Page - 159 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 05/02

I believe in science.” In a later scene, the director crosscuts between Steven, who eats vegetables, and Nacho, who flushes a toilet and stands in the door- way between the locker room and the bathroom. He asks Steven why he never chose to be baptized, and his partner expresses outrage at being “judged” for a personal decision. This conversation is especially noteworthy because Catholic babies do not have a say in whether they will be baptized. Rather, Hess’s focus on Steven’s ability to choose reverberates within a Mormon paradigm where people must be at least eight years old to be baptized. Catholicism serves as a mask that makes the discussion legible to non-LDS viewers, but the scene is, at its core, one of Mormon teachings and practices. Indeed, Hess presents Nacho as a Lamanite whose eagerness and childlike faith lead him to commit procedural errors in his efforts to build up the Church. The aspiring luchador fills a bowl with water and dunks Steven’s face in it before saying “felicidades” (congratulations) and informing Steven that he has been baptized. Nacho’s jus- tification that the duo can only win that night’s match if both men are baptized evinces a serious lack of understanding of basic doctrines of baptism. Nacho sees no problem with the validity of this sacrament despite the fact that he never received Steven’s consent. Nacho’s enthusiasm causes him to ignore the Church’s – both LDS and Catholic – established modes of decorum, as he has apparently baptized a man against his will. Steven also exhibits an immature faith in a discourse that he does not fully understand. He almost certainly uses the term “science” as a euphemism for Darwinian evolution theory. His rejection of religion, then, comes from his ac- ceptance of a different version of the Creation from that taught in a literal ren- dition of the Bible. Steven’s assertion mischaracterizes the nature of scientific discourse by trying to make it commensurate with religious knowledge. Science is not – nor should it be understood as – an ideological counterweight to reli- gion. Where the former attempts to provide clear-cut answers about the nature of the world, life, and the afterlife through inductive means, the latter is, at its core, a system of knowledge based on falsification.65 Many people trust the findings of scientific inquiry over the teachings of a religious text, but this does not constitute faith in science. Rather, it reflects a deeper trust in the observa- tional rigor of scientific inquiry. Scientists rarely describe their findings as truth; instead, they frame scientific knowledge as the most correct representation currently available about a given reality. Rather than refer to existential or cos- mological truths, science exists as a process for acquiring and organizing knowl- edge. In asserting a belief in “science”, Steven ironically alludes to the fact that he probably knows very little about scientific discourse in general. As such, Ste- ven accepts Darwinism on the basis of faith rather than in-depth understanding. 65 Kuhn, 1996, 10–11. On (Dang) Quesadillas and Nachos | 159www.jrfm.eu 2019, 5/2, 141–165