I sat down to talk with Cy Kellett, host of Catholic Answers Focus, to talk about the surprisingly-deep metaphysical and theological questions in the new Marvel series Loki. For instance, the show turns on the fact that (slight spoiler alert) Loki is hunting, and later teaming up, a female version of himself from an alternate timeline (who calls herself Sylvie). This variant asks the obvious question, “What exactly makes a Loki, a Loki?” to which Loki can only reply, “Independence, authority, style.”
Here’s a lightly-edited transcript of part of that conversation, which I wanted to highlight:
Joe Heschmeyer: The principle of identity stuff going on there is really interesting. This is going to sound very strange. There’s actually a really solid disproof of atheism embedded in that dialogue.
Cy Kellett: I just want to repeat that, because that’s actually strikes me. You think that there’s something here that disproves atheism?
Joe Heschmeyer: I do. I think what they’re flagging is that a materialistic… And materialistic here, I don’t mean like greedy. I mean people who think matter is all there is. That kind of materialistic. That view of the universe doesn’t account for identity. It doesn’t account for how you can be Cy. I can be Joe. Forget clones, forget Variants, and replicas. It doesn’t account for what makes us, us. And you can see this.
Actually, Carl Sagan had a line. I actually printed it out, to make sure I was able to quote him fairly. He says, “I’m a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan. You are a collection of almost identical molecules with a different collective label. But is that all? Is there nothing in here, but molecules? Some people find this idea somehow demeaning to human dignity.” (Do you think?) “For myself, I find it elevating that our universe permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we are.”
Well, here’s the problem with Sagan’s view, and I think that Sylvie is tapping into it. If you are just a collection of molecules, that collection of molecules is changing as we speak.
So you don’t exist. There’s no meaningful sense in which Cy… That’s just the label we slap onto whatever molecules happen to be roughly shaped like you at any given moment. There’s no continuity. There’s no principle of any kind of underlying unity that makes you the same person that you were a year ago, or 10 years ago, or tomorrow, or in the next breath. And so there’s just no person… There’s no good account for identity, meaning there’s no good account for personhood. That’s a really basic thing for a worldview to need to provide.
And the fact that even brilliant scientists are saying it. The issue is not just that it’s demeaning. The issue is that it actually fails to meet the-
Cy Kellett: It doesn’t explain it. It’s non-explanatory. And you just have to live with a non-explanation, if you’re going to accept that.
Joe Heschmeyer: Exactly. And so the great thing about the Loki show is there’s this multiverse, so you have different matter and you have… So there is this question of, “Okay. Well, if it’s no matter in common at all”… We see them next to each other. They’re clearly not using the same atoms.
Cy Kellett: Right. So what’s the identity of Loki? I see.
Joe Heschmeyer: What does it even mean to say both of them are Loki on different timelines? Why wouldn’t we just say they’re two different people? For that matter, because-
Cy Kellett: Yeah. They’re not the same person.
Joe Heschmeyer: … they’re not the same person. Like identical twins have more in common than these two Loki. And so then the question becomes, “Okay, so what does?” And it’s funny-
Cy Kellett: What makes a Loki a, Loki is a great…
Joe Heschmeyer: Independence, which is a terrible answer to like how you can all be the same, is that you’re all unique. You’re all independent. And so there’s like a certain harmony of style that Loki kind of points to as to what makes a Loki, a Loki. But, of course, that can’t be a good answer.
Cy Kellett: No. That’s descriptive. It’s still not explanatory.
Joe Heschmeyer: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Cy Kellett: You only go by a thing that is stylish and independent. That’s a Loki? No. What is a Loki? Like, “What is a Joe Heschmeyer?” is a great question. And Sagan’s description is demonstrably wrong.
Joe Heschmeyer: Yes.
Cy Kellett: It’s demonstrably wrong. Because he says, “Well, you’re a group of molecules and calcium and whatnot, water, that’s labeled Joe, and I’m labeled Carl Sagan?” Well, actually, the label is not what makes me, me. Clearly, everything about me says, “This is not just a matter of labeling that makes me, me.” There’s something here that you’re labeling. What is it?
Joe Heschmeyer: Right. You can have two strangers whose names you don’t know, and you still know they’re not the same person.
Cy Kellett: Yeah. Very well said. Yeah. Right. And also, I think this is also demonstrably false. He says, “It’s ennobling to say that the universe has permitted me” or something like that. Well, relative to what? It’s not ennobling relative to the claim that I am made in the image and likeness of God. Like clearly, one of those is a nobler thing. You may believe that it’s a fantasy, but it’s still a nobler thing.
Joe Heschmeyer: Right. Yeah. So both, in terms of which one’s a more plausible theory, and in which one’s a more noble theory. Christianity and theism more broadly winning hands-down, compared to an atheistic view that says, “You’re just a clump of cells or atoms or molecules, or fill in the blank.” That fails to pass the basic threshold test. Now you’ll notice this kind of stuff comes up a lot in the abortion debate. It’s like, “Well, the unborn child is just a clump of cells.” And it’s like, “Yeah. But you think I’m just a clump of cells. You think we’re all just clumps of cells.” How could that possibly be your argument?
Cy Kellett: Well, it’s just a tiny clump of cells.
[…]
Joe Heschmeyer: So the totally materialistic kind of explanation doesn’t cut it. You also can’t do it on a genetic basis either. You can’t say, “A Loki is a Loki because they had such and such genes,” because identical twins share the same genes. And you also have these rare cases where a person will have two-
Cy Kellett: Sets of genes.
Joe Heschmeyer: Yeah. And so that’s not a good enough explanation. So you ultimately end up needing to point to something like the soul. That you need some sort of form to animate the matter, to put it in kind of Thomistic or Aristotelian terms. And in that case, Loki and Sylvie, this parallel universe Loki, they’re not the same person. They’re actually just two different people who maybe had similar starting conditions. But they actually have what sounds like pretty different upbringing. So they just have two different people who were kind of being flagged as the same person without any real explanation for why.
Cy Kellett: No. Right. And I don’t believe in the multiverse. I’m not interested in that. I think the multiverse is a silly idea, myself. But let’s say there is a multiverse. And they’ll go, “Well, there’s a U in this other universe.” Actually, there is not a me in this other… There another person, but that person is not me. It’s not just like me. And then another me, and then another me. That’s impossible, given what an individual is.
Joe Heschmeyer: Exactly. This question comes up in much more practical terms, with twins, with cloning, with all of those things where it’s like, “No, no.” You could take the same genes, and another person could have the exact same genetic code. There are real life situations where that happens. Tim Staples, his wife is a twin. I don’t know if she’s an identical twin or not. But my sister is married to an identical twin. Like twins exist in real life. This is not a theoretical question of, “Are they the same person?” They’re clearly different people.
And so you can’t do it on that basis. You can’t do it on the basis of just molecules. Something more than that gives distinct personality to each person. And to make it even more complicated, you have what are called conjoined twins or someone’s called Siamese twins where they actually will share, even in some cases, some organs. And so, whatever it is that’s making us unique isn’t reducible even to organs, which is fascinating.
Cy Kellett: Because no matter how conjoined those two people are, conjoined means there’s two of them. There’s two people. We all know that that is two people. Okay. First of all, plaudits, applause to the Loki program for raising this question, because it’s a basic fundamental question that is very easy to avoid. What does it mean to be me?
You can watch it, starting just shy of the 3-minute mark here:
By the way, if you prefer reading to watching (and wondering why I didn’t wear taller socks), you’re in luck, since they wrote up a full transcript!
Yet another attempt to popularize and spread the occult. Loki is a demon which manifests at times in exorcisms.
End of story.
The fact that you posted your comment at 12:13 in the morning is suspicious. Most people would be sleeping at that time, not commenting on Catholic blog posts about a Marvel Cinematic Universe character.
Mythological Loki and MCU Loki are very different. Also, I appreciate the warning. However, I have seen quite a few movies with depictions of magic and after seeing them, I am not in the least bit interested in dabbling in the occult. Why would I want magic when I have God?
The point of my second reply is this: Watching “Loki” is a matter of personal discernment. If it’s not going to be too much of a temptation, then it’s fine to watch it. If it is going to be too great a temptation, then avoid it. As I said, movies and TV shows depicting magic and figures in pagan folklore pose, especially if the depictions are far from the real thing, no temptation to me.
Different time zone Susana; or maybe I was up late!
This trash is produced by people who are shall we say, exponents of the occult. The evidence of their luciferian affiliations is lying around all over for anyone who wants to notice it.
You may think yourself spiritually invulnerable, but isn’t the question more whether a professing Christian should ever pollute themselves with such stuff for “entertainment” purposes?
Do you think He approves?
No, I don’t think I’m spiritually invulnerable.
On the contrary, I worry about offending to God to a very unhealthy level and suffer from OCD so I perceive a lot of things as threatening to my spiritual health when they’re actually not most of the time.
As for “Do you think He approves,” watching stuff like this is a matter of personal discernment as I said. The Lord gave us the gift of discernment for stuff like this.
Sorry I judged you.
And I’m not without sin despite the fact that my OCD alerts me about spiritual danger that often turns out to be nothing of the sort.
Joe, a little help would be appreciated. It seems you’ve seen the entire first season of “Loki.” Correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t know what else to say to James here.
There’s a bit in one of the episodes where Loki uses telekinesis to stop a tower from falling. From what I know, telekinesis isn’t real.
As I said to James, I have OCD. I also have high-functioning autism.
And I’m skeptical of James’s claims because what happens in exorcisms is supposed to be confidential. At least, that’s my understanding.
Or least what happens in exorcisms is not to be shared with the public.
Never mind. Telekinesis is real and it’s part of the occult.
Even so, I’m still skeptical about James’s claims. And like I told James, depictions of magic, whether fantasy/fairytale or occult, in pop culture don’t pose a significant temptation to me.
That’s been the case since long before I started experiencing religious OCD.
I once watched a couple of interviews with the late Christopher Lee, who was rumored to have occult books in his home. In one of the interviews, he warned the audience to never dabble in the occult. Of course, I heeded such a warning from an actor who had a commanding presence.
In the other interview, he talked about filming a movie in which he had to do a scene of a Satanic baptism ritual. He asked the baby’s parents if they were comfortable with their child being in the scene. They were because they knew he wasn’t performing the ritual for real. They knew it was just acting.
So my point is, even when a movie or TV shows depicts occult magic, like the Pirates of the Caribbean films depicting Voodoo and dark magic, I give the filmmakers and actors the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re just acting rather than actually using occult magic.
However, the “whole multiple timelines and alternate versions of oneself” premise that Loki makes James’s claims look even more ludicrous. Star Trek did the whole mirror universe and alternate version of oneself trope first. Gene Roddenberry doesn’t strike me as a proponent of the occult. Almost every major franchise is jumping on the “traveling between multiple alternate timelines and there are multiple alternate versions of oneself” train now.
So unless there are a ton of alternate timelines/universes and a dozen variants of me, let alone a more sadistic variant of me, anyone with half a brain can see how fantastical the Loki show is.
And I do listen to Jimmy Akin’s podcast, which covers strange things like “multiple alternate timelines and alternate versions of oneself” from the perspective of faith and reason.
And I was amazed at the deep philosophical questions the “Loki” series tackled. Deep philosophical questions relevant to our faith.
I was thinking about the philosophical themes more than the magic parts. That’s How thought providing the show was.
*provoking
While I acknowledge that the Devil does indeed come as an Angel of Light, the multiple neurological disorders I have often make matters more complicated than something being a spiritual problem. I often think something is a spiritual problem, but then discover it’s one or more of my neurological disorders influencing my behavior.
So while I don’t ever want to become complacent, I do need to ratchet down the overspiritualizing things.
Sorry for wording some things uncharitably, particularly the whole “anyone with half a brain” statement.
Let me rephrase that: several Christian websites have articles about “Loki” and nearly all of them recognized how far-fetched the whole multiverse premise of the show is. The way a lot of movies and TV shows present the multiverse is consistent with the physics side of the multiverse concept, not the esoteric side.
Also, like you have done with this post, all of the articles deal with the philosophical questions that the show tackles.
One article even said that “Loki” inivites the Christian to ponder God’s character and sovereignty. The show led me to ponder those philosophical questions.
While I understand James’s concern, I’m just saying I think it’s more nuanced than this show is trash that Christians shouldn’t ever polute themselves with and that the people who produce shows like this are proponents of the occult. I think some critical thinking is recommended.
Also, when someone replies especially about a subject that is one of my restricted interests (like this show), it’s difficult for me to let go due to the autism.
I just wanted to let you know that in my case, this is an autism, OCD, and anxiety disorder problem.
I apologize for the long string of comments. Ideas come to me later quite often!
Besides, by James’s logic, reading The Odyssey and The Iliad is polluting ourselves, too. Homer was a pagan and by James’s logic, he produced trash. And yet, my parents went to a Catholic college that was quite orthodox and yet they read The Odyssey and The Iliad at that orthodox Catholic college!
Also, I read The Odyssey and The Iliad for pleasure one summer. My Mom recommended them to me, but I chose to read them.
I have found a Google Chrome extension to hide comment boxes on websites, so if and when I get a reply from you, Joe, I will read it and then activate the Chrome extension for this website to preserve my peace of mind and practice self-care.