Posts Tagged ‘Evolution’

Atheist film ‘The Ledge’ will only work if it’s also a good film!

Friday, July 1st, 2011

Movies relating to atheism and religion have always been an arena of both idiocy and disappointment. In general, attempts to misrepresent the non-religious come off as thinly-veiled evangelizing pieces; whilst scripts from our side carry a good story and message, but have been let down in the past by it’s execution.

The scientific, and atheistic, community collectively face-palmed at Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which was most certainly the working title, in which the monotone professor from The Mask explained how any scientist who put forward an Intelligent Design (the “theory” that relies on magic) oriented paper was immediately chucked out of their institution. To show how fair and balanced this was, it was peppered with old film-reels of the Nazis, Hitler and the Holocaust; Stein never explained what their relevance was, but the implication was laid on thick, because that’s what propaganda does. Complete with token interviews with Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers with selective editing so obvious it can be seen from space. Incidentely, the studio that produced Expelled recently went bankrupt and had to sell the film rights, complete with all production materials (e.g. footage cut from the movie) to cover their debts. There was a murmur about TalkOrigins bidding to buy it, but nothing came of this and the film was ultimately “won” by an unnamed buyer for around $200,000. You’ve got to admit though, for all Stein’s idiotic displays, he has managed to work out how to be a moderately prolific actor (albeit almost entirely as brief background characters) with no acting talent, or ability to inflect his voice, whatsoever.

That's also the slogan to his clubhouse

Even fiction, such as 2009’s Creation, a biopic of Charles Darwin’s life as he struggles with the death of his daughter and the implications of his developing theory of evolution, can be touchy. Despite the film having surprisingly little to do with the theory, the lion’s share of the screen time exploring Darwin’s grief (the story being based on the book Annie’s Box by Darwin’s descendant Randal Keynes), the very thought of a film about Charles Darwin was enough to make most film distributors in the US resist showing it, fearing it would be too controversial. Every review written by an explicitly religious website talks less about the movie and more about the theory of evolution, in all cases failing to understand it and simply going on what they’ve been told by creationist preacher and noted soap-dropper Kent Hovind. The film itself is actually nothing special, it’s a visually amazing film with great cinematography, but the acting is sub-par.

The obvious religious imagery couldn't have helped, though

There was also Bill Maher’s Religulous, which was mostly just the American comedian and pundit knocking around the world looking at different religions, making a few (but too few) valid criticisms and mostly just taking the piss; very entertaining but a bit superficial. Not to mention the countless films made for or about religions, such as Kirk Cameron’s abysmal Left Behind, even the title is one big line-feed for the actor-turned-Evangelical-fuckwit to ham up.

Yes, this is what Kirk thinks evolution is

So it’s with a sense of unease that I read about a new film that will address this debate. Another descendant of Charles Darwin, Matthew Chapman, has written and directed The Ledge for release later this year, a film explicitly regarding atheism and the way that affects how one looks at life and death. I like that the atheist community is increasingly being represented, but that’s more of a feeling of empathy given that the atheist “controversy” is a much wider issue in the US than it is for me in the UK. It all depends on how the religious aspect of the story is addressed. From what little of the synopsis I’ve been able to find, it seems to be a Phonebooth-esque psychological thriller, though there’s certainly a religious aspect involved and, as it’s included in every synopsis I’ve read, this appears to be being emphasised. I suspect the dialogue in the film will make little reference to it, but it’s marketing is such that some people are now referring to it as “the Brokeback Mountain” moment of atheism, given what that film did for the gay rights movement. Good on you, New York, by the way.

I don’t know if this is the case, but I certainly think that any intellectually honest examination of religion, and those who lack a faith, can only be a good thing. Expelled did nothing to turn the opinions of normal people, only the zealots who wanted an excuse to hate “evolutionists” anyway, simply because of how transparent it was. I hope that the message in The Ledge is subtle (both to make it an enjoyable film and to stop it looking like propaganda) but clear, that it might make people think about this issue in more than the black-or-white/good-or-evil way that religious propagandists like Ben Stein wish to portray it.

If the film carries the “atheist” banner too highly, then it’ll put religious people off, it’ll put off the people who simply aren’t interested in the debate (let’s face it, if you’re not interested then this argument is tedious!), and it’ll come off simply as propaganda. That’s not to say the people behind the film should shy away from the message, far from it, but they need to understand that to portray the message you want to put across you have to get your audience interested, and then make them think.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

The God Delusion – An apatheist’s review

Monday, October 26th, 2009

Hmm, perhaps the term apatheist isn’t a clear reference, it’s a perhaps bad play-on-words with the term apathetic as what I intend to here blog about is a tentative subject which commonly gets a comment or two so I will explain. I am going to review ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins, which I finished reading a few weeks ago. But I want to make it clear I am not, repeat NOT, trying to make this into another Christianity-Atheism debate and merely want to review this book from a non-subjective, an apathetic, view.

image

The God Delusion is Richard Dawkins in-depth discussion about the existence of God. Investigating where it comes from, what we can learn from it and, above all, whether or not God exists.

I say discussion, though it is clear even to a moron that Dawkins has firmly made up his mind on the matter, with cheekily titled chapters such as “Why there almost certainly is no God”. However, he does fairly look at the evidence that religious groups (the book is unashamedly aimed at Christianity but there are still numerous references to other religions) give for believing in God and expertly dashes them.

I’ll illustrate, the classic argument of evolution vs. creation is a point that Dawkins talks about greatly, himself being a biologist. He systematically picks up and examines each and, to my vast knowledge, every argument and “evidence” that creationists give to show that there was an intelligent force, which they choose to believe was the God of the Holy Bible (peculiar how they have to make that additional clause distinction for the “one true god”), that created and fine-tuned the planet some 6000 years ago, created animals and then humans as a superior species on the planet. Dawkins, as scientists do, picks up and plays around with the notion, toys with  it, has fun and draws conclusions upon it, before he looks at the evidence that his prodding, poking and his own scientific knowledge before, with a melancholy sigh at not learning something new about his planet, setting it aside and concluding that it is not so and clearly explains why, it’s hard to fault him here.

As a side-note, it is always baffling to me the amount of hysteria surrounding Dawkins by Christian groups suggesting that he was responsible for the conception of Nazism in Germany long after his death due to his conclusions in Origins when it is Christianity that assumes that Man is superior to animals. As I said, I’m not interested in sparking off another debate but it is a noteworthy parallel all the same. Undoubtedly, that will cause somebody to say “But, weren’t Hitler and Stalin atheists?” Well, ignoring the fact that it’s never been proven, they both had moustaches too, what of it?

This leads me on, conveniently, onto morality. Some Christians repeatedly argue that we need religion to base our morals on. Though I have never bought this for a moment, Dawkins manner of illustrating this point is truly captivating, with examples that, though they sound ludicrous, tap into some inherent and base understanding of right and wrong.

The book is dedicated to Dawkins friend, writer Douglas Adams (of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy as well as various Doctor Who episodes), and the wit and comic timing that Adams gives in whatever he writes (many of his comments on religion are used in the book) is channelled expertly through Dawkins, using this to great effect to simultaneously satirise and expose religions more ridiculous side, it pains me that I do not have my copy to hand (a good book reviewer I turned out to be) but it’s a very entertaining book in itself and worth reading for some Adam-esque humour.

Of course, I too must look at the dark side of this book. Simply because I’m an atheist doesn’t mean that I must agree with every word in this book, much in the same way that most modern Christians are no longer word-perfect literal about the Bible. I don’t think anyone, least of all Dawkins, would want everyone to agree entirely with him or else it risks spawning an entirely new pseudo-religion. So it is with confidence, indeed glee, that I jump into my criticism of this book, and perhaps it will unfortunately double-up as a criticism of Dawkins himself, in that he can be unbelievably scathing and cocky about some Christian viewpoints, taking his humour into the realms of bad taste. Towards the end of the book, for example, he investigates the fear of death and shows how Christians have a tendency to be far more reluctant to accept the end of their life than atheists, despite the former’s firm belief that they are venturing unto paradise. It is, I’ll admit, an interesting point, but the humour with which Dawkins injects this point, suggesting that the terminal patient should be congratulated at the news of their impending demise among other crass comments. Intriguing a point though it is, how can Dawkins honestly make a point for his views from each person’s fear of death, might not someone fear death not because they do/don’t fear almighty judgement, but because maybe they have a family that needs them. This research doesn’t, as far as I can see, take into account any variable factors besides Christian/Atheist and Scared/Not Scared, which seems to basic a result to go by.

Despite this, Dawkins writes a very persuasive, informed and entertaining book, making me eager to read more of his work. There are some points which, with their logical argument, evidence and comparable examples of the “absurd” (see Bertrand Russell’s teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for examples).

Some reviews have said that this book “will not leave you unchanged” and that is certainly true. Whether it will change your beliefs entirely, in any direction, depends mainly on your current religious standpoint. My own was near enough where it is having read it, just a step or two further from the delusion that there is a God in the Biblical sense. Despite Dawkin’s confident introduction, I’m afraid I must contradict him in that I don’t feel it will change anyone’s view, fundamentalist Christians won’t listen or even want to listen to contradictory evidence, most modern Christians will listen and accept most of what he says but I doubt his arguments are persuasive enough to shake beliefs that far, but I may be wrong. Atheists will simply have more bullets in their arsenal to use when they’re next shot at to repent their wicked ways (an archaic reference I know, but illustrative all the same). Agnostics may be moved by this, but the thing that made them agnostics in the first place (namely, the fear of ‘what if I’m wrong’) is too strong a gravitational pull, I feel, to pull them out of orbit.

Overall, a delightful, intriguing and fantastic read that I recommend whatever your religious view. I cannot recommend this book any higher, read it and feel yourself thinking, emoting and considering with each word. When you put it down, the words will ring in your head and your own thoughts will rise up, revitalised by this concise and clear piece, it’ll make a thinker out of you.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Creation

Saturday, September 12th, 2009

I read a news report today that I find quite amazing.

If you look back a few posts to my review of Tarantino’s new film ‘Inglorious Basterds’ you’ll see I mentioned a few other films that I’m eager to see in the next few months. One of which is ‘Creation’ – a film based on the life and struggle of Charles Darwin before, during and after he wrote On the Origin of Species, battling between his faith and his science with his highly religious wife. As you can read from the report I’ve linked above, however, no film distributor in the US will show Creation when it is released because they deem it to be ‘too controversial’ to show it in there, citing statistics that only 39% of US citizens believe the theory of evolution over intelligent design.

If you’ve read what few posts I’ve written about my own beliefs, you’ll know that I’m an hesistent atheist, I don’t believe in the Bible and miracles etc. though I’m hesitant to say outright that there is no God and shoulder some belief in a higher power, possibly not supernatural or omnipotent but something we’ve come to identify as God. However, my stance on evolution is unfaultering, it is, in my mind, simply a fact. If you choose to stop reading here because my belief doesn’t concur with yours and you believe that my opinion is of no futher validity because of that fact, then goodbye, the exit button is on the top-right of the window, or if you’re using a Mac the top-left. My own beliefs (and the fact that I’m reading ‘The God Delusion’ at the moment) aside it seems incredible that simply the faith, fundamental or otherwise, of a nation can have such a massive influence on the film industry simply because it involves Darwin and Evolution, regardless of it’s story or it’s visual integrity or simply whether or not it’s a good film, as a film.

Granted, everybody is entitled to their opinion, a policy I exercise on a regular basis in this very blog and indeed it would be most hypocritical of me not to consider the other side of the coin, I delight in doing so. But it seems to me that, regardless of your opinion of the theory of evolution and the story of creation and, by extension, intelligent design (note: for fairness I use theory/story as both suggest but neither affirm truth), there is no reason to, passively I’ll admit, ban this film from cinemas. I’m not going to go into the evidence or reasons that I myself have for believing, as I most firmly do, in Evolution as biological fact because I’m simply not a biologist and could offer no articulate reasoning. I don’t believe that there is an alien man in a blue box travelling through time and space either but I’ll still watch Doctor Who, the same applies, even if you don’t believe or accept something as truth is no reason to cause such controversy about a film depicting it as truth. The premise of the film isn’t even the validity, or lack thereof if you want, of the theory of evolution, it is simply a character piece on the man himself (based on a fictionalised account of the events written by Darwin’s great-great-grandson, Randal Keynes, in 2000), who was a scientist, not the devil. Although some would have you believe otherwise…

I’m being very British and doing my utmost to be fair and polite but I was astounded and somewhat sickened to read in the report about the comments on Darwin by a Christian film review website movieguide.org, which apparentely is quite influential in America. There is no review of the film itself (nor, by the sounds of it, will there ever be) but there is a review of a newly released book called “Darwin’s Racists” (mentioning they only rarely review books if they are noteworthy, describing this as “timely”), the review itself (as you will also see quoted in the news report) says that ‘Darwin’s Racist’s’ “exposes the real Charles Darwin: a racist, a bigot and 1800’s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder. This well written book shows that Adolf Hitler, along with other genocidal mass murderers, was influenced by Darwin’s half-baked Theory of Evolution. This book exposes Darwin’s Theory of Evolution for what it is: an elitist and racist dogma that has infiltrated our every area of culture thereby undermining sense and sensibility.”

Now, if I may exercise my own right to opinion, this is outright ridiculous. Charles Darwin, being the scientist that he was, observed and drew up his theory with, initially, no idea how controversial it would be until he began to develop it. Even when he had collaborated his theory it sat there, take it or leave it. It was down to Hitler to, as is frequently alleged, interpret this into the baffling view that the Germans make up a Master Race that should dominate the globe. I can’t think of a decent analogy to use to expostulate this point further, and I’ve really tried, but the point is that Hitler was responsible for how he interpreted Darwin’s findings, and he was responsible for the actions he took and attrocities he committed based on his own interpretation. Charles Darwin was an amicable and benevolent scientist who created a theory and was in no way responsible for the interpretation of his theory and despicable actions of Adolf Hitler a full 80 years later (and 57 years after Darwin had died). Where, in Darwin’s findings, does he so much as hint that his findings suggest that Germans had evolved differently, let alone superior, to the rest of humanity. If I recall correctly, which I may not and can find little evidence either way so forgive me a brief freestyle, I believe Darwin says relatively little on the evolutionary origins of humans specifically and focuses more broadly on other animals and plants, perhaps knowing what uproar a direct and clear contradiction of intelligent design and “God….Man….Own Likeness” would cause, though he (evidently) wasn’t subtle enough. I will grant you that there are links, but the Bible itself teaches responsibility for one’s own actions, so shouldn’t this arguement make perfect sense to you instead of using it as cannon fodder to slander Darwin. I should note here that I am referencing all genocidal murderers throughout history to which the review refers under the same arguement as I have done with Hitler, much as I am referencing all variations on Christianity into the same title as simply Christianity and not uniquely considering each slight variation thereupon.

We didn’t see Passion of the Christ banned (again, banned is not literally what’s happened but it is close) because it doesn’t conform with Muslim views, of which there are nearly 100,000 permanent residents in the US. We didn’t see Inglourious Basterds or The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas banned because it dealt with the Holocaust, Nazism and World War 2 which may upset the 5.3 million Jewish citizens in America. Why is it that the majority, as Christianity is with 76% of the US population, can yield such authority when the United States Bill of Rights expressly forbad any sort of official state religion or for that religion to have any kind of governing power, the Bill of Rights offered total and equal freedom of religion. So why has the US film industry been so easily persuaded not to show this film owing to the controversy it could cause from a religious group if the US has that?

You may say, given that this film was deemed too controversial and not actually banned, that I am exaggerating, but clearly the problem was sufficient for the US film industry to reject any kind of sales from this film, and that suggests a serious issue arising. Granted, the Christian lobby in the US has had no political or governing power to use to stop this film being shown in the States, and technically they haven’t, but if the film industry was so swayed by the controversy that it could, and probably will (even without being shown), cause from the uproar that 76% of America can cause, then something isn’t right. It’s close to scaremongering.

Having read the first 100-pages of ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins, I found it hard to fathom or even believe that the extent to which Dawkin’s describes the US to be devout theists in the twenty-first century. Lo and behold, once I started reading this book, a report such as this appears, were I a supersticious or religious man I might even call it fate, or God. It’s still, nevertheless, hard for me to grasp such a scale that people hold this belief living in the UK, where though there is no an absence of religion, controversy is limited by our general British politeness to quiet frustration and the voice of Christianity itself is a clear but calm voice (the gentle eccentric tea-drinking vicar that Dawkins paints is still going strong in the UK) that has undoubtedly allowed me to maintain friendships with Christians who, in a more fundamentalist environment, may not be so accepting of me, and possibly nor me of him. Though, I should mention, this is not entirely the case and I know a fair few fundamentalist Christians who are less sporting in a fair debate with me as the ones I am friends with.

As usual for ANY of my posts, feel free to reply with comments arguing for or against my view, even if you just want to insult me, that’s your choice. I have conjectured my opinion with as much evidence as I feel is necessary (carefully avoiding the subject of evolution vs intelligent design, I’m not a biologist so could offer no intelligent or articulate evidence myself) so if you will write a rebuke to my words, back it up with evidence and I will gladly listen.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »