Atheism

I apologize for my post, Panz. I was off on my own thing.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

"a bit of a thickie" he is not.

0 Replies

@panzade,

House is a good example of the Hollywood mythological atheist. It's the whole angry at god angle. Under the rough exterior, the audience is supposed to pity the man. He's not strong; he's weak.

While House (and characters like Bones) are popular, they tend to always depict social flawed and unhappy individuals. To complete their task/agenda (whatever the plot is) they seem to require the compassion of other more well adjusted spiritual people.

It's the Lt. Dan meme: All atheists are incomplete and hurt people who will ultimately be better and happier once they accept god.

I brought up the idea of an atheist family, and I realize that religion is not emphasized in fictional families as a whole. This comes with a few exceptions, namely if the religion of the family drives the plot, or is meant to define them as outsiders (which is basically the same thing). The image, I'm thinking about, is the one opposite of a common experience of many atheists: Being a dinner guest. When it comes time that many families/people pray before a meal, I'm silent, but not praying. While, I'd like to observe the customs of the household, I don't pray. I've found my solution is simply waiting until they are done and making eye contact with whoever prepared the meal and thanking them with conviction. So in my media example, it's the idea of a home situation where the religious person is the minority, and an atheist family is trying to accommodate. etc.

Seeing a family on TV that had to deal with the prejudice towards atheists would be interesting to me. I just don't want the first atheist family on TV to be bunch of House and Bones angry atheists playing out stereotypes.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

So right.

0 Replies

@failures art,

I'm not sure I agree. Yes, he's weak. But he's also right. Logically, clearly and obviously right about everything all the time. He points out delusions and comforting self-deceptions in others. I think he does atheism more good than harm, at least more so than those who have gone before.
Also, maybe I imagine it, but I think I can sometimes see Hugh Laurie himself insisting on a more real representation of an atheist.

(I had to check, Hugh is an atheist himself)

1 Reply

I wrote the following on the "Free Will" thread. Perhaps it is relevant here too.

Quote:

fresco had written to someone--" I suspect your argument could amount to a tautology. "

Didn't Strawson say that indeterminists were using " obscure and panicky metaphysics"?

How can La Mettrie's man as a machine have free will? Machines have no will. Determinism, which he must adhere to, is the thesis that all our mental states and acts, including choices and decisions, are effects necessitated by preceeding causes. That our future is as fixed as our past. Even our choice of determinism or indeterminism is not free.

The atheist, it seems to many people, is committed to determinism. Only some metaphysical entity provides an escape and the atheist cannot allow such a thing as his ground has gone from under him if he does.

But can the atheist abide not having free will? If he can't, which he usually can't, and he also can't allow a metaphysical entity he can only get involved in "obscure and panicky" verbal operations in which technical language is deployed in order to persuade himself, and others, that he can have it both ways when in fact he can't.

But, of course, these "obscure and panicky" verbalisations, allow him, if they persuade him satisfactorily, or solipsistically, to escape from the inhibitions the culture, and particularly the religious institutions, seek to use to control his behaviour and so he is "out free" of any guilt or responsibility regarding sexual matters simply by his having woven the winds to his own design.

Neat I must admit.

But Bertrand Russel, who admitted he wrote for money, warned us of "big-wordism" and to suspect any writings which depart from the ordinary use of language.

Fundamentally, the belief in free will is religious and the Roman Catholic church supports the concept. The Marquis de Sade and Charles Manson opposed it. Gratitude and resentment are ridiculous without it.

I once wrote a song entitled She's a Machine.

1 Reply

@spendius,

BTW- Descartes had written that animals were machines and La Mettrie followed him on the assumption that man is an animal and thus man is a machine too.

Long before Darwin.

0 Replies

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

Yes, he's weak. But he's also right.

But his weakness and bitterness are unrelated to his ability as a doctor. Certainly he could be as sober and disillusioning to self-deceptions without being bitter and mean. One of the ways to make a story interesting is to give your protagonist idiosyncrasies. Monk was OCD which played into the role he had as a detective plus it provided for humorous scenes about how it affected otherwise normal social situations. House has no tact, which is makes his bed-side manor humorous and shocking.

Honestly, House is fine. His character flaws are interesting ones, and his story is compelling. My worry is that these negative things are projected to be a part of his identity as an atheist. After all, it seems like his mental anguish would be lessened if he did believe in god.

I get what you're saying though. He is perhaps a good atheist character in many ways. He doesn't choose the easy road. He chooses one with many hardships, and much pain. That path however means that he helps many people, and it's no less meaningful because he chooses to do it (as opposed to doing it because he has faith that it is his purpose).

A
R
The doctor is in.

1 Reply

@failures art,

But House is played by an actor and is on a script created by a committee. He is entertainment within a PC agenda and aimed at a specific segment of the viewing public.

The conversation quoted earlier from the show is just a bunch of trite, cliche-ridden simplisms known to everybody over 10.

Whether the scriptwriters are seeking to promote atheism or discredit it is something only astute regular viewers can determine.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

The conversation quoted earlier from the show is just a bunch of trite, cliche-ridden simplisms known to everybody over 10.

I disagree. That's pretty deep stuff for American TV which tends to copy the most banal offerings from UK telly.

Quote:

Whether the scriptwriters are seeking to promote atheism or discredit it is something only astute regular viewers can determine.

If you read Eorl and Art's fine exchange you'd realize: neither.

And drop simplisms from your vocabulary. It's a turd.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

But House is played by an actor and is on a script created by a committee.

All characters are. What's your point? This doesn't remove discussing what we observe about his character from the table.

spendius wrote:

He is entertainment within a PC agenda and aimed at a specific segment of the viewing public.

Again, what's your point? The viewing public is majority Christian. It's PC to have a Christian lead protagonist. House is not PC.

spendius wrote:

The conversation quoted earlier from the show is just a bunch of trite, cliche-ridden simplisms known to everybody over 10.

In the American media landscape, I'd say it's not that common to challenge a religious authority (a nun in this case) on screen unless the religious character is inevitably validated later. Depending on how the plot develops, this might be the exact case.

spendius wrote:

Whether the scriptwriters are seeking to promote atheism or discredit it is something only astute regular viewers can determine.

Forget promotion or discrediting. I just want a diverse presentation of atheist characters, not just the same ones, with the same cliche' bitter hang-ups. The simple depiction of a happy atheist is neither promotion nor discrediting.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

What's your point?

Basically that it isn't real life and is being used by the production for some purpose or other. I would have to see the programme for a while to hazard a guess what that purpose is. It might simply be waking the audience up just before the ad break. Is it using product placement?

What you are observing is the work of a production team. Most of the facial close-ups in back and forth conversations are done in a series with the other party not present. It's a miracle of illusion.

There's one thing about live sport--there's no cut and paste jobs. And look at the stuff they advertise on live sport compared to what is adverstised on soaps and programmes like this one.

And what was quoted as House saying in the religious argument is nothing new to you so you are observing yourself. It was real cliched dross of the lowest order which everybody has heard thousands of times. Ancient Greeks would have said it.

So I don't see your point in this matter.

Quote:

House is not PC.

An atheist can come up with far more powerful arguments than the ones quoted. Where are they? Of course it's PC.

Quote:

I'd say it's not that common to challenge a religious authority (a nun in this case) on screen unless the religious character is inevitably validated later.

That's what PC means.

1 Reply

It's not a treatise on atheism; it's a show for entertainment. It's good to see atheists being allowed to be human, for once.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

You make my point ed. Good means rewarding scientifically and rewards condition. That's Pavlov.

But fa did say that virtue must be rewarded and vice come to a sticky end in movie shows so we'll have to find out what the scriptwriters decide your hero's destiny is before we can be sure which side they are on. If he's up against a nun he has no chance.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendi - All fictional shows carry a narrative. You not saying anything that isn't already known. We're simply talking about what that narrative often is, not if it exists or not.

I'm really not interested in the dialog with the nun. I'd be far more interested if two atheist characters were discussing a topic of moral crisis or love. I'd be more interested if a theist and a atheist were on screen and the theist asked "are you happy?" so the the atheist could offer the answer "yes."

spendi wrote:

But fa did say that virtue must be rewarded and vice come to a sticky end in movie shows so we'll have to find out what the scriptwriters decide your hero's destiny is before we can be sure which side they are on.

I never said virtue of a character must be rewarded. Often the best stories are the ones that end tragically because it conveys a stronger message. Certainly many of the most liked characters in fiction have met tragic ends for this exat purpose.

Having said that, American audiences do demand happy endings for their protagonists. In the case of House, pain makes him human. We connect with him. I'd like to see and ending with House emotionally healed too, I just don't want his Atheism treated like it's the wound.

Atheism doesn't have to be
R
The wound

2 Replies

I haven't been thinking about TV and movies, re atheism these days, until this thread got us on it. But, thing s are happening apparently, in film and TV. Ordinarily, I don't watch Malcolm in the Middle. This afternoon, I sat there, almost dozing, too lazy to fetch the remote. I noted that the husband and wife had decided to set aside a few hours per day, in which to relax together and simply talk. All is fine, until he mentions their togetherness when they reach Heaven. She tells him, "I'm sorry. I don't believe in an afterlife." He is devastated. He emotionally separates from her, after pleading that she could at least lie to him about it; provide a gray area for him to dwell in. But, no. "I can't lie about it."

At the end of the program, she notes the life lesson learned by son Malcolm and decides she ought to have mercy on her husband. She tells him she now believes in Heaven. The simple minded guy is beside himself with joy as the story ends.

Apparently there is more of this stuff out there than I expected.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Good example ed.

A
R
T

0 Replies

Agreed.... this is quite a telling storyline.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

All fictional shows carry a narrative.

Obviously. It's working out what it is that matters. It might be subliminal.

Quote:

I'd be far more interested if two atheist characters were discussing a topic of moral crisis or love.

Okay--we're in a pub and I'll pretend to be an atheist. Start a conversation about love.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

I never said virtue of a character must be rewarded. Often the best stories are the ones that end tragically because it conveys a stronger message.

So what's the message in Titantic? Apart from the one who sets the pace in set design. Of the story.

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know