Is Indy an atheist (in Raiders)?

Montana Smith

Active member
This path always leads to futlie arguments. I'm not out to convert or to be converted. It's a personal choice based on personal study and evaluation.

Atheism is a defined term, and this will go way off-topic, especially in this board, which is dedicated to the 'Indiana Jones Trilogy'.

On topic all I can say is to repeat that there is no evidence that Indy was an Atheist. And to repeat that you might as well ask whether Toht was into wearing ladies' underwear. It's all hypothetical.
 

Walton

New member
Montana Smith said:
On topic all I can say is to repeat that there is no evidence that Indy was an Atheist. And to repeat that you might as well ask whether Toht was into wearing ladies' underwear. It's all hypothetical.

And who wants to know about Toht's taste in underwear anyway??? (n)
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Back from moving house. Indy might believe in a higher or omnipotent whatever, but we don't know if he does or not. He said he understood the power of the rock in ToD, but what does that mean? He might have just been comforting the old man. Personally, I hope he doesn't have religious convictions.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Mickiana said:
Back from moving house. Indy might believe in a higher or omnipotent whatever, but we don't know if he does or not. He said he understood the power of the rock in ToD, but what does that mean? He might have just been comforting the old man. Personally, I hope he doesn't have religious convictions.

He knows that things beyond the normal realms and understood science of man do exist in his world. He's naturally skeptical (as a scientist/historian/archaologist) ought to be when encountering anything.

By the time he experiences the suspected power of God in 1936 Raiders, he has already witnessed other strange powers in 1935 TOD: a man with his heart ripped out continuing to live; a village damned through the loss of stones sacred to it...

So, he must be open to the existence of either a God that is largely misunderstood, or of more than one God. By KOTCS he can add another set of 'gods' to that list. A lack of set religious convictions would give him more freedom to interpret the supernatural occurrences he encounters. If he was firmly entrenched in one belief system, he would be inclined to bend all his experiences to fit that belief: to see all supernatural as the Biblical God moving in strange ways.

Enlightened westerners have long dabbled in exotic and mysterious eastern belief systems. The 1930s were no exception, and Indy would be a prime candidate for such 'dabbling'. A knowledge and understanding of 'alien' cultures and their beliefs is pretty central to Indy's work.
 

Walton

New member
Montana Smith said:
He knows that things beyond the normal realms and understood science of man do exist in his world. He's naturally skeptical (as a scientist/historian/archaologist) ought to be when encountering anything.

During the Roman empire, the Epicureans believed the world was solid, through and through, that there was nothing immaterial/supernatural about it. Many scientists today hold this view, stating it is only a matter of time before they find a way to make that which is "invisible" visible.

As a scientist, that was probably Indy's position in the beginning of ToD...that all you have to do is dig until your shovel or pick axe hits something solid. By the end (as you said), he was probably stretched to believe a little beyond his norms. :whip:

(I'm not familiar with the IJ expanded universe (novels) and the YIJCs and don't mean to imply that ToD was his first encounter with something supernatural.)
 
Montana Smith said:
This one?
http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=16717&highlight=underwear
That thread is calling on a completely different kind of devotion!
Make that two meat heads...

No I meant this one:

http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=6350&page=2&highlight=underwear

Walton said:
As a scientist, that was probably Indy's position in the beginning of ToD...that all you have to do is dig until your shovel or pick axe hits something solid. By the end (as you said), he was probably stretched to believe a little beyond his norms.

Eh, I tend to believe he's a believer, but with so many competing superstitions he employed the scientific method to expose assorted Peter Popoffs.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:

In dear old Blighty, we'd call that thread "pants", which wouldn't translate across the pond. ;)

Rocket Surgeon said:
Eh, I tend to believe he's a believer, but with so many competing superstitions he employed the scientific method to expose assorted "shell games".

That's what I mean about Indy being a perpetual skeptic. He doesn't want to be taken in by a scam or hoax, and least of all implicate himself and his reputation by perpetuating a scam or hoax.
 
Montana Smith said:
That's what I mean about Indy being a perpetual skeptic. He doesn't want to be taken in by a scam or hoax, and least of all implicate himself and his reputation by perpetuating a scam or hoax.
Sure, and in the scheme of this thread, that propensity doesn't preclude faith in god, whichever CHRISTIAN faith he was raised in :)p )!

Oh I had to!
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Sure, and in the scheme of this thread, that propensity doesn't preclude faith in god, whichever CHRISTIAN faith he was raised in :)p )!

Oh I had to!

Yep, no evidence he was an atheist. Just that he is suspicious before he commits himself to acceptance.

What was the Christian faith of his father? We know that Indy rebelled against his father, but so little is said or shown about Indy's religious convictions. He approaches things in a very matter of fact manner, as in beating the traps before the Grail.

And as for Toht's underwear, he may be in the same club as Herr Flick of the Gestapo in Allo Allo:

3_12.jpg
 
Last edited:

Walton

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Eh, I tend to believe he's a believer, but with so many competing superstitions he employed the scientific method to expose assorted Peter Popoffs.

Right, what I mean is this is where he started. Skeptical. And I agree with Montana...he doesn't want to believe in a lesser god (hoax, mythology, whatever), so he's holding out for the real deal. I'd say that's most of our positions. Who wants to fall for something that will prove to be failing?

And no matter what Indy ultimately believes, he will likely remain skeptical. It is a dangerous thing to take what comes to you at face value. Test everything.
 

Walton

New member
Montana Smith said:
If he was firmly entrenched in one belief system, he would be inclined to bend all his experiences to fit that belief: to see all supernatural as the Biblical God moving in strange ways.

That would be the tendency. But that's not to say that a man of a particular faith cannot view other beliefs according to their own contexts.

Let's suppose he is a firm atheist...would he be able to say "that's definitely supernatural" of any of his experiences...or would it boil down to (even privately) "there's gotta be a scientific explanation for this, this, and that" because his beliefs are rooted a system that prohibits the existence of the supernatural?

Scientifically, he would view each experience according to its own context. (He does this plenty of times...plainly telling the "bedtime" story of how it happened according to its manuscripts or however it was handed down). Humanly, (in his own mind) he would then relate it to himself and his own beliefs, no matter what they are.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Walton said:
That would be the tendency. But that's not to say that a man of a particular faith cannot view other beliefs according to their own contexts.

If those other faiths also had a proven ability (as Mola Ram's Kali cult proved that it could work supernatural powers), that would mean Indy believed in different gods, or at least very different methods of pleasing the same god. Methods that would be inconsistent with most Christian ideals.

Walton said:
Let's suppose he is a firm atheist...would he be able to say "that's definitely supernatural" of any of his experiences...or would it boil down to (even privately) "there's gotta be a scientific explanation for this, this, and that" because his beliefs are rooted a system that prohibits the existence of the supernatural?

Indy's world differs from ours in that a 'supernatural' is shown to exist, that it's still undefined by science means that it isn't yet incorporated into the natural world (even though it is a 'natural' part of Indy's world).

Walton said:
Scientifically, he would view each experience according to its own context. (He does this plenty of times...plainly telling the "bedtime" story of how it happened according to its manuscripts or however it was handed down). Humanly, (in his own mind) he would then relate it to himself and his own beliefs, no matter what they are.

I think Indy would have to keep an open mind, as relating everything he witnesses or experiences to a Christian understanding would prove difficult, based on the Bible. Though, if he took the apocryphal texts (which von Daeniken used to interpret the 'Most High', the flying machines, and God as a spaceman etc), then he might be able to bring the Inter-Dimensionals into some sort of Christian definition.

Rather than an atheist, I think Indy has to be a polytheist. Indy's world appears not to be dominated by a single God, but many.
 

Walton

New member
Montana Smith said:
If those other faiths also had a proven ability (as Mola Ram's Kali cult proved that it could work supernatural powers), that would mean Indy believed in different gods, or at least very different methods of pleasing the same god. Methods that would be inconsistent with most Christian ideals.

Let's not discount the existence of the demonic.

Montana Smith said:
Indy's world differs from ours in that a 'supernatural' is shown to exist, that it's still undefined by science means that it isn't yet incorporated into the natural world (even though it is a 'natural' part of Indy's world).

I think Indy would have to keep an open mind, as relating everything he witnesses or experiences to a Christian understanding would prove difficult, based on the Bible. Though, if he took the apocryphal texts (which von Daeniken used to interpret the 'Most High', the flying machines, and God as a spaceman etc), then he might be able to bring the Inter-Dimensionals into some sort of Christian definition.

In tribal Africa, there is no doubt of the supernatural. We're not talking about digital effects and camera tricks. They don't have such technological barriers between them and the supernatural.

Christianity espouses there is one God who created this world, the heavens (universe), and all that is in them. IDBs are not a problem under that canopy of belief. Part of the created world(s); apocryphal texts not necessary.

Montana Smith said:
Rather than an atheist, I think Indy has to be a polytheist. Indy's world appears not to be dominated by a single God, but many.

While I profess belief in one God - one Creator, one ultimate God - I do see evidence of many gods in the world...whether they are myths or not is irrelevant; the fact is, people believe in them and worship them. The reality of many gods (as affirmed by the existence and practices of their worshipers) in the world does not conflict with Christian theology, as the Bible itself acknowledges that various peoples and tribes worship other gods; in Acts Chapter 17:16-34, the author Luke states that in Athens there was even an idol to "an unknown god" (v23)...probably put there just in case the worshipers missed one.

I believe the key tenant of polytheism isn't so much that one believes in the existence of many gods, but that one also worships many gods. So I do not see Indy as classifying himself as a polytheist.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Walton said:
Let's not discount the existence of the demonic.

In tribal Africa, there is no doubt of the supernatural. We're not talking about digital effects and camera tricks. They don't have such technological barriers between them and the supernatural.

Christianity espouses there is one God who created this world, the heavens (universe), and all that is in them. IDBs are not a problem under that canopy of belief. Part of the created world(s); apocryphal texts not necessary.

This goes back to the point I made somewhere that there is a tendency of those of a particular faith, to view the movies through the eyes of that faith. That would make the Kali cult another form of satanic worship, and presuppose that all beliefs around the world are twisted versions of belief in the Hebrew/Christian God.

In Indy's world I think that the other gods - whether they're superior elemental beings or merely 'aliens' - have an individual identity.

Walton said:
While I profess belief in one God - one Creator, one ultimate God - I do see evidence of many gods in the world...whether they are myths or not is irrelevant; the fact is, people believe in them and worship them. The reality of many gods (as affirmed by the existence and practices of their worshipers) in the world does not conflict with Christian theology, as the Bible itself acknowledges that various peoples and tribes worship other gods; in Acts Chapter 17:16-34, the author Luke states that in Athens there was even an idol to "an unknown god" (v23)...probably put there just in case the worshipers missed one.

I believe the key tenant of polytheism isn't so much that one believes in the existence of many gods, but that one also worships many gods. So I do not see Indy as classifying himself as a polytheist.

Polytheism supposes belief in many gods, though the individual need only worship one of them. In the Greek and Roman myths there were many gods. Some heroes had their guardian gods whom they worshipped, while other gods tried to thwart the hero's progress.
 

Walton

New member
Montana Smith said:
This goes back to the point I made somewhere that there is a tendency of those of a particular faith, to view the movies through the eyes of that faith. That would make the Kali cult another form of satanic worship, and presuppose that all beliefs around the world are twisted versions of belief in the Hebrew/Christian God.

Did you see the statue of Kali? It didn't look particularly friendly. I'm not presupposing anything of the kind. There's are a number of religions that bear no resemblance to Christianity/Judaism. They are what they are; no one's trying to force them into a mold. My point about demonic (and yes, I had Kali in mind) was that it was clearly evil; in Christianity, "clearly evil" means satanic/demonic, yes, so it's no crime to put Kali in the same category of "evil spirit/god", that is to say, one opposing the good.

Montana Smith said:
In Indy's world I think that the other gods - whether they're superior elemental beings or merely 'aliens' - have an individual identity.

Right, Kali is Kali, and I'm not questioning that.

Montana Smith said:
Polytheism supposes belief in many gods, though the individual need only worship one of them. In the Greek and Roman myths there were many gods. Some heroes had their guardian gods whom they worshipped, while other gods tried to thwart the hero's progress.

What I'm getting at is that beyond belief worship involved.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Walton said:
Did you see the statue of Kali? It didn't look particularly friendly. I'm not presupposing anything of the kind. There's are a number of religions that bear no resemblance to Christianity/Judaism. They are what they are; no one's trying to force them into a mold. My point about demonic (and yes, I had Kali in mind) was that it was clearly evil; in Christianity, "clearly evil" means satanic/demonic, yes, so it's no crime to put Kali in the same category of "evil spirit/god", that is to say, one opposing the good.

Right, Kali is Kali, and I'm not questioning that.

When I wrote "satanic" I meant as pertaining to Satan, not generally demonic. It would be possible for those of the Christian or Jewish belief to assign Kali to a form of Satan worship - that Kali is Satan/Lucifer in another guise.

But you've already qualified that by stating "Kali is Kali".

Walton said:
What I'm getting at is that beyond belief worship involved.

What I'm saying is that it's possible for Indy to be a polytheist simply by believing that more than one god exists, though a polytheist does not have to worship those other existing gods. For example, he may believe that Kali exists, but he wouldn't worship Kali in the manner of Mola Ram's cult.
 
Montana Smith said:
I think Indy would have to keep an open mind, as relating everything he witnesses or experiences to a Christian understanding would prove difficult, based on the Bible.
Not in the least. Christianity is remarkably versitile...as noted in a later post:
Montana Smith said:
When I wrote "satanic" I meant as pertaining to Satan, not generally demonic. It would be possible for those of the Christian or Jewish belief to assign Kali to a form of Satan worship - that Kali is Satan/Lucifer in another guise.

But you've already qualified that by stating "Kali is Kali".

What I'm saying is that it's possible for Indy to be a polytheist simply by believing that more than one god exists, though a polytheist does not have to worship those other existing gods. For example, he may believe that Kali exists, but he wouldn't worship Kali in the manner of Mola Ram's cult.
O, be some other name! What's in a name? that which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet.

as far as Kali and Shiva, their spheres of influence intersect so much they can be interchangeable...

You're going to have to clarify your position on polytheists...
 
Last edited:
Top