Film 301 Final Project Post 3: That Old Time Religion vs. The New Age of Reason

Our Nation's Leaders (or Don’t Forget to Open with a Joke)
"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." George H. W. Bush, while running for president as a Republican, August 1987


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." – First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America (Which is still on the books, by the way, Mr. Bush)

I've been lucky enough that I haven't really been discriminated against for my atheist views, but I fear I might be in the future. My mom gave gifts to my sisters for easter, but I didn't get anything, and this got me thinking. What if I ever want to get a job in the southern U.S.? I know I don't have the willpower to keep my atheism a secret, and it is widely acknowledged that atheists are routinely discriminated against in the bible belt.

The Compassion of Christians (or God's Righteousness)

An AIDS patient, being punished, according to Pat Buchanan

"AIDS is nature's retribution for violating the laws of nature." "The poor homosexuals -- they have declared war upon nature, and now nature is extracting an awful retribution."
- Pat Buchanan, during his 1992 presidential campaign, and on AIDS in 1983, respectively.

Never happened, according to many fundamentalist Evangelicals

“Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody.”
-- Pat Buchanan, explaining "group fantasies of martyrdom," part of his view as a Holocaust denier, in The New Republic, October 22, 1990

Replace education with religion, great idea!

"If we have to give up either religion or education, we should give up education."
-- William Jennings Bryan, contribution to The Commoner (January, 1923)

The easy answers that religion claims to possess cause people to think they don't need education. At least, that's the only way I can explain the ignorant, hateful things that are said by fundamentalist leaders.

Evil Begets Evil (or Who Wants to Be a Martyr?)













"Every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates American, hates Jews, and hates Christians. This is a part of our belief and our religion." Osama bin Laden, December 1998








"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did . . ." George W. Bush, June 2003

"Everybody hates death, fears death, but only those, the believers who know the life after death and the reward after death, would be the ones who will be seeking death."
-- Mohamed Atta, 9/11 hijacker

“Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.” “Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.”
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

Atheism, and the related conviction that we have just one life to live, is the only sure way to regard all our fellow creatures as brothers and sisters.... Even the compromise of agnosticism is better than faith. It minimizes the totalitarian temptation, the witless worship of the absolute and the surrender of reason.
— Christopher Hitchens, “The Lord and the Intellectuals,” Harper’s July 1982, p 60, from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

Even if I had concrete, absolutely unshakable proof that God was real, I wouldn't worship him. How can anyone respect a being who instructs people to kill each other over their nationality or race? More importantly, this life in the physical universe is all we have, and convincing people otherwise invites them to treat life as disposable.

I’m too scared to think of a heading for this one.

You may have noticed that about halfway through, I lost my sense of humor and turned really sarcastic. That's because in the course of making this post, I found a certain video on YouTube. It is a fairly long clip, and one that I had no hand in creating or editing, so I debated using it. When I showed it to some friends, we laughed, and they said, “There’s no way that’s real!” But, of course, it is real, and it makes me afraid. I was compelled to include it here because it’s the most effective way of expressing the dread that is in my mind, the crippling fear that is unique to knowing that everything you value and everything you think gives hope to the world are already under attack. The attack is coming from people who have been lied to and misled by those hungry for power, and they don’t care if you are an atheist or a Christian or a Jew or a Minnesota Vikings fan; they just want you dead. They want you dead, and they teach their children to want you dead, because they think God wants you dead. The title is Muslim Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony. The scary bit starts about 45 seconds in.



Analysis
I didn't expect to find so much humor in this topic, but when I started, I kept having funny thoughts about what was in the heads of the people I quoted. I think the humor and sarcasm might be useful in disarming people who would otherwise dismiss this work, so that I can present the most powerful arguments in the last two sections of the post.

The most significant challenge of this post was to make something unique, despite the fact that I was building it with the words and images of others. I don't know if I was successful. Once I have spent this much time working on something, I have a hard time stepping back and looking at it from a different perspective.

I think I was successful in emulating the poetic mode of documentary because the focus was more on the tone of the people quoted and the shift in mood from humor to seriousness. I also intentionally ignored restraints of time and space, albeit in crude fashion, by having images paired with quotes that are not related in time or space, and by having the Constitutional Convention conversing with GHWB. Hopefully the affect is to allow people to see things in a way they usually don't, my version of the alternative knowledge.

The clip from YouTube probably doesn't belong here, but I don't have anything else to make a strong closing. I know that I have a weakness in wanting to include things that will get a rise out of people, even at the expense of the overall quality of the piece.

Sources
The images of George H. W. Bush and the Constitutional Convention are from the National Archives, and are in the public domain. All other images are in the public domain, either by the choice of the creator or by virtue of being produced by government agencies, and were found through Wikimedia Commons. Most images were edited (obviously) or at least cropped. Most of the quotes were found using Positive Atheism's quote list.

Film 301 Final Project Post 2: Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design is the self-applied label of a movement that contends that the complexity or machine-like appearance of certain objects in the natural world are evidence of an intelligent force having designed them. This movement is in direct opposition to the theory of evolution, which it contends is flawed. I'll only be able to create a brief overview here, but I've included lots of links to additional information and if you have any questions, leave a comment and I will do the best I can to answer it.

So what is this all about? In short, Intelligent Design (ID) says that this . . .

Flagellum of a Gram negative bactierium.

. . . is essentially the same as this . . .

Pocket watch. But you already knew that.

. . . despite the science of biology saying that the first one evolved and was not designed. It is a movement populated almost exclusively by christian believers, and the implication is that the designer behind the complexity of nature is the christian God.


The Players
Before we get into what ID believers argue, let's look at who is involved in the discussion of Intelligent Design. There are a number of high profile proponents of the movement, and I couldn't possibly cover them all, so I will use Michael Behe and Angus Menuge as examples.
Michael Behe (lower right) is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, and author of two books, The Edge of Evolution and Darwin's Black Box. He is best known for his argument of irreducible complexity. Angus Menuge (upper left) is a professor of philosophy and computer science at Concordia University. He recently gave a talk at UWM on intelligent design.

There are also some very big names opposed to intelligent design. Again, there are too many to cover here, but Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott should serve as good examples. Richard Dawkins is considered the world's most visible atheist and most well-known opponent of intelligent design. He is an evolutionary biologist with the University of Oxford and author of science books written for popular audiences, including The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion. Eugenie Scott is a physical anthropologist and another prominent critic of intelligent design. She has her BS and MS degrees from UWM and her PhD from University of Missouri - Columbia. She is the director of the National Center for Science Education and also wrote a book, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction.

The Arguments
The arguments made for intelligent design are many, but the two best elaborated are the concepts of irreducible complexity and the finely-tuned universe. Irreducible complexity is the argument that some things found in nature, like the many-protein complex that makes up a bacterial flagellum, the human eye, or the immune system, are so complex that they cannot function if missing even just one part, and this implies that they could not have come about through the incremental progress of natural selection acting on mutations. The commonly used analogy is a mousetrap, which is said to be useless if missing any single component. The idea is that something that is irreducibly complex must have been designed with its specific purpose in mind.

The finely-tuned universe argument states that the specific values of physical constants of our universe are "tuned" to allow for the development of life in our universe, and if any of these constant were changed, even a small amount, then life could not exist. The constants they are referring to are things like the strength of gravity or the magnitude of the strong nuclear force. One example that is used is that if the strong nuclear force were only 2% different in strength, hydrogen would not fuse into helium and heavier elements in stars, and a universe containing only hydrogen would likely be lifeless.

Beyond these philosophical arguments are other, more politically oriented assertions. The advocates of intelligent design tell us that there is a debate raging in the scientific community over whether intelligent design is a better explanation than evolution. They have even documented a list of the names of scientists who support intelligent design over evolution, called A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. This is perhaps the most crucial aspect of the intelligent design movement, because it is the basis for their further assertion that intelligent design should be presented alongside evolution in the classroom.

The Criticisms
The arguments of intelligent design proponents are vigorously challenged not only by particularly outspoken atheists but by the scientific community as a whole. In fact, before enumerating particular criticisms of the philosophical arguments, it is important to point out that there is no real controversy in the scientific community. Michael Behe's university, Lehigh, has a large graphic on the homepage of the biological sciences department linking to a disclaimer stating very clearly that Dr. Behe is most definitely alone in his assertions. Additionally, virtually all science organizations have issued statements declaring their rejection of intelligent design as a legitimate line of scientific inquiry.

However, the vocal nature of the nano-scale minority in favor of intelligent design has forced its opponents to criticize their individual arguments. The argument against irreducible complexity is that it makes the incorrect assumption that the system can only function for its current purpose, and parts of the system, being unable to complete that purpose, are useless. Opponents of intelligent design point out that individual parts of a complex system may have other functions, like the general-purpose secretion system that is part of the bacterial flagellum. For example, even missing the bait, trigger, and catch, Michael Behe's irreducibly complex mousetrap makes an excellent tie clip.

The arguments against the idea of a finely-tuned universe are more complex. The first is that this argument puts the omelet before either the chicken or the egg: the universe came first, and life developed to fit it, not the other way around. Beyond that, the current understanding of fundamental physics is that our universe is only one of a nearly infinite number of universes, among which there is a very high likelihood that at least one would support life. Naturally we, as living things, find ourselves in that universe, this is no wonder.

A brief note:

Recently, Angus Menuge gave a presentation at UWM on the topic of intelligent design at an event sponsored by religious group for lutheran students. Here he admitted he holds no degrees in biology, biochemistry, chemistry, or physics. After the presentation, the floor was opened for questions, but when two people had asked questions critical of his position, the floor was closed (less than 5 minutes). The opposing viewpoint was essentially unwelcome at this event.

Analysis
The biggest challenge of this post was finding things to include that weren't just text. I could write about this stuff all day, but when asked to incorporate images, it gets tough. I wish I had some way of generating original photo/video content on the topic, but I don't know how I would in the time I have. I think that I was successful in making this something more than just words on a page, though. And I think I stayed true to the expository mode, since the information and images provided are factual, authoritative, organized, and to the point. I have put forth an argument about the world (that intelligent design movement is an important issue) and present images and words to support it.

I felt at times that it was hard to stay neutral, something that would seem to be important for my idea of what an expository doc should be, but I think it was just the weakness of the arguments for ID and the clarity of the arguments against.

It didn't occur to me how the picture of a bunch of flasks lined up could be a visual analogy to the scientific consensus until after I had finished.

Credits
Images of Angus Menuge and Michael Behe came from their respective websites. I am assuming by compiling this information in an educational/journalistic style, their use would be considered fair use. It is interesting to note that they do not appear to make any photos of themselves available under the public domain or creative commons license. Images of Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott were borrowed from Wikimedia Commons, and are distributed under the creative commons license, which specifies that they may be used freely. All other images are from Wikimedia Commons as well, some of which were edited, and fall under creative commons or public domain.

Example: America's Hatred of Atheists

Recently, my wonderful girlfriend, Heather, commented on my first post concerning whether atheists are hated in America. She made the point that the animosity of christians toward atheists is fundamentally hypocritical, given the stated beliefs and values of the religion. Little did I know that recent news was making the point better than either of us could.




More information here: Davis' anti-atheist tirade goes national

And in the interest of telling the whole story, here is a follow-up, but I think it's not as big a deal as the writer makes it out to be. I think it's a valid point that a black woman, especially one old enough to have at least part of the civil rights movement as part of her personal history, should know better than to think a minority group should be denied rights. He just made a very poorly worded statement to that effect.

Film 301 Final Project Post 1: Proposal

The topic of my final project is atheism. I chose this because I am an atheist, and this aspect of my identity has become increasingly important to me in the past few years. I was raised Catholic and my family is still dedicated to that religion. But as I became an adult, I began to look for the truth on my own, and everywhere I looked, it became evident that God was not needed to explain the world around me. Eventually I reached the point where I realized I was a hardcore atheist. Since then I have done my best to educate myself about what it means to call myself atheist and this project will hopefully be an extension of that goal.

Below are two videos that might give you an idea of what's going on in this lumpy melon I call a head. The first is The Blasphemy Challenge, posted by The Rational Response Squad. I'm a fairly stoic person, but this video makes the hair on my neck stand up when the child at the end says, "I deny the holy spirit, and I am not afraid." The second video is my response to the video (OK, I wanted a free DVD, so sue me) and my only regret is that I did not say that I am not afraid of being sent to hell.






Atheism is obviously a very broad topic, so I will focus on a specific aspect of my experience for each post. Each of these will attempt to replicate a mode of documentary film making, so let's see what these modes are about.

Expository Documentary
If the expository mode of documentary had to be given a three-word definition it would probably be "Discovery Channel Special." This is the mode in which the documentarian is putting forth an argument about the historical world by presenting images and rhetoric that cause the viewer to come to the conclusion that this is the one true view of the films subject. This is done by addressing the viewer directly, through "evidential" images of the subject and by actually speaking to him/her through a voice-over.

Poetic Documentary
The poetic documentary mode acknowledges that there may be alternative forms of knowledge that can be learned when the focus of a documentary is put more on the associations or patterns available in its study. This includes emphasizing mood and tone, as well as rejecting continuity in space and time in favor of breaking the subject into fragments and rearranging it for the viewer in a way that highlights the possibility of alternative knowledge.

Performative Documentary
Documentaries made in the performative mode emphasize personal experience and the emotional responses they elicit. They are concerned with helping us share in a perspective to which we are not native. This helps connect the personal and subjective content to a larger context that we are already familiar with.

In my next post for this project, I will focus on the Intelligent Design movement (oh, how I am loath to capitalize those words). I will do this in the expository mode, and while I would never deny that I am extremely biased on the issue, I will try to be as neutral as I can. To achieve something that could be considered expository, I will use a combination of images from factual sources. I will substitute text for the usual voice-over, but still aim to make something that conveys factual authority by being organized and accurate. I will likely not use sound for this portion, since the topic lends itself so well to a presentation based on images and text.

The following post will use the poetic mode to focus on a contrast between the tendency of religion to justify and inspire violence and the tendency of atheism engender more peaceful and compassionate responses to the world. I will not attempt to mask my bias here. I plan to pair images of religion with related images of atheism and use text to paint the contrast. For example, an image of Osama bin Laden on one of his tapes and a quote of his calls to kill "infidels" paired with an image of a television appearance of Richard Dawkins and a quote from one of his books, like "Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end." I would emphasize contrasts of tone and mood between the two sides rather than an organized debate. Some of the images might not even need quotes associated with them, such as ones of terrorist attacks. Others would show an image from one side of the argument with a quote from the other. Overall, the post would convey a visceral knowledge rather than a factual one. Whether sound is included would depend on if I can find useful video clips for the message.

The final post will be a performative treatment of my relationship with my family. I plan to record interviews with one or both of my parents using either the built-in camera and microphone in my laptop or the video mode of a digital still camera. I would ask questions related to my experience and record their responses without intervening once I have finished asking. I would follow these videos with text meant to relate this experience to a larger context of atheism in religious countries.

The Young Materialist is born!

Well, since I have to create a blog for this film project, I thought I would give it a meaningful name. So now it's about to get heavy:

The word "materialist" has recently been re-purposed by people who support so-called "creation science" and intelligent design to refer to those of us who chose to use reason, rationality, and careful thought to understand the universe and our place in it, rather than deciding the conclusion first, e.g. god exists, and misrepresenting the evidence to support it. Clearly, they mean to take advantage of the connotations of uncaring greed and consumerism that "materialism" carries to demean people who choose not to incorporate supernatural beliefs into their lives. Knowing this, I have decided to proudly wear the label, dismissing the tangential connotations, because it so perfectly describes my view of the world. I contend that the only way to truly understand the world is to explore it using the senses and scientific extensions to our senses . After my project for Film 301 is complete, I hope to use this space to communicate my thoughts and feelings (even atheists have feelings) about being one of the most hated people in this budding theocracy of ours: a liberal, white, male atheist.