Popular fiction provides as clear an indication of the decline of influence of traditional monotheistic theologies on popular culture and none more so than science fiction. Stories that are more explicitly tied to Darwinism has us developing super human powers--e.g. X-men. What the public imagination is fed is what the public imagination wants so I don't suspect there is a conspiracy to sell a worldview.
But concerning the popularity of an irreligious Darwinian worldview, "brainwashing" even when self-imposed, is still "brainwashing." I'm using the term loosely to mean, the movies one watches, like the diet one eats, can be a case of bad input resulting in bad output (garbage in, garbage out). Just as good health is in jeopardy because of a bad diet, so likewise, critical thinking is in jeopardy when you passively submit your brain to hours of audio visual entertainment that simply reinforces, over and over again, what you've uncritically accepted--what you've never been challenged to defend and to which you don't even know objections have been raised.
While the ability of anyone to brainwash anyone else is highly exaggerated in popular imagination, "paradigm" shifts can be thought of as a culture wide brainwashing that results when everyone corporately sort of unwittingly allows a bias to go unquestioned and grow to a prejudice. When one view is sold and resold in cinema and universities and gone unchallenged, eventually future generations do not even have the basic information foundation to knowledge and understanding. They don't question because they can't "see" anything to question.
Sadly, there is no clearer sign that we live in a post--monotheistic culture of "fanatics" of Darwinism than the fact that so many discussions questioning the evidence for or the probabilities of this theory run afoul of strong emotions and character assassinations. Clearly what is at stake for those acting this way is more than a theory. While one of Einsteins theories could be discussed and question anytime anywhere, this is not true of Darwinism and defensive Darwinists. Only religious fundamentalists have these kinds of followers.
And while there isn't a stronghold of ivory tower conspirators plotting to eliminate any competition for this Darwin/Secular/reductionist/truth and morals are relative religion, there are abundant examples of a growing anti-clericalism in media. Are imams really all terrorists? Are all priests really pedophiles? Are evangelists really all con artists? Are Christians really all homophobes?
What's more, aliens or extraterrestrial intelligence in fiction bespeaks assumptions that are most obviously anti-thetical to traditional monotheistic theologies.
While science informs monotheism of the heliocentric nature of creation, monotheistic theologies still maintain that, in the whole universe, Earth alone remains the center of God's attention and the idea that God created intelligent life anywhere else really doesn't fit.
Among Christians, Lewis's space trilogy, may come to mind as the work of a conservative theologian who thinks extraterrestrial intelligence likely exists but the suggestion that he did is an argument from silence--an interpretation we cannot confirm by asking that deceased author. Another interpretation would caution taking fantasy, which entertains possibilities, as reflecting what Lewis, as the author, personally thought was likely or probable. Lewis' fiction about Mars is, arguably, as much a work in fantasy as was his Narnia Chronicles and no one thinks Lewis actually believed there was a Narnia. The thesis that most likely conforms to revealed monotheism is that all intelligent life in the universe that needs God's redemptive work is located solely on earth where God revealed himself and did his redemptive work.
Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologies all echo each other on accounts of human origins. There are schools of thought within each which believe creation accounts do not preclude Darwin's thesis. But most who subscribe to Darwin's theory, take his view of origins to preclude, if not creation, than, at least, revealed monotheism. And absurd circular reasoning is not unheard of from the likes of Crick and Dawkins, that appeal to aliens as the source of life in the universe.
In fact, aside from whatever merits the view has as a scientific theory, one effect of Darwinism has been to make atheism more popular or intellectually respectable within academia--more than ever previously was the case. With Darwinism, philosophers hailing from the school of naturalism believe they have biological evidence in support of reductionist views in mind/body philosophy and in psychology, for views that truth and morals are relative, and for epistemologies that treat knowledge itself as an invention. Some particularly daft thinkers from this school have even gone so far as to suggest philosophy itself, as a discipline is now come to an end. This is also known as scientism or the belief that science (by which they mean to include Darwinism) has solved or will solve all mysteries and that any remaining conundrums cannot be solved by philosophers anyways.
There are also those who simply prefer Darwinism because they see that as a substitute to revealed religions--revealed religions which express unpalatable propositions about homosexuality and the status and role of women. This, of course, is naive because the truth of Darwinism wouldn't constitute a disproof of revealed religions. (Another fallacy of Dawkins) and certainty does not prove atheism (yet another fallacy of Dawkins). Of course, the real issue is whether Darwin's theory was probable or even scientific. And that is hotly debated elsewhere. See the links below. Here we're simply noting the popularity of Darwinism and the pitting of that view over and against revealed religion because of moral sentiments. Changing social ethics and NOT science would seem to account for the demise of theological influence on the world's cultures as evidenced by the popularity of alien science fiction.
Others, such as popular author John Updike, have made similar observations, For him, "the theater is a secular church, and the silver screen within it "captivates" and "hypnotizes."1 In the end, people find they cannot accept, "The split between a faith unacceptable to culture and a culture unacceptable to faith." 2.
What's odd though is that with the possible exception of Vulcans, who we fault for lacking emotions, sci. fi. writers generally don't imagine morally superior aliens. Generally speaking, our sci. fi. writers characterize their aliens without any proclivity to question the ethics of exterminating or hunting other intelligent life forms--not the least of all, human beings. Why? Because, by the time people have developed the opinion that there are aliens and they've revised history to include UFOs and account for the pyramids and for crop circles, we are talking about people who think open minded means regarding as stupid all the ancient ideas about human nature (monotheism, having a soul, life after death, etc.). We're just animals with no ethics and so why should our alien neighbors, who evolve from the same soup, be any different? And surely one's willingness to entertain our inferiority compared to the sophisticated superior alien species that 'must' be out there is further proof of a person's "open-mindedness." After all, we still haven't come up with a cloaking device like the Klingons have. We can't even make saucers fly. We shouldn't be surprised if they want to kill us all before we kill them--survival of the fittest.
But concerning the popularity of an irreligious Darwinian worldview, "brainwashing" even when self-imposed, is still "brainwashing." I'm using the term loosely to mean, the movies one watches, like the diet one eats, can be a case of bad input resulting in bad output (garbage in, garbage out). Just as good health is in jeopardy because of a bad diet, so likewise, critical thinking is in jeopardy when you passively submit your brain to hours of audio visual entertainment that simply reinforces, over and over again, what you've uncritically accepted--what you've never been challenged to defend and to which you don't even know objections have been raised.
While the ability of anyone to brainwash anyone else is highly exaggerated in popular imagination, "paradigm" shifts can be thought of as a culture wide brainwashing that results when everyone corporately sort of unwittingly allows a bias to go unquestioned and grow to a prejudice. When one view is sold and resold in cinema and universities and gone unchallenged, eventually future generations do not even have the basic information foundation to knowledge and understanding. They don't question because they can't "see" anything to question.
Sadly, there is no clearer sign that we live in a post--monotheistic culture of "fanatics" of Darwinism than the fact that so many discussions questioning the evidence for or the probabilities of this theory run afoul of strong emotions and character assassinations. Clearly what is at stake for those acting this way is more than a theory. While one of Einsteins theories could be discussed and question anytime anywhere, this is not true of Darwinism and defensive Darwinists. Only religious fundamentalists have these kinds of followers.
And while there isn't a stronghold of ivory tower conspirators plotting to eliminate any competition for this Darwin/Secular/reductionist/truth and morals are relative religion, there are abundant examples of a growing anti-clericalism in media. Are imams really all terrorists? Are all priests really pedophiles? Are evangelists really all con artists? Are Christians really all homophobes?
What's more, aliens or extraterrestrial intelligence in fiction bespeaks assumptions that are most obviously anti-thetical to traditional monotheistic theologies.
While science informs monotheism of the heliocentric nature of creation, monotheistic theologies still maintain that, in the whole universe, Earth alone remains the center of God's attention and the idea that God created intelligent life anywhere else really doesn't fit.
Among Christians, Lewis's space trilogy, may come to mind as the work of a conservative theologian who thinks extraterrestrial intelligence likely exists but the suggestion that he did is an argument from silence--an interpretation we cannot confirm by asking that deceased author. Another interpretation would caution taking fantasy, which entertains possibilities, as reflecting what Lewis, as the author, personally thought was likely or probable. Lewis' fiction about Mars is, arguably, as much a work in fantasy as was his Narnia Chronicles and no one thinks Lewis actually believed there was a Narnia. The thesis that most likely conforms to revealed monotheism is that all intelligent life in the universe that needs God's redemptive work is located solely on earth where God revealed himself and did his redemptive work.
Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologies all echo each other on accounts of human origins. There are schools of thought within each which believe creation accounts do not preclude Darwin's thesis. But most who subscribe to Darwin's theory, take his view of origins to preclude, if not creation, than, at least, revealed monotheism. And absurd circular reasoning is not unheard of from the likes of Crick and Dawkins, that appeal to aliens as the source of life in the universe.
In fact, aside from whatever merits the view has as a scientific theory, one effect of Darwinism has been to make atheism more popular or intellectually respectable within academia--more than ever previously was the case. With Darwinism, philosophers hailing from the school of naturalism believe they have biological evidence in support of reductionist views in mind/body philosophy and in psychology, for views that truth and morals are relative, and for epistemologies that treat knowledge itself as an invention. Some particularly daft thinkers from this school have even gone so far as to suggest philosophy itself, as a discipline is now come to an end. This is also known as scientism or the belief that science (by which they mean to include Darwinism) has solved or will solve all mysteries and that any remaining conundrums cannot be solved by philosophers anyways.
There are also those who simply prefer Darwinism because they see that as a substitute to revealed religions--revealed religions which express unpalatable propositions about homosexuality and the status and role of women. This, of course, is naive because the truth of Darwinism wouldn't constitute a disproof of revealed religions. (Another fallacy of Dawkins) and certainty does not prove atheism (yet another fallacy of Dawkins). Of course, the real issue is whether Darwin's theory was probable or even scientific. And that is hotly debated elsewhere. See the links below. Here we're simply noting the popularity of Darwinism and the pitting of that view over and against revealed religion because of moral sentiments. Changing social ethics and NOT science would seem to account for the demise of theological influence on the world's cultures as evidenced by the popularity of alien science fiction.
Others, such as popular author John Updike, have made similar observations, For him, "the theater is a secular church, and the silver screen within it "captivates" and "hypnotizes."1 In the end, people find they cannot accept, "The split between a faith unacceptable to culture and a culture unacceptable to faith." 2.
That alien science fiction goes back, at least, as far as the turn of the century is evident from the fact that aliens were included from the very beginning of space travel science fiction. Cinematic history as early is 1902 included, for example, encounters with natives in "A Trip to the Moon." Aliens have evolved in popular imagination as well. In early science fiction, they were largely humanoid as if going to another planet will be for us, like going to another continent was for early explorers--"Ah, humans here too!." And in the Star Trek television series (which began in 1968), having humanoid aliens that could communicate was necessary to the interactive relationship theme of the series.But working with the theory that the great variety of animals on earth with their different shapes and sizes have evolved from nothing, we've come to expect even greater variety throughout the universe. Now the inter-galactic bar scenes, first popularized in Star Wars, involves a whole pantheon of strange beings. And so we've seen bug-eyed monsters and giant spiders and dangerous flora and so on. The popular assumption now appears to be that macro evolution is so probable as to be practically inevitable any place in the universe where we might find water. This "cosmic pluralism," assumes, "that there are many inhabited worlds beyond the human sphere." 3.
What's odd though is that with the possible exception of Vulcans, who we fault for lacking emotions, sci. fi. writers generally don't imagine morally superior aliens. Generally speaking, our sci. fi. writers characterize their aliens without any proclivity to question the ethics of exterminating or hunting other intelligent life forms--not the least of all, human beings. Why? Because, by the time people have developed the opinion that there are aliens and they've revised history to include UFOs and account for the pyramids and for crop circles, we are talking about people who think open minded means regarding as stupid all the ancient ideas about human nature (monotheism, having a soul, life after death, etc.). We're just animals with no ethics and so why should our alien neighbors, who evolve from the same soup, be any different? And surely one's willingness to entertain our inferiority compared to the sophisticated superior alien species that 'must' be out there is further proof of a person's "open-mindedness." After all, we still haven't come up with a cloaking device like the Klingons have. We can't even make saucers fly. We shouldn't be surprised if they want to kill us all before we kill them--survival of the fittest.
1. The John Updike Encyclopedia. Jack De Bellis, Greenwood (30 septembre 2000) page 173
2. IBID page 438
3. Wikipedia contributors, "Extraterrestrials in fiction," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extraterrestrials_in_fiction (accessed December 31, 2013).
See also: Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p.19.
Are you open to debate and criticism of Darwinism? Check these out.
Spoiler: I thought Johnson, with a lawyer's background, would be out of his league with this Dr. of Biology. But I think you'll agree, Provine, who starts out with Ad hominem (Johnson is a Christian! Johnson is a Christian!) neither understands nor is capable of responding to Johnson's objections which have nothing whatsoever to do with his Christian belief.
Evolution vs. Creation Debate
No comments:
Post a Comment