Vatican cautions against pantheism on Pandora

That bit by Southan in his letter to Ebert.com is truly wonderful. So thanks for the heads-up.

I think you absolutely correct in saying that it is threatening to a sort of Gouldian view of non-overlapping magesteria that the Vatican seems to heartily embrace. By assimilating the Navi spiritual into the material and scientific, there does appear to be this threatening aspect.

However, since I wouldn't take Cameron as sophisticated to have intended what Southan (most incisively) observes, I feel equally distant to extending that benefit of doubt to the Vatican. They are responding to paganism.

Jim, you are a godsend.

You have located the root of all artistic problems with this film when stacked against "Solaris", "Baraka", "The New World"... Those movies don't just make it look inferior, they expose its thinking as childishly simplistic. It's not that the Na'vi have these religious beliefs that offend me or I find illogical. It's just how disappointingly boring that is for a resolution... and that the movie never found a metaphysical way for me to connect with it. It didn't even strike me as visceral when compared to, say, Kathryn Bigelow (and James Cameron's) "Strange Days". Compare the opening scene fall of "SD" (or the skydive in "Point Break" for that matter) to the waterfall (run from the thing trying to eat me) plummet in "Avatar", one drastically effects in the way the other cannot.

My youngest, teenage brother (who loved "Avatar") today after watching "The Hurt Locker": "What it has that Avatar doesn't, is you actually feel the suspense. You actually feel like you're there." The difference can be felt by just about anybody.

One other thing... The Na'vi, in visual design and as a collective character, appear to me as not-so-distant cousins of the "Toy Story" aliens.

Jim, Thanks for this roundup.

Southan's words make so much sense. But then, didn't the Na'vis have a worshiping ritual too, in the film? Or was that a mere act of "science" to make things work? Anyway, this angle makes the discussion more interesting. Cameron's new world might just be one where 'religion', for once, goes hand in hand with fact/science.

Sort of reminds me about the rhetoric in The Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy:

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. "The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' "'But,' says Man, 'The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. "'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."

Cheers!

If the Vatican feels threatened by "Avatar", they have a bigger ego problem than James Cameron.

The Vatican (and Catholicism) exist solely (or, when they're doing their jobs properly, solely) to protect and propagate the Pauline notion of personal immortality through Jesus Christ. That people consider the Vatican people sinister has mostly to do, I think, with people misunderstanding their purpose. They have that one thing to do, and they will do it at any cost. And they're right to do it. There is no world like Cameron depicts, and no people like he depicts, who can lead wholly fulfilling lives and build great cultures without any notion of living forever, or of a God who makes it possible. A materialist world in which there is no deity and one 'lives forever' only in the sense that his (not even 'his' - merely, 'those that once got together to form him') atoms never cease to exist in the universe, is no comfort to any affectively intelligent human being. There's nothing in it to inspire men or to give men hope.

Is it beneath the Vatican to argue against individual popular movies in performing this duty? No; if that's what men are looking at, if that's what they're heeding, if that's what's influencing them, then that's what the Catholic Church has got to deal with. If the secularists don't like it, tough. The world they posit is sterile, and if it's true, that's all the more reason to deny it. This is a war that if the materialists finally win it beyond any doubt, their descendants will wish they hadn't. Everyone in developed countries has been feeling for hundreds of years already what pains they're in for if this materialism wins out.

I expect a bunch of replies in direct disagreement (if indeed anyone replies to this), because those are the people who read your blog, and those are modern people generally. But if they look in their hearts and are honest with themselves and others, they'll know I'm right. What meaning could your life possibly have if you were going to soon (very soon, in the grand scheme of things) be annihilated forever? Why do anything? Why NOT do any particular thing? It's completely illogical! It isn't rational. Yet while acting so irrationally, the materialists use reason (so-called) as a shield against such salutary, contra-rational beliefs as eternal life, God, and all the rest. The triumph of Catholicism is that even the self-professed materialists, the implication of whose worldview is that there is no compelling reason to be moral, espouse morality. And then they foolishly argue it's not religious and needs nothing spiritual to justify it. Which besides being logically wrong, is disingenuous, in that without religion having been there to begin with, there would not have been a readymade morality there for the humanists to adopt.

I kinda expected many people reacted to this Avatar phenomenon from many angles. It's like "Hey, we gotta say something about Avatar! What is it that they haven't commented on? ooh I know! Religion!"

I remember when early Harry Potter movies were out, some religious bodies criticized them as being anti-Christian. Or in a more recent example, the movie "2012" provoked the anger of Islamic clerics in my country (Indonesia)because of the movie's depiction of judgment day. These argument seem reasonable because the elements of those movies are intended to be controversial' like Da Vinci Code.

But to discuss Avatar in religion's point of view? That's rather far-fetched, isn't it? This movie is more at home in an ecological discussion about Pandora forest life, or maybe in astronomy club about the solar system in which the Pandora moon orbits the big, Jupiter-like planet. Frankly, I can't wait for the Avatar's DVD feature about this aspect.

But if I must comment about Na'vi's belief, I wonder why they ONLY worship the Tree of the Spirit. Why not worshipping the big blue planet overwhelming the sky? Early civilizations on Earth prayed to the Sun. Why do Na'vi ignore this? They don't mention it in their chants or mantra, that's for sure.

It's all in your point of view. I'm not religious, and haven't been since my dad dropped dead when I was a kid. (Before that I vaguely believed in a god because my parents did.) I highly doubt there's any afterlife, and suspect there is no higher purpose to anything I do.

Since that gives me no reason to be alive, and I'm not suicidal, I've decided I'm going to devote whatever time and ability I have on this earth to leaving the human race better off, by however little, before I'm dead. In other words, you don't have to have faith or a religion, a goal or purpose will do.

So now that we give the religious a sincere interpretation of what they've been preaching they now don't like it. Because they want something that defies them after all. I think a cosmic black hole is what Mr. Lombardi is looking for, not God.

Someone is going to have to remind why the Vatican's opinion on anything is any particular importance. I suspect you wouldn't need that many hands to count the number of Catholics in North America, for instance, whose first thought upon hearing about Avatar was "Geez, I wonder if the Pope would approve."

That video seems to confirm a suspicion I had, that I would much rather see a documentary on the biology of Pandora and the evolution of the planet's collective consciousness. To paraphrase, "Yes, it has a soul, but it's made of lots of tinier souls, which are made of lots of tiny robots."

So, I took the day off to have my car inspection. Unfortunately, it was finished early and Avatar wormed its way into my thoughts. Primarily out of curiosity, and against my better judgement, I paid 10 dollars to see the perpetrator. That was the longest Skittles commercial I've ever seen. All the rumors are true and this is a train wreck of epic proportions. One interesting phenomenon, as I left the theater, after seeing two and a half hours of fluorescent blues, greens, purples and pinks, seeing the brown, leafless trees of Pennsylvania in January, the grey clouds, and a mild yellow sun peeking through made me appreciate the real environment I live in. I felt like I had just injested too much cotton candy and was glad to have a burger and beer.

Jim, I can't say I'm on board with the conclusions about pantheism in your post. The problems is the the term "pantheism" seems to have been broadened (by others, not you just you) to include more than it really should. Pantheism is decidedly literal: the universe exists and I and everything around me is a part of it. This is acknowledgment of what can literally be seen and studied rather than an interpretation based on spirituality (e.g, humans are made from the same elements as the stars--as is everything else on Earth--therefore we are all part of the universe). Pantheism has far less to do with worship than it does acknowledgment (we can call it "reverence" for the universe, but it's still more on the "admiration" side of the definition than it is the "worship"). So, Southan's letter doesn't actually argue that the film is "less pantheistic than simply a portrait of a world in which faith is irrelevant." Instead, he notes that the Na'vi do not share the same spirituality as the Native Americans. He's right, but by saying so he is describing the pantheistic quialities of the Na'vi.

Native Americans were not actually pantheists. Their spirituality is more polytheism than pantheism. When Southan describes the Na'vi as not "creatively interpreting their world," instead concluding that "they are merely acknowledging the obvious" and noting that they don't have "to take a leap of faith," he is acknowledging their pantheistic qualities (whether he thinks so or not--he never actually uses the term). The world of Pandora is a very literal interpretation of the pantheistic viewpoint. If there is an argument to be made for the Na'vi not being pantheists it is found in the "Tree of Voices," the one element (that I can remember) where they take on the spirituality of Native Americans. In pantheism, dead is dead other than the fact that your bodily matter continues on as part of the universe.

Personally, I don't like to use the term "God" at all when trying to describe my "religious" views to others (though some do because it makes pantheism sound less like atheism, allowing pantheism a word or two before being dismissed). The term "God in nature" gives the wrong impression because people see God as a personified entity that has some degree of control or vision for humankind. In pantheism, "God" isn't in nature at all because God does not exist in the literal sense. Instead, the (indifferent) universe exists and nature is simply what we call the earth-bound, non-human, element of it.

The letter is dead on about the Na'vi being rationalists and materialists (with what's "material" on Pandora extending to something further and less tangible than on Earth).

But I doubt that's the Vatican's thinking, or James Cameron's thinking. Cameron likely sees the respect and worship of nature as something appealing, and to be imitated (less drastically?) here and now; the Vatican is skeptical of such thinking. Rightly skeptical, maybe, but enough to make a public statement? Weird.

I appreciate this post for no better reason than it is a slow news day and and this gave me inspiration to write my own blog post. Please feel free to check it out here:

http://mikesyoutalkingtome.blogspot.com/2010/01/avatar-backlash-continued.html

In my opinion Southan gets it all wrong.

" . . . the existence of a benevolent higher power are all impossible to miss."

Okay, I don't believe a benevolent higher power was alluded to in Avatar. Southan takes Native American magic/mythic dogma (ruler in the sky who punishes and rewards stuff) and assumes that Cameron's Na'vi must be possessed of a likewise dogma. It's a mistake, I believe, to treat the Na'vi as a direct-in-all-facets stand-in for Native Americans. Sure, Cameron is working some of this territory, but in other ways he seems to be looking forward, not backward.

" . . . every single one of their convictions are borne of physical facts."

Way wrong. The Na'vi phrase "I see you" (one of their strongest convictions) has no physical relevance really, as the thing that they claim to see can't really be seen at all. It can only be felt. The phrase alludes to a sort of relational transparency that extends beyond the physical realm. Thought that was pretty clear, so to speak.

"The Na'vi are strict rationalists."

Here, it seems Southan superimposes his own rationalist ideas on top of the Na'vi. It would be impossible, in my mind anyway, for the Na'vi to be rationalist w/o the word "rationalist" losing all meaning. Reason and rationalism came about with the emergence of the mapping and measuring tools of science. Didn't see any such tools on Pandora.

Though this and Southan's article nail the point concerning the absence of spirituality among the Navi, it seems that Southan and everyone else are romanticizing the culture of most Native American Tribes, though respectfully. The Natives were more masters of nature than they were worshipers. They slashed-and-burned, hunted animals to near extinction and fought violently amongst other tribes. The French and British did not defeat them, they helped them defeat each other. See http://www.tanakiwin.com/history.htm. They were a very clever people, often making fun of the Christians attempt to convert them. They traded with both the French and British frequently and smartly, most of the time. To compare the Navi to the Natives is like comparing Crocodile Dundee to Australians, flattering but inaccurate.

Keep up the excellent work Jim!

The power of your post assumes that all people fear being 'annihilated forever'. I do not fear death. As a rational person, I accept death as part of life, and therefore I do not think about it nor do I fear it. Oddly enough, only religious people who believe in an afterlife fear death. Very strange, indeed.
I have looked into my heart and I do not agree with you.
Yes, there are 'true' beliefs outside of religion.
Mikhel

Since that gives me no reason to be alive, and I'm not suicidal, I've decided I'm going to devote whatever time and ability I have on this earth to leaving the human race better off, by however little, before I'm dead. In other words, you don't have to have faith or a religion, a goal or purpose will do.

KWJ, this is fine. Nowhere in your post do you claim to be a rationalist, or that you don't believe in God for a rationalist's reasons. There is still some impulse there, though, from you know not whither, leading you to want to do good. I leave it at that. Believe what you will; if you act as a good Christian would act, there's no practical difference for the world - the only difference is in how you, yourself, take it.

The power of your post assumes that all people fear being 'annihilated forever'. I do not fear death. As a rational person, I accept death as part of life, and therefore I do not think about it nor do I fear it. Oddly enough, only religious people who believe in an afterlife fear death. Very strange, indeed.

It's very strange because it's nonsense. That may be one of the sillier sweeping statements I've ever read, that only people who believe in afterlife fear death. For a rational person, that's not a very rational claim. People who TRULY believe in an afterlife - being rational now - would be highly unlikely to fear death any more than the average, if at all. If you find someone who claims to believe in an afterlife, fearing death terribly, then that's proof the claim isn't true, and that's not what the person believes. This is me being rational. Further, as a rational person, who admits that rationally he has to suspect he will utterly cease to exist once he dies, and that there is no God, and that a human life has no particular purpose beyond procreation (and all procreation has no ultimate purpose, either) - well, as that sort of person, surely you're a Nihilist, right?

But I bet you aren't. That's the funny thing about rationalists (and here I'll give a less silly statement, but just as sweeping as yours) - they are VERY rational when it comes to killing Gods and religions and the afterlife - but get them home after doing all that rational disillusioning, and they abandon rationalism altogether. They form worldviews, moralities, ways of continuing to be in the world, ways of taking the world, that, knowing what they claim to know, are incredibly irrational. Nihilism or suicide. Anything else - humanism, pantheism, atheism, existentialism, all of it is irrational given the claims of the rationalists. But you all keep on living and trying to find compelling reasons to live (or rather you live from habit and due to simple biology, and then try to justify it to yourself after the fact). You spend your time trying to counterfeit the hard-won natural products of religion, without the religion, and frankly you all do a pretty poor job of it. Humanism is aptly named in that it's humans trying to fill in for Gods. And what kind of job do you think they'd do?

There is an old science fiction novel (Forgive me: I cannot recall name or author at the moment) that takes up such issues. In brief: a planet is discovered in which the resident alien race is logical, benevolent, and at harmony with themselves and nature. They are also atheists. A visiting Catholic priest is at first taken with them, but finally is disturbed: namely, that they seem to have arrived at a state of grace without having suffered original sin, and without believing in any kind of divinity. Now, it has been sometime since I have read the novel (and I do not have the firmest grasp on catholicism) but if I remember correctly the Priest's conclusion was that the aliens had been created by the Devil to present Mankind with a vision of a peaceful, happy way of life existing without God - thus they would act as a temptation for people to abandon God and become atheistic.
Although the issue is not taken up in the film, it is a curious one to ponder - how would an alien race be dealt with by religious dogma? What kind of challenge would it present to a religious culture? The book (title, anyone? Anyone?) was a very interesting read...I wonder if there is a film in it.

Who cares what the Catholic Church says about it? Their metaphysics, political ideology and views on nature are rotten to the core. Cameron may have a simplistic pantheist/animist viewpoint, but it's not like the fantasy the Vatican subscribes to is any less simplistic, reductive or childish. I find the very idea that God created the world and designated man to safeguard it offensive. It's intellectually indefensible, both unscientific and stupidly anthropocentric. The fact they feel the need to attack a harmless 70s style "save the earth" parable reveals their insecurity concerning their own bloated medieval doctrine.

You can attack Cameron for being wrong without dredging up an equally groundless worldview. Original sin and dominion over nature are some of the worst ideas man ever came up with.

At least the Catholics believe in evolution. I'll give them that. :)

I don't mind pantheism...What the Vatican really needs to caution about is filmmakers making unoriginal pieces of "work" that recycle not only "Dances With Wolves" and "Fern Gully," but steal the floating landmasses of "The Mysterious Geographic Explorations of Jasper Morello."

Jim,

Sorry to depart from the topic of this blog but I am really wanting to know when we will see some more additions to the opening shots project!

I love the phrase used earlier,
"...if it's true, that's all the more reason to deny it."
A wonderfully pure expression of religious thinking.

Anyway, if I believed in an omniscient, omnipotent God, I could believe that He could have created Pandora on a completely different basis then He created Earth, and I could imagine that beliefs that were incorrect on Earth would be correct on Pandora, and vice versa.
I'm also thinking of C.S. Lewis's novels OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET and PERELANDRA - same Creator, different worlds, different results.

That letter to Ebert was enlightening, I completely missed that point about the Na'vi when I saw the film. At it's heart, I think Avatar is nothing more than an expression of longing by Cameron for what the world used to be. Cameron has declared himself as a "tree-hugger" (I've never liked that term, it gives a negative conotation to those who live to protect nature, and what's so wrong with that?), and knowing that fact, I think the film's message is pretty simple. Cameron believes we have ruined the planet, has made a quite entertaining picture (at least I thought so) to pull people in, and put in his own message of environmentalism in for good measure. It is ironic that Cameron, a billionaire who probably owns multiple estates and uses far more resources than is necessary for a single person, is delivering this message to the average consumer, who lives far more modestly, but I guess that's why human beings are often described as being contradictory in nature.

But let's face it, we have ruined this planet in endless ways, and I believe that someday we will pay the price for that, if we aren't already. I have a problem with those who criticize the film for preaching the virtues of nature while condemning the way in which Cameron portrays humanity. I say humanity because I think the film is more about the faults of humanity than it is about the faults of the "white man".
Does Cameron paint humanity in a stereotypical light? Sure, of course most people aren't as vulgar or as heartless as the general in the film. But on the whole as a species, we share many qualities with the general. Throughout our history, we have often taken what we wanted without asking, not caring what we destroy in the process. We have stripped this planet of much of its natural beauty for our own benefit, and most of us continue to lead a comfortable life, usually not thinking of the harm being done to our planet for our benefit. So yes, Cameron does go a little overboard and tends to stereotype some of the humans in the film, but there is also some truth to that stereotype. Most individuals are not as soulless as that general, but if you take a look at our species as a whole throughout our history, you will see similarities between the two.

All that said, I don't believe all hope is lost. We are beginning to take strides to repair what we have caused, I just hope it is not too little, too late.

I agree wholeheartedly with much of Rhys Southan's comments except this: "'Avatar' ... encourages the worship of God in/as nature, but that it visualizes a world of materialism, devoid of any metaphysical dimension?"
On the contrary, the people of Padora believe in their world but they are ready to accept defeat by the "superior" forces of earth until Jake Sully rallies their faith and calls on their higher power to get off its duff and help save the planet. This is David vs. Goliath for the modern age. If the Vatican was more broadminded it would see this film as an ally, not an enemy.
I love the hand-grip connectedness of human to animal and human to human via the little octopus-like attachment the Na'vi all have. Too bad so many humans fail to see the connectedness on this planet.

Just saw it with my teens. The Vatican has nothing to worry about. They admired the special effects, but once outside the cinema they had great fun mocking the many cliches. One daughter wondered why they didn't spend a little bit of the tech budget on paying for a good script.

I'd like to comment on Rhy Southan's letter (although I know not much at all about "Avatar" the movie)

I can see his general point about not having the need for spirituality (although, I don't think I agree with the view that visual beauty was the cause of it).

It is said (if I remember this correctly)that we are sinners because, in standard evolution, our spiritual evolution lagged way behind, or the spiritual side had to play catch up...big time.

So, I can see why a species would not need faith; which means that they evolved spiritually and physically simultaneously (again, I haven't seen the movie).

Mr. Southan has caught out a bad analogy there.

However, more importantly, the letter "A biologist is moved by 'Avatar'" by Shermin de Silva is a real hoot. I wonder if he'll put it on his CV?

I wish to address an interesting phenomenon that I have seen in several discussions about Avatar, pandora and the na'vi....
many people talk about how the connection to mother pandora is literal, through the tree of life and the symbiotic connection through the ponytail and that humans in general and the first people in specific had to be creative to find ways to be connected to mother earth. think on this thought. perhaps the first people weren't being creative but truly could feel the connection to the other beings on this planet through language, song and the interplay and interconnection of energy shared with the various beings that cohabit this planet with us, and the europeans once had this same connection to the planet that many modern indigenous still have but are losing. but western society had this connection brutally pounded out of us through hundreds if not a couple thousand years of violence and oppression... and this is why the distorted new agey version of this feeling keeps appearing no matter how hard physical scientists and doctrine based religious leaders keep trying to force us to ignore our own hearts.
perhaps by viewing things from a different perspective we could alter the way we view aspects of the movie.

the movie can't possibly be pantheistic. there really is no mention of gods or goddesses in the movie, simply reverence for the biological and physical connection to the mother tree (symbolic I am sure of the tree of life which appears in numerous religious beliefs, dogmatic and spiritualist in nature) and loving and respecting our elders simply isn't the same as worshiping a diety. a common misconception made by anthropologists when studying the indigenous peoples around the world.
I was learning from a Lakota Elder and he talked about one of his elders, a grandfather who was made famous through a book put out many years ago that was written by a well known anthropologist. the anthropologist kept asking him if he worshiped the sun. the grandfather kept tellling him no, we do not worship the sun. we are grateful to the sun for providing warmth and helping the plants and animals and humans to thrive, but we didn't worship the sun, we were just showing the sun respect, in the same we show respect to president obama for running the country. but when he realized the anthropolosgist wasn't understanding the distinction, he gave up and started saying yes to whatever the anthropoligist said and giving answers that he knew the anthropologist wanted the hear, mostly deciding to mislead instead of share earnestly, figuring the wasichu wasn't smart enough to understand anyway... and I am sure bringing much merriment later when shared with his friends and family.
here in the NW (I live in washington state) the people have epic stories that go back hundreds to thousands of years that speak of the time when the animals and human could still speak to each other. we always take these stories as myths. what if through the rigorous training of the oral tradition (repeating stories over and over until people can repeat the stories, songs and dances verbatim), stories of the time when humans and animals speaking directly with each other have come forward to the present.

so why do we always assume that science (that the world is physical and not energetic or at best the energy can't communicate) or religion (that only human beings can be conscious and aware and have independent thought and souls) are correct and that all other options are stories, lies, myths and misconceptions.

Stories, in all cultures, whether they came from a historical basis or are pure fiction (including much of what is taken for historical fact in our schools) are rarely to be taken literally... they are teachings. capturing the imagination of the intended audience to pass on knowledge and morality.
being an avid reader of philosophy and science fiction (for much the same reason, the exploration of ideas) I find it humorous to see so many people discussing so passionately the political and religious ramifications of a popular movie... seems to me that if the popes and pundits had their way, Fahrenheit 451 would be reality instead of fiction

Why is it that Vatican has something to say about everything? Whenever it does say something, it is largely negative and pedantic. Vatican should mind it's own business and leave creative thinkers and visionaries alone. This has been going on for centuries, except now, instead of burning people at the stake, they print baseless opinions. We are all here because of the course nature took and not because of some "almighty" that had a hand in it. Why not worship something that is real, like the planet we inhabit?