disenchantedbunny.

     This blog is not coincidentally about religion and the media. I was originally majoring in both Media Studies and Philosophy before my philosophical urges won out and I realised that I would have to drop media if I wished to achieve more in philosophy. While media was more enjoyable, philosophy was more rewarding. When I decided to put all my efforts into philosophy I started this blog to keep up my role as an active consumer of media.

     The methodology that I try to work within is that of semiotics. Semiotics or semiology is merely the study of signs, or the manner in which we infer meaning from actions or objects, sounds or ideas. At the heart of semiotics is the assumption that there can be different readings of the same object by different subjects and meaning is not inherently contained; meaning is socially constructed, whether through conscious decision or ideological causation or a mixture both. Sitting in front of the television can invoke a multitude of responses from acceptance, disgust, indifference, etc. So I try to be cautious in saying that particular line in song x objectively means a particular thing.

      Of course, while readings and meaning may be ambiguous, certain readings are going to be more plausible than others. So picking out different parts of a Futurama episode relevant to reading x makes it more plausible that x will be the meaning taken from a majority of viewers. A cross does not necessarily signify Christ but in the context of a horror movie it would be more plausibly connoted than in a documentary about ninjas. Meanings develop in complex webs, and it is our job as active consumers to analyse the webs of meaning being sold to us.

      I’m not interested in merely showing the assumptions made. People “suspend disbelief” all the time to involve themselves in fantasy and escapism and quite often have no trouble telling the difference between reality and fiction. Media texts rarely offer us analytical arguments, but premises are often signified and conclusions assumed. What I’m attempting to do here is to extend on what the texts signify and then critically assess the philosophy behind it.

      For example: a couple of posts back I noted a particularly faith-friendly Futurama episode. A viewer could let their imagination run wild while watching and think ‘Bender is talking to God’ (reading a). There are assumptions here that need to be analysed. For example, what reasons does the show in its entirety give to argue that this being is really representing the theistic god? There are generally arguments floating around the text somewhere to detail this reasoning. Cumulative aspects of a text will generally signify one particular argumentative direction if the text is aiming to be coherent. Sceptics like me may imagine the same scene in a different way: it will be more like “what reasons does Bender have to think that he is talking to a theistic god?” (reading b). In reading b one can identify the reasoning connoted by the text that lead people to accepting reading a. I argue that the show is trying to signify things entailed in reading a, yet does not succeed in presenting an argument that this state of affairs could happen in reality.

Just a little detour from my original ranting. Sorry for any inconvenience!

Preaching to the choir.

Gives no compelling moral reason to reject certain aspect of religious belief, such as faith (Sam Harris).
Gives no intellectual (edit: epistemological) reason to question its plurality and origin (Daniel Dennett).

I want a documentary written by these two and hosted by Richard Dawkins (but only for his charm and sexy accent). And probably edited by someone with a qualification - I mean really, even 9/11 conspiracy docos have better production.

Sorry Flemming, but you’re not going to make people think focusing on a singular religion.

Yes, lame post title. It’s how I roll baby. But holidays mean mindless TV, mindless TV means being annoyed at stupid religious propaganda, and stupid religious propaganda means venting in blogs. Oh, and blogs mean puns. To me anyway.

The Futurama episode titled ‘Godfellas’ has bending unit Bender shot out into space accidentally, apparently leaving him alone for the rest of eternity. During his voyage he runs through an asteroid belt and a small asteroid gets lodged in his casing. The asteroid is home to little living thingies who happen to think that Bender is god, and well, he orders them around and tries to help and ends up making things worse before they eventually blow each other up. Fair enough.

After all of this happens, a mourning Bender manages to crash into the actual theistic god who has somehow taken material form (I’m sure the dualists will make up some unconvincing argument as to how this is possible) and learned binary along the way. Bender shares his experience as ‘being god’; how it was so damn demanding and how it was so difficult to manage their society. Those who had faith in Bender the god believed that he would smite the unbelievers after listening to their prayers, leading them to victory, while the unbelievers for some reason were immoral bastards trying to bomb the religious, apparently because they’d ‘lost hope’ and were jealous or something. God tells Bender that it’s a balancing act and for some reason thinks this gem is relevant:

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you’ve done anything at all.”

According to this supposed god, people shouldn’t be able to know for certain if he exists or not because they will assume that he will always come to their rescue and do the good for them. Subjects are supposed to gain their own moral awareness, shown in the fact that by the end of the episode Bender is unknowingly led to do the good by something that this supposed god has told him. This also seems to involve knowing which prayers to answer and which not; leaving this balance so faith can work is supposed to justify leaving some prayers unanswered.

Picking on this is too easy. Perhaps I should have found something different to write about. But it was there, so what the hell.

It’s pretty obvious for starters that there are people out there who claim that they “know” that god exists. A majority of the world, in fact, despite them all meaning different things when they say it. Most notably we have the dramatic rise in fundamentalism world-wide. The funny (or perhaps scary) thing is that this conviction does not lead to passivity one bit; it leads to passionate action. Instead of (logically) assuming that an all powerful being can sort out his own problems, people feel the need to do things for him. Hence we have Osamas, Bushes and Robertsons.

Secondly, there are people who firmly deny the existence of god (even if only probabilistically like myself in a weak atheism) that haven’t ‘lost hope’, so to speak, of living a meaningful life; these people seem to be the majority of the unbelieving population (from personal experiences, being involved in atheistic communities). Not only this, but finitude is arguably more desirable than infinite consciousness - and the episode even offers similar arguments!! Bender’s drifting through space for all eternity is seen as meaningless because he will eventually become infinitely bored as less things come to entertain him. Imagine existing for all eternity, doing all the things that you have always wanted to do. Assuming that one has conscious thought capable of change, one will eventually do everything there is to do, know everything there is to know, perfected every attribute of ones being to the extent that one is capable of. While one may dream of living forever as a child (when the religious dogma is seeded), growing old leads to different attitudes towards death. Finitude is not necessarily an evil.

So the justification for faith (reasonless belief) is misleading. Which leads us back to the question: why should one believe that all events are working towards the greater good when it is not very probable at all that they are?

While Futurama and the Simpsons may be commended for their light-hearted stabs at organised religion, their depiction of the universal acceptance of a god is downright disgusting and incorrect.