Sherlock Holmes "subtly atheistic"

[Bakustra]

Armed with a shit 2-shot gun on a bizarre clockwork extension, when he's a quiet professor of politics who manipulates much of the world?

Seriously, Moriarty plays a totally different game than you think he does. He fought Holmes hand-to-hand when Holmes tracked him down, even though he had armed henchmen. Oops.

Wait, in the movie, or in the stories? I don't recall him having that much power outside Great Britain and Europe. He is ludicrously rich, mind.

In The Final Problem, he was at the end of the line. Holmes had placed him within great danger of being personally arrested, large parts of his gang would be broken up, and even killing Holmes would not necessarily end matters, considering the possibility of him leaving papers with one of his associates, his brother, or members of the government. Once he left England, the chances of him managing to get copies of the evidence grew too great for Moriarty to solve matters to his satisfaction. In the end, he decided on a duel with Holmes, preferring to die, and take Holmes with him. After all, Moran was right there, and yet Moriarty clearly ordered him to do nothing, save to pick off Holmes should he survive.

[Stark]

That's the thing; until Holmes busted him, he'd spent ages being a criminal mastermind and nobody even remotely suspected him. Why would he bother carrying a gun, especially a gimmick gun? He's in no danger, because he's shielded by his innocence and his criminal organisation. The idea that being a mastermind means you need a gun is dumb. He'd use a gun when he needed one; he wouldn't point unique guns at random nobodies on the street.

[Bakustra]

That's the thing; until Holmes busted him, he'd spent ages being a criminal mastermind and nobody even remotely suspected him. Why would he bother carrying a gun, especially a gimmick gun? He's in no danger, because he's shielded by his innocence and his criminal organisation. The idea that being a mastermind means you need a gun is dumb. He'd use a gun when he needed one; he wouldn't point unique guns at random nobodies on the street.

Of course. He's a math professor, for crying out loud. He's not going to be carrying a gun, well, ever. Unless he hunts. A gimmick gun is even more preposterous, because it's so recognizable. (On the other hand, he does keep paintings that are well beyond his apparent means on the walls of his office.) The idea that he would even need a gun under most reasonable circumstances is ludicrous. He has Moran, he has the entire criminal underworld of London, he has the police themselves, since he has never actually been linked to any crime and is a model citizen. Carrying a gun on his person, unless the matter is one of a personal affront that he wishes to settle, is purely out of character. Oh well.

[neoolong]

I'm not an expert on the era, but did relatively wealthy people in that era carry hideout guns in case they're mugged or anything?

I mean, there were derringers, so obviously some people were carrying those small guns around. If he wants to be prepared, I could see a criminal mastermind carry one, even in the guise of a math professor. Pulling it on a bum though, might be another matter.

[Rogue 9]

British director Guy Ritchie's brawling take on literature's most famous detective will no doubt disappoint traditionalists who prefer their Sherlock Holmes reserved, academic, and well-scrubbed. We never hear the phrase "elementary, my dear Watson," pass Robert Downey Jr.'s lips, and the Holmes he presents would be unlikely ever to utter it.

Well fucking duh; Holmes never uttered that phrase anywhere in the canon either. The article starts stupid and only gets worse from there.

[Stark]

I'm actually glad they managed to get the tone and cadence of Holmes without resorting to any catchphrases (well, aside from 'the game's afoot). I guess christian nutbars like 'shoutouts' as much as nerds?

[Norseman]

I'm not an expert on the era, but did relatively wealthy people in that era carry hideout guns in case they're mugged or anything?

I mean, there were derringers, so obviously some people were carrying those small guns around. If he wants to be prepared, I could see a criminal mastermind carry one, even in the guise of a math professor. Pulling it on a bum though, might be another matter.

It was common for gentlemen in both the Americas and Great Britain to carry firearms, mostly revolvers mind. With that in mind no one would have raised an eye at a mathematics professor carrying a revolver, "You keep hearing about hooligans robbing people all over the place, seems there's not a safe place left in Britain, so I have my trusty .38 with me just in case."

A weird gimicky shotgun? Well now... that'd raise a few eyebrows, but of the, "I say old Moriarty is getting to be a bit queer don't you think? Reminds me of that old MP who put a cannon in his garden to scare off the chartists, whot?" In short you could still laugh it off as a bizarre affectation, after all everyone knows mathematicians are a bit cracked.

[Eleas]

I'm actually glad they managed to get the tone and cadence of Holmes without resorting to any catchphrases (well, aside from 'the game's afoot). I guess christian nutbars like 'shoutouts' as much as nerds?

It reminds me of the whiners who threw a tantrum over the Casino Royale remake. "This is not your father's James Bond!" I recall one reviewer trumpeting; technically true, but in the case of both James Bond and Sherlock Holmes that is because the remakes were simply more faithful to the original source.

[Simon_Jester]

Given some of the truly bizarre stuff that some Victorian gentlemen did carry for self defense, a spring-loaded pistol tucked up the sleeve wouldn't be likely to draw all that much attention. Plus, we only see him carry it in situations where he's sneaking around in a hooded, identity-concealing cloak and talking to criminal types; there's no reason to suppose that he's wearing it to faculty meetings.

British director Guy Ritchie's brawling take on literature's most famous detective will no doubt disappoint traditionalists who prefer their Sherlock Holmes reserved, academic, and well-scrubbed. We never hear the phrase "elementary, my dear Watson," pass Robert Downey Jr.'s lips, and the Holmes he presents would be unlikely ever to utter it...
These are the bits that will, to borrow an English phrase, get some knickers in a twist. The ironic thing for those who grew up adoring Basil Rathbone's characterization is that this messy, arrogant, eccentric Holmes is in many ways more true to the spirit of Arthur Conan Doyle's creation than the protagonist they remember.

It would seem that even the fundie writing the article noticed this.

In an end that could hardly be called a spoiler, Holmes demonstrates that rationality triumphs over all and that Blackwood's evil machinations are little more than trickery. It hardly seems worth analyzing a plot so frivolous, but its basis is a wholly material worldview. Given how much dialogue makes use of biblical passages describing the beast and the heralds that will signal Armageddon, the fact that Blackwood manages to harness public fear with nothing more than advanced chemistry rings a subtle atheistic note.

Believers looking for discussion elements will know that the truth doesn't end with Holmes' blithe pronouncements, however intelligently rendered. The spiritual world presents far more threat than we see here, and though Blackwood and his followers fear only the noose, the law, and Sherlock Holmes, their dabbling in occult practices could, in the real world, have far more dire outcomes.

Why do I get the feeling that this guy also sees Scooby Doo as "subtly atheistic?"

[Samuel]

It was in the TV show, but the movies dumped that and went with full bore magic.

[Simon_Jester]

I wouldn't call Scooby Doo subtly anything, let alone subtly atheistic. The fact that the villain of the week is pretending to have supernatural powers but doesn't isn't an atheist message; it's a genre convention.

[The Yosemite Bear]

in the books he's so smart that no one believes that he exists, he's to Holmes what Trinity was to agent Lundy. A University Professor of Mathematics, whose involvement in criminal operations doesn't exist to anyone but Holmes, and Mycroft. Apparently based on an Irish Criminal who planned detailed robberies, and Burgleries, and had others do the dirty work for him.

[Surlethe]

I just saw the movie. I was prepared to approach the article's claims with some skepticism, but now I cannot fucking believe they think it's a movie with "subtle atheistic" tendencies: the Spoiler

chain accident at the end that ultimately hangs Blackwood is textbook snide Hollywood homage to supernatural intervention. It's the old "occurrence the naturalist can't explain makes him look slightly foolish in the audience's eyes" trick.

[Darth Wong]

A review from WORLD magazine.

I put it here not because of the movie review, but because it's interesting to look at how the religious right views popular media. On the one hand, we can have people here say that the US entertainment industry is intrinsically Christian, and on the other we can have WORLD magazine saying that it's intrinsically secular and atheistic.

Well of course fundies think that the media is atheistic. They look for the slightest hint they can find. At least they're admitting that they think rational or mechanical explanations of mysteries are intrinsically hostile to religion, even if they don't realize they're doing it

Unfortunately, they overlook the incredible pro-Christian anti-naturalistic bias in Hollywood because it seems so natural to them that they don't see it; it's like the homeless man who can't smell his own stench.

[Akkleptos]

Indeed, you should look for appraisals such as these to come up, whenever the *OMG* occult has to do with it...

I can tell you what the occult will do... a whole lot of nothing, that's what. After exhausting the means provided in the Goethia, the Lesser Keys of Salomon, even Chaos magick... Yes, I did dabble with these things in my early 20's... Still I'm yet to see a thoughtform come to life or a demon materialise in front of me in the triangle.

As a psychologist, I can see how some of these "rituals" might be of use, if only in Theurgic magick (meaning, "magic" that affects the self), as a form of therapy, as a form of feeding the unconscious mind (which controls a lot of our behaviour, in spite of our conscious minds) with desirable "instructions" it can understand (symbolic and methaphorical). Other than that (as a form of therapy diected to the unconscious mind), the occult is a big vault of fail.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Well of course fundies think that the media is atheistic. They look for the slightest hint they can find. At least they're admitting that they think rational or mechanical explanations of mysteries are intrinsically hostile to religion, even if they don't realize they're doing it

Unfortunately, they overlook the incredible pro-Christian anti-naturalistic bias in Hollywood because it seems so natural to them that they don't see it; it's like the homeless man who can't smell his own stench.

In my experience quite a few fundies do admit that their beliefs go against naturalistic explanations. Usually they either claim that naturalists just interpret the facts so that they fit their naturalistic preconceptions, or they apply some form of "no true scotsman" fallacy. Sometimes they even claim that Satan or "demonic forces" just actively prevent the naturalist from seeing the truth about the power of prayer etc.

Some pneumatic fundies apply what could be called "Holy Ghost epistemology", i.e. they say that only those who have the Holy Ghost can see the truth of the spirit world and the corresponding demonic spirit world. The HG also convinces the believers about the reality of miracles, the resurrection of Christ etc. This is probably the closest to the original first century and early second century Christianity, which was a full-blown mystery religion.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Indeed, you should look for appraisals such as these to come up, whenever the *OMG* occult has to do with it...

I can tell you what the occult will do... a whole lot of nothing, that's what. After exhausting the means provided in the Goethia, the Lesser Keys of Salomon, even Chaos magick... Yes, I did dabble with these things in my early 20's... Still I'm yet to see a thoughtform come to life or a demon materialise in front of me in the triangle.

Of course a fundie would just say that you either did not really believe in that stuff, so the Great Evil One chose not to show his powers, or you just say it didn't work because you are still in alliance with the demonic powers. In fundie thinking Satan does not was to reveal himself too openly, because it would drive many people towards Christianity.
That is of course based on a rather shaky logic, but it's hardly a surprise.

[The Yosemite Bear]

it's also fun explaining Voodoo is not satanism, but a Catholic/African Ancestor Worship hybrid. and other things about other religions. Come to think of it, since they consider all other religions incluiding their fellow abrahamics, and other christian sects to be false believers, it's kinda hard to get them to respect others.