I've created a facebook page for the blog so people can follow it and get updates more easily when I post new entries. Additionally, I think this will be a good way to get more feedback and even take requests on future content. These days, I've been in a rather editorial mood with the blog. I've have my writing style critiqued as being rather didactic and another person referring to some of my arguments as being totalitarian and lacking respect for pluralism. I don't fully know how to process this feedback. On the blog, I've been wanting to talk more about ideas, and less about what is going on in my own life. I can't say I credit anything specifically for this trend, only that I've viewed this blog less as a diary and more as a creative outlet for my thoughts, and I don't know how creative I can be with the daily minutia of my life. Some bloggers are great at that, and I love reading their stuff. I wish I could make my logical Tuesday rich with metaphors and witty insight. I don't think my lifestyle currently fits that kind of blog, although I do like doing the "Chapter/Verse" posts when I do travel. This blog is my sandbox, it's often been experimental, but it's always been very intimate. For the last three years, I'd like to say thanks to all the Space Travelers reading.
... normally I'd try to offer some sort of introduction to the topic, but I'll just jump in...
I've been thinking a lot about the media relationship with Atheism. A few years ago, Space Traveler Leek pointed out one of his greatest frustrations in film: Lt. Dan. LD represents a mythological atheist: The atheist who believes in a god, but is mad/angry/upset with it. Needless to say, this is not an atheist. The atheist apostate meme is something that I believe creates a great deal of stress in many atheist's lives.
That frustration can lead to actual anger as my girlfriend pointed out to me recently when she said: "You sound angry." My anger wasn't a product of my atheism. It was a resentment that I did not feel I was capable of expressing anger (in the same way and degree as a religious person), without it being some sort of statement about my beliefs. I'm human, and I experience the full range of emotions, and that includes anger. I'm not defined by anger, it should not mean that media generalizations of atheists are justified because I take objection to being put into a box. The more my anger is emphasized, the more my joy, love, and patience is deemphasized, and I feel less appreciated as a human being.
Two very lead fictional atheist characters right now are House and Bones. While popular, they tend to be depicted as socialy 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.
I had someone tell me in contrast that "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 [House] does atheism more good than harm, at least more so than those who have gone before." They went on to say "Sometimes see Hugh Laurie himself insisting on a more real representation of an atheist."
It could really go both ways couldn't it?
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. The TV detective Monk was OCD. This 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.
House 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 as a result. 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).
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. It would make all the nice people he has to see die feel like less a tragedy if he could delude himself with thoughts of an afterlife.
While House is angry at the world, and Lt Dan is angry at a god, I can't help but feel like the subtext on both is the same: All atheists are incomplete and hurt people who will ultimately be better and happier once they accept god. In the epilogue bits of Forrest Gump, we see Lt. Dan, clean shaved, in love, calm, polite, emotionally healed, and god loving. In the movie Signs, Mel Gibson's character, a former priest, rediscovers god, and is seemingly cured of his anger. I don't know how house will end, but he's already had scenes that were either supernatural or drug induced transcendent moments that suggest we are walking a familiar path.
House's 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 a wound.
2 Bumper Stickers:
While House's internal conflict is a bit extreme, you see a number of better adjusted atheists on the show...particularly Foreman and Cameron.
I agree that you don't see a lot of "happy" aetheists on tv, but happy people don't make good television unless you watch Oxygen or Oprah.
I worry that atheist characters define being unhappy" when they appear in stories.
My only comment on Foreman and Cameron is how do they influence House on this matter?
Post a Comment