Carl Sagan's movie, 'Contact' was great, and the book that inspired it was amazing. What irks me about this movie is the ending *spoiler alert in case you've just woken from a 12-year coma*.
Ok, so Ellie Arroway hears a signal from the Vega system. It's indepently-verified by countries around the world as a series of prime numbers ending in 101 as the Universal language of math which any decently-advanced human civilization should understand as an intelligent-response signal.
The signal is discovered to contain images, sound, and oh yeah, blueprints for a machine which humans decide to build at a cost of a third of a trillion dollars (and they build two). After the first one is blown up by a religious fucktard (no surprise there), Ellie is selected as the occupant who will ride the second one to wherever it goes.
Then, the ball drops through, and when Ellie seemingly doesn't 'go' anywhere, the people who invested gargantuan amounts of money and who have no idea how this machine works (yet understand how big space is) simple don't believe Ellie's account, and she's basically put on trial.
Ok look numbnuts, it's not like I walked into the woods and came back with a story. We heard a signal, from Vega. That's fucking crazy. It counted through prime numbers which we all verified. Unprecedented. Then, we find structure and plans for a machine. Rich nations of the world and skilled scientists and teams of contractors build this thing for a cost greater than the GNP of many countries. Ok, done. The thing works. Fuckin-A, remember this came from a signal from outer space. We start the thing up and it creates enough energy to shake nearby buildings. Oh wait, did we learn how to build this from a signal that came from outer space? Yes.
We send a human through and she lives and has stores to tell about her experience, and NOW we're all god-damned skeptics!!! Here's a tip, be skeptical BEFORE you spend 2/3rds of a trillion!
I love the movie Contact, one of my favorites of all time, but trying to compare Ellie Arroway's experience to 'mere faith' is a category error. Faith is based on 'all things hoped for' or some drivel, but in contact, humans had verified the Vega-signal all around the world. Humans purportedly found repeated broadcasts, like the 'pong' to our 'ping' and the blueprints designated some kind of working structure that clearly humans wouldn't understand (after all we're not exactly space-faring yet) and...the humans who built it clearly agreed it was worth spending a third of a trillion dollars on....twice.
All of this and Ellie comes back alive. I think in real life, someone would have discovered the 18 hours of footage before Ellie was put on trial, and who would think some electronic gizmo is gonna transmit her voice from freakin' Vega anyway, not to mention modifying the plans sent from interstellar space and putting a seat in, as if a caveman is gonna improve on the Corvette.
In the end, Ellie is exonerated by the 18 hours, but long before that the evidence was crystal mother-scratchin' clear that aliens were talking to them.
I think 'Contact' movie-makers felt they had to treat 'faith' with kid gloves lest all the sensitive Christians piss themselves in anger, but come on, faith is not on par with anything where there's the slightest bit of evidence, because let's face it, in the world of faith anything goes.
That said, 'Contact' is a beautiful movie, and the way they treated the alien-contact made so much sense. Jodie Foster is so believable...perfect choice for the role. It's just too bad they had to make a big deal about Ellie's experience being on par with mere 'faith', because last I checked, nobody's god was sending any kind of signals from anywhere.
-dB-
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Atheist Angle RSS Feed
11 comments:
Speaking as an aetheist....you really have missed the point.
Ricardo,
Your spelling of atheist is straight out of the Middle Ages, LOL.
Ok, how have I missed the point with the movie, 'Contact'? You haven't provided any explanation to support your statement.
The point of the movie was that human beings are deceptive, manipulative and paranoid creatures. The aliens know this, hence the slow reveal, but....
It's a constant battle between science and faith on the outside, but internally it's about the powerful pulling strings to the advantage of themselves and the human race.
In most of history, smart powerful people have used religion and faith to control the masses. Is it any surprise that the 'powers that be' built two for the price of one? That the 'powers that be' decoded how to assemble them? That the 'powers that be' then used faith to discredit the pilot, no doubt so they could play with their new toy in private?
You know as well as I do that they're gonna know if she's telling the truth in about 24 hours when they drop someone else through the machine. How do you stop everyone from trying to blow it up, take a ride, or get the advantage? Pretend it doesn't exist and discredit everyone involved.
A. It's implied(at least I gathered) from her conversation with the alien that only she would be allowed to interact with them, and that dropping someone else through the machine would not have the same effect as the first time.
B. I don't think it is mentioned in the movie that the aliens know anything about humans until they meet Ellie. Maybe they do, but I did not interpret the "point" of the movie to be that humans are deceptive, manipulative, and paranoid. Characters in the film portrayed these qualities, but the aliens did not mention them, and the protagonist certainly did not possess them. The point, as I interpreted it, was to draw comparisons between a faith in science and a faith in religion.
C. I think Dan definitely missed the point. Religion and those with faith were portrayed in a positive light in the film(Ace Busey aside). It wasn't out of fear of pissing off Christians, because that is stupid, arrogant logic. It was because Sagan had respect for those of faith and wanted to liken it to his faith in science. Sagan was not an atheist; he was an agnostic, a skeptic.
It is also interesting that even the super advanced aliens from Vega were searching for their own answers. They didn't know anything about those who came before them. As humans looked to them as gods, they looked to those who created the universe with the same cluelessness.
Many of the other complaints about the skepticism surrounding her voyage through the machine are explained by Sagan's desire to draw these faith comparisons and Zemeckis' effort to make a compelling film.
Bottom line: Dan's haste to dismiss the faith aspect of Contact as pandering and a false equivalence clearly demonstrates that he missed the point of the movie.
Chris,
First, thanks for revealing your ignorance about the nature of faith, science and your personal ignorance about the difference between agnostic and atheist.
Science is not 'faith-based', and to attempt to claim that Sagan (the most famous science-popularizer in history to-date) equated religious faith with scientific understanding not only misrepresents Sagan, but betrays your own deep ignorance of the differences between dogma and evidence.
Sagan railed against dogma (and religious faith), which is why he wrote the book, 'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.'
Sagan was an admitted 'agnostic', but if you understand basic logic and the definition of atheism, an agnostic IS an atheist. You cannot disavow knowledge of a deity and also logically profess belief in it. Sagan was a non-believer (despite his confusing self-identification) as his is widow, Ann Druyan.
I've also read the book, 'Contact' and it's quite-critical of religious-faith. In fact, the point of the book and movie was to show that bigotry against atheists is alive and well, and religious extremism is damaging. You want to wave-away the chief villain in the movie, but that villain acted on behalf of his sincere religious beliefs, as does the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK and Creationists who attempt to keep the fact of evolution out of schools or those who attempt to curtail reproductive-freedom or marriage-equality.
If you think science and faith on-par, you know nothing about either.
Now, go read my blog on the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
http://www.atheistangle.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-is-atheistagnostic.html
Dan
Dan,
First, thanks for affirming my claim that you are arrogant in your first sentence. I have now read your blogpost(you're welcome) on the difference between atheist and agnostic and, though confused, am no longer ignorant as to your views.
I respectfully disagree with your blog post's assertion that an agnostic is inherently atheist. From my understanding, your reasoning is that as soon as an agnostic is aware of the claim that there is a god, they are no longer agnostic. This is because this claim is 'all there is,' the claim should be rejected on its face, and, therefore, there is nothing left for the agnostic to be unknowing about.
My problem is two-fold: 1. This all assumes that the claim of a god is, logically speaking, internally inconsistent, and should be rejected on its face. The problem here is that "you haven't provided any explanation to support your statement." Please elaborate. 2. People who claim there is a god actually think there is a god somewhere, somehow, in some fashion. While the claim might be 'all there is' with regards to proof, there is theoretically some existence of god beyond just the claim. This existence would be what the agnostic is unknowing about.
As to your most recent opinion, you said the following,
- "Sagan was an admitted 'agnostic', but if you understand basic logic and the definition of atheism, an agnostic IS an atheist."
- Again, we have differing opinions of the definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist," but basic logic tells me if Carl Sagan thought himself an atheist, he would have said he was an atheist. Likewise, if Carl Sagan thought himself an agnostic, basic logic tells me that he is right and you are wrong, but we may have different definitions of "basic logic."
- "You cannot disavow knowledge of a deity and also logically profess belief in it."
- Yeah, obviously, those two things contradict each other, but if you considered yourself incapable of knowing whether one or the other, or neither, were correct, you'd be agnostic.
-"Sagan was a non-believer (despite his confusing self-identification) as his is widow, Ann Druyan. "
- Non-believer and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. You can be a non-believer towards religion, yet still claim to be unknowing as to the existence of a supreme being. I'm guessing you disagree, in which case, whatever.
Enough about semantics, let's talk about the movie.
-"Science is not 'faith-based', and to attempt to claim that Sagan (the most famous science-popularizer in history to-date) equated religious faith with scientific understanding not only misrepresents Sagan, but betrays your own deep ignorance of the differences between dogma and evidence."
The beauty of art is that two people can look at the same piece and come away with different meanings. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right. The difference is that I "think" you missed the point of the movie, and was turned off by your arrogance in dismissing any other possibilities, while you know that even attempting to claim that he was drawing a comparison, "...not only misrepresents Sagan, but betrays your own deep ignorance..." Do you see the parallel there with (my definition of) agnosticism vs. atheism? No? As Aristotle once said, "The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
"Science is not 'faith-based'," Agreed, I guess you are quoting yourself because I certainly didn't say it was. I also didn't say that Sagan "equated" religion and science. Science and faith are closer to opposites; one based on fact and one based off of belief. That doesn't mean that you can't compare the two. Here's where the distinction comes in my own mind:
What happens when the value of science, the payoff for all of the effort, is not apparent? Why should we continue to focus on exploring the universe for intelligent life when, chances are, it will never benefit our civilization in any tangible way in any reasonable time period? Should we believe in the SETI program, or should we abandon it because it lacks the groundedness of other sciences that can help us here in the known world? Sagan believed in the SETI program, and he knew that faith in the process, not so much the outcome, would be required for us to become a space faring species. This is the comparison I took from the film. That someone having a faith in science, even when it's value lacks evidence, could have parallels with having a faith in religion even when it's validity lacks evidence.
I reference the fact, when forming my opinion, that Ellie is left at the end of film asking people to believe her story with no evidence, and to have faith in her. I think that when the only person who does believe her is a religious man,it at least makes my theory, that Sagan was drawing the comparison between a faith in science to a faith in religion, worth considering. Am I completely wrong? Maybe. Am I betraying my "own deep ignorance of the differences between dogma and evidence?" I'll let you know just as soon as I figure out what the hell that means.
I await your nasty, arrogant response, because as an atheist, you are incapable of turning the other cheek or letting someone disagree with your beliefs.
Chris
“First, thanks for affirming my claim that you are arrogant in your first sentence. I have now read your blogpost(you're welcome) on the difference between atheist and agnostic and, though confused, am no longer ignorant as to your views. “
How does this relate to the claim that you consider me to be arrogant? You’re the one who doesn’t know the difference between atheist and agnostic, and you’re the one who is getting it wrong if you think that an agnostic is somehow not an atheist.
“I respectfully disagree with your blog post's assertion that an agnostic is inherently atheist.”
So I am arrogant, but you respectfully disagree? Isn’t that sweet.
“From my understanding, your reasoning is that as soon as an agnostic is aware of the claim that there is a god, they are no longer agnostic. This is because this claim is 'all there is,' the claim should be rejected on its face, and, therefore, there is nothing left for the agnostic to be unknowing about. “
Of course. If you know a claim (and the claim is all there is), then you’re NOT agnostic about said claim. Furthermore, if you claim NOT to know the god in-question, you certainly cannot ascribe belief in said-god. At least, not logically.
“My problem is two-fold: 1. This all assumes that the claim of a god is, logically speaking, internally inconsistent, and should be rejected on its face. “
It is. Most popular definitions of god are exactly this; contradictory and incoherent even in-definition. However, the CLAIM is all there is. Any god CLAIM you know about precludes agnosticism. If you haven’t heard the claim, you’re also an atheist by way of agnosticism (without knowledge).
“The problem here is that "you haven't provided any explanation to support your statement." Please elaborate. 2. People who claim there is a god actually think there is a god somewhere, somehow, in some fashion. While the claim might be 'all there is' with regards to proof, there is theoretically some existence of god beyond just the claim. This existence would be what the agnostic is unknowing about. “
False. The god claim is not a theory. Also, if you believe there is a god that can be known, then you’re a provisional theist. This is the ruse of agnosticism. Remember, god-claims are often specific and if we examine them even casually we find them to be incoherent. This applies to popular god claims such as Christianty, which I suspect you’re sympathetic-toward.
“- Again, we have differing opinions of the definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist," but basic logic tells me if Carl Sagan thought himself an atheist, he would have said he was an atheist.”
False. Some people (like yourself) don’t understand that an agnostic IS necessarily an atheist, and the only reason we have ‘agnostic’ in common parlance is because atheists have been slandered and maligned for centuries, and even killed for heresy or impeity at one time. There’s still a stigma against atheists, and we remain the most-hated or one of the most-hated minorities in America.
“ Likewise, if Carl Sagan thought himself an agnostic, basic logic tells me that he is right and you are wrong, but we may have different definitions of "basic logic."”
Argument from authority. Sagan lacked a belief in god. That makes him an atheist. Even if he never called himself an atheist, he was still an atheist. Ann Druyan (his widow) would likely understand that he was an atheist, even if he self-described as an agnostic. Neil DeGrasse Tyson also self-defines as an agnostic, but he’s also an atheist. Bill Maher used to self-identify as an agnostic, but now he properly self-identifies as an atheist.
As people better-understand the terms they will eventually come to correct labels, but a lot of the usage of ‘agnostic’ has more to do with political-expediency than anything else, because it’s safer, especially if you’re a science-popularizer as Sagan was, and especially during the time he was doing it.
“- Yeah, obviously, those two things contradict each other, but if you considered yourself incapable of knowing whether one or the other, or neither, were correct, you'd be agnostic.”
First, you assume that all agnostics consider themselves incapabale of knowing whether either was correct. Some agnostics (self-labeled) will readily-admit that they don’t believe in god, or shocker, that they DO believe in a god. Don’t confuse what people label themselves with what they actually do or don’t believe, especially relating to the confusing term, ‘agnostic’.
For those who think they can’t know, they’re just wrong. Obviously, a god that is said to have made the Universe from nothing but itself has always existed is a stupid claim with no evidence, and in fact, with counter-evidence. This claim can be waved-away without fuss, because it’s absurd. As Hitchens was known to say, ‘That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.’
“- Non-believer and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. You can be a non-believer towards religion, yet still claim to be unknowing as to the existence of a supreme being. I'm guessing you disagree, in which case, whatever.”
A non-believer is an atheist, but an agnostic (without knowledge) is a misnomer in most cases because the person who claims agnosticism DOES know the claim in-question. It’s like someone claiming that invisible pink horses can fly. I am not agnostic about the claim, because I know the claim. I am a provisional non-believer about this claim, but I am open to evidence/proof, as-always.
Don’t confuse being open to evidence with agnosticism. I am open to evidence for any absurd claim, but I will provisionally reject absurd claims in the meantime.
“Do you see the parallel there with (my definition of) agnosticism vs. atheism? No? As Aristotle once said, "The more you know, the more you know you don't know."”
I know that you’re wrong about your false distinction between agnosticism and atheism. Also, the sooner you stop calling me arrogant, the sooner you might be able to work on an argument that doesn’t rely on name-calling.
“I reference the fact, when forming my opinion, that Ellie is left at the end of film asking people to believe her story with no evidence, and to have faith in her.”
It’s not that simple, because the plans were in PI, and the machines cost what, a trillion dollars each or some ridiculous sum? Why would humanity build TWO machines and then not believe her when she dropped through? Obviously, everything up till the point where they tested the machine worked. I mean, they built the damn things. So, it’s not a good corollary to faith.
“I think that when the only person who does believe her is a religious man,it at least makes my theory, that Sagan was drawing the comparison between a faith in science to a faith in religion, worth considering.”
You must have no idea who Sagan was to think that. Sagan found faith to be dangerous, even if he was somewhat poetic in his delivery in most cases. He was also a non-believer and so is his widow.
“Am I completely wrong? Maybe. Am I betraying my "own deep ignorance of the differences between dogma and evidence?" I'll let you know just as soon as I figure out what the hell that means.”
Yes. It’s one thing to think Sagan thought it, but to actually think that there is a comparison between faith in science and faith in religion is asinine. Faith does not work on evidence, it works on unquestioned conclusions. Science is led by evidence, which is what makes it possible for us to have a dialogue using computers, bits of light, satellites in some cases, some silicon, electricity, etc. Religion actually suppresses science and has historically done so because it’s threatened by science (a fact NOT lost on Sagan). You really should read ‘The Demon Haunted World’ sometime.
“I await your nasty, arrogant response, because as an atheist, you are incapable of turning the other cheek or letting someone disagree with your beliefs. “
See, there you go attacking my character again. I assume you’re a theist of some stripe? Or, do you call yourself an agnostic? You can disagree with me all you want. I left your comments up, didn’t I? A lesser person would have deleted them and ignored you.
Post a Comment