Cannibal Corpse for instance, would be too hilarious to miss out on.  Bring in Simon Cowell and let him judge; let everyone at home call in and vote…and why not?  It would be a pretty amazing spectacle, no matter how pointless it might be. 

But seriously, it’s hard to imagine anyone, let alone an accomplished musician in this day and age, sincerely declaring one style of music is more legitimate than another.  Is it possible she seriously believes metal has no emotional depth?   That’s even harder to imagine considering she’s written a damn fine cover of Slayer’s Raining Blood.   (Check it out for yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCpOAXIgF9U )

Whatever her reasons, this gives me an excuse to write about something I’d wanted to do anyway; and that is the fact that metal is truly an emotion unto itself. 

One of my friends once asked me rhetorically: “Isn’t it funny how angry music makes us happy?”  I think on the surface this may seem ironic, but it’s not really accurate to state it this way.  “Metal” isn’t angry.  I almost never recognize the emotion of anger in metal music.  If I did why would I ever listen?  I’m not an angry person, and anger for the sake of anger, is nothing I can relate to in any way whatsoever. 

I wish I could remember the exact quote, but I recall Stephen King writing that as you get older emotions get more tangled and complex to the point to where there aren’t even words for them.  They mix and coagulate into an unrecognizable mass, the way throwing random ingredients into a blender might make a flavor as bizarre as a peanut-butter, basil, and fish milk-shake.

Metal is one of those emotional messes that there really isn’t another word for.  If I had to put my finger on it, I’d describe it as a cross between waking up just before dawn on Christmas morning when you’re five years old, and standing on a snow-covered mountain top and fighting orcs and trolls with a battle axe.  It’s that awesome; somewhere between pure joy and pure adrenaline. 

Is that type of emotional experience not as legitimate as others?  I would be very careful of placing values on emotional states.  An old Taoist proverb states something to the effect that “When you say something is beautiful, something else somewhere in the world immediately becomes ugly without you even knowing it.” 

These types of labels really are arbitrary and pointless. 

Maybe Amos doesn’t relate to that emotion?   Not everyone can relate to every great song.  That’s just the way it goes.  I think some of the problem may be because Amos is a woman, and metal music is mostly a man’s playground.  Even though women are stereotypically more “emotionally intelligent” than men maybe metal is just something men emotionally understand better than women?  Men and women’s minds are physiologically different after all.  I doubt even the most militant feminist still believes that men and women are the “same.”  It’s just not scientifically accurate.

As to her claim that “Insanity can’t touch the soul,” how arrogant would one have to be to say what art touches who?  Some of my most positive and intense spiritual experiences have been at metal shows, not listening to people playing the piano.  But that is me, and the way I connect with the world and how music touches me.  I wouldn’t expect others to all conform to my tastes or experiences; how could they?

It is true that a lot of metal bands lack emotional depth, but that can be true of any music.  That’s not a mechanical quality of music, that is a spiritual quality that art either has or doesn’t have.  There just isn’t any formula for creating that the same way there is an archetypal formula for a metal song or a piano ballad. 

The best metal bands out there reach an intense level of emotional depth.  But someone who doesn’t really understand metal may have to learn how to appreciate them.  It doesn’t sound like Amos would have the patience or desire to understand either their style or their “emotion.”

If Amos is self-promoting, as I hope, then I think it’s a fantastic stunt.  But if she is serious than she has portrayed herself in a most unflattering way. 

Science, Intellect, and Reason as False gods?

"And when he saw the creation which surrounded him and the multi­tude of the angels surrounding him who had came into being from him, he said to them, 'I am a jealous God and no other god exists be­side me.' But his proclamation indicated to the angels who dwell with him that another God does exist. For if there were not another who exists, of whom would he be jealous?" - The Secret Revelation of John

In this text, the god of Genesis is not a benevolent spirit, but in fact an ignorant, spiritually blind, and even malevolent being.  This being who haplessly created our world is known as the demi-urge (which means artisan); what we might commonly know as the devil.

This is, at least at first, a shocking idea, and even one that seems incredibly sacriligious and heretical.  However both Genesis and the Gnostic creation myth establish the "devil" as the ruler of this world, so the ins and outs of the significance of this particular myth are, in my mind at least, largely theological hair-splitting.

Though there are several layers to the idea of a malevolent creator, what I find most useful is the ability to identify the "demi-urge" or false gods. What is a demi-urge?  In this world, everything that is treated as a god but isn't is a demi-urge.   In the text the demi-urge actually believes he is a god, but is blind to the knowledge that there is a real God above him.

I believe there is real importance to this (although I freely admit to others it may just be more hair-splitting).  For instance, we often are told to avoid "false idols" i.e. things like sex, drugs, money, power, fame, etc.  However, it is easy to recognize hedonism as a spiritual dead-end because it don't even begin to masquerade as a god.  They simply are what they are: a good time for the moment, usually with harsh consequences to be suffered somewhere down the road. 

The demi-urge that is harder to recognize may be within our own minds.  Our false psychological projects of what we think god is/should be and what He isn't.  As the Gospel of Philip states: "God created man. [...] men create God. That is the way it is in the world - men make gods and worship their creation. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men!"

And then there are the things we actually look to as gods: intellect, science, and reason.  These appear to me to be the real demi-urge of modern man.  As a long-time student, it seems easy to recognize these things, who masquerade as a real God, within the academic world.

As a child I was led to believe education was the answer to all of man's greatest problems, such as poverty and crime.  However it was the educated elites who sent our financial institutions into collapse in 2008.  Where was our education and our intellect to save us then?  Education has not protected us from crime or poverty; education in these instances only serves to create even more poverty, and to make fools more dangerous. 

In one of my classes a professor told us that people used to "turn to religion because they did not have science to explain the world to them."  However, as far as I am concerned, to treat science as a god is nothing but another spiritual dead-end.   Does science give us a reason for our existence?  Does it give us an identity or purpose?  Absolutely not.  Can science explain what our only our intuition can understand? Can it explain transcendent beauty, or the reasons that a picture or song produce strong emotions within us?  Again no.

Many of my college-text books, even for instance, the sociology text-book that says it has the answers for why we have religions to begin with, automatically assume there is no God and no spiritual world.  I pointed out to my professor in the academic world atheism is considered more intelligent than any sort of faith.  She didn't argue.

So I suppose it is in these things that I recognize the demi-urge.  These dead-ends that actually believe they have all the answers, but in fact do not.

“We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy.”- Carl Jung

80's Slashers and Modern Slashers

My first reaction to watching Final Destination 5 was the thought that: slashers really haven't changed much in 30 years (I suppose maybe 40 years if you want to count giallos).


In the biggest slasher franchises of the 80's Halloween, and Friday the 13th the killers are nearly identical.  For all intents and purposes they are the exact same character; two masked hulking and inescapable brutes who deliver bloody violent death to their hapless victims.

In the two biggest slasher franchises of my generation, the killers are also practically identical.  In Saw, the traps are the real star of the show (sorry Jigsaw, you're just an afterthought).  In Final Destination, there isn't even a symbol to be afraid of; simply invisible, omnipresent, and inescapable death.

Many slasher franchises start out with interesting plots and creative ideas, however as the sequels go on and on, they tend to descend into pure formula.  Ridiculous plot + death scene setup + creative kill = win! 
Rinse and repeat.

It's a formula ingrained into modern culture so so strongly it has to be an archetype.  But what is the archetype?  What is it about slashers that scare people?

All of these movies are similar, in that the fears they dig into are the very real prospect of violent, disgusting, painful, and inescapable death.  Car wrecks, rape, farming and factory accidents, school shootings, serial murderers, riots, war, etc & etc... these are the inescapable and ever present threats people of all walks of life are forced to face on the way out their doors every single day.  And maybe these are the things we are so afraid of when we watch slashers. Michael or Jason may wear blank and expressionless masks over their faces; but maybe those masks aren't covering faces at all.  Maybe those masks represent the very real everyday evil that threatens to destroy and dismember us at any moment. 

Gnosis: from Divine to Mortal

     People use scriptures and religions as a framework to understand the divine.  However these institutions and tools can often become cumbersome and inadequate.  Attempting to understand the incomprehensible can be a frustrating search that leads to multiple dead-ends and disillusion.  Should one be shocked to find the texts we read imperfect and contradictory, the leaders we follow hypocrites, or the theology we ascribe to cruel or ridiculous?
     Personally I think it should be expected that any tool we use to gain knowledge to have a very limited value.  Just consider how difficult it can be to explain a simple viewpoint to another person.  Is it possible to convey an idea perfectly? Now consider the divine conveying a message to 4+ billion people.  Is it possible to use one tool to do so?
     Many people consider The Bible as the be-all-and-end-all of God's voice to us.  But when one considers it's multiple sources, authors, and it's very human editors such as the council of Nicaea and Martin Luther, who decided what texts and messages should be included and excluded, one starts to wonder how perfect this one tool can possibly be.
     Add to the question of legitimacy the question of translation.  One language doesn't translate perfectly to another, so how can could The Bible possibly translate perfectly into English.  Add to this the fact that  language itself is not perfect.  We have complex emotions and ideas, that at times, may have no words adequate enough to express them.
     I have to conclude divine communication can not translate into human language.  I don't believe you can fit something perfect into a flawed system of communication, although I do think God does communicate perfectly, and in a way that doesn't necessarily involve language.

I wrote the this about a year or so ago and felt it may be worth revisiting:

      I don't believe any scripture needs to be perfect to be inspired by God. Obviously the totality of scriptures we have contain many flaws, contradictions, and imperfections.  But I don't think that discounts the influence of God or the movement of his spirit through us.
      In my opinion God's "perfect" will can not be completed through "imperfect" beings without losing a little something. Just like a carpenter can't build a perfect house with crooked tools.  But maybe the carpenter can build a house that is suitable for the people that have to live there.  He might have to use his sawhorse as a level, he might have to use his screwdriver to hammer nails, but he gets the job done adequately enough to provide shelter.
      In my humble opinion, it is not the process that spiritual knowing (or spiritual wisdom/Gnosis) is transferred that is important, but that simply that it is transferred, so that it can be implemented.
      I was talking to my friend at work about how the NAB has more books than the King James.  I told him there are tons of Christian writings that aren't in the Bible. This is a huge system shock to any protestant as I can personally attest.
      But as I told him, just like I would tell anyone else who might be unsettled by this discovery, I think we have many books that are inspired by God in some way, that are written through the influence of the Spirit, and they are there for the people that need them.
      If I felt the need to separate myself from my protestant roots, this might be my biggest theological split: The need to have one perfect "Bible," instead of a vast multitude of inspired books, songs, and stories, people, insights and experiences that get the job done when it really counts.