A lot of their individual respective positions was made clear already in the time we spent in episodes leading up to this one before they met and ever had any interaction, but this really solidified the two opposing camps of Schmidt's and Draka's worldviews and belief system (though two opposing camps they may be, but as representatives of them both are intelligent, logical, and pragmatic enough to at least temporarily seek mutual alignment and cooperation against the Catholic theocracy and terror regime).
Draka's is more clear-cut and unambiguous; she's a staunch atheist. In Schmidt's case, he seems like a believer in some form of animism. The closest to major organized religion it would probably become is maybe bearing some resemblance to some of the Dharmic faiths, like Hinduism, which have animistic elements. Even though the setting is obviously medieval Poland-inspired, it still is a Japanese show with all our characters speaking Japanese (not in-universe), so it's difficult for something like Shinto not to immediately come to mind as well. Chinese Taoism also. And so on. Either way, it's not clearly defined but the conundrum is that the more one sought to clearly define it, the greater form it would take in hierarchy, organized rituals, etc., and then it would probably be inherently reflexively rejected by Schmidt himself as a new illegitimate would-be aristocracy or institutional hierarchy, overly concerned with and a slave to formalism. So it remaining decentralized, without any foundational guiding sacred text or defined roles or offices, and therefore somewhat intangible, seems like a significant part of the appeal and argument for its legitimacy.
One thing is for certain - that if it were to be compared to any world religion, the Abrahamic religions seem furthest from it, with what one could argue is their over-elevation, even deification of mankind and the role of man, and anthropomorphization of the godhead.
What's delightful to me is that I could watch the scene featuring their exchange, follow their conversation, and afterward come away not fully agreeing with either one. I agree with Draka's sense of practicality and utilitarianism, that everything - every tool which can be put to use to better someone's life, safety, comfort, and the advancement of technology and the world, should be done, and let all sentimental hangups about it as an artificial self-imposed limitation out of some sense of reverence or something like that, be damned. I don't agree with their atheism. I agree with Schmidt's - what's in effect, a creationist argument. That logically it doesn't jive for me that at the origin point of the universe, that something can come from nothing.
There has to be some form of origin behind it all - even if one were to expand on modern knowledge of the Big Bang theory, universe expanding and contracting heat death and entropy theory, multiverse (parallel universes) theory, etc. Even if you harnessed all established knowledge derived from modern computational astrophysics (which, of course, wouldn't have been available to the characters in this time period). Even if you have to go back hundreds of billions, trillions, an octillion, nonillion, a decillion, a googolplex number of years - at some point lies the origin and that to me is what someone could call "God" even if it's assumed it would be something unintelligible to a human or any other animal brain, and pointless and futile to attempt to ascribe an ego or personality to it, let alone a human one.
(Although not knowing that for a fact and self-awareness and recognition that I do not and cannot at present know it for a fact, I suppose places me closer to the agnostic camp)
Yet he loses me when he starts to go on about the impermissible nature of advancing medical science and technology to save lives and improve quality of life and welfare, as if this would be an act of defiance flouting God's "natural will". This seems more in line with the Christian fundamentalist perspective, that everything is preordained in some way and trying to actually take independent action to change your fate is somehow an insult to God, denying his grace and questioning his plan and design. Even if Schmidt's god isn't the Christian or general Abrahamic god, he seems to replace that figure and role with the cult of "nature" or "the will of the universe". This shouldn't be utilized to justify restricting human agency. If everything in the entirety of the universe is natural, there is a god or gods, and he/she/they made the forest, the rivers, the planets, the ants, and the humans alike, then logically humans are just as much a natural part and extension of the universe and God's will/design as any other individual creature or natural feature or aspect of it, and therefore anything humans do, including to better their own lives and condition individually or collectively, can arguably be described as perfectly natural.
So I never got that line of thinking, which is a common piece of logic (which to me is illogical) you often see in people who share some of Schmidt's beliefs.
But don't get me wrong. I don't dislike at all the characters having these views and eloquently expressing them to each other. That one, as a member of the audience, may agree and disagree with individual parts of both of what they're saying and have a third view just makes it all the more engaging and adds depth and realism to these characters and their world. To me those characters are endlessly more interesting than ones you agree with every single thing they say on or disagree with every single thing they say. Or like or dislike every single thing they do. Because it's unrealistic. In reality you could have people like Draka and Schmidt and it would probably be great fun to have spirited, fierce debates with them. They're the kind of people who could say something you consider brilliant and presciently insightful one moment, and then utterly asinine and/or seemingly contradictory to their previous statements the next. Because they're human and therefore flawed and don't have all the answers. That affects every single character and every one of us in the audience both.
|