Jeremiah Commentary: Mister Smith and God
Jul. 31st, 2010 08:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labingiJeremiah: God Talks to Mister Smith
I was reading a review of Jeremiah the other day in which the commentator expressed some discomfort with the way Mister Smith is depicted as hearing the voice of God. The commentator stated that the effect was to make the existence of God a fact in Jeremiah canon in a way that left no room for diversity of nuance in belief. I understand this frustration, yet, curiously enough given that I'm a life-long agnostic, I don't share it. In the main, I have no problem with the depiction of Mister Smith's relationship with "God," and here's why...
I freely admit that I'm positively biased based on JMS's avowed atheism, i.e. given the exact same story, I would find it more annoying if written by someone I knew to be religious--completely unfair but true.
That said, I can see JMS's atheism in Mister Smith. Around the world, religions that invoke a personal God are based on faith: "'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'because proof denies faith and, without faith, I am nothing.'" Mr. Adams's atheistic friend, Richard Dawkins, takes up this argument from the perspective of science. He has no truck with God because there keeps on being no scientifically rigorous evidence of God. Atheists generally reject the existence of God (or to the 99.99th percentile of probability) because they don't see the evidence. Why should one believe in something based solely on the idea that one should believe in it?
Mister Smith's relationship with God, unlike that of religious people around the world, is not based on faith. In fact, Smith explicitly states he didn't believe in God until God started talking to him. His relationship with God is based on evidence. A voice tells him something will happen and it happens, invariably. It tells him to do something, and he ends up doing it, and it ends up working out, invariably. Similarly, those around him who begin to take his admonitions seriously do so based on evidence. Kurdy sees Smith's voice giving him correct, life-saving information again and again and again. Of course, he starts to take Smith and his voice seriously. So would I. So, I dare guess, would Richard Dawkins. To refuse is to do the one thing science never should: refuse to look facts in the face. Mister Smith represents the atheist's theism, one based on hard evidence and no emotional mucking about.
But does that mean that "God" as Mister Smith describes him necessarily exists in Jeremiah? What do we know, based on the evidence? Mister Smith has certain correct insights that he attributes to a voice he interprets as God, insights that are not available through conventional means. That's it. It could be "God" as Mister Smith describes him/her. It could be a being/intelligence/force infinitely bigger and stranger and less comprehensible than Smith's understanding of it. It could be some psychic power Smith has, the next stage in human evolution (JMS would love that!). It could be some psychic force of the collective unconscious being channeled through Smith. It could be the Vorlons having a plan for mankind. The thing is we just don't know.
To interpret the source of this knowledge as the "God" Mister Smith perceives is to return to the realm of faith, and that's fine. But it's not necessary. One can, just as easily, like Kurdy, stop at "it's weird, but it works," and just accept that this is something Smith can do. And note that while few of the characters waste much time trying to deny the factual evidence of the weirdness surrounding Smith, there is no great rush to church either. Fundamentally, religious belief is about faith, about philosophy, about a certain moral belief system. What we have in Jeremiah is the fact without the philosophy, and, like the characters, we can do with that fact what we will.
I was reading a review of Jeremiah the other day in which the commentator expressed some discomfort with the way Mister Smith is depicted as hearing the voice of God. The commentator stated that the effect was to make the existence of God a fact in Jeremiah canon in a way that left no room for diversity of nuance in belief. I understand this frustration, yet, curiously enough given that I'm a life-long agnostic, I don't share it. In the main, I have no problem with the depiction of Mister Smith's relationship with "God," and here's why...
I freely admit that I'm positively biased based on JMS's avowed atheism, i.e. given the exact same story, I would find it more annoying if written by someone I knew to be religious--completely unfair but true.
That said, I can see JMS's atheism in Mister Smith. Around the world, religions that invoke a personal God are based on faith: "'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'because proof denies faith and, without faith, I am nothing.'" Mr. Adams's atheistic friend, Richard Dawkins, takes up this argument from the perspective of science. He has no truck with God because there keeps on being no scientifically rigorous evidence of God. Atheists generally reject the existence of God (or to the 99.99th percentile of probability) because they don't see the evidence. Why should one believe in something based solely on the idea that one should believe in it?
Mister Smith's relationship with God, unlike that of religious people around the world, is not based on faith. In fact, Smith explicitly states he didn't believe in God until God started talking to him. His relationship with God is based on evidence. A voice tells him something will happen and it happens, invariably. It tells him to do something, and he ends up doing it, and it ends up working out, invariably. Similarly, those around him who begin to take his admonitions seriously do so based on evidence. Kurdy sees Smith's voice giving him correct, life-saving information again and again and again. Of course, he starts to take Smith and his voice seriously. So would I. So, I dare guess, would Richard Dawkins. To refuse is to do the one thing science never should: refuse to look facts in the face. Mister Smith represents the atheist's theism, one based on hard evidence and no emotional mucking about.
But does that mean that "God" as Mister Smith describes him necessarily exists in Jeremiah? What do we know, based on the evidence? Mister Smith has certain correct insights that he attributes to a voice he interprets as God, insights that are not available through conventional means. That's it. It could be "God" as Mister Smith describes him/her. It could be a being/intelligence/force infinitely bigger and stranger and less comprehensible than Smith's understanding of it. It could be some psychic power Smith has, the next stage in human evolution (JMS would love that!). It could be some psychic force of the collective unconscious being channeled through Smith. It could be the Vorlons having a plan for mankind. The thing is we just don't know.
To interpret the source of this knowledge as the "God" Mister Smith perceives is to return to the realm of faith, and that's fine. But it's not necessary. One can, just as easily, like Kurdy, stop at "it's weird, but it works," and just accept that this is something Smith can do. And note that while few of the characters waste much time trying to deny the factual evidence of the weirdness surrounding Smith, there is no great rush to church either. Fundamentally, religious belief is about faith, about philosophy, about a certain moral belief system. What we have in Jeremiah is the fact without the philosophy, and, like the characters, we can do with that fact what we will.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-05 01:34 am (UTC)Most shows with supernatural elements that I have seen tend to shy from engagement with this idea, with characters who develop special powers attributing them to scientific anomalies or a fictional mythos. In the Buffyverse, vampires are repelled by crosses and holy water but nobody in the sprawling main cast is religious. I can think of very few examples where sympathetic main characters decide their sudden powers are bestowed by God and the narrative lets the idea stand or fall on its own.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-10 03:42 pm (UTC)I agree we rarely see characters interpreting something in a religious way that is allowed to stand if the show itself is not evangelical. I think that speaks to the secular-religious polarization of our society, which is unfortunate.
I don't know if you watch Strange New Worlds, but my head canon is that Captain Pike is a Christian, because that was kinda-sorta-maybe implied in one Discovery S2 episode. That would be fascinating to explore in a Star Trek series, but in true Star Trek (and most of our sci-fi) fashion, the writers haven't touched it since.
no subject
Date: 2024-07-12 12:28 pm (UTC)When I finally saw season two, I concluded that JMS must be a Christian, and I was shocked and deeply impressed when I read up on him and learned he's an atheist. I admire his willingness to write about a wide range of viewpoints.
I regret to say I have not seen any era of Star Trek as of yet. It's on my list for someday, as I feel I'm missing out on a vast amount of discourse without it.
no subject
Date: 2024-08-05 04:40 pm (UTC)