...I don't get it. I mean, I think the cover is fine, and obviously I get the Donkey Kong reference, but not any deeper meaning beyond "Donkey Kong with bowling pins".
Got in this discussion over on my message board. In case you are not a member I'll copy-paste my answer here.
I recently read Timothy Keller's The Reason for God and I found it surprisingly persuasive. The book got me to re-examine theological arguments that I previously dismissed, most significantly the connection between morality and religion. As in can one be an atheist and still be a moral person? It isn't necessarily that all atheists are immoral, it's that without God morality does not have any definitive meaning.
Keller says that really all sin stems from the same sin: narcissism and the belief that you are your own God. I think he's right. I think there is no greater evil than narcissism. And I think we innately understand this. The response my wife and sister had to the Comedian in Watchmen (they found him to be by far the most unlikable character) seems to support this position. I feel that I can support this conclusion while maintaining my own beliefs by reflecting that atheism, a true belief that human existence is a very lucky cosmic accident and there is nothing after death (and so nothing after your death really MATTERS), is by nature very humbling. Once you understand that immortality is impossible you won't attempt to become Godlike.
But anyway, I have to say that I found Expelled to be much more provocative than Religulous. Religulous had absolutely nothing to offer me and after Keller I frankly find the idea that religion is "evil" to be pretty stupid in that I don't know how they establish what they mean by "evil" outside of a religious context.
With Expelled, well it's kind of like that Onion article about Jesse Helms and Dadaists declaring war on art. Stein comes to the same conclusions as the intellectuals he interviews, but I think that their reasoning is more sophisticated. He interviews a physicist who says that evolution doesn't hold up as a theory and I mean of course it doesn't if you hold it up to the standards theories of physics are held to. And in rejecting evolution he isn't necessarily supporting creationism.
But I think that eugenics is a viable ethical philosophy that stems organically from a belief in evolutionary theory. Darwin didn't endorse it, as Stein misleadingly suggests, but he did at least allow that his theories could reasonably lead to developing it. If you allow that evolution is true and there is no God, I think you have a difficult time arguing against it.
And the film does rather inadvertedly make a case against creationism in that Stein argues that human compassion does not come from within but comes from carefully reviewing (and accepting) his scientific, intellectual argument for the existence of God. Stein repeats the same mistake of evolutionary scientists looking for the altruism gene. Theology and especially ethics should ultimately be in the realm of the humanities and not the sciences.
Still a work-in-progress, but this here's the long and the short of it.
17 comments:
Good god, that's brilliant.
How did you make the little Paul Dano fellow look so sad?
@Keith: Wowzers! Delighted you think so. Can't imagine a much better reaction than that.
@Norm: I turned down his application for a Chinese baby.
Agree with Keith - amazing cover! Can't wait for this.
Very cool, can't wait to read it!
HAHA, this is fantastic! Nice work!
Best cover yet.
Ha! It merges everything that was important to me at age 12 with everything that's important to me now.
...I don't get it. I mean, I think the cover is fine, and obviously I get the Donkey Kong reference, but not any deeper meaning beyond "Donkey Kong with bowling pins".
Let me draw your ATTENTION to the MILKSHAKE.
PERHAPS the character at the top who is either DRINKING or SOON TO BE DRINKING the MILKSHAKE is not the OWNER of SAID MILKSHAKE.
ohh... fuck!
That cover is made of awesome. I need to buy the book for the cover alone!
Thanks for giving me a ("subtle") hint. Why did I not see?
Hey Alex, your recent Best of 2008 is a great read, just a quick question - why Expelled over Religulous?
Ha!
Got in this discussion over on my message board. In case you are not a member I'll copy-paste my answer here.
I recently read Timothy Keller's The Reason for God and I found it surprisingly persuasive. The book got me to re-examine theological arguments that I previously dismissed, most significantly the connection between morality and religion. As in can one be an atheist and still be a moral person? It isn't necessarily that all atheists are immoral, it's that without God morality does not have any definitive meaning.
Keller says that really all sin stems from the same sin: narcissism and the belief that you are your own God. I think he's right. I think there is no greater evil than narcissism. And I think we innately understand this. The response my wife and sister had to the Comedian in Watchmen (they found him to be by far the most unlikable character) seems to support this position. I feel that I can support this conclusion while maintaining my own beliefs by reflecting that atheism, a true belief that human existence is a very lucky cosmic accident and there is nothing after death (and so nothing after your death really MATTERS), is by nature very humbling. Once you understand that immortality is impossible you won't attempt to become Godlike.
But anyway, I have to say that I found Expelled to be much more provocative than Religulous. Religulous had absolutely nothing to offer me and after Keller I frankly find the idea that religion is "evil" to be pretty stupid in that I don't know how they establish what they mean by "evil" outside of a religious context.
With Expelled, well it's kind of like that Onion article about Jesse Helms and Dadaists declaring war on art. Stein comes to the same conclusions as the intellectuals he interviews, but I think that their reasoning is more sophisticated. He interviews a physicist who says that evolution doesn't hold up as a theory and I mean of course it doesn't if you hold it up to the standards theories of physics are held to. And in rejecting evolution he isn't necessarily supporting creationism.
But I think that eugenics is a viable ethical philosophy that stems organically from a belief in evolutionary theory. Darwin didn't endorse it, as Stein misleadingly suggests, but he did at least allow that his theories could reasonably lead to developing it. If you allow that evolution is true and there is no God, I think you have a difficult time arguing against it.
And the film does rather inadvertedly make a case against creationism in that Stein argues that human compassion does not come from within but comes from carefully reviewing (and accepting) his scientific, intellectual argument for the existence of God. Stein repeats the same mistake of evolutionary scientists looking for the altruism gene. Theology and especially ethics should ultimately be in the realm of the humanities and not the sciences.
Well, shit. The ending to BSG was made specifically for you.
I just read W.C.'s Soloist review and it contains the best fecal reference I've ever read in a film critique.
BTW, any chance of a review of Zizek's "Pervert's guide to cinema", be it on the mothersite or in the book?
Cover -> Genius. Well done sirs.
Post a Comment