A need for religious literacy? SciFi and theology

Now I'm not taking a pop at this guy because I'm simply seeing this as an illustration of a bigger matter which calls us to attend to the intersection of popular culture, theology and mission. Wolfgang Tillmans calls attention to it in his remark reported in the Guardian:

 "if it really is possible to prove the existence of a huge number of Earth-like planets, and so demonstrate the strong possibility of extraterrestrial life, then religious leaders on Earth would no longer be able to hold on to their anthropocentric view of God. We would then need to come to terms with a new humility, just as in Copernicus’s day, when he showed that the Sun, rather than the Earth, was at the centre of the known universe – correcting the pre-eminent worldview and ushering in the modern age."

Now there is a long history of Christians, at least, speculating about life on other planets. And there are various takes on the matter. CS Lewis in Voyage to Venus, suggested that once having taken form as a human, then any creation after that would be anthropoid -unlike the elder races in Out of the Silent Planet which were varied in form. Now I'm not sure that this idea would stand much scrutiny, but it does demonstrate a longer Christian heritage with the matter at hand than some might think.

The phrase I'm reacting to, I think, is "religious leaders on Earth would no longer be able to hold on to their anthropocentric view of God". Now, of course, this is a bigger set than Christian leaders, but I think I can only really comment on the Christian world (and of course even then ...). However, the point I'm concerned to put out in response is that an anthropocentric view of God is not particularly a part of Christian let alone religious view of God. To be sure there are some anthropocentric views of God but that's not the whole story by a long chalk.

There are many theists who will tell you that God is more than the human descriptions given. God is greater than our conceptions (in fact one famous, medieval, offered-proof for God's existence relies on this idea of God being always greater than our ideas). Our labels, similes, metaphors and analogies are all only capable of indincating a little something about God, and they will all fail at some point and mislead us or outrightly lie to us. So, from this point of view an anthropocentric view of God is already recognised as being inadequate and even misleading.

Of course, there are some who in their desire to promote the truth of Bible or tradition, have lost sight on this and insist on some fairly anthropocentric ideas about God: that God is male, for example. But generally, a little bit of further thought about contradictions and logical consistency etc tends to move them on somewhat.

But that, perhaps, is not the main issue that Tillmans has with human ideas about God. Perhaps he is trying to disturb what appears to be a preoccupation with human beings as the centre of the universe -or at least at the heart of God's concern. But again, there are plenty of Christian thinkers who have noted that there may be many other beings for whom God is just as concerned. Indeed, the recognition of angels has often served to do this. But then there are those like CS Lewis (again) who in Voyage to Venus (again) shares a vision of everyone (including the non-human) in creation being simultaneously the centre of God's concern and centred on the others of God's concern: both central and peripheral simultaneously. You see 'centrism' doesn't have to be a zero-sum game; either one is or one isn't.

And if that is so, then the real task is not to de-centre ourselves but to learn to value all and not to value ourselves 'more highly than we ought' (Apostle Paul's phrase). In fact, the example of Jesus is (surprise, surprise) one to take seriously. "Who though in the form of God did not consider equality with God something to be held onto ... emptying himself ..." in other words 'though the centre of God's design, nevertheless de-centred himself -becomeing the servant of others.

So, I reckon that the Christian traditions are not necessarily anthropocentric: they can be but often enough they do exhibit the kind of humility that Tillmans is enjoining. In fact, at their best they note that we are all called to de-centre, but that this is not a one-time conceptual shift but rather an ongoing spiritual and moral struggle empowered by the de-centring Spirit after the example of the kenotic Christ.

'Wolfgang Tillmans: my two-year investigation into the post-truth era | Art and design | The Guardian: via Blog this'

Dollhouse ideology

I've been watching the television series Dollhouse recently. I had been wondering whether to watch it because the pictures from the series advertising it tend to be of eye-candy and hint at violence: I have a bit of an allergic reaction to such presentations as they often go with superficial: maxing out the exciting visual and emotional impact but having little to say (except: "give us money"). However, I think that it is actually more interesting than the eye-candy image gives me to infer. Kudos to Joss Whedon for producing something a bit more intelligent and raising some interesting issues about being human: what makes us  'us'. Its premise is a bit like an updated and reworked Joe 90.

In Episode 6 they intercut a series of vox pops from a news programme about the urban legend of the Dollhouse. One of them has an interviewee saying something like "... if they could do something like this, it's the end of the human race". I found myself being annoyed with this. Why? Because it cleverly hides the fact that in the situation being portrayed, where in the scenario projected by the interviewee (some kind of university lecturer) human beings are enslaved by being made into a sort of robots. The doomsday scenario misses the fact that in such a world there would be a whole class of people who would not be subject to such control: those rich and powerful enough to maintain the system because they would want its services. In other words, this little comment on such a world elides the humans who control it and in doing so, hides from view the real problem.

Just like real life.  This is a little mirror on the West: the haves' string pulling and circumvention and the exploitation of the rest is being covered up: attention is redirected (often very successfully) so that 'we' rarely if ever become aware of where power lies and how it is being further accumulated. This musing comes hard on the heels of reading a recent piece in the Guardian by Owen Jones making a closely related set of points. So Dollhouse, interestingly, gets close to making such a point but then ends up, apparently (at least at this point) colluding with the concealment of privilege.

PS. After having seen the whole of the 2 series ... in fact towards the end of the series we get to understand that the scenario I come to in response to the university lecturer's vox pop is precisely the case: the rich get to reap the rewards whilst preying on the rest of the population. Just thought I should mention that for the sake of letting it be known that Joss Whedon  and/or Eliza Dushku did seem to have that perspective in view in realising the series. Kudos that they got it past Fox! But, hey, it took them two seasons to rumble it! -At least I assume the hasty-feeling ending at end of season 2 was because it got cancelled. I gather that the original idea was for a 5-year story arc.