back to article Hollywood's made an intelligent science vs religion film?!

There’s nothing like the power of love to screw up a good movie about science. Whether it’s miracle medical cures for the mentally ill who just needed to find “the one” (Silver Linings Playbook) or the old chestnut that feelings about people and nature are just better than science and progress (Avatar), there’s nothing Hollywood …

  1. Tom 7

    Sounds a barrel of laughs.

    I shall wait for that one to come on before teleshopping at 3am.

  2. Jim84

    An intelligent movie except...

    ... it relies on Paley's watchmaker argument that a complex object like a watch or an eye can only have been designed by an intelligent being, rather than by making untold billions of copies and picking those that keep working. This is totally counter intuitive to human innate reasoning (something complex like a campfire must have been created by intelligent other humans - danger!). But that is part of the reason why it was 200 years from the start of the renaissance before anyone figured this out.

    Scientifically this movie is just as silly and mildly annoying as one where true love cures mental illness.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. dogged

    Well, the Grauniad says it's drivel (1 star) so it 's probably worth watching.

    1. breakfast Silver badge

      Now I like the Guardian and I read it from time to time but their movie reviews are almost always diametrically wrong, on movies where there is any question of non-terribleness at least. They're the cinematic equivalent of a compass that points south.

  4. William Donelson

    Yet another confusion of science, religion and spirituality.

    Pure science is the highest form of spirituality, seeing and perceiving the truth.

    I subscribe to the anthropic principle: there are an infinite number of infinite universes, each with slightly different physical laws. Only some of them have the right parameters, such as gravity the right strength to allow stars to be born and live long. Ours is one that allows intelligent life to form, so that the universe may wonder at itself. We *are* the universe, in wonder of itself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

    1. JDX Gold badge

      I find the Anthropic Principle to be the ultimate cop-out/

  5. 4d3fect
    Coat

    So this wasn't a film about how St. Steve started the fruity tech?

  6. Steve Knox

    "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

    There's no such thing. The intelligent recognize that "science vs religion" is a false dichotomy.

    There is a very real conflict between dogmatic empiricism and dogmatic supernaturalism, but that's because those are diametrically opposed dogmas.

    Dogmatism is death, for both science and religion, if not in the short term then certainly in the long term.

    1. Steve Knox
      Coat

      Re: "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

      Or, to put entirely too fine a point on it:

      Dogma's a bitch.

      1. Cliff

        Re: "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

        +1 for the pun, but half of that is for the reaction against fundamentalism

    2. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

      Philosophically speaking : Religion is a means by which some find a rationality to their lifes, and for others a means by which they can escape their fear of death.

      Religion is not a thing, it is an untangible mental process.

      Science, which is nature, a tangible thing, provides the platform, man's mind, upon which Religion or God can temporarily exist. Man is after all temporary.

      Religion is nature's reminder that we are still very, very ignorant about the universe.

      1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

        Re: "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

        There are many God fearing scientists. I'm not one of them but if it helps them get through the day or a crisis who am I to object. Teaching religion in science lessons is, however, just wrong.

        1. Khaptain Silver badge

          Re: "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

          Teaching religion to children is wrong, full stop.

          1. dogged

            Re: "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

            No, teaching children to be religious is wrong. Teaching them about religion should be mandatory.

            1. Khaptain Silver badge

              Re: "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

              >No, teaching children to be religious is wrong. Teaching them about religion should be mandatory.

              Shouldn't it therefore simply be included in a Philisophy or historical lesson. It might be interesting to learn that people were once indoctrinated to believe in some kind of mythical super being...... but it should end there.

              Religion is not a skill set upon which we can rely as we move through this mortal coil, there are far better tools available than that. If kids were not taught about Religion it would simply disappear from contemporary society and I certainely do not believe that it would become a handicap for them, quite the contrary

              Religion today is just another marketing tool..

              1. JDX Gold badge

                Re: "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

                Not teaching children about religion for fear of indoctrinating them rather risks indoctrinating them in the opposite direction. It is a careful balance.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

        "Religion is not a thing, it is an untangible mental process."

        Science = how?

        Philosophy = why?

        Religion = because!

    3. dan1980

      Re: "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

      @Steve Knox

      "There is a very real conflict between dogmatic empiricism and dogmatic supernaturalism . . . Dogmatism is death, for both science and religion, if not in the short term then certainly in the long term."

      With the concession and disclaimer that I may have misunderstood your comment (a pitfall of the medium), I feel you're making the same mistake that so many religious apologists make*, which is to look at "empiricism" as a "dogma" of science.

      It isn't.

      To understand, you must look at the difference between "Empiricism" and "empirical knowledge".

      Empiricism is a philosophical system that states that only knowledge gained through the senses is true. In other words, Only Empirical knowledge is true knowledge.

      Science's connection is that iT is defined as only that which can be determined empirically. By science, I mean the 'scientific method' and this, being a method, does not assert - at any point - that non-empirical knowledge cannot be true. It is a METHOD and that method uses empirical evidence.

      It is not at all a matter of 'dogma' but of definition.

      Religion, as a structured system (and differentiated from faith and spiritualism), is dogmatic because it proclaims things as true.

      Science is very different - what it says is that, according to the scientific method, proposition X is disproved, unlikely, unknown, likely, very likely, or strongly supported. (Even if individuals may be rather more black-and-white in their assessments.)

      The fact that the scientific method is defined as empirical means that one can never completely disprove the supernatural - it is outside the realm of science by the very definition of science. Individual claims, if presented specifically enough, can be disproved but only if their claims can be tested empirically.

      If you have ever heard religious apologists, like William Lane Craig, speak, they will usually explain that there are 'other ways of knowing" (than empirical observation). That's fine but, as the scientific method is defined with reference to empirical observation, whatever that 'knowledge' might be that is gained by these 'other ways', it is not testable via the scientific method and it is therefore not science.

      That doesn't mean it can be true, of course, just that it is not part of the body of knowledge that can be called scientific knowledge.

      * - I am not saying you are a religious apologist or that being one is bad, if indeed you are.

      1. Steve Knox

        Re: "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

        @dan1980

        I believe you did misunderstand me. I understand the difference between empiricism and empirical knowledge, and I respect science specifically because it does acknowledge that it is limited to empirical knowledge. A true scientist, when presented with a question or idea which is not empirically testable, will take the position you have: it is outside the realm of science, and any position taken on it would not be scientifically valid.

        My problem is with those who don't recognize or respect that limit; those who truly are dogmatically empiricists, adamantly asserting that empirical knowledge is the only knowledge, in spite of the contradiction that said assertion is not empirically determinable. They are taking that assertion as truth because they say it is, and for no other reason. That is dogmatic empiricism.

        Structured religion is, as you say, dogmatic. That still does not change the fact that clinging to such dogma will eventually kill it.

        1. dan1980

          Re: "an INTELLIGENT science vs religion film"!?

          @Steve Knox

          Jolly good, then.

          However, the problem (as I see it) comes not so much from science, I feel, as from those who believe in supernatural occurences - most notably in the form of an interventionist deity.

          Science, as a method, has no ability to comment on the ultimate existence of any supernatural proposition. This only holds, however, when the proposed supernatural force stays out of the natural world.

          Now, a supernatural event is by its very definition one that cannot be explained by natural causes. That is the whole purpose - the laws of nature and causality have been broken. In other words, a natural event has occured for which there is no natural cause. This is similar to the core argument of those apologists (again, like Dr. Craig) who deploy an apparently persuasive logical deduction to prove that a supernatural agency caused the big bang - the cause had to be outside of nature, ergo is supernatural.

          Now, any event in the natural world is fair game for scientific inquiry and, while a cleric may claim some natural disaster as a punishment from their deity, a scientist will try to find a natural cause. And, if a natural cause can be found, then the event ceases to be supernatural.

          This is the catch 22 for those who hold supernatural beliefs. If they claim that a supernatural agent has worked some influence on the natural world, that becomes the domain of science and a natural explanation can be pursued. The supernaturalist may then counter that their deity directly set that natural cause on its way, so that the end result would come about. With omniscience and omnipotence, this is of course no problem, excepting for the fact that it leaves us with a deity that is actively managing the progression of the universe but deliberately trying to cover his (or her) tracks. A shy or deceptive God, if you like.

          This, of course, resolves itself into a classic 'god-of-the-gaps' argument, where a deity is pushed ever further back in the chain of causality until his only task is to design and set off the big bang and then watch it all unfold.

          Such a god is, of course not really one that a person of faith could really get into worshipping.

          To sum up, if a supernaturalist claims that a supernatural event has occurred, then they are essentially saying that here is an event in the natural world that science cannot explain - that has no cause that can be ascertained empirically. Unfortunately for those who hold these beliefs, natural, scientifically explicable causes are continually found. Sometimes it takes a while but they are found nonetheless.

          To conclude, science can only be silent on the existence of a supernatural agency that does not interfere with the natural world.

          I suppose that's why, as science advances and shines light on more of the dark places, religions tend towards placing more emphasis on 'spiritiual' miracles, as is the case with the Roman Catholic church when vetting a candidate for sainthood.

          I wonder . . . What would happen if, one day, someone found the parts of the brain responsible for faith and, further, found that they could be blocked through simple chemicals (i.e. drugs).

          It is a valid question for this is, really, the last refuge of the supernatural - the "I know" argument. What happens if science finally proves a natural explanation for even that? Due to the complexity of the brain I don't think such a revelation will happen in my life time (though it would be nice to witness) but I have no doubt that there will still be other ways to 'know'.

  7. MatsSvensson

    Finally an intelligent apples vs oranges film!

  8. i like crisps

    TOM CRUISE ?

    Where would Scientology fit into this film.....apparently that's a Religion now!

    1. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: TOM CRUISE ?

      Scientology is not really any different to the other religions. If you believe in one religion then objectively you should believe in them all.

      L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer, need I say more.

      1. dan1980

        Re: TOM CRUISE ?

        @Khaptain,

        "If you believe in one religion then objectively you should believe in them all."

        Well, they are pretty much all mutually exclusive so you certainly couldn't believe in multiple religions logically.

        There are two parts to religion (in general) - one is the belief in a supernatural being and the other is faith in the matter of the dogma of your specific flavour of your specific religion. Roman Catholicism and Protestant religions both believe in the same god but differ quite sharply on salvation, in that the Protestant traditions maintain that faith alone is the requirement for salvation whereas Rome teaches that works required.

        This divide is so strong as to have people on each side claim that those on the other are unsaved and thus hell-bound (should their brand of Christianity be that way inclined).

        And that's people who believe in the same god!

        And that's why you couldn't 'objectively' believe in all religions. If you are being objective, you have to say that all these religions contradict each other - and themselves - and justify themselves with the same quality of evidence and so are equally unlikely.

        1. Khaptain Silver badge

          Re: TOM CRUISE ?

          @Dan

          Yes, I agree with the majority of your reply but the point that I wished to relay was the following.

          In it's simplest form if you believe in the existence of a Entity then the only relevant point for any argument is the fact that you believe in the existence of a Entity. The interpretation or the related dogma might change between the religions but essentially they share the fact in the belief that an entity exists. What they all commonly call "faith".

          The objectivity being based on this shared idea of an entity existances rather than of the particular details.

          * Man's ignorance of the universe gave rise to the existance of entities as we couldn't explain various phenomena. ( there were far more in the earlier years - strange the all just disappeared - we did keep their names for days of the week though etc).

          * Man's susceptibility gave rise to religion, as it was easy to accept a ready made solution and reasoning. And it just so happens that it is much easier to control a population through these means- it made the churches very very rich . Although religion is not the only user of this kind functionality it does prey on one of man's weakness'.

          All religions, that I know of, seem to share these points. Therefore, in my reasoning, if your beleive in one religion you should objectively believe in them all. Although as Dan states correctly it certainely doesn't work out quite so smoothly....

  9. channel extended
    Mushroom

    Watchmaker fallacy.

    Here is a simple thought experiment.

    What are the odds of flipping a coin one million times in a particular pattern. 2 to the millionth power (a REALLY BIG number).

    Now flip a coin a coin one million times and record the results. what are the odds of flipping that particular pattern? One, or EXACTLY 100%.

    The watchmaker fallacy is that a sequence of events cannot happen because they are so rare, Obviously if the sequence has already occured it is no longer rare.

    Intelligent Design argues that some being directed that result.

    Science argues that the forces of the natural universe selected the result.

    One of these arguments is done by idiots.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Watchmaker fallacy.

      "Obviously if the sequence has already occured it is no longer rare."

      That thought experiment misses the point entirely.

      Calling it a sequence misses the point that natural selection explains. It is nothing to do with rarity of "a sequence" or "a result". The sequence gets reset every single flip, because nature is selecting the coin that best fits the environment.... every single flip.

      So if you are going to talk about sequences then talk about natural selection as being a million sequences of 1 flip.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Watchmaker fallacy.

        Natural selection can weed out failures. It has little ability to generate success. That is attributed by many as from mutation and/or chance events. In that case, I'd argue that even having a coin flipped that many times can be beyond what "nature" can achieve.

        For example we can state some random lists are too long to be generated in the history of the earth, take a two randomly dealt packs of cards appearing the same for example!

        Some do not wish to put the entirety of history down to chance events. We know the difference between events caused by laws and events that are random (if we allowing for randomness in our worldview).

        Life specifically does not look random. We call it something else when it is not random. Should we argue if we call it by a different name?

    2. dan1980

      Re: Watchmaker fallacy.

      @channel extended

      That's not really the whole of it - you're still looking at chance. The point of the creationists is that a given arrangement of genes - a flagella or eye or horse or fern - is so well suited that randomness couldn't create it.

      Your argument is that every combination is just as possible as the next so it's only how you look at it that matters.

      The problem is that the coin-flipping analogy - as presented - just doesn't describe natural selection very well because natural selection is a process of reinforcement - both positive and negative - so that 'good' qualities survive while 'bad' ones don't.

      The reason the analogy fails is that each toss gets tested by natural selection and if the toss passes, it is kept. In other words, it's a bit like tossing coins and keeping every 'head'.

      It's still a poor analogy, of course.

      1. mstreet

        Re: Watchmaker fallacy.

        A better analogy would be shooting a dozen arrows into a target, then walking up and only pulling out the worst shots. Then shooting the just pulled arrows again. Repeat till all arrows are bulls-eyes.

        It's going to look pretty awesome to someone just looking at the final results...

  10. Stuart Halliday

    Blind Cave fish?

    No eyes. Plenty if Genes.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      They are very interesting specimens. Strangely, they can regain their eyes. Seems they never "lost" the genes, they may have just been turned off. Or they are not a new species, and can reintegrate into the eye retaining population.

      Sorry, I don't have the papers to hand on it, but a quick google should bring them up. :)

  11. John Savard

    One Mistake

    A creature that has the gene for an eye, but no eye? Where would that gene have come from?

    Yes, one would have to find a creature that didn't have eyes, and find a gene in that creature that was changed to produce the first precursor to the eye. In real life, I think that work has already been done.

    While natural selection does explain how an organism's interaction with nature provides the input of information needed to create complexity, it wouldn't have been discovered if people didn't realize that complex structure was something that needed explaining in the first place - so Paley's watchmaker argument, although refuted, wasn't as stupid as all that.

    1. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: One Mistake

      Evolution does not rely on "time" as a factor... it relies merely on the continual and infinite change that naturally occurs. We are simply "les fruits d'hazard" and let's not forget that we continue to evolve, it just happens a lot slower than we imagine.

      Man does not like to believe that has no purpose and that he serves no purpose.. Nature on the other does not have this problem. Evolution will continue long after mankind, and all the imaginary deitys have long since left this moment in the universe.

    2. Suricou Raven

      Re: One Mistake

      There isn't even a 'gene for an eye.' There are many genes involved in eyes. A lot of which serve other purposes as well.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    More intelligent than most but ultimately cowardly.

    An intelligent science versus religion film on this topic would not end in ambiguity but in a clear declaration that extensive research shows that the eye evolved and there are plenty of "missing links" showing how. It might also point out that an "intelligent designer" would have attached the optic nerve endings to the outside of the retina, thus avoiding the blind spot.

    Of course, the film would probably be banned and the filmmakers tracked down by angry mobs of christians.

    Religions require the belief in a supernatural, whether it's scientology's thetans or the more popular yahweh/jehovah/allah, and it cannot tolerate scientific inquiry which questions this non-sense.

  13. JustWondering

    It's pretty simple ...

    ... magic/religion is just Science that you don't understand.

  14. Neil Woolford

    Do I spot a Great Gatsby reference in the still?

    The eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleburg overlooking the Valley of the Ashes

  15. JP19

    "cites disproving the existence of God"

    Hard to find a scientist that dumb.

    Religions are resistant to such attacks which is why so much of the important stuff happens 'in mysterious ways' and especially after you are dead.

    Religions are like that by design, or actually and more amusingly by natural selection.

    1. Suricou Raven

      Re: "cites disproving the existence of God"

      God used to live above the sky, and Hell was underground.

      Then Science invented telescopes seismic imaging. How did religion respond? By shunting heaven and hell off to some new vague otherworldly place, then retconning and claiming it said that all along.

    2. Tom 7

      Re: "cites disproving the existence of God"

      Another corruption of text over time

      Its "God moves in mysterious WHEYS" which was the advertising campaign of "Cheeses of Nazareth"

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "cites disproving the existence of God"

        "Blessed are the cheesemakers?.................."

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "cites disproving the existence of God"

      It doesn't matter whether religions are "resistant to such attacks" or not, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. Anyone at all aware of the scientific method would know it is impossible to disprove.

      From that alone I conclude this movie doesn't have any more of a scientific basis than anything else out there. It is purely entertainment, targeted at a general audience but in particular I'll bet designed to appeal to creationists, given their constant reliance on the idea that the eye is something that couldn't have evolved naturally. That's why it is open-ended, so they can feel it confirms their beliefs while not looking stupid to the more intelligent people in the US (not to mention the rest of the world) who know creation "science" isn't.

      Creationists continue to incorrectly believe that fallacy that the eye couldn't have evolved, notwithstanding the fact it has done so at least seven times, and the human eye is far from the best design in the animal kingdom. Our blind spots alone (due to poor wiring) are a mistake no intelligent designer would make. If God did that, he's unworthy of the title and should step down and call for a new election.

      1. Tom 38

        Re: "cites disproving the existence of God"

        Our blind spots alone (due to poor wiring) are a mistake no intelligent designer would make. If God did that, he's unworthy of the title and should step down and call for a new election.

        I now bring up "Religion Uber Counter #415": "God's will is ineffable, the blind spots are there for His plan only (presumably something amusing in the 3rd Act.)"

        I love the word "ineffable", it falls into a bracket of words that are onomatopoeically pleasing

  16. David 66

    Subtitle made me laugh from my belly

    "the incredible tale of a scientist with an open mind and feelings"

  17. Wirehedd

    Sounds sappy and goofy considering the evolution of the eye is already common knowledge amongst evolutionary biologists and the scientific field in general so the idea of "where the eye came from" is a disproven religoquack notion yet there are still those out there who will use this chestbut as if it weren't already answered.

    No thanks. It obviously isn't THAT intelligent if it's trying to play off a scientist who doesn't even know about already established science.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Has the film reviewer really never heard of or seen the 1997 film "Contact"?

  19. Mark Jan
    Happy

    Saw the Film

    I went to see the film based on the review I read here and I actually quite liked it. Thank you Brid-Aine Parnell - I doubt I would have even heard of it if it wasn't for you reviewing it here.

  20. Frosted Flake

    Okay, that's enough.

    I made it half way down the page before barfing. I choked my way past the part ab the author supposing a scientist would of course discard the inexplicable. Lot's of people know next to nothing about science, so this is just the author identifying himself as one.

    But the suggestion a scientist would make disproving the existence of god a personal goal is a demonstration of complete unfamiliarity with science and the method. Obviously the author is a theolog. As such he is utterly unqualified to comment regarding science. And so is the executive crew of this film.

    Moreover, if the author enjoyed this movie, if he calls it intelligent without being familiar with the means scientists use in their work, it would hurt me to see it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't see it. Knock yourself out. I'm saying you will enjoy the movie more without me rolling on the floor in my own vomit.

  21. deconstructionist

    deal a hand of cards to five people turn them over and ask a mathematician to work out the odds for each player getting those exact cards , he give you a astronomical figure.

    Now ask a second mathematician who doesn't know that the hand that was just dealt , how likely it would be for those cards to be dealt they will always answer the same highly unlikely you might have a better chance winning the lottery.

    Deconstruction after the fact always lead to stupidity.

    This film is vapid and horrid in every aspect, it seems Hollywood just can't do it , be objective that is 2/10 never even tried.

  22. sawatts
    Facepalm

    The Eyes Have It

    As I recall, the evolution of an eye is a well described counterpoint to the "hand-of-God" malarky.

    You can trace the evolution of an eye through examples present in nature - from the simple light-sensitive spot, to ones which can see polarisation and broad spectrum (i.e. more "evolved" than a monkey-eye).

    So perhaps the film's protagonist should have Googles first.

    Anyway, I'll probably skip this at the magic-lantern show, unless there is lots of nudity and violence...

  23. GX5000

    Hollywood has a lot of catch up to do

    "Dr Gray is obsessed with the eye; so obsessed that he runs around taking photos of everyone’s eyes while attempting to figure out how the eye evolved"

    Wow we're still flogging that dead horse ?

    It's 2014, we use more than 10% of our brains too...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon