Thought for the day

Not to mention that it's a heckuva lotta fun.

Thanks for pointing that out Paolo. I hadn't noticed your post. You have an interesting take on Contact. I've seen it several times and I thought they did a great job of being sensitive to scientific and religious differences, but I don't see the ending the same way that you do. To me the message was in many ways a subtle condemnation of religion. They weren't going to let Ellie go in the machine because she wasn't a believer. She ended up going anyway because a religious "end timer" nut case blew up the first machine. On her journey she experienced something profound and wonderous despite the fact that she did not believe in God. She met a more advanced form of life, but it wasn't God. Her journey was the culmination of her thirst for knowledge and her search for life beyond what we know. It didn't come about because she had blind faith. It was the result of her refusal to accept limits on what we can discover or come to understand. It was also a result of the higher life form that she met providing proof, and the means to take the journey. I suppose you could see that as analogous to god providing jesus as the means for us to take the journey and meet a higher being. It was left deliberately vague so that religious people could choose to see it that way if they wanted. But what happened to Ellie happened because of science, not faith. It was the result of using science to search for answers... not accepting an answer along the lines of (as Billy said) "we will have no real understanding until our human eyes are closed and our Heavenly eyes are open." Had Ellie taken a sentiment like that to heart, she'd never have found the opportunity to take her journey. The message and the plans to build the machine were delivered in a way that only a scientist could discover and understand. It didn't come from a spiritual revelation. When she returned, because she couldn't adequately prove what had happened, no one believed her... including the religious people! The message given to her by the being she met on her journey was not to pray or to have blind faith, but to have patience and to never stop seeking answers... and eventually, when we are sufficiently advanced to understand, we will have them. In the final scene, she's showing a group of school children the scientific instrument that led to the discovery of the message. To sum up, Contact was a celebration of the scientific quest for knowledge and answers, and the message of the film was that what we can discover can be every bit as profound, life changing, and beautiful, as what religious people imagine... but we won't get there through prayer or piety. It will come about because we never accept that anything is beyond us.



You're quite correct that our language often fails us. I hate the term "spirituality" and the way that it's most often used to denote some kind of differentiation, as in "I'm spritual but not religious." There is no difference. The concept of a spirit or soul is a religious contrivance born of our fear of death that postulates that our bodies are simply a shell and that when our body dies our essence will be able to escape to someplace else. It's a lovely notion. I think we all hope that there could be something more. I do. But we can't know until we die, and odds are, not even then. I do understand the way that you're using the words though... spirit meaning the possibility of there being something beyond this life, and religion meaning the organized exploitation of that desire.

When I hear things like Dirk and Billy's pissing contest about who's the most lowly sinner I see it as an unfortunate and cruel byproduct of the aforementioned exploitation that strips people of pride in themselves and of belief that they can rise above themselves and their circumstances all by themselves, without needing to grovel to a contrived idea of a vengeful judging god. The message in that is that no matter what we do we'll never be able to rise above our imperfections and the only thing to do is to surrender... to accept blindly... to be compliant... to say "I can't do this on my own. I throw myself at your mercy"... but don't demand anything of god... don't demand proof of what you'll actually get in exchange for surrendering because it's "beyond our understanding." My answer is an emphatic no. I do not accept those terms. If I live a good life and treat those around me with generosity and care... if I cause no harm to others... if I am loyal to those that I love and peaceful to those I do not... if I seek to always improve myself and my relationship with my environment... if I do all of those things and it turns out that Heaven is real but is not open to me simply because I refused to accept something blindly... then the whole system is a kind of sick parlor game and God is truly a petty tyrant.

Columbus, upon entering the new world, enslaved the locals believing that their cruel servitude was fair trade for showing them the path to eternal life. He was indeed the used car salesman from my previous analogy, and what he was selling was a purely Faustian deal.

I'm not being rude to you Billy. I'm giving you more credit than you're giving yourself. I'm sorry you find that difficult to understand.

I appreciate your perspective, Chip. It's interesting that we each seem to have taken from the movie (Contact) something that affirms our particular notions of the universe. Moreover, I think it demonstrates the human tendency to reinforce existing beliefs vs. exploring that which may be contrary. (I apply that critique to myself, equally.) That's what the empirical null hypothesis is all about, I suppose.

I guess my take on the second-to-last scene, where the review panel grills Ellie to justify a trillion-dollar project that didn't appear to go anywhere, was that Ellie came to understand the difficulty that persons of faith encounter when trying to describe a spiritual experience. And, interestingly enough, it is at that point when theologian Palmer Joss' puts his reputation on the line by expressing his belief in what Ellie has just experienced. Anyway, I wasn't attempting to prop up Contact as a proof text for my theory, per se. I simply wanted to point out that those of a spiritual or scientific bent can find a common ground, and if they are willing, they can set aside pre-conceptions and approach esoteric concepts with openness of mind. I agree that the depiction of the religious "establishment," as portrayed in this film, underscores the stereotpyically closed-minded religionists. We also saw portrayals of the fame-driven scientist (David Drumlin) and the power-hungry politician (Michael Kitz). My ultimate point, however, is that science and spirituality are not automatically of mutual exclusion, and each discipline can benefit the other.

Regarding your aversion to the term "spirituality," I hope that you can at least appreciate the distinction I am trying to convey. Legalistic religiosity is the product of humanity, in my humble opinion, not of God. Spirituality, as I personally define it, represents the ultimate freedom to explore, express and be.

Finally, I anticipated such a response to my Isabella/Columbus analogy. That's why I had originally removed that particular correlation from my post, but later, I decided that it was worthy of consideration in light of your used-car metaphor. Atrocities and gentrifications aside, I do assert that it took immense courage and open-mindedness to launch a voyage based on a theretofore unproven concept of a round earth. Further, given that it took place at that particular juncture in history is notable. Oftentimes, great universal discoveries are light years ahead of the then-current social and cultural framework, and their application is not always above reproach (read: Hiroshima/Nagasaki).

The movie was specifically and cleverly written in a way to pander to both camps. I read the book too but it was so long ago I don't remember how it compares in that respect. The one thing I do remember about it is that Sagan would go off on incredibly ponderous tangents that made the book difficult to read, hehe.

As usual our opinions are more similar than different. You use the term sprituality as being analogous to having the courage to dream big and imagine things that are far from our current experience. That courage of imagination is something that science and religion both share. The big difference is that spirituality in the religious sense is seen as an end in itself. Both of your examples (Ellie's journey in Contact, and Columbus's journey to the new world) were the result of acting on those grand ideas and seeking to prove them... not in the next life but in this one. No advancement in human history has ever been the result of spirituality, imagination, or faith as ends in themselves.

The thing I haven't resolved for myself is: if you have cake all the time, will it still be "good"? The contrast is not with a different idea (bad milk vs. good cake), but with the absence of the idea (cake vs. no cake).

In the context of humanity, the "good" is about moral choices. I expect that once you go to Heaven, you don't have the possibility of making a "bad" choice (to prevent ruining perfection). If that's the case, however, then you aren't making choices. And if you're not making choices, you're an automaton.

Returning to my premise that the Eden incident led to a monumental paradigm shift, where a perception of right and wrong replaced pure ontological freedom, I don't think that "bad" is the exclusive contrast to "good." Maybe in heaven I'll have choices of where to eat and sleep, who to talk to, when to fly, what music to create, what masterpiece to paint, etc. ad finitum. I personally don't believe that free will in heaven requires the juxtaposition of "good" vs "bad."

I agree Paolo.

I still have a problem with relating heaven to earthly things but to continue along that line of thought, whose to say that you won't have cake one day and an apple pie the next, a jucy steak after that or perhaps our favorite seafood dish.

I do not think that heaven will be performing a bunch of mundane tasks over and over. I think it will be an exciting and envigorating place where we are completely free to explore all aspects of ourselves. I think that there will be many things to learn, great songs to sing, great books to write etc...

That is kind of an earthly view but who knows if there will even be books, cake & stuff like that up there. The point is that there will be new and exciting experiences to enjoy. I believe that it will be an existance unlike anything we can imagine but that once we experience it and our eyes are opened fully that it will be wonderfull.

Your discussion is moot. God does not exist.

~Ulrika~

Kind of a latecomer to the party, eh Ulrika?

I thought I'd let you get going first. It's more fun to jab a stick in the spokes of a moving bicycle.

~Ulrika~

I think the atheist position has been herein well stated. The fact of the matter is that atheists can no more disprove the existence of a god or spirit realm than adherents can prove it. How does your statement add value to the discussion?

Now, now. Atheists have as much right to make statements of faith as anyone. "God does not exist" is probably the ultimate Atheistic statement of faith.

Most atheists would strongly disagree with your categorization of an assertion like Ulrika's as a "faith-based" statement.

Well, they have as much right to disagree with my statement as I have to disagree with theirs. I speak of faith in this definition of the word: a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Believing "God does not exist" when you cannot prove this as fact is a definiton of faith.

I suppose this is where I get a bit opinionated. I don't believe it's possible to not have faith. You can't know everything, and you have to believe in something. The more you resist in belief, the more you believe in resisting.

I agree with you, but an atheist would state that the burden of proof is on those of us who assert the existence of a god/spirit realm. They would argue that, given that we have no means by which to empirically validate the existence of spiritual substance, they are logically correct to make such statements. However, I personally agree that it takes as much "faith" to be an atheist as it does to believe in god/spirit. The question I usually pose to atheists is this: Is it not more correct to assume an agnostic (not knowing) position than to emphatically insist that there is no god?

Exactly! I think all atheists are actually closet agnostics.

What the heck *is* gnosis, anyways? My dictionary defines it as Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths. Intuitive apprehension?? B'wah? Can someone enlighten a poor confused lil angel? O.O

The definition of the two are disputed by both agnostics and atheists but roughly:

Agnosticism, is not a creed, but a method. This method of thought advocates that people do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

An agnostic doesn't necessarily believe or disbelieve in a god -- he or she doesn't profess to know if there's a god at all.

Atheism is basically defined as a disbelief in any god, that it is impossible for any gods to exist, so there's no reason to believe in the idea.

Since my refusal to worship god is based on a critical thinking path that has led me to conclude that god probably does not exist then I suppose that I am more of an agnostic than an atheist.

If someone were to show valid proof to me that god existed, I would not persist in a "belief" that god does not exist, which is what the actual definition of atheist implies.

Not believing in the Christian God requires no more faith than not believing in Vishnu, Thor, Zeus or the many other gods out there that one can choose not to believe in. For that matter it requires no more faith than not believing in Atlantis or in alien spaceships in Roswell, New Mexico. I will grant you however that not believing in all of these things does, in a sense, require a certain amount of faith but I think it is a different kind of faith than that often spoken of by Christians. It is a faith that one's worldview can be presumed to be reasonable accurate in light of the evidence that the aetheist has collected so far through life experience, a faith without which decisive action and probably sanity would be impossible.

It is a more passive and flexible form of faith in that it simply allows one not to believe in things that seem implausible until sufficient proof has been presented while it seems the Christian form of faith requires an active belief in a specific thing for which one has no proof.There is certainly an element of not knowing in this but it is not simply limited to not knowing with absolute certainty whether or not gods exist, but also other unproven things such as ghosts and psychic powers. To me the word agnostic implies that one gives greater credence to the idea of gods than the latter phenonmenon so while it may seem appropriate to this point of veiw I feel gives to much importance it to the possible existence of gods as opposed to other intangibles.

However, making an unequivocal statement like Ulrika's does, in fact, imply a more active type of faith or belief. Further, and despite anticipated protestations, American atheists seem to be more along the lines of anti-Christian activists than passive non-believers of any spiritual phenomena. They likely care far less about Roswell or Atlantis than Christianity, and probably justifiably so.


I can respect a person who says, "I do not believe in God because God hasn't been proven to me." Making a statement of fact that God does not exist, however, is a form of arrogance in my opinion. That statement cannot be proven for the same reason that the opposite statement cannot be proven. We can neither confirm or deny God's literal existence. However, there is plenty of evidence on either side of the argument. Perhaps we could re-focus our energies there instead of making blanket statements.

I agree with you on this one and I don't feel that Ulrika's comment was intended to contribute constructively to this conversation as she didn't atttempt to back up her position.

There is no point at all in such a thread as this if we don't attempt to understand the other people's veiwpoints and make our own arguements comprehensible.

Well stated Rose. That's the common atheist view, and mine also. The "atheism is an act of faith" argument doesn't hold any water because it's based on the false notion that atheism is an absolute position. It's not. It's simply the position that there's insufficent evidence or justification to believe. Claiming absolute certainty about anything of this nature would be a sign of insanity. Absolute proof for the non-exisence of something is impossible.



Is it also a form of arrogance for me to state that giant invisible ballet dancing hippos as big as planets do not exist? You only find a similar statement about God arrogant because it's contrary to what you want to believe. It's logically inconsistent to believe in God but not giant invisible hippos from outerspace. There's almost equal evidence to support the existence of both, and neither can be unequivocally proven not to exist. I doubt anyone here would claim agnosticism about the hippos, so why would they claim it about God? It would require throwing out the burden of proof people apply to everything else for the sake of not taking a position, or a desire for it to be true. Atheists don't do that.

There aren't three thousand years of recorded history associated with giant invisible ballet dancing hippos as big as planets. I understand your argument, and I have heard it many times, before. I even can respect it, when applied objectively. However, the nature of God/spirituality infers something about the nature of humanity. The same cannot be said for your hippos.

My kids recently checked out a video about two amateur archaelogists who sought to find the "true" Mt. Sinai. They believe they found it -- as well as a shallow continental shelf that could have been the pathway used during the Red Sea legend. What they believe to be Mt. Sinai was located not in the Sinai peninsula -- but rather, several miles inland within the borders of present-day Saudi Arabia. Along their journey, they discovered significant physical evidence to corroborate the story of Moses. Whether or not this proves the existence of God is obviously debatable. However, I do believe that there is a significant body of evidence for Judeo-Christianity that is simply being tossed aside for convenience sake -- and the above is only one small example. That's why I believe I can make the claim of arrogance I made, earlier. Just because our present cultural climate is at odds with religion does not excuse a fair evaluation of the evidence that is out there.

Archeologists could find proof that every single mortal person and place named in the bible actually existed and it would still not in any way be valid evidence that there's a god. 3000 years of human history have proven that creation myths and life after death myths are common, that's all.

I find this stubborn unwillingness to even consider the possibility of god or spirit as dangerous as the mal-informed religious zealot; I view it as just another form of extremism. If spirit is comprised of some element outside of our known physical plain, and if physical evidence of a god substance is the only evidence you will consider, then there is probably no point in debating this with you any further.

I don't recall the title of the video, so I will have to check on that and post it at a later time. Even then, I wonder if you would be willing to view it with an open mind. The evidence isn't just bone and pottery, but evidence in support of the miracles performed by God for the Jews wandering in the desert. Evidence that may, in fact, establish that God was where the Exodus story says he was at a given point in history. I find it troubling that atheists pooh-pooh legitimate attempts to use scientific methodology to support religious history. First, the claim is made that religion is all a fabrication or a myth or a fairy tale. Then, legitimate scholars go out and apply some concerted due diligence, but because it has religious connotations, the results are just crap in the atheist mind. Heck, some of these scholars were approaching it from the perspective of disproving biblical history, and wound up on "the other side."

Chip, we have established great mutual respect for one another in the past. However, I honestly think that you are so closed to the possibility that all we have left to do is lob argument and counter-argument, ad nauseum.