The atheist criticizing the belief in invisible teapots always risks being seen as monstrously insensitive to other people’s religious ideas. Yet however much militants like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins would not get invited to a rousing rendition of Kumbaya, it’s just as irritating for atheists to be confronted by the smug pity and paternalism of the believer who finds atheists somehow deficient.
“To those who have no faith, life is a matter of chance. Simply put, they have no one to turn to,” Danny Bental recently wrote to the Front Page Online. “What non-religious communities are lacking, are the ultimate laws of the meaning of life,” he adds. It’s an old saw with dull, rusted teeth, an archaic instrument from an intellectually lazy toolbox; there is chance in life, yes, but there is also the conscious and deliberate nature of human action. And meaning? Meaning does not come from an invisible teapot whose existence cannot be proven; it comes from the human mind. To live is to create meaning and take responsibility for that meaning. The difference between the atheist and the teapot’s disciple is that the atheist does not pretend his meaning comes through a supernatural agency, nor does he shrug off the responsibility for his action. When Mr. Bental suggests that it is religion, not faith, that is responsible for chaos, zealotry, and fanaticism, he misses the atheist’s point: faith is only necessary in the absence of knowledge, which means that what occurs out of faith occurs, by definition, out of ignorance. It’s a question of epistemology, and it makes all the difference in the world. And Hitler? The Nazis? Religion was very much involved in all of that – but that’s history.
When Different Perspective Collide
The above paragraphs might find me toeing the line of causing offense, if not crossing it outright. After all, I referred to an invisible teapot and not to God, or Yahweh, or Allah. That’s pretty condescending. I lumped faith and ignorance together. Without all the necessary philosophical and theological qualifications that would normally accompany that kind of statement, this particular lumping could come across as insulting. That’s how atheists feel when people like Danny Bental presumes to tell them they can’t really find meaning in their lives without God, beauty, or anything worthwhile. It’s like being told that ethics aren’t possible without religion, that atheism leads to atrocities, when countless philosophy classes, books, and garden-variety atheists prove otherwise (not to mention an honest study of history).
The disconnect I illustrated above arises from a simple letter to the editor, yet it hints at a greater disconnect like the one that exists between Evangelical Christianity and not only atheism, but other religions as well. This Beautiful City, based on actual interviews conducted by theatrical production group The Civilians, looks at the Evangelical movement through an exploration of Colorado Springs prior to the 2006 mid-term elections. From the collision of biblical literalism and progressive society to the blurring of church and state, this latest production at the Kirk Douglas Theatre presents a city at odds with itself as mega-churches rise, pastors fall, and groups like Focus on the Family make Colorado Springs their home – to the delight and horror of city residents. Through the views and experiences of citizens from all walks of life, forcefully portrayed by an energized chameleon cast, This Beautiful City paints a portrait of Evangelical Christianity that ties into the influence of Evangelicals in the military, high political offices, and the culture wars.
[img]203|exact|||no_popup[/img]The Douglas’ Best Among Recent Productions
It is arguably the best production put on by the Kirk Douglas in recent memory. Neil Patel’s set, a city model into which is integrated sophisticated light effects, projection screens, and other technological wizardry, is a dazzling backdrop to the ever-shifting cast of characters. And Michael Friedman’s music, though often in the form of extraneous songs, ably replicates Christian rock in those necessary segments of the play that recreate the experience of an Evangelical church service.
Until losing focus in a second act that wanders like a lost child without a parent’s guiding hand, This Beautiful City presents both an even-handed depiction of Evangelicals – no straw men here – and a critique, of sorts, courtesy of non-Evangelical characters whose counterpoint testimony functions somewhat like a Greek chorus. The play even takes a few potshots at trolls on liberal blogs who resort to unseemly mockery of Evangelicals, particularly at the height of the Haggard gay-prostitute-and-crystal-meth scandal. But forget Rodney King’s question about getting along: This Beautiful City never moves beyond depiction to something more analytical. Although taking an authorial perspective from outside the Evangelical movement, like some sort of theatrical anthropologist, the play never ventures beyond observation into something hands-on, never risks causing offense, never challenges those savvy newshounds already familiar with the subject matter.
The Civilians bring a fresh, imaginative approach to theatre by rooting the theatrical experience in people’s everyday concerns and experiences. The parade of characters, from a reformed junkie seeking salvation to a transgendered woman’s struggle with her religion and gender identity, is impassioned and memorable, missing only some kind of structure (not necessarily narrative) to keep everything together.
This Beautiful City. By Steven Cosson and Jim Lewis. From interviews by Emily Ackerman, Marsha Stephanie Blake, Brad Heberlee, Stephen Plunkett, Alison Weller, and the authors. Directed by Steven Cosson. Music and Lyrics by Michael Friedman. Starring Emily Ackerman, Marsha Stephanie Blake, Brad Heberlee, Brandon Miller, Stephen Plunkett, Alison Weller, Tom Corbett, Mike Schadel, and Brian Duke Song. On stage at the Kirk Douglas Theatre until October 6th, 2009.
Frédérik invites you to discuss This Beautiful City and more at his blog.