This is your place to publicly comment on the topics and issues addressed in Speaking of Faith programs. React in a personal way, and put into words what the programs mean to you.

What films and programs do you watch that you consider spiritual in nature? Why do you like them?
Share Your Reflection

Mythopoetic Extension to Screened Media (August 2, 2004)
I enjoyed the show, even if I had several of the reservations about Ms. Tickle's generalizations and conclusions from intellectual history that another listener has shared on this page (I would like to see what she wrote on her index card defining the soul; I am almost hopeful it would be blank for fear of what she might have written).

I was disappointed that something of the obvious was pointed to but neglected, namely the root of screened entertainments being God-talk vehicles in the tradition of the same in English literature. Lewis and Tolkien made this the hall mark of their fantasy literature, i.e., "smuggling the Gospel," "baptizing the imagination," and "stealing past the Watchful dragons" of our modern secular faith via story echoing the Great Story — but in this they were only self-conscious throwbacks to the rule of English literature. Lewis in his 'Preface to Paradise Lost' explains that the principal function of literature is to "instruct while delighting" and most of the literary instruction from Chaucer to Tolkien is about God Talk or our lives in Christ. This may have come to the glass tube only as recently as Touched by an Angel, but it is the proper function of entertainments in even a post-Christian culture.

John Granger in his amazing Looking for God in Harry Potter (Tyndale, 2004) spells this out in some detail. He cites Mircea Eliade's The Sacred and the Profane for the understanding of the religious function of popular entertainments (Eliade discusses both film and novels) in a predominantly secular culture. Simply attending films or reading fantasy have a religious motive and effect common to homo religiosus' worship and diversions throughout history — and it is to be expected that the most popular films and books of our times will be the ones that layer this religious activity with implicit (Harry Potter) or explicit (Left Behind) religious meaning. [Granger's musings can be read online at www.HogwartsProfessor.com.]

The screened images explored at some length on the show, consequently, are little more than the overdue extension to screened images of the purpose and power of the greater part (qualitatively and quantitatively speaking) of English literature. Some mention of this, especially with respect to Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings, literature brought to the screen, would have made Eliade's point for your listeners. Entertainment per se, as much as it is diversion and distraction from an essentially naturalist or atheistic culture, is a religious activity engaging faculties of soul otherwise always left idle and atrophied.

Phil Autos
Tallahassee, FL (WMAH, 90.3 FM)

Why the New Stories Are More Relevant (August 2, 2004)
In the last part of the program, Ms. Schofield Clark spoke of the new stories (Buffy, Matrix, etc.) being more relevant to young people than the older, more traditional stories. I'm no longer a teenager and haven't been for some time. But I too find contemporary fiction to be more accessible than the traditional mythos of established faith systems.

After thinking about Ms. Schofield Clark's comments for some time, I realized that the reason for this is directly related to how traditional the older stories are. For example, I read a recent best-seller and enjoyed my private speculations on whether or not Jesus could have been married or had a female disciple. But I never broached that topic among my friends or family members, because some of them will almost certainly be extremely offended by that possibility. For many people who have structured their lives around the traditional stories there is no room to play with the concepts presented; often the stories are regarded as TRUTH rather than as METAPHOR. The discussion is over before it begins.

However, contemporary fantasy fiction is much more flexible and fluid. Great numbers of people have formed up role-playing and fan fiction groups, precisely for the purpose of experimenting with the possibilities. Very few people have attempted to base their lifestyle on the spiritual ideals of a Jedi Knight, so it's unlikely that I'll deeply offend someone through my experimentation on that topic. But through role-playing, discussion, and fan fiction those universal concepts of right and wrong, good and evil, are grappled with and internalized.

Amy Murphy
Burnsville, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Surprising (August 1, 2004)
I really enjoyed the show today, and I love the topic. I was just surprised that both of your guests use the pronoun "he" when talking about God. It seems like we are not paying attention to the importance of language today, certainly not as much as in the 80s. Do you have any thoughts on this? It is still GLARING to me.

Gina Peacock
Columbus, OH (WOSU, 820 AM)

Tickle's Illiteracy (August 1, 2004)
Your guest Phyllis Tickle is trying to comment on the intellectual evolution of our culture while lacking an informed basis on which to do so. For instance, she cites the butterfly effect as an example of "good quantum physics." But this effect has nothing to do with quantum physics with its uncertainty principle. It pertains to chaos theory, a mathematical system that demonstrates that systems can be ultimately unpredictable in spite of underlying determinism.

Her reference to Descartes appears equally ill-informed. She says his "I think, therefore I am" is an argument for the soul no longer found adequate; but while it's true he posited the soul's existence, so far as I've ever heard cogito ergo sum was only an argument for the self, saying nothing about that self's nature (i.e., soul vs. brain).

With today's culture as with Descartes, Tickle seems to be projecting her own assumptions in saying that after denying mystery, we're all "running away from it" and "living in fear." This was news to me!

In fact Descartes's contemporary Thomas Hobbes, who denied the existence of human souls, may be more relevant to recent changes in intellectual culture. While Cartesian dualism may have dominated much of 19th- and 20th-century thought — marked by an evasion of consciousness as an "unserious" subject — the most genuinely new thing in intellectual culture would seem to be the popularity of authors like Susan Blackmore and Daniel Dennett, who neither deny nor wallow in this mystery, but tackle it head on as something to be explained. Notably in Blackmore's case, rather than ridicule anomalous experience such as meditation or NDEs, she celebrates these and treats them as enriched, not diminished, by naturalistic explanation.

There's no denying that recent movies and TV shows reflect a renewed interest in these matters, but as usual Hollywood is a "lagging indicator." It's still easier to make movies like The Matrix that reproduce conventional dualism, but perhaps when the current young generation, interested in intellectual trends like transhumanism, start deciding what movies should be made, we'll see the full-bore rejection of Descartes truly reflected in popular culture.

Eric Hamell
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY, 91.1 FM)

God Is America (August 1, 2004)
EXCELLENT! I listen to your program each Sunday while getting ready for church, and often I wish I could be as articulate from the pulpit as your program is via this media. Week after week, you bring issues of faith to life in such powerful ways. Thank you.

Rev. Dr. John E. Harnish
Ann Arbor, MI (WUOM, 91.7 FM)