Tags
1 Corinthians, Atheism, Batman, Christian worldview, Evolution, God is Dead, Gotham, Joker, Judgment, Living Consistently, Morality, Nietzche, Parable of the Madman, resurrection from the dead, The Dark Knight, Worldview
If this were a movie review, it would be the latest one ever. I prefer to think of it as a world view review though. Last night I watched “The Dark Knight” Batman movie – not for the first time. This is a film with great characters and an interesting story, but something has always bugged me about it. Last night, I think I found the words to express that lingering feeling.
In a nutshell, “The Joker” character (masterfully portrayed), is the only character in the movie whose words, actions, and what he stands for are completely consistent with an evolutionary/atheistic worldview.
Gotham is a world without God, and the Joker recognizes that significance. While being beaten by our hero, he says “You have nothing to threaten me with, nothing to do with all your strength”. Even if Batman were to break his one rule (no killing), in a world without God, death is not a threat; it is not a sentence for crimes; it holds no significance – it is simply an end.
At the films climax, when the Batman has finally captured his foe, the Joker’s comments are an astute observation on the worldview in Gotham, and in much of our world today: “You won’t kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness, and I won’t kill you because you’re just too much fun.” He hits the nail right on the head.
The Joker understands that our most generally accepted worldview – that of an ungoverned universe, with self-creating life – means that life is meaningless, that chaos and anarchy are only fair, and the Batman’s willingness to do everything but kill is also a random, meaningless, self-righteous choice (again, based on the logical living out of a worldview in which life in a cosmic accident, with God, and without eternal justice).
The Apostle Paul lays this out very clearly in 1 Corinthians 15:13b. “If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” The Joker makes the same point. If life only has the meaning that WE can invent for it, then to fight for “justice” as the Batman does is lunacy. If there is no resurrection to Judgment for eternal life or eternal punishment, the only sensible thing is to do whatever you find pleasure in. Life for fun, because there is nothing else, and in this worldview, there is no person, organization, or social structure which can reasonably tell you that anything you do is “wrong”.
Batman’s reply is somewhat limp. “…deep down not everyone is as ugly as you. (There is a whole city of people) willing to believe in good.” At this point, I have to ask Batman, why? Why believe in good? Why have rules? Without a Sovereign Ruler and Judge of all things, the Joker, not the Batman is living a consistent life.
In Gotham, or in a reality devoid of divine justice “the only sensible way to live… is without rules” – The Joker
Of course, the Joker is portrayed as insane, but it is actually true insanity to borrow from a Christian worldview, picking and choosing what you like in order to live with some social order, rather than to bow before the Creator and Judge of all things and live out the only worldview that can be lived out consistently.
ADDENDUM: The following is the greater context of the famous saying “God is Dead” from Friedrich Nietzsche, The Parable of the Madman (1882)
What the “Madman” is saying is what the “mad” Joker represents. To live in a world without God, without a Creator, and without a Judge, people must accept the severity of the consequences of this worldview:
“Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him — you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
“How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us — for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars — and yet they have done it themselves.
Taste and See 
Shoehorning is a nice hobby, but honestly I am surprised… Is the bible done already?
LikeLike
I’m not familiar with the term “shoehorning”, but no, the Bible is never done 🙂 Thank for commenting. If you have an argument to put forward in a civil manner, I’m happy to interact with you about it.
LikeLike
Ok, let’s be serious here for a moment. Unfortunately you have made a very classic mistake: You have not told anything about some topic, but only shown your own views on that topic. You have not said anything about atheism (I would guess, you cannot, since you don’t understand it), but only about your feelings torwards it.
You are, as many people, deluding yourself. You claim that somehow a religious worldview (which one of the millions?) is consistent, but you base that on some strange idea, that morality has to be more than a man-made construct. Ironically, you claim that we need a man-made construct – god – to give sense to another man-made construct – morality. No, we don’t. We only have to let go of the idea that it has to be absolute. You are putting inconsistent expectations to a human concept and then, when these illogical expectations fail, claim that this is the problem of the concept – and not the problem of your expectations. That’s like starving yourself to death because you will not find food that tastes ABSOLUTELY and PERFECTLY good. If that happens, it’s not the problem of the food – the food is good – but only your expectations.
So, you are trying to view things from an absolute point of view, from the point of view and act surprised that the human concept of morality makes no sense there. Of course it doesn’t. No food in the world will make sense to the universe itself. But that does not mean that it does not make any sense FOR HUMANS, for the same beings who invented the concept in the first place.
So, in the end, the only inconsistancy here is your attempt of using a non-existent, non-human, absolute point of view. You are free do to that, but you shouldn’t act surprised when people look at you like when you say “Nobody won this game, as none of them scored infinitely many goals.”.
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I’ll try not to bite off the whole comment at once. Let me at least give me some simple reactions and observations. First, you come out strongly against what you call the “absolute” – “We only have to let go of the idea that it has to be absolute.”
You’re own view on this is absolute. Perhaps that is inconsistent.
Second, let me see if I understand what you are saying here, and let me know if I’m being unfair to what you’re trying to say…
“So, you are trying to view things from an absolute point of view, from the point of view and act surprised that the human concept of morality makes no sense there. Of course it doesn’t… that does not mean that it (morality) does not make any sense FOR HUMANS, for the same beings who invented the concept in the first place.”
Are you saying that Humans invented morality? If so, how could anyone’s version of such an invention have any meaning, or be binding on anyone else? If my invented morality says its ok to lie and steal, how could anyone say I’m wrong? And if morality is just a social structure to make things run smoothly, then the concept of justice has to be jettisoned. Morality becomes what’s practical, not what’s right. I think you are trapped in circular logic here. You have to absolutely deny absolutes.
How far does that go then? Does 2+2=4? Does the law of Gravity work most of the time? Is it wrong to kill someone? Do you think it’s possible, there is some arbitrary nature to the position you’ve chosen?
Last week, I listened to an excellent talk on this very subject, given by a Christian apologist, who is formerly an atheist, and before that a Hindu – Ravi Zacharias. This is at a secular university campus. The talk is about 9 minutes long, if you start at the 1:15 mark.
It’s worth a listen. http://rzim.org/just-thinking-broadcasts/releasing-the-next-generation-part-2
Spoiler: When speaking on moral absolutism at Oxford University, he was approached after his talk by a student who disagreed with his position. Ravi posed this question: If I took a small child right now and chopped him into pieces on this stage would you say that I’ve done anything WRONG?
The student replied, “I would not LIKE it, but I could not say you have done anything wrong.”
How would you respond to that question any why? Thanks again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
on a briefer note on worldviews. I cannot empirically prove that God exists, and you cannot empirically prove that he doesn’t. So out of all the worldviews out there, I submit that only the Biblical worldview is the most consistent, and the most reasonable in explaining the world that we live in.
LikeLike
Christians like to use these words “consistent” and “reasonable” all the time. I doubt that the mean what you think it means. Hint: It is not “agree with my personal beliefs”.
LikeLike
Let me make this quite short… As the only alternative to human morality would be absolute morality, we can simply agree that we only have human morality. Everything else is bullshit, because if absolute morality exists, no one EVER has found any way to tell WHICH morality that is. Not even people from the same sect of some religion will agree on ALL things. So, if there IS an absolute morality, you simply are incapable of recognizing it. Oh, you can point at some completely random, human morality and call it absolute, but honestly, do who do you think you are tricking? Yourself? I doubt it. You already know the truth. Your morality is as human as anyone else’s. You just don’t have the courage to admit it. You need to hold on to the lie that YOUR morality is somehow special. You cannot prove that and millions of people think that of their, completely different, morality, too, but sure, YOU are of course right. Or simply in denial. Your choice.
Sorry, but to me you are just one random guy pointing to one random opinion and deluding himself to be at least as clever as some imagined god to have found said god’s one and true will.
(And this does not even include the ironic fact that basing morality on a divine being robs it of all meaning, making it completely useless.)
LikeLike
Will try to give a thoughtful answer when I have time. Would like to know your answers to my questions though.
And one more: how do you decide what’s right and wrong?
LikeLike
I thought that was clear by now, but ok, let me try again…
“Right” and “Wrong” are measurements. A measurement only makes sense if you have some sort of scale. And the scale for “right” and “wrong” is a moral system. Something is not right or wrong in itself, sorry, but only right and wrong according to a moral system. For example, according to some moral system, it is right to marry your daughter to her rapist, if he paid you money. Or, to the same moral system, it is right to beat slaves as long as the don’t die immediately, but only a few days later.
So, on it’s own this words have no meaning. You need a moral system to put them into context. “Right” in this context only means “adhering to this moral system” while “wrong” means “violation this moral system”.
So, your question is meaningless. What we want to ask is, how to CHOOSE a moral system. As I have already shown, the existence of an absolute moral system is not only dubious, but meaningless, since noone ever found a way to determine it. Religions try to claim absolute morality, almost like a reflex, but in truth religious morality also changes all the time – it just takes a little bit more time, but in the end, the moral values will have changed and people will justify it with passages from the same book that were used to justify something completely different only a few centuries before.
Of course that means that we must agree on a morality system, otherwise it would only be an opinion without any real value to anyone except the person holding it. And of course that is what happens, people agree on morality and then it sometimes gets codified. Or do you believe that people ran around, looting their neighbor’s houses empty until suddenly the bible appeared and all that stopped? Nonsense, that specific moral system was there already, because something like this is required to form a society, it only got codified and given another layer of justification by religion.
In history, moral systems mostly evolved. Some stuff worked and lead to stable societies, other stuff didn’t work and the societies died out. In the end we learned that killing our neighbor is bad because he has bigger value as a partner. Of course, people also started thinking about the whole system, trying to actually make arguments WHY something was a good idea or a bad idea.
And this is the best way of doing it for us. We do not need to “discover” morality under a rock. We need to define what we want from it, what this tool called morality should be used for. This will very likely include arguments from our human nature (evolved) but also practical arguments (a moral system that will lead to the destruction of civilization might be considered a little bit undesirable, for example).
What is NOT the best way of doing it is pointing to one random moral system, claim it to be absolute (which it isn’t, never) and feel smug about it. Because you only deluded yourself then.
LikeLike
Again. Will try to reply more time permitting.
Let me be clear on one thing: I have no desire to “win” a moral argument and I do not actually believe in a system but rather in a person. If Jesus is who he said he is that is really THE linchpin. He was either one of the worst liars in history, mad as a March hare, or God incarnate. Jesus offers us not a system, but himself. How you respond to him will determine where everything else falls into place.
Thanks for this dialogue. Still waiting for your answer to the Oxford question and the one from the end of my last reply. Have a great day!
LikeLike
No, you are wrong. Your dilemma is a false one. You have no clue what Jesus really said. You only have the words of people who didn’t even claim to be eyewitnesses, who copied and still contradicted each other in many parts – and even their words were only taken into the bible because people hundreds of years later decided that. And that doesn’t even take into account that we haven’t even agreed on a translation of said book.
So, no, Jesus could have been many things, not nearly only the two things you have to offer. Personally, if I had to guess, I would probably see him as a wandering preacher, who had the misfortune of getting a huge amount of mythology added to him after he couldn’t defend himself anymore.
And I already gave you the answer to the end of your reply. Don’t see a question with the other way and I don’t see any reason to discuss specific morality questions. Why should we, if we cannot even agree on what morality IS?
LikeLike
I think you’re rhetoric displays a lack of repeat for me but that’s no biggee. What does seem clear is that you picture me as a “smug” preacher who thinks he is above others improve more enlightened.
I can assure you that this is a false chatacatur if me in most respects.
Not sure how to put this but I don’t know how to have a conversation about truth with someone who sees it as an ever changing social utility than an absolute (though again your statement is absolute and seems to imply that you have all the answers)
Morality for moralitys sake is pointless. If can keep you out of jail but only the blood of Jesus can keep us out of hell. BTW he only takes the “bad” ones or at least those who know they are and who know they won’t have a leg to stand on if judged on their own merit.
I hope my tone has been kind and considerate and in no way condecending toward you. I’m a beggar simply telling other beggars where food is. If I can be helpful in that I’m at your service. If not for a more robust debate on the issues we have discussed I’d suggest checking out the links to Tim keller’s if Ravi Zacharias’s links at the top of my blog page.
Blessings
Andrew
LikeLike
Personally, I don’t care if you like me or think I am Hitler reincarnated, really. I don’t have any feelings torwards you, you are another human being with a different opinion, not enough to warrant any emotional investment. But let me ask something of you: Don’t go there. You didn’t answer any argument and now you are going into ad hominem by attacking me instead if my message. I really don’t care, if you need that to feel better, do it, I can handle it, but you should know that this does not support your position nor makes you look nice.
LikeLike
I have no thought of attacking you. I do think your reasoning is circular. What I intended to communicate was that you seem to be decrying absolutes in an absolute fashion.
In essence I don’t know how to have a conversation (and that’s on me) where it doesn’t seem we speak the same language.
I genuinely hope you find the truth or rather that He finds you. The resources I mentioned may be helpful.
As for me – this is not a cop out – my family is dealing with some serious health issues right now so I don’t think I’ll be blogging much for a while.
Blessings
Andrew
LikeLike
Respect. Not “repeat”. First sentence. It’s ok though. I can take that gladly so no offence.
LikeLike