Pokemon and Fundamentalist Christianity

What Pokémon Go Can Teach about Fundamentalism

With the smash hit release of Pokémon Go, a small number of fundamentalist Christian critics have complained about its demonic nature. These reactions against Pokémon can tell us about the nature of fundamentalism.

The most prominent of these current critics is Rick Wiles from Trunews, a fundamentalist Christian radio program and blog. On this program he complains that virtual demons are being placed in churches. He believes the game is a magnet for demonic powers and that Pokémon masters may tell the demons to kill Christians. 

As far-fetched as this may seem, he is not the only current critic that believes in the potential demonic power of Pokemon.

Another current critic, Erika Dawson, wrote a blog post titled “Is Pokémon Safe for Christian Kids.” In this post she quotes Rebecca Woodson’s Let Our Children Go: Steps to Free Your Child from Evil Influences published by the fundamentalist publisher Charisma House:

We must not assume that our children are not a threat to darkness. The enemy’s purpose is to grip and blind every generation, establishing strongholds in the lives of our children from a very young age. – Rebecca Greenwood

Continuing she offers the following introductory questions to determine whether should let your child play Pokémon and other games:·

· What does this game teach you?
· Are supernatural powers involved?
· Does the show, character, story, etc. go against or line up with God’s Word?
· Does the game or toy have symbols, characters, or other characteristics that link it to New Age or occult powers?
· What influence does the game exert?

Both of these commentaries appeared after Pokémon Go was released, but fundamentalists have been critiquing Pokémon since its initial popularity. In 2001, Phil Arms published a book called Pokémon and Harry Potter a Fatal Attraction, where he also complains about the demonic nature of Pokémon. The above referenced book complains about the magical power of Pokémon and lists it alongside World of Warcraft and Dungeons and Dragons as games to be avoided. 

Jigglypuff, an example used by Phil Arms in a sermon about the demonic nature of Pokemon

Berit Kjos in his article “Pokemon: A Christian Commentary,” argues that Pokemon is a gateway into other spiritually dangerous games such as Magic the Gathering and Dungeons and Dragons. And these games are ways to teach children formulas for summoning spirits and gives children a sense of personal power:

Children everywhere are learning the pagan formulas for invoking “angelic” or demonic spirits through multicultural education, popular books, movies, and television. It’s not surprising that deadly explosions of untamed violence suddenly erupt from “normal” teens across our land. Occult role-playing games teach the same dangerous lessons. They also add a sense of personal power and authority through personal identification with godlike superheroes. Though the demonic realm hasn’t changed, today’s technology, media, and multicultural climate makes it easier to access, and harder than ever to resist its appeal. 

In this conception of reality, true power can only come from God and any other apparent power is from the enemy. These examples all emphasize that the spiritual world, populated with literal angels and demons, is an essential part of reality. So much so that even the more mainstream fundamentalist Christian organization Focus on the Family references potential demonic influences: “some of the claims of demonic influences in Pokémon seem overblown.”

This emphasis of the physical world being intertwined with and affected by the spiritual world can give us insight into fundamentalism. George Marsden is one of the most respected historians of evangelicalism and fundamentalism and he defines fundamentalism as:

…an evangelical who is militant in opposition to liberal theology in the churches or to changes in cultural values or mores, such as those associated with ‘secular humanism.’ --George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1991), vii.

In my proposed conception of fundamentalism the opposition to changes and liberal theology/culture will center on instances where their conception of reality is opposed or denied. Their conception of reality is one that combines the moral, metaphysical spirituality, and physical reality in a whole that cannot be separated. 

Pokémon arguably have supernatural powers and representations of supernatural powers allow real spiritual beings to interact with the physical world, but any fictionalization of spiritual reality will be opposed. From their perspective, Harry Potter, Dungeons and Dragons, Magic the Gathering, and others are mistakenly treated as fictional by most of contemporary society; whereas, for the fundamentalist these books, movies, and games both call into being real unwanted spiritual realities and are an actual representation of an unwanted spiritual reality. And thus a beacon for demonic activity. 

According to fundamentalism, this tendency of contemporary society to fictionalize the spiritual is based on a profound misunderstanding of the metaphysical nature of reality. It is as good as saying the spiritual world does not exist; in other words, there is a large component of reality that most of us are simply unware of. Thus, from the fundamentalist’s perspective, we are unaware of the spiritual warfare happening all around us.

This tripartite conception of reality predates modernity. Natural historians and natural philosophers of the 1800s, such as Newton, saw the empirical ‘scientific’ world and the spiritual as deeply connected, much like contemporary fundamentalists. Morality was not viewed as quite as essential to reality, but it was still common to suggest that people under demonic influence committed immoral acts.

Contemporary conceptions of reality separate or deny these aspects of reality. Morality is separated from spirituality when atheists say you can be good without God. Morality is separated from reality when people deny objective moral truths by espousing various form of moral relativism. Spiritual reality is outright denied by scientists who espouse metaphysical naturalism, that everything is potentially explainable through natural explanations. And since fundamentalists are at war, the rest of us are, at best, innocent bystanders in the most epic war in all of history.

Spotlight on Humanism and Atheism II: Religion for Atheists book review

In my absence from this blog, I have been reading Alain de Botton’s Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion, the topic of this book review. Unlike the New Atheists, he acknowledges that religion has touched something deep and that secular society can learn from religion. Alain de Botton is also the author of How Proust Can Change Your Life and Consolations of Philosophy, among others.

I am reviewing Religion for Atheists in part due to demand and also because I cannot but conclude that Religion for Atheists is full of potentially dangerous ideas. But I open it up to my readers to prove me wrong.          

140 word summary.

Often atheists vehemently oppose religious beliefs and as a result dismiss the entirety of religion, but faiths can be adapted to build community and relieve bodily and mental suffering. For instance, coopting an older version of the Lord’s Supper to nonreligious settings could decrease loneliness. By ignoring religion’s depth, de Botton argues we have secularized badly. Secular society has avoided simplicity; even the most libertarian among us believe that children need guidance, but most of us believe that as adults we are entirely self-directing. Yet often we find ourselves in need of comfort and guidance. Another problem de Botton addresses is that knowledge is arranged in abstract categories, instead of in ways that would give helpful direction for the alleviation of our suffering. We should build institutions and communities that can give guidance and comfort.

Extended Critique and Analysis:

          

         De Botton’s project is to have secular institutions subsume the role that religion has historically played in society. Religion for Atheists helped form my opinion on how to discuss the humanities in common forums. Specifically, I would like to add de Botton’s use of humanities to alleviate psychological suffering and the bonding of communities, but leave open other interpretations of the humanities, which he seems to preclude.

 I agree with de Botton that we have lost a certain sense of community now that God is no longer a given for society. Since about 1900 the option of non-belief was possible and, at least in the west, increasingly more people have been availing themselves of the option of nonbelief.

The consequences of the ‘death of God’ are often not sufficiently addressed. Though de Botton would likely not sully his project with this historical background (in general he seems to want to remove literature, religion, and many other human endeavors, from its contextual and historical background).

           

         Community building and the alleviation of suffering are what he thinks are the most noble of religion’s goals, and methods for both can be adapted to non-religious societies. So the rituals and ideas that he chooses work on these levels.

De Botton’s program is deceptively dangerous. At the beginning of his book he states that he expects a reaction from religious people, who would object to his taking religion piecemeal, and certain atheists, who would deny that there are any uses for religion. But I think the people who should push back the most against de Botton’s project are historians. Take his proposed organization of museums and university departments as an example. According to de Botton, museums and universities should be reorganized around categories such as relationships and suffering to give us a space to reflect on our human existence. Organizing knowledge solely in this way limits historical contextualization.

Granted he would not remove Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, or any other important figures from the reading list—he does admire them and draws from them. But, a historically contextualized understanding is important to begin understanding how these thinkers operated. Ideas have an intellectual genealogy, and genealogy is very often a human preoccupation. It gives us an understanding of how we got where we are, and perhaps an understanding of where we are going. How many novels, movies, and plays are about rediscovering one’s own history, whether it be the world’s history, a country’s history, or a family’s history? How could we teach history if the goal is to present information only in specific thematic categories?

It would be nice for those steeped in the humanities to have a stock answer that is not self-condescending to the question ‘why the humanities matter.’ But, I think his answer should be rejected because ultimately, if offered as the only answer, it makes the case for the humanities harder. Are we not simply, and explicitly, navel gazing if we expect education solely to help ourselves? Why should we have a department that teaches empathy when understanding people from other time periods has been effectively eviscerated? You can’t understand the novel of the 19th century without understanding the history of the 19th century.

Context matters, unless you are claiming that there is some universal truth that is applicable to everyone. Universal truth was the project of the enlightenment until it got demolished, at least in the academic world, by minorities, feminists (particularly third wave), and postmodernism. The part of me that reacts against postmodernism was rooting for him throughout the book; however, we need a reaction to postmodernism that acknowledges that Truth is often used as a power grab, that there are multiple ways to read a text, and that not everyone can have the same experience when reading a text. De Botton believes we are like children who need comfort, support, and answers. But little attention is given to how such a society is going to be structured to allow this support given our vastly different experiences.  

          

         Thus, it’s not surprising that virtually all of his examples of art and literature come from the pen or brush of white men; though some of his religious examples come from non-Western contexts. In either case, he typically imposes an interpretation onto classical works, such as Madame Bovary being about marriage. His single answer to what literature is for is essentially a sophisticated version of self-help. It helps us live more lifetimes than if literature was not around.  

His interpretation of religious ideas and rituals also suffer from his tendency to provide only one interpretation. De Botton too often takes religious ideas and rituals out of their context and interprets them without acknowledging or asking how people who practice these rituals or have these beliefs interpret their rituals and beliefs. He is presuming the authority to interpret for these people. This is a paradigmatic example of the use of truth as power. In one passage, he interprets the chanoyu, the Japanese tea ceremony, as having exactly the same meaning as the Chinese version without skipping a beat.

In this respect, his project is oddly restrictive. There seems to be no questioning the interpretation once it has been determined. This means that questions about the structure of novels (as an example) are irrelevant and the structure of the question of meaning is predetermined, both for literature and religion.

On one level I am very sympathetic to outsider interpretations of a particular religious ritual or belief. You cannot allow only Hindus (as an example) to interpret Hinduism; however, you also cannot allow only outsiders to interpret Hinduism. We need to have discussions about what functions, if any, these rituals perform for practitioners before we try to interpret and appropriate them for our own use or make general claims about humanity based on them.

          

         The one good thing that I took from Religion for Atheists is that I can now add “How is this helpful to my life” to my list of questions when I read certain philosophers or religious figures. I will also consider asking this question to those who practice various faiths. The religion that is probably the best equipped to answer this question is Buddhism. Many types of Buddhist meditation help individuals become more compassionate towards oneself and others—helping people with the practical aspects of their lives. However, I worry once we start asking what something is for, whether it be religion, art, literature, or (to add one of my own) playing, we forget to enjoy the activity and only start looking for utilitarian purposes.  

Bottom Line:

          

         Whether it be ignoring all of postmodernism, eviscerating the concept of history, or questionably appropriating religious cultures, there is a lot to question in De Botton’s work. I want to be wrong about him. And my gut is telling me that my brain is wrong, but it may just be a hope against hope.