Horton

Horton heard a Who tonight, and among the zany animated characters and a theater full of small children, two philosophies clashed head-on. Yes, as the world of Whovill floated toward a horrific scalding death I wondered what obligation Horton or any of the jungle community had toward the Whos'.

Spoiler alert....

I mean, I agree, if I suddenly found myself the sole protector of a small world of invisible English speaking people, I might feel some sense of obligation as well. If I developed a relationship with them, I might put myself in danger too. But, does "a person's a person, no matter how small" suggest we must risk our reputation, health, and life on something merely because we identify with it in some intangible way? Is it proper, or morally correct to do such a thing?

Horton must have lived a simple life. He must never have been scorned by another Whoville colony who, upon risking his life to save, killed his family for amusement afterwards. Will the next Whoville be just as innocuous? Perhaps they are small, and that makes them harmless. The Spanish Flu virus was also small. It killed between 20 and 40 million people. Good thing it wasn't as charming as Steve Carell.

There are many wonderful themes in this story...

• "I meant what I said and I said what I meant, an elephant's faithful, one hundred percent." Horton is a benevolent, honest, courageous and determined nonconformist.
• The town wants to continue the celebration, which illustrates the tyranny of the majority.
• When the burden of proof besets both of them, they each produce hard evidence.
• Even a small voice, left to follow its dreams, can tip the scale.
• Unthinking monkeys travel in mobs and perpetuate violence indiscriminately.
  

I like that they showed the children blindly following Horton, carrying their own clover. It reminds us of the obligation we have to keep our mouths shut when we can't explain ourselves well enough or produce any proof. That sometimes people we care about will follow for no reason at all other than the fact we are older or seem wiser. Seeming is being in some ways I guess.

I think the film is directed to the person who does know something important, whatever that is, and asks that care is taken to ensure it is handled properly. Speaking of handling it properly, perhaps if the mayor had achieved his position on his own merits, his reputation would have allowed him to convince everyone that Whovill was virtually doomed. (A nice little argument for a meritocracy.) If Horton had kept Whoville to himself until he could prove its existence, he wouldn't have saved a lot of trouble and wouldn't have needed the baby kangaroo to snatch it milliseconds from its boiling grave.

What are the two philosophies? Well, the movie seems to suggest an inherent duty toward fellow man, universal human worth, and unconditional forgiveness. I can think of at least one prominent 20th century philosopher who would argue against at least two of those points. A lot of weight for an animated film, but at least it should get kids thinking.

Militant Atheism

Interesting stuff

I do recognize that one risks an immediate loss of credibility by defending any attribute of religion. If this is you, I suggest you turn your head or bury it in the sand if possible.

Here's my Lutheran upbringing coming through... I really don't get the conflict between intelligent design and science. If something can be proven to exist through science, isn't that part of God's creation? (Forgive my use of "God" - it's not accurate given today's general definition, but necessary to demonstrate my point). If we were created in God's image, with a capable intellect, isn't it our responsibility to use our brains to interpret ancient text appropriately with consideration for what we know of the properties of our universe? Doesn't science give us a more accurate picture of age old truths and allow us to re-consider those that have been perhaps interpreted incorrectly? Seems pretty easy to resolve the contradictions - always in the favor of both scripture and science, and never at the expense of either.

Of course, this is really all about the bible thumpers who insist the earth was created 6000 years ago. I propose it is this stubborn approach to scripture, and not science, that is most effectively destroying religion.

Through refusing to remove their heads from their asses, such individuals are discrediting the legitimate religious institutions and belief systems that fully recognize and encourage all scientific understanding. Who are we to judge whether the big bang was part of God's design? All we know is...it happened, and those people who have staked their lives and reputations on the conviction that it didn't are preserving their own necks at the expense of not only their own credibility, but the credibility of associated spiritual institutions; nowadays all religion.

In other words, there can be no contradiction, only a fuller understanding of both as they are necessarily dependent on one another regardless of career-saving rhetoric.

Now, to turn the coin. With all due respect for the brilliant Mr. Dawkins, I insist there are several practical and logical reasons to resist an all out assault on religion.

As tempting as it sounds given the militant droves of "God doesn't want me to think," "I've never picked up a Bible and read it" church goers, "attacking religion as a whole" requires attacking the basic philosophical understanding integral to western civilized society. So, if religion is absolutely dependent on science/facts, how is science dependent on religion? As odd as it sounds today, civilized conditions permitted through the advance of religion have been critical to the advance of science.

Take the principles of individual liberty for example (Adam Smith, Lord Acton, Thomas Jefferson). It only requires the fact that individual liberty was accepted by the extremely Christian colonies in 1789 to demonstrate the compatibility of the two. But, more to the point, there would be no civil liberty if there were no Christ or Christianity - not because the ideas didn't exist among the literate - but because the majority of people would never have understood them properly otherwise (ironically, a situation similar to today, and the cause of our problems).

I expect most of the scientists at the TED conference are fluent in the rational justification for civilized behavior - or submit to living that way simply to accomplish their goals. Either way, such individuals will themselves benefit less from religion. What is important is that Christian scripture demonstrates very complex ideas in a way accessible to people without twelve degrees. It is a powerful force for civilization that anyone with life experience can identify with the value of graceful interpersonal behavior so eloquently stated in a book several thousand years old that appeals not only to reason, but also to human emotion.

But, just like a scientific thesis, no one can comprehend the value of a text they have never read. And today, I propose the rampant misunderstanding of Christianity is dangerous to science, and therefore civilization. On the other hand, I wonder how easily most atheists have dismissed Christianity based on its unsavory public appearance rather than its philosophies. I would subscribe to a militant educational approach to restore the proper understanding of Christianity, and refute its internal enemies, but it would involve massive upheavals of ideas now ingrained in thumper thought. I consider myself a Christian, but not the type you're familiar with, and would be intimidated by the thought of dealing with the completely unreasonable (more so than dealing with most Atheists).

Most crucially, I don't believe one ought to assume any sort of higher power without considering the justification and reviewing the materials carefully. Christians should know this. Assuming that one can coerce rather than persuade another to adopt the same conclusions is itself contradictory to Christian principles.

At any rate, a discussion about religion is so mired in false perceptions and assumptions on both sides any point is diluted by its mention. Sad.