Alternative Culture: Straw Dogs review

[The following post is dedicated to my friend Juliet]

The end of me

John Gray makes a bold claim-- humans are nothing special. He argues that liberal humanism (the philosophy that humans are special) and postmodernism (the idea that truth and purpose is what we humans make of it) are offshoots of the misguided religion called Christianity.

The argument of the book

My friend Juliet has summarised this book in a phrase: "doom in 200 pages". However, I would argue that she does not treat this book fairly. One of my favourite contemporary philosophers, Gray shows off his cutting intellect that would make Nietzsche proud. In this post I would like to explore several of his ideas.

1. Heirs of Christianity

"Humanism is a secular religion drawn from the decaying scraps of Christianity." --pg 31.

According to Gray, the pre-Christian world thought that history was cyclic and not progressive. As Christianity introduced the concept of universal human salvation (and hence progression), Gray argued that humanism borrowed from Christianity in that its adherents (the humanist) support the idea of human emancipation (that humans are special).

The postmodernists go one step further, as they assert that humans themselves can decide their purpose in life.

However, Gray criticises their worldview as the "worst kind of arrogance" (pg 55). Postmodernism states that the limit to humanity is human thought. This unhinges their adherents from the reality but asserting that "man is the measure of all things".

2. The failure of science

"Science has been used to support the conceit that humans are unlike all other animals in their ability to understand the world" -- pg 24

Despite promising the return of Jesus, Christianity has failed to sustain its position as the hope of humanity. The Enlightenment thinkers argued that reason, science and technology will be the saviour of the world.

However if anything, science has made humans better at doing evil things. Gray argues that the Holocaust and Gulags were only made possible with the advancement of technology. There is no evidence that humans are getting morally better.

"As the hope of a better world has grown, so has mass murder." -- pg 98

In fact, Gray makes a chilling prediction towards the end of his book -- "Future wars will be fought over dwindling resources." (pg 180)

3. The myth of progress

"The world will forget mankind. The play of life will go on." --pg 151

Every organism on earth is doomed to extinction-- why should humanity be any different? Since the idea of progression is a myth that comes from the false hope of Christianity, Gray argues that humanity cannot truly move forward.

The purpose of life, Gray concludes, is to simply exist. There is nothing to save humanity, and nothing that humanity needs saving from. According to Gray, this view should be liberating.

Conclusion

You might find it surprising that I largely agree with Professor John Gray. If Christianity is wrong, then there is no such thing as progress.

Unlike Gray, I find this view extremely depressing. Nothing matters in the long run.

But note the conditioner "if". Either Christianity is true and we are all progressing towards a better end. If not, we are all headed towards a dark and gloomy cycle with no way out. You see my friend, theology matters.

The challenge laid down now is whether Christianity is true. How would you the reader attempt to explore this?

For further reading

Gray, J.N. (2002) Straw Dogs

Wetlenses

Alternative Culture: Proof

Premise
Based on a play with the same name, this 2005 film starts of with Catherine (Gwyneth Paltrow) attempting to get over her father's (Anthony Hopkins) death. Her father, Robert was a great mathematician who had declined into insanity in his older days. Robert's student, Harold (Jake Gyllenhaal) frequently goes through Robert's notebooks, hoping to find a mathematical breakthrough. Catherine's sister, Claire (Hope Davis) visits Catherine,  hoping to free Catherine from her depressing state by taking her to New York.

Halfway into the film, Harold finds a notebook in Catherine's house, with a groundbreaking mathematical proof about prime numbers. Suddenly a plot twist is revealed-- Catherine claimed to have written that proof.

Four who ye frightful
The story centres between the four characters of the story, and their approaches to truth claims. Let's explore them in detail:

Claire
Catherine's sister, Claire is one of the most straightforward characters of the film. She is almost as frustrating as the ultimate sceptic. She seems to cast doubt in everything Catherine says, including the existence of Harold. Even when Harold was presented, she still refuses to change her behaviour to Catherine.

When Catherine claimed the mathematical proof is hers, Claire expectedly doubts her sister straight away, insisting the handwriting is her father's (even though Claire is not a handwriting expert). When challenged on what would convince her, she laid down an unreasonable demand-- Catherine must recall the proof from her mind.

Naturally Catherine protested, as the proof is forty pages long. Claire's scepticism even goes as far to suggest that in an effort emulate their father, Catherine had deluded herself.

Harold
Despite knowing the brutal honesty of Catherine's nature, Harold initially doubts Catherine's claims, and is indecisive on taking a stand. When Catherine offers to explain the proof to Harold, he is insists that it would changed nothing-- Robert could have written the proof and explained the proof to Catherine first.

Unlike Catherine's sister, Harold is determined to work on the evidence that he has rather than demand unrealistic ones. After consulting several of his peers, he comes to the conclusion that Catherine was the author (based on writing style and the mathematical techniques used).

Catherine
Catherine's approach to the proof is the most personal, yet the most fragile of all. She knows she wrote it. However, under the pressure from Harold and Claire, her faith in her knowledge crumbles. Pushed beyond her breaking point, she broke down and sobbed, confessing that she was not the author from the proof. Even when presented with the evidence by Harold, she rebuffed him, stating that evidence themselves do not "prove anything".

Robert
The father of both Catherine and Claire, Robert suffered from the worst approach to truth. He is unable to discern reality, and as Catherine shared at the funeral, he would write "19-20 hours a day", thinking he was producing eloquent mathematical proofs. However, he was simply scribbling nonsense (such as "as the number of students approach infinity, the number of months approaches 4").Worse still, his insanity seemed to take a toll on Catherine, whom Claire assumes she inherited her mental state from.

My interpretation
Like other works I reviewed, I felt this film is very applicable (probably unintended by the filmmakers) to the Christian worldview.

Lessons for non-believers
The film portrays two types of sceptics-- one honest and another ignorant. The ignorant one (Claire) is happy to make a conclusion before examining the evidence and even putting unrealistic demands with the available evidence.

The honest one (Harold) is willingly to prove/disprove Catherine's claims logically and with expert opinion. And he was the one to come up with the truth. He did not allow his doubts to hinder his search for the truth.

Lessons for the Christians
Despite knowing the truth, Claire crumbles under pressure. Eventually, Harold vindicates her. Similarly as Christians, we should not be afraid to exposing the Gospel to scrutiny. After all, Jesus said he is the 'truth, way and life'.

However some Christians can be so caught in a world of their own like Robert, that they not only fail to become relevant, but unable to discern truth from falsehood.

Conclusion
I really like the film, and I give it 75/100. I was a little disappointed that the film only picks up halfway through, and that some scenes (such as the sex scene) were unnecessary.