The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy (16 page)

Many philosophers are not satisfied with Hick’s answer, however. First, it’s not clear that all evil actually does contribute to “soul making.” How might an innocent fawn burning to death in a forest fire, or the rape and murder of a small child develop our character? And how exactly did the Haitian earthquake of 2010 or the Indian Ocean ­tsunami of 2004 develop the characters of the hundreds of thousands they killed? Perhaps it strengthened the character of the few who responded to the crises, but some philosophers argue that unless an evil’s greater good actually benefits the one who suffers from the evil, that good cannot justify the evil. Besides, I doubt any member of Doctors Without Borders thinks the development of their character justifies the disasters they respond to. Their character is certainly laudable, but I can guarantee that each one of them wishes each disaster never happened, no matter how much it provides them an opportunity to develop their individual souls. Besides, there seems to be far more evil than we need for character development. (Can’t the boys learn their lessons at the end of each episode without Kenny dying so often?) And don’t we create enough evil on our own? Do we need God to help out by adding natural evil on top of it all?

Let’s get one thing clear: the validity of the problem of evil doesn’t disprove God’s existence. But that doesn’t mean belief in God is rational. Very few things can be proven or disproven conclusively, but the rational person
proportions belief to the evidence
. And the existence of seemingly unjustified evil seems to be pretty good evidence that God doesn’t exist.

Of course, that doesn’t keep people from believing. Some people claim to have evidence God exists that outweighs the evidence against him—like arguments that make God the first cause, or designer of everything. Yet even most theistic philosophers agree that these kind of arguments fail.
¹⁰
Some others may claim evidence in the form of a mystical or religious experience. Mystical experiences are a dime a dozen, however, and lead to a whole range of contradictory beliefs. Few philosophers think such experiences provide any kind of justification for religious belief. Still others, like theistic thinker Alvin Plantinga, claim that God has revealed himself to them through a divine sense, like a tree reveals itself to you through your sense of sight. But our ordinary perceptions are not always trustworthy and should be doubted in the face of contrary evidence. How much more should we doubt a divine sense, which may or may not even exist, in light of contrary evidence like seemingly unjustified evil?

Others might justify their belief in God with something like “Pascal’s Wager,” which runs: “I’ll believe in God anyway. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.” But, again, most philosophers agree that this reasoning is faulty. Belief in God does come with risks; you
could
waste the only life you have on religious pursuits. And confidence in the benefits of theistic belief requires a lot of assumptions: how do you know that God wouldn’t rather spend eternity with intellectually honest people who don’t believe things without evidence for personal gain, instead of with people who are willing to ignore evidence and believe whatever they think is most beneficial?

Of course, you can choose to take that leap of blind faith anyway. Belief despite evidence to the contrary isn’t rational, though. Is it noble? Is faith really a virtue? It’s often said that it is, but do you really respect someone who believes something despite evidence to the contrary—like Cartman believing in Jewpacabra despite the fact that he knows he just made it up? And might you be harming others with your belief? Many people think religious belief is personal, that it only affects you. But think about that. The Salem witch trials, 9/11, the Inquisition, the Crusades—they were all fueled by religious belief. And I’m sure you can think of a few more evils in this world today that are, too. Even if you aren’t responsible for these particular evils, might your religious belief add legitimacy to religious institutions and structures that are? Are you doing anything to combat the evils your religion licenses?
¹¹

This isn’t a blanket condemnation of everyone who believes in God. But, just as Butters should think about all the times Cartman has gotten him into trouble the next time Cartman appears asking for help, so you should consider the problem of evil as you evaluate your own belief in God.

1
. It is important to note that one could substitute any evil for “Cartman’s complete happiness” and the conclusion would still follow. Often, when the argument is made, the phrase “evil exists” is substituted for “Cartman’s complete happiness.”

2
. See David Kyle Johnson, “A Refutation of Skeptical Theism” in
Sophia
(first published online, Nov. 10, 2012, by Springer Publishing:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11841-012-0326-0
, accessed Feb. 11, 2013).

3
. See John Calvin,
Institutes of the Christian Religion
, trans. Henry Beveridge. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), book 1, chapters 16-18; book 3, chapter 23. Also see Jonathan Edwards, “Wicked Men Useful in Their Destruction Only,” in
The Works of President Edwards
, vol. 6, ed. Edward Parsons and Edward Williams. (New York: B. Franklin, 1968). Edwards is mainly addressing the doctrine of hell, but clearly realizes that the existence of evil is necessary for God to demonstrate his holiness.

4
. For a wonderful rendition of Edwards argument, see William J Wainwright, “Jonathan Edwards and the Doctrine of Hell,” in
Jonathan Edwards: Philosophical Theologian
, ed. Paul Helm and Oliver Crisp. (London: Ashgate Publishing, 2004).

5
. See chapters 9 and 10 in Richard Swinburne’s
Providence and the Problem of Evil
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

6
. See “On Free Will,” in
Augustine: Earlier Writings
, trans. John Burleigh. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953).

7
. Given that Streisand chose to turn herself into Mecha-Streisand, Mecha-Streisand would not be a natural evil if you counted Barbra Streisand as a human. But this is something I am sure Matt and Trey are not willing to do; thus they probably view Mecha-Streisand as a natural evil.

8
. A solution some suggest is this: “Natural evil is a result of Adam and Eve’s sin which corrupted and imperfected the world.” No professional philosopher or theologian would ever take such an answer seriously, however. First, the Adam and Eve story isn’t literally true. Second, it provides no explanation for how the sin causes natural disasters. How exactly does eating a piece of fruit change the laws of physics? And as divine punishment for the sins of our forefathers (or even our own), the suffering natural disasters inflict on us is far out of proportion to the severity of our sins. “Adam ate an apple so I’m going to kill hundreds of thousands, including children, in a Tsunami?” God can’t be that cruel. For more on this, and the severity of the problem of natural evil and what it entails, see my article “Natural Evil and the Simulation Hypothesis,”
Philo
14:2 (Fall/Winter 2011).

9
. See John Hick,
Evil and the God of Love
(San Francisco: Harper, 1978).

10
. For more on these arguments, see my forthcoming course with The Great Courses on Metaphysics.
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/
.

11
. For more on the virtue and rationality of faith, including when it may be rational or virtuous to believe something by faith, see my chapter, “Taking a Leap of Faith: A How-to Guide,” in
Inception and Philosophy: Because It’s Never Just a Dream
(Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).

David Koepsell

Since the publication of
South Park and Philosophy
in 2007, Parker and Stone have made some additional forays into religious satire, ­poking fun at staunch supporters of the Catholic Church (via the Easter Bunny) and “militant agnostics” among others. Most importantly for this chapter, in episodes 200 and 201 (with the inspired titles “200” and “201”) the “Cartoon Wars” controversy resurfaced, inspiring real-life death threats aimed at Parker and Stone. Additionally,
The Book of Mormon
opened on Broadway. This musical comedy extends the obsession with Mormonism in several
South Park
­episodes, featuring a playful, biting, yet loving portrayal of its adherents.

South Park
is a show born in blasphemy. Its very first, unaired, ­episode from 1995 was entitled “Jesus vs. Santa: The Spirit of Christmas” and involves a fight scene in which Jesus employs judo and hurls ­profanities at jolly old Saint Nick. Since this auspicious start,
South Park
’s ­creators have spared no major religion in their taunts and mockery. Targets of the
South Park
kids’ mockery have included Judaism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Catholicism, and Islam. Today, when there are riots inspired by cartoons and terror bombings fueled by religious rage and sectarian hatred, how can we justify what some consider fuel for the flames? Is there a role for mockery in public discourse of even the most cherished beliefs of billions of believers, or does
South Park
go too far? Answering these questions involves discussing whether there are topics that are off limits for public dialogue or satire, as well as whether and to what degree there is an individual duty to self-censor certain forms of speech concerning “offensive” topics.

No one has ever accused
South Park
of being the pinnacle of good taste. In fact, the filth and offense that Cartman, Stan, Kyle, and Kenny (however muffled) spew are an essential part of its spectacle, if not its charm. In the past decade, affronts to religious belief have abounded, but a few particularly offensive ones now command our attention, thanks to some recent events also involving cartoons. In 2006, Isaac Hayes, the voice of Chef, left due to “religious ­intolerance” toward his own religion, Scientology. Comedy Central censored episodes depicting the Prophet Muhammad, including a brilliant bit of double satire in which Muhammad delivers a helmet to Peter in a mock episode of
Family Guy
. This censorship is odd, given the show’s long history of religious mockery, none of which had ­garnered nearly as much attention prior to 2006’s “Cartoon Wars” episodes.

Has the public climate changed so radically that, all of a sudden, religious mockery is off-limits, or did
South Park
cross some line? It seems as though the former is true, and we are experiencing a cyclical up-tick in tension among religious groups as well as a renewed sensitivity. Historically, religion has been fair game for mockery, satire, and ridicule. In fact,
South Park
has done a brilliant—and offensive—job of mocking, satirizing, and ridiculing religion with little-to-no controversy for 16 years. Let’s look at the history of its blasphemy.

In the episode “Jewbilee,” Kenny poses as a Jew to join Kyle at “Jew Scouts” where the young Jewish “squirts” make macaroni pictures and soap sculptures for a delighted Moses. In the same episode, Kyle admonishes Kenny: “It’s not stupid, Kenny! This is my faith, and you shouldn’t make fun of it!” Nonetheless, the entire episode proceeds to do just that.

In “Are You There God? It’s Me, Jesus,” Jesus is initially treated like the millennial version of Punxsutawney Phil as a predictor of the apocalypse. When Jesus realizes that people are waiting for a sign from him, he goes to his “dad” saying that, if he could help Jesus, this would help with his “one big shot at a comeback.” When God refuses, Jesus arranges a concert with Rod Stewart in Las Vegas, of course. When God himself fails to appear readily at the big event, people become angry enough to try to crucify Jesus
again
. In a touching finale God
does
appear, only to explain to the boys that they will never have menstrual cycles.

Parker and Stone spare no major faith, or lack thereof, as in “Go God Go,” where “militant atheist” Richard Dawkins is mocked, and “The Poor Kid,” in which “militant agnostics” are amusingly portrayed. In “Super Best Friends,” they skewer several at once. When Jesus attempts, and fails, to break the cult-like spell cast by magician David Blaine, he turns to the Super Best Friends, a sort of ecumenical Justice League that includes Lao Tse, Muhammad, Krishna, Joseph Smith, and “Sea Man.” Among the jolly blasphemy bandied about in this episode, Muhammad is given the power to shoot fire from his hands, Joseph Smith has magical ice-breath, and Lao Tse can “link mentally with fish.” Finally, despite their superpowers, the Super Best Friends are advised by Moses on the best way to defeat a Blaine-animated Lincoln monument. It involves Lao Tse using his powers of Taoism to animate a giant stone John Wilkes Booth. Interestingly, Muhammad’s depiction in this episode was not censored by Comedy Central. And as far as we know, no riots ensued.

In August 2002, while sexual abuse scandals peaked in the daily news, “Red Hot Catholic Love” aired. Besides portraying pederasty as an expected and normal portion of the priesthood, the episode reveals that a giant Queen Spider runs the Vatican and interprets Catholic law. Offenses against Judaism and Christianity abound in “A Ladder to Heaven,” “Christian Hard Rock,” and “The Passion of the Jew.” There’s more Jesus/Santa hilarity in “Red Sleigh Down,” and Catholics got slapped again—this time through a mocking ­reference to a ­miraculous icon of Mary that bleeds from its ass—in “Bloody Mary.” Bill Donahue, who leads a Catholic anti-defamation group and who protested episodes of
South Park
, is made pope briefly in “Fantastic Easter Special” from 2007, in which he attempts to squelch the “blasphemy” of the “Easter Bunny” (who was ­allegedly the real St. Peter in a
Da Vinci Code
twist suppressed by the church for millennia). In the episode, in order for Jesus to save Kyle, Stan, and Stan’s father from Donahue, Kyle has to kill Jesus so he can regain his superpowers. Of course, the Jew has to do it. Kyle agrees only if Cartman never finds out. Turns out, Peter’s rabbit form was intentional, because rabbits can’t speak, and no bunny is going to lecture church members on how to live.