The Giver and Atheism

Lately the Mrs. and I love a good sci-fi movie. Last night we rustled through the Playstation store and came out watching The Giver (in cheaper standard definition, mind you). Well, in spite of the 36% at Rotten Tomatoes, I found it a tremendous film with a few notable weak moments. The high-powered cast was certainly a head-turner (I mean, who expected Taylor Swift to make a couple quick appearances as an actual character?)

giver

But the story itself was familiar: a dystopian future appearing as a somewhat ideal world with hints of a dark secret – who hasn’t seen this before? But for The Giver, there was a deeper exploration of a specific theme (which is also familiar within the genre). Here in the small, isolated town-world of Jonas, our protagonist without a last name (as everyone else), everyone is the same, and everything is controlled by “the Elders” of the community. They’ve eliminated everything that creates conflict, you know, like color, sex, music, and even emotions (don’t forget your morning injection!) But the onion begins to be peeled as Jonas is chosen to be a unique memory keeper for the entire community. Fast forwarding (so I don’t spoil it), the central question becomes “what makes one a human being?”

Pause.

I have this bad habit of trolling atheists on Twitter. I like to just put out my thoughts on atheism, just to see who is itching for an argument. Atheists are, in my experience, the most fundamentalist, evangelistic group in the Western world. They seem to keep step with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons for zeal and self-confidence.

That’s the kind of people I like to spar with – those who are deeply convinced of their own right thinking, yet who have such an obvious, fully-visible flaw in their system of thinking.

For the atheist (or anti-theist), I almost feel bad arguing with them because it’s just so easy to win. They of course never, ever admit when they have been shown the fatal flaw, but that’s OK – it’s not up to me to convince them that deep down underneath the emotions and clever soundbite lines on Twitter, their reliance on the God of Scripture is absolute and inevitable.

What do I mean? Simply put, that there is no justification for using laws of logic and reasoned thinking if human beings are simply star dust in biomechanical suits having the illusion of meaningful lives for a cosmic moment, just before the void of space-time reabsorbs each of us into infinite nothingness.

Yeah, bummer.

They try to undermine the Bible, they attack Noah’s ark, they trash Genesis, they point out all the Christian hypocrisy in the world, and I just fold my arms and smile, breathe, and reply: but you claim to be a collection of blood, bones, and DNA that randomly, by chance, with no intelligent mind having planned for any of it, is having an argument about truth.

*Pause* You might as well be speaking in pure gibberish and eating aluminum nails, for there is no philosophical justification for rationality in atheism: the very thing you are begging we both assume in order to undo my Christianity. I can’t move beyond the irrationality of two specks of ultimately meaningless stardust arguing for who is right about “God,” because that doesn’t explain the universe we live in (at all!) – humans are more, so much more than that…

But what’s the real tragedy for the atheist? His degrading of his own humanity in order to sustain his protest against God’s governance of the universe. He counts himself as worth nothing more than a heap of atomic fruit, and in doing so he undercuts any reason to listen to him.

In The Giver, the Elders decided that what was best for humanity was to severely restrict our expression of our own selves, and our souls, if you will. Even the very color in the world is missing; people are not to touch one another, music is completely unknown, and love is “such an antiquated term it has lost all meaning,” (so said Katie Holmes’s gloomy mother character).

In this world, the only way to save humanity is to deny the essence of our humanness: that we are beautiful in our unity as a race, and in our diversity as individuals. The Elders denied that colorful, beating heart of our race so that they could keep us safe from ourselves… and they essentially denied that there is anything more to human beings than being objects of governance. No ultimate meaning is needed, no goal (or telos) in the community being governed, but to continue forward safely, to flourish in so far as flourishing is the survival of the best DNA… in other words, to perpetuate a genetic coil is the end-all-be-all in The Giver, as it is for the atheist… and neither has a rational explanation for why survival is preferred over annihilation.

If we are but biomechanical suits, and only that, why should we care if we live on to a new generation?

If we are but peons to be governed and managed, why should we care if we are governed and managed?

You see, both the Elders in The Giver, and the atheist in… well, this neighborhood I am sitting in, and those in your neighborhoods, are deeply conflicted between what they say about humanity, and how they actually treat humanity.

In The Giver, the Elders keep one person in a secret house on the edge of the known world, and this person is the “receiver of memory” – this person is the sole possessor of the collective memories of what humanity was like before the Sameness was imposed – and this receiver is the one person to whom the Elders may go to gain wisdom and guidance for difficult questions of policy. But you see – this very idea of a need for direction, for wisdom, for a vision of what is “good” versus what may be “bad,” or “evil” begs the questions of the purpose of human life – and leads to the unraveling of the imposed Sameness! The receiver of memory will be the restorer of memory – for humanness by its nature demands freedom to be all that God invested in us!

And in this real world, the atheist betrays his atheism each time he smiles at his children, each time he closes his eyes to enjoy a particularly cold, crisp swallow of ale, or each time he finishes a poem and can’t wait to share it with his friends and family. In fact, the only thing that might somewhat be consistent with the atheist beliefs would be to simply kill oneself immediately, and to get free of this terrible illusion of life, happiness, sadness, meaning, purpose, and joy. One might quickly end it all to ultimately prove to one’s atheist self that he is not, in fact, afraid of the logical end of his stated beliefs… but even in such an end, the tragedy and the horror would preach all the more loudly:

we are meaningful creatures. we are special creatures. we have a divine origin. we are moral creatures. we cannot escape every moment of our lives, every breath we take from preaching the glory of the One who made us, and of His apparent love and concern for us in our tragically broken humanness.

Will you remember your humanness, my atheist friend? Will you see that your unbelief and denial of your Creator is a giant parade of noise and color: an attempt to blot out the irrepressible voice deep within you, whispering… “I made you. You belong to me. You are not your own. I am your judge. Come to me. Come to me. ‘Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’” – Jesus, Matthew 11:28-30.

Thanks for reading,

-Adam

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “The Giver and Atheism

  1. ” that there is no justification”

    There are plenty of justifications. From the personal to the selfish to the selfless to the pragmatic. There just probably aren’t any justifications that you like.

    ” the Elders decided that what was best for humanity was to severely restrict our expression of our own selves, and our souls, if you will. ”

    Sounds a lot like religious institutions the world over. Will have to give this movie a try.

    • Thanks for your comment. I would be interested in hearing your appeal to objective reasoning, without infinite regress or hopeless circularity. This is a sincere blog author here, so I am actually listening and thinking about what you have to say.

      • “I would be interested in hearing your appeal to objective reasoning,”

        I would need you to explain what you meant by ‘objective reasoning’ and then an explanation of why I would need to appeal to it.

      • Certainly. Objective reasoning is defined as a use of reason which accords with the laws of logic, AS WELL AS giving an external, non-subjective justification for the use of those laws. Atheists can utilize the laws of logic the same as anyone, but they cannot give a justified reason for the existence of these laws, since they are 1) universal and independent of humanity, 2) separate from any material principal, and 3) timeless, or otherwise unchangeable. Nothing within the infinite regress of naturalism can explain the existence or use of immaterial, unchangeable, independent laws of reality. You can observe and use them, but cannot give a reasoned justification for using them. This is the limit of naturalism and/or scientism. Scientism is the belief system wherein the individual has placed faith in the scientific method to be the grounds of discovering all truth, whereas the scientific method itself is either unquestioned, or else admitted to be an assumed foundation with no underlying justification. In other words, one cannot prove that the scientific method yields truth about the world without appealing to the SM as its own proof. This is circular reasoning with no escape, and is therefore “scientism,” or a belief system that cannot be ultimately proven beyond its own limited purview.

        Therefore, objective reasoning is a use of reason which does not rely on logical fallacy. This means you cannot claim to know what is true about God, or the world, or even yourself, if you are appealing to your own mind as the grounds of rationality. The fallacy of such would be that you are appealing to your mind by use of your mind in order to justify your mind as a source of rational thinking. Circularity, subjectivity, fallacy.

        Objective reasoning, on the other hand, would begin with an appeal to the source and ground of reality. This is the unchanging, eternal, timeless personal Being of God, our Creator. His character is the source and reason for universal laws of logic which transcend the human race.

        Now all I ask of you before you reply, is that you take some time to actually mull over what I’ve said. Think deeply about it. Allow your beliefs to be challenged by my claims. Whether or not you like the idea of a God is of no consequence if indeed He is the living truth behind our universe, and our minds. Cool? I’ll look forward to your reply.

      • “Objective reasoning, on the other hand, would begin with an appeal to the source and ground of reality. This is the unchanging, eternal, timeless personal Being of God, our Creator. His character is the source and reason for universal laws of logic which transcend the human race. ”

        This is a claim.

        Now present evidence for it, if you’d like me to accept it.

      • Very well.
        1) No one can prove anything unless we begin with the living God as the ground and reason for our existence. See my extensive discussion of circularity within the atheist system.
        2) You are stating that in order for you to accept a claim, you need evidence, but put the mirror in front of yourself. Can you provide evidence that proves your five senses, your memory, and your reasoning are valid, and that furthermore the scientific method is a valid form of gaining -true- information about the world and how it works? You cannot. See this? You cannot prove the validity of your own subjectivity, nor of the application of your subjectivity through the scientific method, unless you begin with the eternal, unchanging, personal Being of our Creator as the grounds for rationality.

        Do you see what I am saying?

  2. Pingback: The Citizen of New Jerusalem Podcast is Currently Brewing… | Citizen of New Jerusalem

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s