2010-02-02 06:43:38

THE PURPLE INTERVIEW: Faith, Hope, Science and Caprica

Filed under: Battlestar Galactica, Caprica, Fangland, Featured, Salman Hameed, Science, The Purple Interview
Posted by: John

by JOHN MARKS

Salman Hameed may be the ideal Battlestar Galactica fan. You might even call him the target demographic. He’s an astronomer who teaches classes at Hampshire College on the intersection between science and faith.

It’s a brave choice. Some in the scientific community have followed the rallying cry of poster-boy atheist Richard Dawkins and condemned colleagues who show any sympathy for the subject of religion, labeling them accommodationists. On the flipside, in the world of faith, a scientist who resolutely sticks to his principles on the subjects of biological evolution and geological time doesn’t win many points either.

In his efforts, Hameed doesn’t just try to span the divide in this country. Through his fascinating blog Irtiqa, he’s charting the distance between his own scientific community and the Muslim world. As he explains in this week’s Purple Interview, his attempt comes naturally. Born and reared in Pakistan, he has made his academic career in the United States, where his work has been featured in The New York Times.

Like many who come to Purple State of Mind, he inhabits more than one world. Also, like many, he’s an informed consumer of pop culture and has recently been watching the new series Caprica, the sequel to Battlestar Galactica, and as he tells us, it’s back into the vortex of religion and technology in the land of the cylons.

Q: First let’s talk Battlestar Galactica. You’ve just started a new on-line conversation about faith and science in the new follow-up series Caprica. BG was big into the intersection between the gods and the machines. Can you talk about the appeal of the show for you?

SH: I think Battle Star Galactica (BSG) did a wonderful job of tackling and highlighting our anxieties in a post-9/11 world. It starts-off with a massive attack by Cylons (robots created and exploited by humans), that takes humanity to the brink of extinction. At a time when films and television shows were having difficulty addressing sensitive topics, such as suicide bombings, torture, and civil liberties, BSG not only used this fictional premise to open this discussion, but also often placed its viewers in opposition to their conventions. In addition, I appreciated the complexity afforded to the characters: none were portrayed as completely good or bad – they were simply humans (sometimes, this was true even for the Cylons).

Q:How about Caprica? You’ve seen the pilot. Does it take these themes even further?

SH: Caprica is a prequel to BSG, set 58 years before the Cylon attack. Amongst other things, it recounts the story of the creation and the subsequent treatment of synthetic beings. If BSG was about the survival instincts of humans (both good and bad), then Caprica is about what makes us human in the first place. This is especially pertinent today when it is becoming easier and easier to have artificial limbs and organs. Caprica allows us to explore the intersection of natural & artificial, and examine ethical questions associated with it (both for the rights of humans and for these artificial beings). In addition, Caprica looks at monotheism as a religious anomaly in a polytheistic society. From BSG, we know that the Cylons will take up monotheism as their religion and their cause – but I’m really looking forward to how they address evolution of religions.

Q:In general, do you feel like pop culture does justice to these huge and complicated questions about science and religious faith? Or is Battlestar Galactica more the exception than the rule?

SH: It depends. If we go by the standard of Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons, then no, pop-culture is not doing justice to these issues. However, we also have movies like 2001, Solaris, and Contact that bring nuance to this topic (If any directors are reading this, please, please, use stories by Arthur C. Clarke as your potential source material). I think BSG is part of the revival of complexity in television, in general. Like The Sopranos and Mad Men, BSG used the long-serial format to develop complex characters and explore social, cultural and political issues of the time. Hope to see more such serials follow this path.

Q:You yourself are something of an anomaly, at least on the surface. You’re an astronomer and yet you’re also an assistant professor of Integrated Science and Humanities, which means your brief is larger, encompassing two world that often seem to be at odds in our national conversation: science and religion. How do you walk that line?

SH: I think this may have something to do with the fact that I’m trained as a scientist (astronomer), but I grew up in a highly religious society (Pakistan), and was always fascinated with history. Over the period of time I have been fortunate enough to bring together these different strands into my professional work. As far as the perception of an inherent conflict between science & religion, it depends on what aspect of religion are we talking about. If a religion makes a claim that the Earth is 10,000 years old, or that humans have no link to other species on the planet, then yes, there is a conflict. On the other hand if a religion provides a social structure to the society, perhaps meaning to one’s life, and leaves physical explanations to science alone, then there is no clash. I don’t want to play down the complexity of debates about science & religion nor do I want to brush aside serious philosophical challenges brought about by scientific progress through the ages and the respective religious responses. However, instead of blanket statements of “conflict” or “harmony, it would be nice if the discourse is over the details of individual cases.

Q:Your blog is a place where the various strands of your work come together. Do you ever come under fire from either the scientific side for being too generous to religion or the religious side for being too materialist?

SH: Sure, it is impossible to satisfy all audiences at all times. But I think more than scientists versus non-scientists, I find the biggest audience difference between those readers from the West and those from the Muslim world. For example, I’m keenly aware of the sensibilities of the Muslim audience when dealing with the history of early Islam or even with the archaeological finds with respect to Biblical prophets that are also revered in the Muslim world. This does not mean that I don’t post about these issues, but I definitely modify my tone with the Muslim audience in mind. In fact, one of the goals of my blog is to engage with the audiences in the Muslim world on the subject of science & religion.

Q:Your current field of inquiry is the subject of creationism in the Islamic world. Most people have heard about the creationist controversies here. How is the subject viewed by Muslims?

SH: Biological evolution is still a relatively new subject of discussion for the Muslim world. The news coverage here in the US often focuses on solely on Islamic creationism in Turkey – but this is a highly skewed view. In reality, the reaction is quite diverse. The limited studies that have taken place reveal, perhaps not surprisingly, a complex picture. For example, many Muslims accept evolution by finding its support in the Qur’an. Some justify the acceptance by citing the writings of some medieval Muslim scholars that speculated on the possibility of change of species. We have places like Iran, where work is progressing on evolutionary based stem cells research. Similarly, evolution is taught as a fact of science in high school textbooks of several Muslim countries, including Pakistan. Though, human evolution is often excluded. At the same time, I do not want to give the impression that all Muslims accept biological evolution. In fact, perhaps a sizeable majority may reject some form of evolution. It is, however, fair to say that a serious engagement with the topic is yet to take place in the Islamic world. We are only beginning to appreciate the complex range of responses to biological evolution in the Muslim world. Hopefully I will be able to provide you with a better answer in a couple of years.

Q:You’ve spoken in the Muslim world about Creationism. In fact, you were were recently in Pakistan, talking about the subject. How do your audiences respond?

SH: I have actually given talks directly on biological evolution and also on the question of origins. My talks, however, are at universities or at coffee shops, and the audience is usually highly educated. Overall, the response has been quite positive and I absolutely love giving these talks in Pakistan. At the same time, it is not that unusual to have couple of people in the audience somewhat upset by the topic. I have no problem with this as long as the conversation remains civil. It is okay to disagree as long as the conversation does not come to a halt.

Q:Given the stakes in your debate—the question of whether god created the world or whether it was a purely natural development or both–do you ever worry that you’ll anger the wrong person and get into hot water in Islamist circles?

SH: Yes! This is a very tricky issue and I try to weigh my words carefully. In all honesty, I do take a look at the audience before the talk and try to gauge them on their liberal or conservative bend. I don’t change my talk based on this, but I may end up modifying some words based on the audience. However, I should mention that I have not yet given any talks in madrassas or at any religious educational institute (I have not been invited there). I don’t know what reaction I will get there.

Q:Your work in general addresses the intersection between the world of the sacred and the world of science and technology. A lot of people believe these two worlds are mutually exclusive. Others have described them as “overlapping magisteria”. How do you see it?

SH: I think it depends on the specific details. There are many aspects of the world of the sacred and the world of science & technology that have no overlap. For example, science may answer the “how” questions, whereas, religion may provide the answers to the “why” questions. At the same time, there are areas where both sacred and science vie for competing explanations – and thus end up overlapping and often in conflict. In addition, there are areas that start off separately but then end up overlapping with time – predominantly because of scientific and technological advances. For example, the origin of the Earth (and the Solar System) was once considered a problem beyond the limits of science. Not so anymore. Similarly, the origin of religious beliefs and religions is in itself a growing area of research, drawing from the fields of archaeology, anthropology, history, and cognitive science.

Q:You’re currently working on a project with historian Tracy Leavelle about reconciliation efforts between astronomers and Native Hawaiians about telescopes on the top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii. What’s the issue? And how are reconciliation efforts progressing?

SH: Mauna Kea, located at 14,000 foot on the Big Island of Hawaii, is one of the world’s best observatory site and hosts some of the largest telescopes in the world. However, the mountain is also sacred to Native Hawaiians, whose cosmology and origin mythology are intimately linked to the top of the mountain, and many oppose the presence of telescopes on their temple. In addition, some environmental groups oppose the telescopes as the summit plays the sole host to Wekiu bug – a candidate for endangered species list. These are complex issues and some of these groups have been involved in difficult negotiations. Here is a case, where non-overlapping magestaria is simply not an option: The telescopes are there to stay and the sacredness of the temple is not going to decrease for the native Hawaiians. Therefore, compromises have to be made (though some have taken a legal recourse). Unfortunately, because of the power-dynamic and a recent colonial history, much of the compromises have to be made by native Hawaiians. Nevertheless, there has been a significant improvement in the tone of negotiations over the past 10 years and I hope this trend continues.

Q:Your blog is called Irtiqa, which is Urdu for “evolution”. Yet you’re not using that term in the strict Darwinian sense. Tell us more.

SH: Irtiqa is an Urdu word that literally means evolution. However, it does not only mean biological evolution, but its usage can also imply evolution of the universe, as well as the development of individuals and of the society as a whole. As can be expected, this has caused confusion in debates over biological evolution. On the positive side, I found this name well-suited for a blog on science & religion.

Q:Finally, let’s talk about Avatar for a moment. You’re not a great fan of the movie, but in at least one sense it took on your territory, this nexus between gods and the natural world. As the movie’s scientist, Grace, tells us, the trees aren’t just sacred, they are also a natural global network. In the movie, these lines sound a little bit like a Verizon commercial, but at least Cameron tried. What did you make of his effort to deal with Irtiqa?

SH: Okay, well let me first clarify about Avatar. I think it’s a beautiful film. However, I went to see it with some expectations regarding its story. After all, I thought, if Cameron is spending $300 million, surely, he will also spend some effort on the story itself. Now Cameron is not known for his stories, but he did fine with the second Alien, and also with Terminator 2. I ended up being thoroughly disappointed by Avatar (I even watched it in IMAX 3-D). However, I plan to see it again in theaters with my severely depreciated expectations of the plot, and hopefully I will appreciate Cameron’s technical craft a bit more.

That said, I think Cameron should definitely be commended for his efforts to bring ecological issues to the forefront. Indeed, environmental issues provide a natural place for collaboration between science and religion. Carl Sagan, towards the later part of his life, found a common cause with religion in fighting to preserve the environment. Similarly, E.O.Wilson has been collaborating with Evangelical groups in the US to make protection of the environment, a moral issue. Therefore, Cameron’s Gaia-like concept, despite the hokey dialogue, may end up influencing audiences all over the world. If only he can now find a good screenwriter…

Comments (1)

2009-03-24 16:33:51

BLUE VELVET IN A PURPLE STATE, OR WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE TALKED IN ABILENE

Filed under: 2001:A Space Odyssey, Battlestar Galactica, Books, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Craig Detweiler, David Lynch, Davidson College, Doug Wright, Faith, Fangland, Jesus Christ, John Marks, Journalism, Reasons To Believe, Roberto Bolano, Sex, Television, The Dark Knight, The Wire, Theater, Vampires, Watchmen, purple state roadshow
Posted by: John

“It’s a strange world, Sandy.”

These immortal lines from the David Lynch film Blue Velvet have been ringing in my ears ever since we started to talk to the students and faculty at Abilene Christian University; not because the students and faculty are strange, but because it’s strange to find myself praising David Lynch, reading passages from the Chilean writer Roberto Bolano and uttering the words “prostitute’s vagina” in front of an audience of receptive Christians.

How did we get here?

The first answer, of course, is the documentary. Purple State of Mind made an impression on our host, English professor and novelist Al Haley, and after spending time with Al, I realize what a compliment that is. He felt that students and faculty at Abilene Christian, which is affiliated with the Church of Christ denomination, might benefit from a dose of Detweiler’s Blues, as I like to think of our project, and the school flew us out for a two-day visit.

In the meantime, several other departments set up related events and speaking opportunities. We started in chapel, which might seem an odd place to launch a discussion of fairly transgressive independent American cinema. Yesterday morning, it happened. Craig and I showed clips of favorite movies to the audience. To our amazement, we had a packed house.

I opened the chapel discussion with a five minute clip from Blue Velvet, followed by my explanation of why I revere the movie and how it reflects my aesthetics. Craig closed with a minute or two of Jesus’ Son, a movie based on the Denis Johnson novel of the same name, after discussing his faith-based aesthetics.

We spoke as well about our disagreement over current movies: The Dark Knight and Watchmen. Craig called the Batman movie an account of our own depravity, and I agreed with him—except that I located our depravity in an insatiable necrophilia expressed in the desire of millions to watch the late Heath Ledger play his own reanimated corpse.

That was the beginning of hours of conversation. We followed chapel with an appearance before members of faculty, discussing the Purple State idea, its chances for failure or success. After that, back to the students, we addressed the question of what defines a Christian artist, and we ended the strictly academic portion of the day with a discussion of gender and identity issues.

Craig talked about a gay friend and writing partner in the movie business, and I told the story of my connection to Doug Wright’s Pulitzer-prize-winning play I Am My Own Wife.

I’m not kidding when I say the screening of the documentary felt like a breather, which isn’t usually the case. In every conversation, students and faculty seemed genuinely eager to engage with our project and at every level. After the documentary, the audience stuck around for an hour of questions.

One woman told me that her patience came from God and asked me where I got the patience to deal with someone as evasive as Craig. I thanked her for feeling my pain.

Another student asked Craig why he didn’t give me the straight answer when I asked if he thought I was going to hell. I told her that we had been surrounded by Christians during the conversation, and they had urged him to do the same. Craig told her to take her best shot at me and see what happened.

Another student, a blogger named Joshua, asked if there might be any way for a Christian to approach me on the subject of Jesus without giving offense. He specifically mentioned the moment in the movie where I tell Craig it offends me if he thinks I’m going to eat beans with the devil for all eternity. I told him he shouldn’t worry about giving me offense, but should come to the task with all of the seriousness it merits. Too many times Christians seem to feel that it’s okay to pose silly, reductive and complacent questions about faith to people who’ve actually given serious thought to such questions. I also warned him to be sure about his own beliefs before he takes a pass at mine.

Today offered another smorgasbord of conversation, and I thought to myself: What a pleasure it is to talk to people about their belief systems. Nothing is off limits. I get a natural high from it.

This afternoon, for instance, we spoke to a few dozen Christian art students about the boundaries that may exist for Christians in their depictions of sex, violence and sacred images. Worrying about those boundaries is a dead end for any artist, I believe, and so I tried to provide a counterpoint to Craig, who insisted on pointing out the difference between sacred and profane art. To me, they are the two indispensable elements in all great art.

Sacred art without a lot of profane influence dies before the eyes. Profane art that doesn’t reach for some sacred point kills the joint. Or something like that. Craig and I probably disagree more vehemently about art than anything else. It’s the place where our differences become most apparent, and yet at the same time I see common touchstones. It’s a divide in sensibility, but a few last bridges have yet to be blown.

I talked about Fangland and confessed to a novelistic indiscretion: I wrote about a woman using her sexuality to fend off evil from the point of view of the woman. There was a slight gasp at that revelation, or maybe I’m imagining things.

I brought up the notorious painting The Origin of the World by Gustave Courbet, and spoke about this realistic depiction of a prostitute’s vagina as a spectacular example of the blurry—and in this case bushy—line that exists between pornography and art.

Finally, I read a passage from The Savage Detectives in which a man and a woman, having just made love, talk about the Marquis de Sade. The woman asks the man whether de Sade’s plays were pornographic. No, he replies, they’re philosophical, with some sex. I love that.

Did people seem uncomfortable? Maybe a little. Did they stay in their seats and ask questions and engage fully in a response to what we discussed. They did. They listened avidly to both of us, and once again I experienced that high of talking about the most important things with people who have an investment in the conversation.

One student, a Latina, asked about the risks of making art that reflected reality and yet somehow encouraged or supported the worst aspects of that reality.

I quoted Bolano from The Savage Detectives, where someone says that “art isn’t innocent”, and suggested that as an artist, she might not be able to both make good art and stand at a safe enough distance to be spared its consequences. Craig encouraged her to bring her artistic voice to bear on reality, at whatever cost.

That session was probably my favorite. I don’t honestly know what value we bring to these students, but I will certainly leave Abilene with a sense of the value these conversations have had for me.

Comments (3)

2009-03-23 08:44:00

BATTLESTAR GOD-TASTICA

Filed under: Battlestar Galactica, Television
Posted by: John

I came late to the show, urged on by that indefatigable finder and lover of great television, Jim Hynes, but I watched the final two-hour episode of the series and wept as if I’d been a fanatical follower from the first. I think I’ll miss Kara Thrace most of all, the emotional heart of the show, its starfighting Buffy.

Every viewer has his or her own trajectory with a show. Having dismissed the original series as a Star Wars rip-off, I had no hope that the new show would improve on the material. Having tried and failed to start watching the new show in the middle of season two, I felt vindicated in my original bias. Only when I decided to go full bore and impulse-buy the DVD of the pilot and first season did I finally catch the bug.

Battlestar Galactica worked best when it stayed close to the spirit and urgency of that original pilot, which depicted the annihilation of the human race by robots known as Cyclons. As the show’s opening prevoew reminded us every week, the Cylons “had a plan”. The claustrophobia in the colony of survivors always made me think of a petient trapped in some interstellar ICU, trying to survive a sudden and aggressive bout of pancreatic cancer. The Cylons started out as the disease and then became the cure.

Cylons, rather than people, brought the question of god into the heart of the drama. What is religious belief? Is it the default mode of desperate humans or ambitious machines? By the end of the show’s run, the notion of divine intervention wasn’t academic. In some ways, it defined the difference between this series and everything else on TV. Not only did it take religion seriously. It made it sexy. Just ask Six.

I don’t want to give away too much, but the creators of the show digressed too much for my taste in the middle two seasons, but brought the show right back home in the last one. The episodes about the attempted coup highlighted the depth and passion of the political themes in the show. The abandonment of Galacatica itself was a superb metaphor for a kind of collective death, the surrender of one identity in order to find a new one. But the final hour of the last show crystallized everything and gave each of the major characters a last chance to shine. For my money, the last hour has to be one of the great hours in televised drama.

Comments (4)