The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy (12 page)

As Cartman disappears into the past, his friends from the future ask him to tell everyone in the past, “No one single answer is ever the answer.” But that’s silly; that’s naive relativism.
²⁹
Even when the answer to a scientific question eludes us, there’s still an answer. We just don’t know what it is. Some answers we do know, and when ­intelligent people see stupid people defending stupid answers, they should call them out. That’s what Dawkins does, and that’s what Matt and Trey do. (Though there’s no reason to be a dick about it.) That’s what freedom of speech is for.
³⁰

1
. At the time, Newton’s laws would have been more conservative only because they were the prevailing view—it was “common knowledge.” But conservatism is only one of the four criteria listed here, and you can’t let it trump the others; progress would never get made.

2
. In case you have wondered about 9/11 conspiracy theories, see
www.debunking911.com
, accessed Feb. 10 2013. It’s a nice catalogue that debunks the usual claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. More highly, I recommend Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn’s
How to Think about Weird Things
6th edn.
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010), which not only debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories (pp. 281–286), but—by teaching you the method of abduction—will show why all conspiracy theories are irra­tional, as are a host of other beliefs, such as belief in UFOs and ghosts.

3
. It’s a real example, one that was made up to prove exactly this point. Many atheists belong to The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) ironically. You can the FSM’s website at,
www.venganza.org/
, accessed Feb. 10, 2013.

4
. The Duhem–Quine thesis tells us that no hypothesis can be tested in ­isolation; the predictions a hypothesis makes depend on the background assumptions it is built upon. A damning faulty prediction can be excused away if one is willing to change the background assumptions. For example, different assumptions about how light operates could “explain” how the earth could look round from space even though it is flat.

5
. They have also committed another logical fallacy: straw man. They have misrepresented Dawkins’ position to make it easier to attack. He did not suggest that God is a Spaghetti monster, that evolution explains everything, or that there is no mystery to life. He was simply pointing out a logical fallacy.

6
. Stephen Jay Gould, “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,”
Natural History
106 (1997): 16–22.

7
. Most philosophers suggest that what religion says about ethics and meaning, science can say little about. Sam Harris, however, would ­disagree. In
The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Human Values
(Free Press, 2010), Harris argues that science can inform moral evaluation by helping us determine what actions lead to pain and suffering and which ones lead to happiness and human flourishing. He admits, however, that philosophical argument is needed to establish that such things determine the moral rightness and wrongness of actions.

8
. Will Matt and Trey ever retell this story and put a “This is what Muslims actually believe” scroll at the bottom?

9
. The earliest documents of the New Testament belong to St. Paul, and he mentions very little about Jesus’s life.

10
. See Bart Ehrman’s
Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are
(New York: Harper One, 2011).

11
. Religious critics often exaggerate the similarities between Jesus and specific gods, but it is undeniable that nearly every element (if not all) of Jesus’s story can be found attributed to at least one god/man that came before him. For a nice rundown of some of the major similarities, see chapter 5 in Tom Flynn’s book
The Trouble with Christmas
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993).

12
. He died in 2011.

13
. Not all Indians live in such conditions, but the people who claim that Sai Baba raised someone from the dead do. Certainly, no one has ever seen Sai Baba strolling through the morgue of a hospital, touching corpses, and helping them walk out.

14
. It’s only incompatible with certain extreme literalist interpretations of scripture that where drummed up in the late nineteenth century after evolution had already received mainstream acceptance. See Karen Armstrong’s
The Bible: A Biography
(New York: Atlantic Books, 2007).

15
. Science is particularly incompatible with evangelical Christianity. Evangelical Protestantism is the highest among the general population (28%), but the lowest among scientists (4%). See “Scientists and Belief,” a poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life on Nov. 5, 2009,
http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
, accessed Feb. 10, 2013.

16
. Quantum mechanics can account for the Big Bang as an uncaused quantum event, the conservation of energy explains why the universe’s basic forces balance out in a way that allows life to appear and evolve, and evolution itself explains our apparent design.

17
. That’s not to say that a hypothesis that includes God could never be the most adequate one. Although it likely won’t be simpler, it’s possible for it to be more conservative, explanatory or fruitful than other theories.

18
. For more on whether or not there is evidence against God’s existence, see my other chapter in this volume, “Cartmanland and the Problem of Evil.”

19
. Alex Rosenberg might disagree, however. See chapter 5, “Morality: The Bad News,” in
The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions
(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2011).

20
. Here I am borrowing from Bertrand Russell’s (1872–1970) celestial teapot example.

21
. For more on when faith is nor is not rational, see my chapter, “Taking a Leap of Faith: A How-to Guide,” in
Inception and Philosophy: Because It’s Never Just a Dream
(Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).

22
. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman defends this thesis in the eighth chapter of his book
Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)
(New York: Harper One, 2010). Ludwig F. Schlecht does a wonderful job arguing that William James and John J. Caputo also held this view in “William James and the Post Modern Religion of John J. Caputo” (
Streams of William James
6:1, 2004). (You can find it here:
http://williamjamesstudies.org/newsletter/Streams_6.1.pdf
, accessed Feb. 10, 2013.) In my experience, this view, or something very similar, is common among theologians. Unfortunately, if they ever said this in straightforward terms from a pulpit, they would be run out of town on a rail.

23
. That actually still happens in some places in the world. See Manesh Shrestha, “Nepalese woman accused of witchcraft and burned alive” (CNN, Feb. 18, 2012), found at,
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-18/asia/world_asia_nepal-witchcraft-burning_1_shamans-nepalese-capital-­local-police-report?_s=PM:ASIA
, accessed Feb. 10, 2013.

24
. The official ban of Galileo’s works was lifted in 1758, but the church was still refusing to publish anything that treated his heliocentric theory as truth as late as 1820. Although the theory just naturally gained consensus (as the church just didn’t talk about it and lost its authority on scientific matters), the church still didn’t admit that it was wrong, and had treated Galileo unjustly, until 1992 when Pope John Paul II said that, “Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on dif­ferent arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture …” (from
Human Nature in Its Wholeness: A Roman Catholic Perspective
, ed. Daniel Robinson, Gladys Sweeny, and Richard Gill (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006), 169). In fact, as late as 1990, Cardinal Ratzinger (who became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005) was still insisting The Catholic Church had done nothing wrong. “The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.” (See Ratzinger’s 1994
Turning point for Europe? The Church in the Modern World—Assessment and Forecast
, translated from the 1991 German edition by Brian McNeil (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press), 98. Pope John Paul officially apologized for its treatment of Galileo in 2000 when he officially recognized and apologized for a large number of the Church’s wrongdoings over the previous 2000 years, including the trial of Galileo.

25
. For a through debunking of Wakefield’s claims, see Paul Offit’s
Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2008). Not only was Wakefield’s original study too small, badly done, and later contradicted by numerous larger well-conducted studies, but it also turns out that he lied about the data. See “Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent,”
BMJ
2011; 342:c7452.

26
. Although, to be fair, it can sometimes get heated. Scientists have lied about and slandered one another on occasion when they disagree.

27
. It’s worth noting, however, that some philosophers would suggest that science may also be incompatible with ethics and meaning in the same way it is incompatible with belief in God. They suggest that
objective values
and
ethical truths
are unnecessary entities, and don’t do any explanatory work, just like God. This is a more controversial thesis than the one I present here. Once again, see Rosenburg’s
Atheist’s Guide to Reality
, specifically chapter 2.

28
. That’s not to say that all atheists have been a barrel of laughs. Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists and they killed millions. But they didn’t find their excuse for doing so in atheism itself. They had established what were basically non-theistic state religions, and were executing people to protect them. Anyone not loyal to the state was put to death.

29
. Relativism is often what people hide behind when they can’t defend their belief from criticism but want to continue to believe. For a refutation of relativism, see my article “Wikiality, Truthiness, and Gut Thinking: Doing Philosophy Colbert-Style” in William Irwin and Kyle Johnson’s
Introducing Philosophy Through Pop Culture: From Socrates to South Park, Hume to House
(Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).

30
. For the quintessential defense of the freedom of speech, see chapter 2 of John Stuart Mill’s
On Liberty
(New York: Dover Publications, 2002).

Jeffrey Dueck

Religion is a persistent cultural and philosophical issue in
South Park
. From the animated shorts
Jesus vs. Frosty
and
The Spirit of Christmas
, to recent episodes such as “Go God Go,” “Fantastic Easter Special,” “Cartoon Wars Part I,” and “Cartoon Wars Part II,” Parker and Stone provide biting commentary on religious belief. Along with these episodes, in this chapter we’ll talk about “Super Best Friends,” where the kids are seduced by illusionist David Blaine and his growing cult, and Jesus and the Super Best Friends must come to the rescue. We’ll look at important philosophical questions the episode raises, including miracles and the difference between the natural and supernatural. More generally, we’ll also talk about the nature of religious ­
pluralism
—the co-existence of many different claims to religious authority—and how faith relates to reason in a world of diverse beliefs.

In “Super Best Friends,” David Blaine comes to town and wows the crowds with his masterful illusions. Afterward, the South Park boys decide to participate in one of the “camps” offered by the “Blainetologists.” Of course, the group turns out to be a cult, which exalts Blaine as a powerful messianic figure and preaches allegiance to him. Stan is uncomfortable with all of this and after struggling with whether to leave his friends behind, seeks out the help of Jesus (who, if you’ll remember, resides in a modest dwelling in South Park where he hosts a public access TV show). Jesus challenges David Blaine at a Denver rally, but Christ’s first-century-style miracles come across as simple party tricks compared to Blaine’s illusions. Jesus calls in a Justice League-like committee comprised of figures of some of the world’s major religions—the Super Best Friends—for help. Each hero brings a special power to the table: Muhammad with the power of fire, Krishna with shape-shifting powers, and Joseph Smith with ice powers. When the Blainetologists advocate a mass-suicide in an attempt to gain tax-exempt status from the US Government (by having all their members drown in the one-foot-deep Reflecting Pool on the Mall in Washington, DC), Jesus and the Super Best Friends show up to put a stop to Blaine’s evil—except for Buddha, who doesn’t believe in evil. Blaine animates a giant statue of Abraham Lincoln to thwart the Super Best Friends, who use their combined powers to ­create a mammoth John Wilkes Booth to bring an end to the great emancipator’s destructive force. Meanwhile, Stan rescues the other boys from the Blainetologists and concludes the episode by decrying money-hungry, controlling cults and supporting the harmony and necessity of all the world’s religions.