Yeah, I'd pretty much have to go with "Joss is an atheist because he says he is." And also, "Um, he'll let you know if he changes his mind about that."

As a fellow atheist, Joss' reference to God as the "Sky Bully" made perfect sense to me, a non-angry atheist as well, and I've picked it up - not because I'm mad at or about something I never believed in, but because it aptly describes the notion of God that many religions have, including the one they tried to teach to me in the church of my childhood. It just never took, but Sky Bullying is certainly an aspect of the God my Mom believed in, and thought the church should instill in my little developing psyche. (Pop was an atheist, too, though he never said a word to us about it - he read the papers out in the car while we were at church. How I envied him...)

The only thing that ever pisses me off about religion are the screwed up things some folks do to themselves and others in its name - just as I get peeved about any force that makes people treat each other badly. When religion causes people to expand themselves and grow and do good works, more power to it.

It ain't my personal path, but when it's lovely, it is lovely.

(But when it's ugly, it is ugly. When my Mom and brother-in-law died within several weeks of each other, a "friend" of mine told me that it was because of my family's atheism that they were taken from us so jarringly and unexpectedly. It was a very special moment that I'll always remember...)

Happy New Years, my lovelies, 'cause I don't think I'll make it over to the official New Year thread. May this year bring you whatever you would like - for me that would be an end to the Forever War...

QuoterGal | January 01, 12:14 CET

Best New Years wish yet, QuoterGal, I join whole heartedly in that sentiment.

Shey | January 01, 13:32 CET

Yes, Happy New Year to all! How about getting Joss and Buffy onto some university courses now there are so many scholarly works about them? 'Cause by the time I finished my BA I'd been assigned Dracula four times and I was thinking "Could seriously use some new vampires here ..."

DeCarabas | January 01, 14:59 CET

Shey and QuoterGal have pretty much said it. You can be angry at the idea of God without being angry at God.

Speaking as an ex-angry atheist (i'm still an atheist just not angry - or not-ish anyway ;) Joss might be angry at us - i.e. people - for somehow thinking that being ruled by a mix of condescendingly applied "love" and a whole lot of fear is anyway to live. It's a lot like Santa Claus in fact, because I guess Joss sees it as being OK to believe in Santa Claus when you're 5 but maybe not so healthy when you're 25 ;).

It's also a way to be actively irreverent (which makes sense if you don't believe) and to maybe get people to think a little bit about the actual character of the Christian God, as presented by the evidence Christians hold closest i.e. the Bible. Calling God the "Great Sky Bully" is basically the atheist version of evangelising ;).

(i'm not sure about Mal though, I think he's still a believer and that he says he isn't partly in defiance of God - who he sees as his betrayer - and maybe partly as a reminder that he can only rely on himself and those he keeps close. Mal really is angry at God)

Saje | January 01, 15:01 CET

I agree with your assessment of Mal, Saje. That's always how I've seen it.

And I'm glad to believe in God, because my God isn't scary and judgmental.

UnpluggedCrazy | January 01, 15:12 CET

Like Quotergal, I had an atheist father and Catholic mother.
My dad remained silent as well, I think it's part of the deal.
I was a devout child, but consider myself agnostic now. I can't claim atheism because I don't believe there is any way for a human being to KNOW for sure, until they are dead.

I claim a lot of anger at many of the concepts of organized religion, although not at a specific god. Especially the evangelical religions that have become prevalent in my town, with their, "everybody who doesn't think exactly like us is going to hell" attitude. These people worship a "sky bully" and work really hard to stay on his good side.
Then there are the religions that use God as a reason to go to war, terrorize, torture and kill. Religion can be a force for good, but too often, historically, the opposite is true. Religion is the root of much evil.

Xane | January 01, 18:32 CET

Shey, I'm... hmmm.... I'm better looking than Brad Pitt. Saying it, and even believing it (which I do not), doesn't make it so. Or are we willing to accept that anyone who says "I'm not a racist" or "I'm not a homophobe" is correct? If not, then perhaps we can agree that some people at some times deny what they are. This might lead to interesting discussions, like...

If we look at Mal, we could suspect that Joss is closer to what Saje hypothesizes about Mal (which I agree with, BTW) than any sort of detached-disbelief with residual anger at followers or the idea of belief. But then, that's simply a sentence based on a few suppositions. It would make a fine topic for a book or an essay--at least as fair game as the rest of people have written about Joss and his work, no?

Dreamlogic I lack a lot of things. You lack other things. I lack cancer, (as far as I know) for which I am glad. I lack wings, for which I have perhaps a few misgivings during bouts of daydreaming in traffic. I lack other things which distress me. It's not a judgemental word--in fact, I've used it to differentiate agnostics from atheists. The former lack a belief in God, the latter have a faith in no-god.

If, at any time I'm restricting my commentaries to any particular God, I'll be sure to make that explicit. Granted that atheism in the Western world does tend to historically focus around rejection of the Christian God, but if someone believes in even one divinity of any sort, they're not an atheist. I may be reading a bit into what UnpluggedCrazy is saying, but it's a good distinction: just because someone talks about God, doesn't mean it's the same conception of God that you like or dislike. I find this a particularly important distinction, because if Joss came up to me and said "I don't believe in the sky bully" I would be perfectly happy to respond "Good for you, I don't either." Which might just be the start of a fun and fascinating conversation.

jclemens | January 01, 19:08 CET

[I remove the first part, as it was personal in nature and therefore veered a bit off-topic-ish, thought it did help give context to my second comment, which I leave here since it is still on-topic...]

Thoughts from an atheist's mind: "If your God actually existed, I'd really hate that guy."

[ edited by Love's Bitch on 2008-01-01 22:01 ]

Love's Bitch | January 01, 19:40 CET

Can we keep comments to the issue of faith and choice in the works of Joss Whedon, please. Ta very much.

SoddingNancyTribe | January 01, 20:38 CET

The former lack a belief in God, the latter have a faith in no-god.

I'm wondering if it's that "faith in no-god" that the author's going to suggest River has. I'll be interested to read the justification for it if so because it seems to me that you don't need "faith" to think something doesn't exist when the default position for "things" is to not-exist i.e. without evidence that something exists - be it unicorns/pixies/magic/whatever - the most rational choice is surely to assume (and act as if) it doesn't until shown otherwise ?

Agnostics on the other hand believe that we can never know for sure whether God exists or not and so they've decided to stick on a firm "Don't know". That's obviously fine but in the sense of 100% proof, we can never know anything for sure, even the existence of the world around us is an article of "faith" in the strictest sense. Why are agnostics not, therefore, agnostic about reality itself or about the sun rising tomorrow ?

River realises that we make assumptions all the time about all sorts of things often based on incomplete evidence and that thinking there's no God (until shown otherwise) is simply consistent with that perspective, it's not a belief requiring faith except in the sense that everything is (course, it could be that the author has something completely different in mind re: River and "religious zealotry" but that's the only belief I can think of that she may hold so absolutely as for it to have "negative aspects" as far as some folk are concerned).

Saje | January 01, 22:51 CET

it is logically inconsistent for any atheist to have an emotional reaction like anger towards a being whom they believe to not exist.
What does anger have to do with logic? It's an emotion, not a thought process. I was raised (and remain) an atheist, but I certainly understand the concept of God and am perfectly capable of getting angry at him. I get angry at Buffy sometimes, too, even though I know she's fictional. And if Santa Claus were cited as an inspiration for terrorism or subjugation of women, I might get pissed at him, too.

jcs | January 01, 22:57 CET

I think it is important to remember that Joss wasn't the only individual developing characters in Firefly. Mal may be more Tim and less Joss. I don't really know. Just a thought. I think sometimes we are quick to attribute every single aspect of the Whedonverse to Joss when that simply isn't possible.

TamaraC | January 01, 22:59 CET

I certainly hope the conclusions people draw about a writer's own beliefs are based on their own statements about themselves rather than what they have had characters say. In complex stories characters coming from different perspectives are a necessity. None of them may express the author's actual beliefs or feelings completely. I agree that Mal is a disillusioned and angry believer. That does not mean that he embodies the feelings of any particular writer on the show.

Why are agnostics not, therefore, agnostic about reality itself or about the sun rising tomorrow ?

Agnostics aren't agnostic about reality and the sun rising tomorrow? I was thinking about joining, but if they think they have definite inside scoop about reality and what is going to happen in the future, I'm going to have to take a step back and think about it some more.

newcj | January 02, 04:51 CET

Apparently not newcj, just about God. Makes sense not to sweat the little stuff I guess (like the sun rising etc. ;-).

Mal may be more Tim and less Joss.

True, and even if Big Purp did create him, Joss has said a few times in interview that he wouldn't necessarily get on that well with Mal, that they'd probably disagree about a lot of stuff.

I think most characters contain at least an element of the people that create them BUT it might even be the opposite to how they feel about a particular issue (because exploring that is what interests them - in the way that only ever hanging around with people you agree with on everything can get dull, i'd imagine the same is true of writing for a character that "thinks" exactly like you).

I suspect where the hero is concerned though (or heroes in 'Firefly's case) there's usually something the creator finds attractive about them, even if it's not a character trait the writer might necessarily want (e.g. who wouldn't want House's brains and lack of care for the social niceties, even if in real life someone like that would be unbearable).

Saje | January 02, 12:14 CET

Saje,
It makes a lot more sense to me to doubt the existence of an invisible, metaphysical being, capable of violating empirically derived scientific laws, and whose only demonstrable claim to existence is the beliefs of its followers, vs. an experientially existent reality which exhibits empirical consistency.

Which is not to say that this "realty" might not be just a dream that I am having which only appears to have lasted a number of decades (in which case I wish that I hadn't dreamed I had to come into work this morning, and while I'm at it, that I had Joss' talent).

It's just that based on past experience, from a statistical point of view I think it far more likely that, consequent to the earth's rotation, the sun will appear to rise tomorrow morning (and far earlier than I would like it to at that), than that there exists some particular deity or deities, who match any one of the multitude of mutually incompatible descriptions of such being(s) found in humankind's religions (including the multiple versions of God found within the Judeo-Christian canon).

My attitude toward the "unseen" world, is that we human beings are fairly limited creatures, and that given the limitations of both our senses and our intellect, it's presumptuous to make any claims about that which is beyond our abilities to sense. Or, as summed up much more beautifully by the brilliant British geneticist and evolutionary scientist J.B.S. Haldane "It is my supposition that the Universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine."

Although, I have to confess that in practice, I have recently renounced my devotion to Agnosticism and have adopted ancient Egyptian religious practice. That is, to say, I worship my cat.

barboo | January 02, 17:35 CET

That is, to say, I worship my cat.

Invazun phaze 1 am compleet ! LOLZ !

;-)

Yep, I know where you're coming from barboo it just seems like since, as an agnostic, you act as if (and on the assumption that) the sun will (apparently ;) rise tomorrow and, presumably, from what you say, if someone asked you outright "Will the sun rise tomorrow ?" you would say "Yes unless you can provide evidence otherwise" then why not do the same with God(s) ?

I bet, for instance, if you were asked "Do you disbelieve in Zeus ?" you would be (more) comfortable answering "Yes". All River and other atheists are doing is deciding (if they're honest, with the caveat that there's always a chance they're wrong) to disbelieve in God(s) in exactly the same way most people currently disbelieve in the Greek pantheon or in Unicorns.

(that said, thinking on it I wonder if the author is going to present River as a victim of "religious" zealotry rather than as a practitioner of it ?)

Saje | January 02, 18:13 CET

Well, it's only taken them about 4000 years. At this rate they may conquer the planet just in time for the Apocalypse.



I think there's a continuum of belief and my Agnosticism edges close enough to Atheism to say that I totally doubt the existence of any God humanity has ever worshiped. In particular contexts I'm perfectly comfortable calling myself an Atheist outright, especially when I think it's necessary to stand up against the religious bullies on both sides of the political spectrum who think that moral/ethical principles can only exist if derived from the big sky-father, and I think the subtlety of the distinction between disbelieving in your particular God, and not being willing to completely rule out the possibility that some kind of superpowerful entity exists that I with my limited human abilities cannot apprehend, is one that is beyond a lot of religious believers ability to grasp.

Another way to look at it, I live my daily life as if the sun will continue to rise without having to think about the probability of it (excepting of course unless Dubya manages to ignite World War III). I also live life under the assumption that there is no God(s), without thinking about it as an intellectual exercise.

But I do flatly disbelieve is in any human conception of what a God-being might be like as being accurate. The very multiplicity of religions, all of which assert that God(s) must be worshiped in some particular way tells me that none of them can be accurate, because if there were such a Being to whom our worship mattered, it would have done a better job of making sure we all recognize the correct way. The fact that many people, professing the same religion can use the Bible to justify utterly opposite points of view and action tells me that the Bible is worthless as an expression of God, even if I hadn't read enough of it to be aware of the internal inconsistencies and contradictions, not to mention the external historical inconsistencies, and known enough about religious history to know where particular pieces originated.

Of course all this is moot when it comes to my cat, who clearly does rule the universe.

barboo | January 02, 21:38 CET

Ah OK, get you. I think we probably sit in similar places on the spectrum barboo.

If I understand you correctly you're saying you actually do disbelieve in all the Gods we've thought of so far BUT that you allow the possibility of a God of which we can't even conceive ? I can live with that (strictly speaking, I don't see how anyone can even argue with it - to do so is to suggest that what we can conceive is completely unlimited which seems self-evidently untrue).

The way I put it is, in theory i'm agnostic but in practice i'm an atheist ;).

(in fact, at the moment I can even conceive of a God that I can accept - one which kick-started the Big Bang and then sat back outside our universe letting nature take its course without ever interfering in reality again, which seems as consistent with what we know about the universe as the current theories of what triggered it - though clearly that God is a "God of the gaps" in that if we develop a better understanding of pre-Big Bang conditions, he/she/it may be ruled out. Someone on here recommended a book which apparently presents an argument against even that God but I haven't picked it up yet)

Clearly though, the "universe as furball" idea will become the dominant religion of the future ;).

Saje | January 03, 11:07 CET

A pretty neat trick, that is. ; > I, of course, worship at the feet of the Furry Feline as well.

The big question is: can Saje conceive of a God so illimitable that he himself cannot conceive of It?

The mind reels...

An atheist cannot conceive
of a god-creed in which to believe.
Though my diagnostic
Of someone agnostic,
Is faith lost, which he hopes to retrieve.

QuoterGal | January 04, 10:43 CET

Heh, nice limerick QuoterGal ;).

A pretty neat trick, that is.

It's all done with smoke and mirrors ;).

The big question is: can Saje conceive of a God so illimitable that he himself cannot conceive of It?

Are you asking can God conceive of everything QG ? Well, presumably he can't conceive of a being greater than himself, God being Perfection - so maybe not so illimitable after all, seems like even God can't conceive of the inconceivable. Boo, gimme my money back, this God is faulty - what do you have in a naturalistic, non-personified deification of the laws of physics ? ;-).

Saje | January 04, 13:11 CET