The Jehovah's Witnesses returned once again last week, just as I was heading out the door. Two middle-aged women appeared at the gate in agreeably beige coats, bearing up against the last of the winter chill, and probably a few frosty receptions before they got to me. I wasn't much in the mood, but I had sort of looked forward to meeting them again and debating with them about various theological inconsistencies. Also, despite their wonky beliefs, they were genuinely pleasant people who thought they were making a positive impact in the world, so I gave them some of my time.
The usual openers of how there was so much evil in the world wasn't heading in a particularly interesting direction (I fail to see how such a committed theist can acknowledge a situation where evil - usually blamed on the devil - can exist and perpetuate with a supposed perfect, capable and loving god watching over us), so I steered things towards the subject of the creation, figuring these people were most likely creationists. I asked them what their opinion of ancient fossils were.
'We believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old', one said.
'God created us and everything on the planet', said the other.
I've pondered the ability of these statements to stand on their own feet for a while now. It asks questions about god's motives when the world is made to look much older than what it apparently is (suggesting a deceit) but also queries another aspect of an all powerful being: intelligence.
Many well-structured arguments against creation are stopped in their tracks by the twin put-downs of 'who are we to question gods ways' and 'we are human; we cannot comprehend his big plan'. When not using those little sidesteps, any reasoning along the lines of creation of the earth in seven days ultimately leads to god existing outside of time, and so can achieve anything. This got me thinking.
'How intelligent is God?', I asked.
The ladies stood there for a moment and pondered my question. I assured them I wasn't trying to lure them into a trap. Turning to one of the women I asked (as politely as possible) how intelligent she thought she was.
'Reasonably', she said, guardedly.
And so I began my argument. It went something like this:
Imagine for a moment, that you are really passionate about building model aeroplanes. You have loads of them in your house, and you take great care over the building and painting of each one, so they are as perfect as they can be. Now imagine that you are suddenly tasked with building 10,000 model aircraft. Each of the same design. No matter how much you loved doing it, you wouldn't want to do 10,000 and you would be sick of them if you made it to the end.
This is because you are an intelligent person; and repetitive tasks - no matter how much fun they might be at the start - become tiresome.
Now scale that up. Instead of one model aircraft, you have a million different kinds, of all shapes and sizes, made up of different parts and substances and complexities, and each model type has between 1 and a trillion models to be made. And you have to repeat the task for all eternity.
This is the work that God apparently has to do. Or rather, it's the work that he has apparently foisted upon himself, being the ultimate creator of our universe and all within it.
It was obvious by now the analogy I was trying to make, but as I suspected, the ladies would argue the wrong point away.
'But God exists outside of time', one said, 'he can create any number of beings in a blink of an eye'.
I countered; 'Well, even if we could somehow accept such a claim, it is God's intelligence that proves your creation theory false. I repeat: how intelligent do you think God is?'.
The women realised anything less than infinite intelligence would doom them to be pushed into a pit of hell or something, so I took their stares as an implicit answer.
A being of infinite, - or even merely super-human - intelligence is not going to lumber himself with such a repetitive system. Regardless of whether he can make time to do it or not, the constant repetition required would make him a prisoner of his own work.
'Don't think you are doing your God a disservice by claiming a system of creation so short-minded that he would trap himself in this way?', I asked to no audible reply.
A being of even reasonable intelligence, at the point where he was planning the universe he was about to create, would contemplate the consequences of any road he goes down. Rather than lumbering himself with the task of creating and re-creating life over and over for all eternity - and we are assuming the earth is the only place in the massive universe that this is happening - wouldn't it be far more practical to create a single spark of life, imbue it with the ability to mutate and reproduce, and then set it free in a quiet corner of the universe to do it's thing all on it's own, and watch as it grows and develops.
Though I do not go for the idea of a God as the ultimate source of all things, we know so little about the origins of the universe prior to the big bang, that a giant celestial experimenter kicking things off and then lying back and observing the results is as good as any we are going to get in the near future. And what a beautiful idea; one that fits with our knowledge of evolutionary history and biology, of fossil records and of the origins of the universe, of the destruction and rebirth of worlds and galaxies as they collide in the chaos, and the danger and savagery of animal survival.
But it also allows the ones who want to believe in a god to have one - the guy who had the forethought to put it all into action. Such a deity who was the creator of the universe and all the beauty deserves a bit of respect, and if as some posit, he is just lying back and observing the results - however they turn out - as a scientist would, then there is also no need to consider him to be the presiding judge of our actions because in his experiment we are all part of the results whatever they may be. Morality and behaviour - that is down to us.
The women had by this point begun to glance at their watches, and since I had made my point, I let them leave; they said they found what I had to say 'interesting', although it is unlikely they would be leaving the secure and comforting bosom of their alpha course just yet. Hopefully however, I may have sown a couple of seeds of doubt.
Some atheists may see this as a soft line, keeping God in the mix, but I don't see any profit to be had by trying to force people who don't want to let go of God to do so. The universe is so vast and we are so minuscule within it, that our tiny lives would be of no concern to a higher being; and so really, it makes no difference for our salvation whether we believe in one or not. What is important (as I have said in the past and would guess any caring god would agree), is that we are properly educated, and throw off those beliefs which are obviously, demonstrably wrong, beliefs that waste lives and sometimes cause harm when they are forcibly applied. If an argument that acknowledges the possibility of a remote God while steering them away from these standpoints can be persuasive enough to satisfy both what they see and want to believe, that's good enough for me.
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Cambridge Film Festival 2009 Day 4
It seemed as though we had barely arrived, but it was already our last day, and no late night ones as we had a 5h drive ahead of us and then work in the morning :(. Oh well, not long to Leeds..
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (US) (site/wiki)
A sort of yang to the ying of Creation, this documentary by nasal-voiced Ben Stein has been picking up a notorious reputation wherever it has been shown. It's premise seems fair enough: that the academics and scientists who support Evolutionary theory are so inflexible in their opinions that nothing from the ID school of thought can be of any use, and that anyone who dares publish anything even mentioning ID/Creationism within their hallowed halls will be immediately 'expelled'. To start with, Stein interviews several individuals from university and scientific establishments who were given short shrift for such mentions, which as most would agree on both sides, is a bit harsh. However, it's at this point (once the skeptical viewer has been brought onside) that it lets its hair down a little and the credibility begins to slip.
Moving from unfair dismissal cases, it attempts coyly to distinguish between ID and creationism, with Stein playing a not particularly active devils advocate and never answering the question about what the difference really is. Then, a number of 'scientific experts' put in various claims that Darwin's theories are 'full of holes', without ever giving so much as one example about what those holes are. Even a couple of keywords the viewer could use to do some background reading on after the film would have sufficed, but nothing was said.
One major claim was that in Darwin's time, cellular research was in its infancy, and from this a giant leap is made by saying because we now have much more insight into the workings at a sub-cellular level, evolutionary theory falls apart. Quite why it should not be applicable within a cell is never explained, although we do get a minutes worth of pretty computer graphics.
Then he moved, (with appropriate brooding music) towards igniting the passions of the American right, using the same tactics employed by the rabid republicans in the current US healthcare debate - general talk of eroding freedoms were illustrated with old stock footage of.. Stalin, Marx, Russian soldiers holding back crowds of people, mixed with strategic insertion of words such as 'socialist', 'freedom' and 'patriotism' and the like to whatever was the topic on screen at the time. A little shimmy into how Darwin's theories promoted Nazism and Eugenics, coupled with some nicely trimmed footage of Dawkins et al when they were at their most antagonised (and thus arrogant) selves, and a finish off back at the start telling us how we must be open to all possibilities, not just the ones rammed down our throats.
Obviously given my leanings, I was never going to come out of this film with a new opinion of the world, but its snide underhandedness made Creation look all that much better as both entertainment and education. It's thus fair to say I was less than impressed with Expelled; Stein did as many others have done when they realise their side of the argument has no credible evidence to back it up - rely on smoke and mirrors, straw men and just enough half truth to encourage the viewer to make up their own minds, in the direction the director wants them to go. I encourage those from both sides of the argument to go see it, especially if they can get someone from the other camp to go with them at the time. 5/10
From Russia with Love (UK) (wiki)
A nice, simple Bond film to end with. This is constantly in the top few of most Bond fan lists for best film adaptation of the novels, where Connery's Bond does battle with the forces of SPECTRE on one side, and the amusingly-titled Soviet SMERSH operation on the other. SPECTRE agents Kronstein (strategic chess player) and Rosa Klebb (Ex-SMERSH operative and early lesbian film icon with a nice line in poison tipped daggers in her shoes) execute a plot to get the British Secret Service and SMERSH to squabble over a copy of the much desired Lektor device (an Enigma-style cryptographic unit) and while they kill each other off, SPECTRE takes it off their hands using burly beefhead Red Grant who silently pursues the various players picking them off as the hunt for the Lektor progresses.
As it is an early Bond film, there is far less reliance on the gadgets, improbable villains and car chases that dogged the later films, or the campness brought in with the Moore/Brosnan years, although there is more than the usual amount of female objectification, especially during the first third. What is left is a reasonably straight crime caper set in a number of beautiful locations around Istanbul and Venice, including a tense segment aboard the Belgrade to Zagreb train, and it is the close-quarters combat here, and subsequent escape from the country for Bond and Russian counterpart Tatiana that forms the best part of the film. It's just a shame that the quality of the film print wasn't up to scratch, it had clearly been passed through those reels a lot of times, but it was nice to see it on the big screen. 7/10
Another year over for Cambridge. It was lovely, and at the time of writing, it's still on; so if you have some free time on your hands this weekend and you live quite close, you could do a lot worse than catch it's closing nights.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (US) (site/wiki)
A sort of yang to the ying of Creation, this documentary by nasal-voiced Ben Stein has been picking up a notorious reputation wherever it has been shown. It's premise seems fair enough: that the academics and scientists who support Evolutionary theory are so inflexible in their opinions that nothing from the ID school of thought can be of any use, and that anyone who dares publish anything even mentioning ID/Creationism within their hallowed halls will be immediately 'expelled'. To start with, Stein interviews several individuals from university and scientific establishments who were given short shrift for such mentions, which as most would agree on both sides, is a bit harsh. However, it's at this point (once the skeptical viewer has been brought onside) that it lets its hair down a little and the credibility begins to slip.
Moving from unfair dismissal cases, it attempts coyly to distinguish between ID and creationism, with Stein playing a not particularly active devils advocate and never answering the question about what the difference really is. Then, a number of 'scientific experts' put in various claims that Darwin's theories are 'full of holes', without ever giving so much as one example about what those holes are. Even a couple of keywords the viewer could use to do some background reading on after the film would have sufficed, but nothing was said.
One major claim was that in Darwin's time, cellular research was in its infancy, and from this a giant leap is made by saying because we now have much more insight into the workings at a sub-cellular level, evolutionary theory falls apart. Quite why it should not be applicable within a cell is never explained, although we do get a minutes worth of pretty computer graphics.
Then he moved, (with appropriate brooding music) towards igniting the passions of the American right, using the same tactics employed by the rabid republicans in the current US healthcare debate - general talk of eroding freedoms were illustrated with old stock footage of.. Stalin, Marx, Russian soldiers holding back crowds of people, mixed with strategic insertion of words such as 'socialist', 'freedom' and 'patriotism' and the like to whatever was the topic on screen at the time. A little shimmy into how Darwin's theories promoted Nazism and Eugenics, coupled with some nicely trimmed footage of Dawkins et al when they were at their most antagonised (and thus arrogant) selves, and a finish off back at the start telling us how we must be open to all possibilities, not just the ones rammed down our throats.
Obviously given my leanings, I was never going to come out of this film with a new opinion of the world, but its snide underhandedness made Creation look all that much better as both entertainment and education. It's thus fair to say I was less than impressed with Expelled; Stein did as many others have done when they realise their side of the argument has no credible evidence to back it up - rely on smoke and mirrors, straw men and just enough half truth to encourage the viewer to make up their own minds, in the direction the director wants them to go. I encourage those from both sides of the argument to go see it, especially if they can get someone from the other camp to go with them at the time. 5/10
From Russia with Love (UK) (wiki)
A nice, simple Bond film to end with. This is constantly in the top few of most Bond fan lists for best film adaptation of the novels, where Connery's Bond does battle with the forces of SPECTRE on one side, and the amusingly-titled Soviet SMERSH operation on the other. SPECTRE agents Kronstein (strategic chess player) and Rosa Klebb (Ex-SMERSH operative and early lesbian film icon with a nice line in poison tipped daggers in her shoes) execute a plot to get the British Secret Service and SMERSH to squabble over a copy of the much desired Lektor device (an Enigma-style cryptographic unit) and while they kill each other off, SPECTRE takes it off their hands using burly beefhead Red Grant who silently pursues the various players picking them off as the hunt for the Lektor progresses.
As it is an early Bond film, there is far less reliance on the gadgets, improbable villains and car chases that dogged the later films, or the campness brought in with the Moore/Brosnan years, although there is more than the usual amount of female objectification, especially during the first third. What is left is a reasonably straight crime caper set in a number of beautiful locations around Istanbul and Venice, including a tense segment aboard the Belgrade to Zagreb train, and it is the close-quarters combat here, and subsequent escape from the country for Bond and Russian counterpart Tatiana that forms the best part of the film. It's just a shame that the quality of the film print wasn't up to scratch, it had clearly been passed through those reels a lot of times, but it was nice to see it on the big screen. 7/10
Another year over for Cambridge. It was lovely, and at the time of writing, it's still on; so if you have some free time on your hands this weekend and you live quite close, you could do a lot worse than catch it's closing nights.
Cambridge Film Festival 2009 Day 3
Little White Lies (Germany) (site)
A period drama set in the cold, snow covered 1930's Germany, Little White Lies centres in on a gang of schoolchildren taking lessons by day and exploring abandoned warehouses at night. 13-year old Alexanders' year is split into two groups, the A's and the B's. Though the B group is generally seen as sub-servant to the A's, a peaceful coexistence survives between the two. That is until Grüber - two years older and with a keen eye for exploitation - moves to town and is put with the A's. He quickly makes his mark, making personal gain from the snowballing events in the classroom to further his own ends. Gaining power by skilful manipulation of the truth and rising through the pecking order by spreading lies about the B's and holding to blackmail any A's who oppose his ideas (including Alexander, who unwittingly sets into motion a whole series of opportunities for Grüber to exploit). Soon the balance held in check for generations is upset and friends are set against one another.
In case you haven't guessed, the film is a not very subtle parable warning about how lies and the distortion of truth can lead to very bad situations for all involved. Or more bluntly still, an allegory on how the Nazis rose to power. Grüber is clearly modelled on Hitler, and the A and B groups represent Non-Jewish and Jewish Germans at around that time, respectively. Though this is put forth with quite a heavy hand, the film is still a beautifully shot, 2-tier story of young friendship and love on the boundaries of war, and how the truth can so easily be mislaid. 7.5/10
Best of British Shorts (UK)
Next up was a set of short films from the UK. They all shared a common theme, which was inner-city depression, isolation, and the breakdown of the family unit, under the general heading 'Britain'. Such themes tend to dominate UK based contemporary films rather too much at the moment. Is life here really that universally bad?
Boy - A bold and unsettling film, following the sexual awakening of a man towards a boy who begins to hang around his allotment, and the inner turmoil it generates as he struggles with his own self-loathing. It took me places I really wasn't comfortable seeing, but that is it's strength - these people are human too. 8/10
Hip Hip Hooray - Kacey Ainsworth (Little Mo from Eastenders) pops briefly onto the screen as Pippa, a woman so detached from others that she has to arrange a birthday party using the residents and staff of the nursing home she works at to make up the numbers. With a bigger do apparently planned for when she gets home, will her secret admirer pluck up the courage to gatecrash the proceedings? Sweet but also depressing at the same time. 6.5/10
Quietus - Juliet Stevenson stars as a carer visiting elderly Mrs Rogers and her many cats. Unfortunately, Mrs Rogers has been done over some days earlier and the only witnesses to the crime seem more interested in getting their kitekat. 6/10
GirlLikeMe - Lucy's parents are too locked in their never-ending shouting matches to notice she is falling away. She doesn't want to be a kid any more, and when her text boyfriend wants to meet up, she makes an effort to look like a proper adult. When both parties realise the other was lying about their age, the situation could go several ways. Will Lucy quit or try to make the best of the situation? 6/10
Finding Home - Darren and Tom are both wasters with an estranged and missing mother and a permanently comatose father; they spend their days messing around on their estate, waiting until they get enough money together to go find her. When Tom suddenly comes back with a wad of cash, Darren fears the worst and attempts to sort things out. Much like the two brothers around which this story revolves, it never particularly goes anywhere. 5/10
Washdays - Bed wetting doesn't seem to go away for Kyle, and his mum insists on making him wash his sheets in the hope this will teach his bladder the right time to relax itself. This makes him constantly late for school, and when the teacher asks Kyle for a note explaining things, the potential for his secret to get out leaves him with one choice: bunk off and sort things out for himself. 7.5/10
Tender - Young teen Liam comes into a bit of cash, but on his estate, flashing it around is not a good idea, especially for his single mum and the attentions of her violent boyfriend. So when local skirt and secret object of his affection Alisha realises he has a bit behind him and starts being friendly, perhaps he can use the money to get a little closer, and then maybe escape his depressing situation. 6/10
All Day Breakfast - Daryl is not the brightest spark, and wants to leave sunny Blackpool for all the reasons surly teens want to leave the place they grew up in. Unfortunately he has no competence for looking after himself, and no money to get somewhere new, something his maybe-girlfriend Juliet is used to, after seeing his plans for their big elope fizzle out once again. When Juliet disappears on the day Daryl promised they would finally get away, his only chance of seeing her again is to head for the dizzy heights of Manchester where Juliet wanted to find her calling as a Corrie regular. 6.5/10
Desire (UK) (site)
Bit of a saucy one, this. Ralph, an increasingly agoraphobic writer with creative block hires an au-pair, Néne to work in the family home, much to the frustration of his wife Phoebe, who's first encounter with her is the next morning at breakfast. The idea, Ralph keeps telling himself and
his wife, is that she will be able to ease his mind and allow him to finish the script that will lift them out of the small time and Phoebe out of the small-part soap opera position she has been stuck in for the past few years. He didn't mention his decision to hire Néne was after little more than seeing her picture on the Internet.
Néne is kind and helpful, the kids love her, and despite Phoebe's best efforts, she is won around by Néne's calming presence, until she realises that her, Néne and Ralph are all similar to characters in the script, and Néne seems to be getting pretty close to Ralph between the pages. Néne nevertheless exerts unexpected charm and calming influence on the already strained relationship, and slowly becomes carer, muse, and lover to both of them.
Phoebe still cannot shake her jealousy, and so tries to make things go four ways by inviting Darren, a young bit-part actor in her soap, around for an extended stay to even things up a bit. The already unlikely situation twists and turns as the players work out their parts in both the film and the emerging script that is evolving from the events as they unfold, in fact it is blurring of whether the script dictates the actions or the other way around that provides much of the intrigue of this film. By the end, can this unconventional extended family possibly make things work? I found personally that when the crunch time came near the end of the film, I cared enough about the main parts to wish that they could.
If you can forgive the eccentric outbursts by Ralph as he struggles to maintain power over his family, and Darren's matching chest thrusts, (clearly wanting to stay part of the group to sample Pheobe's ample charms), you'll find a saucy, funny and warm film, where perhaps you might have expected blatant smut and/or eroticism. 8/10
Creation (UK) (site/wiki)
Just about to hit UK cinemas, in timely fashion is the story of part of the life of Charles Darwin. To call it his life story would be unfair since it concentrates mostly on the years leading up to the publication of On the Origin of Species, with a few flashbacks to his voyage on the Beagle.
Paul Bettany is the spitting image of Darwin, with his furrowed brow and piercing stare, I doubt they could possibly have managed to find anyone more suitable, and his wife Emma, played by Jennifer Connelly (who is married to Bettany) does a convincing job of playing a faithful wife torn between her marriage to her husband and to her faith.
The film concentrates its attention in the three areas of Darwin's failing health (that was also responsible for the death of his daughter), his time with Anna before she died, and the changing relationship with his wife and the surrounding community as his theories gathered notoriety. It is surprising that the film does not extend to the many debating matches that occurred after the book was released, but it is clear that the existing content was more than enough to fill up the film. A cynical man may suggest that they left room for a sequel to cover that part of the story. I sincerely hope they do not.
Creation felt 'authentic', although as the director said in the extensive Q+A at the end, they took some small liberties with the literal truths about Darwin's life, preferring instead to maintain a flowing narrative and concentrate on bringing forward the essence of the man. On hearing this when director Jon Amiel took the mic for a preamble at the start, I had horrible visions of Darwin dressed as Arnie in the Terminator films, swinging through the plate glass windows of Down House and gunning down everyone in his way. Fortunately, though a historian would be able to pick small holes in the facts as presented on the screen, there was nothing that seems out of place that I could see. Darwin is portrayed as a passionate and flawed but loving family man whose stubbornness is his own worst enemy, fighting with his conscience about his lost daughter and the prospect of losing his wife from his side in the name of the work he was carrying out.
Several locations around Darwin's home in Kent were used, including Down House and the surrounding grounds, and the local churches and other buildings of prominence, and the whole thing feels like it has been painstakingly put together to ensure a convincing recreation of the life of this important man. It was more of an autobiography than a straight account of his 20 or so years of work on his most famous theories, but this worked in the favour of the film, which is better and leaner for it. 8/10
Hierro (Spain) (Interview/wiki)
A late-night thriller to keep us going to the end of this mini film marathon, and Hierro comes with the distinction of having Guillermo del Toro (of Pan's Labyrinth) as one of its contributors. Maria and her young son Diego head aboard the ferry to the island of El Hierro for a well-earned break from her job as a marine biologist. Waking from exhausted slumber, she finds that Diego has disappeared from her side, and after a fruitless exhaustive search, no trace is found on the boat.
Sometime later, Maria is called back to the island to identify a body of a boy taken from the sea, but after giving a negative ID, she finds herself stuck on the island whilst the paperwork is sorted out, which has to be done before she can go back home. Naturally, she takes the opportunity to do some detective work of her own, spurred on after hearing of an abduction of a child on the island at around the same time.
Hierro is a brooding, creepy and claustrophobic thriller, and one with a twist at the end strong enough to turn everything on its head, which was met with both surprise and satisfaction. A clever, raw and chilling film that sparks conversation well after the credits. 8/10
A period drama set in the cold, snow covered 1930's Germany, Little White Lies centres in on a gang of schoolchildren taking lessons by day and exploring abandoned warehouses at night. 13-year old Alexanders' year is split into two groups, the A's and the B's. Though the B group is generally seen as sub-servant to the A's, a peaceful coexistence survives between the two. That is until Grüber - two years older and with a keen eye for exploitation - moves to town and is put with the A's. He quickly makes his mark, making personal gain from the snowballing events in the classroom to further his own ends. Gaining power by skilful manipulation of the truth and rising through the pecking order by spreading lies about the B's and holding to blackmail any A's who oppose his ideas (including Alexander, who unwittingly sets into motion a whole series of opportunities for Grüber to exploit). Soon the balance held in check for generations is upset and friends are set against one another.
In case you haven't guessed, the film is a not very subtle parable warning about how lies and the distortion of truth can lead to very bad situations for all involved. Or more bluntly still, an allegory on how the Nazis rose to power. Grüber is clearly modelled on Hitler, and the A and B groups represent Non-Jewish and Jewish Germans at around that time, respectively. Though this is put forth with quite a heavy hand, the film is still a beautifully shot, 2-tier story of young friendship and love on the boundaries of war, and how the truth can so easily be mislaid. 7.5/10
Best of British Shorts (UK)
Next up was a set of short films from the UK. They all shared a common theme, which was inner-city depression, isolation, and the breakdown of the family unit, under the general heading 'Britain'. Such themes tend to dominate UK based contemporary films rather too much at the moment. Is life here really that universally bad?
Boy - A bold and unsettling film, following the sexual awakening of a man towards a boy who begins to hang around his allotment, and the inner turmoil it generates as he struggles with his own self-loathing. It took me places I really wasn't comfortable seeing, but that is it's strength - these people are human too. 8/10
Hip Hip Hooray - Kacey Ainsworth (Little Mo from Eastenders) pops briefly onto the screen as Pippa, a woman so detached from others that she has to arrange a birthday party using the residents and staff of the nursing home she works at to make up the numbers. With a bigger do apparently planned for when she gets home, will her secret admirer pluck up the courage to gatecrash the proceedings? Sweet but also depressing at the same time. 6.5/10
Quietus - Juliet Stevenson stars as a carer visiting elderly Mrs Rogers and her many cats. Unfortunately, Mrs Rogers has been done over some days earlier and the only witnesses to the crime seem more interested in getting their kitekat. 6/10
GirlLikeMe - Lucy's parents are too locked in their never-ending shouting matches to notice she is falling away. She doesn't want to be a kid any more, and when her text boyfriend wants to meet up, she makes an effort to look like a proper adult. When both parties realise the other was lying about their age, the situation could go several ways. Will Lucy quit or try to make the best of the situation? 6/10
Finding Home - Darren and Tom are both wasters with an estranged and missing mother and a permanently comatose father; they spend their days messing around on their estate, waiting until they get enough money together to go find her. When Tom suddenly comes back with a wad of cash, Darren fears the worst and attempts to sort things out. Much like the two brothers around which this story revolves, it never particularly goes anywhere. 5/10
Washdays - Bed wetting doesn't seem to go away for Kyle, and his mum insists on making him wash his sheets in the hope this will teach his bladder the right time to relax itself. This makes him constantly late for school, and when the teacher asks Kyle for a note explaining things, the potential for his secret to get out leaves him with one choice: bunk off and sort things out for himself. 7.5/10
Tender - Young teen Liam comes into a bit of cash, but on his estate, flashing it around is not a good idea, especially for his single mum and the attentions of her violent boyfriend. So when local skirt and secret object of his affection Alisha realises he has a bit behind him and starts being friendly, perhaps he can use the money to get a little closer, and then maybe escape his depressing situation. 6/10
All Day Breakfast - Daryl is not the brightest spark, and wants to leave sunny Blackpool for all the reasons surly teens want to leave the place they grew up in. Unfortunately he has no competence for looking after himself, and no money to get somewhere new, something his maybe-girlfriend Juliet is used to, after seeing his plans for their big elope fizzle out once again. When Juliet disappears on the day Daryl promised they would finally get away, his only chance of seeing her again is to head for the dizzy heights of Manchester where Juliet wanted to find her calling as a Corrie regular. 6.5/10
Desire (UK) (site)
Bit of a saucy one, this. Ralph, an increasingly agoraphobic writer with creative block hires an au-pair, Néne to work in the family home, much to the frustration of his wife Phoebe, who's first encounter with her is the next morning at breakfast. The idea, Ralph keeps telling himself and
his wife, is that she will be able to ease his mind and allow him to finish the script that will lift them out of the small time and Phoebe out of the small-part soap opera position she has been stuck in for the past few years. He didn't mention his decision to hire Néne was after little more than seeing her picture on the Internet.
Néne is kind and helpful, the kids love her, and despite Phoebe's best efforts, she is won around by Néne's calming presence, until she realises that her, Néne and Ralph are all similar to characters in the script, and Néne seems to be getting pretty close to Ralph between the pages. Néne nevertheless exerts unexpected charm and calming influence on the already strained relationship, and slowly becomes carer, muse, and lover to both of them.
Phoebe still cannot shake her jealousy, and so tries to make things go four ways by inviting Darren, a young bit-part actor in her soap, around for an extended stay to even things up a bit. The already unlikely situation twists and turns as the players work out their parts in both the film and the emerging script that is evolving from the events as they unfold, in fact it is blurring of whether the script dictates the actions or the other way around that provides much of the intrigue of this film. By the end, can this unconventional extended family possibly make things work? I found personally that when the crunch time came near the end of the film, I cared enough about the main parts to wish that they could.
If you can forgive the eccentric outbursts by Ralph as he struggles to maintain power over his family, and Darren's matching chest thrusts, (clearly wanting to stay part of the group to sample Pheobe's ample charms), you'll find a saucy, funny and warm film, where perhaps you might have expected blatant smut and/or eroticism. 8/10
Creation (UK) (site/wiki)
Just about to hit UK cinemas, in timely fashion is the story of part of the life of Charles Darwin. To call it his life story would be unfair since it concentrates mostly on the years leading up to the publication of On the Origin of Species, with a few flashbacks to his voyage on the Beagle.
Paul Bettany is the spitting image of Darwin, with his furrowed brow and piercing stare, I doubt they could possibly have managed to find anyone more suitable, and his wife Emma, played by Jennifer Connelly (who is married to Bettany) does a convincing job of playing a faithful wife torn between her marriage to her husband and to her faith.
The film concentrates its attention in the three areas of Darwin's failing health (that was also responsible for the death of his daughter), his time with Anna before she died, and the changing relationship with his wife and the surrounding community as his theories gathered notoriety. It is surprising that the film does not extend to the many debating matches that occurred after the book was released, but it is clear that the existing content was more than enough to fill up the film. A cynical man may suggest that they left room for a sequel to cover that part of the story. I sincerely hope they do not.
Creation felt 'authentic', although as the director said in the extensive Q+A at the end, they took some small liberties with the literal truths about Darwin's life, preferring instead to maintain a flowing narrative and concentrate on bringing forward the essence of the man. On hearing this when director Jon Amiel took the mic for a preamble at the start, I had horrible visions of Darwin dressed as Arnie in the Terminator films, swinging through the plate glass windows of Down House and gunning down everyone in his way. Fortunately, though a historian would be able to pick small holes in the facts as presented on the screen, there was nothing that seems out of place that I could see. Darwin is portrayed as a passionate and flawed but loving family man whose stubbornness is his own worst enemy, fighting with his conscience about his lost daughter and the prospect of losing his wife from his side in the name of the work he was carrying out.
Several locations around Darwin's home in Kent were used, including Down House and the surrounding grounds, and the local churches and other buildings of prominence, and the whole thing feels like it has been painstakingly put together to ensure a convincing recreation of the life of this important man. It was more of an autobiography than a straight account of his 20 or so years of work on his most famous theories, but this worked in the favour of the film, which is better and leaner for it. 8/10
Hierro (Spain) (Interview/wiki)
A late-night thriller to keep us going to the end of this mini film marathon, and Hierro comes with the distinction of having Guillermo del Toro (of Pan's Labyrinth) as one of its contributors. Maria and her young son Diego head aboard the ferry to the island of El Hierro for a well-earned break from her job as a marine biologist. Waking from exhausted slumber, she finds that Diego has disappeared from her side, and after a fruitless exhaustive search, no trace is found on the boat.
Sometime later, Maria is called back to the island to identify a body of a boy taken from the sea, but after giving a negative ID, she finds herself stuck on the island whilst the paperwork is sorted out, which has to be done before she can go back home. Naturally, she takes the opportunity to do some detective work of her own, spurred on after hearing of an abduction of a child on the island at around the same time.
Hierro is a brooding, creepy and claustrophobic thriller, and one with a twist at the end strong enough to turn everything on its head, which was met with both surprise and satisfaction. A clever, raw and chilling film that sparks conversation well after the credits. 8/10
Caught in a Trap
The Darwin Season has recently come to an end on the BBC, but before it started, I was paid what has become the latest in a series of visits by the God Squad. Clearly sensing the need to do a pre-emptive strike, a pair of middle-aged ladies knocked on my door and waited patiently as I put away my satanic books and freshly sacrificed chickens. (Note to religious people: this is a joke, I don't want nutters sending me hate mail).
There followed the standard thread of friendly debate that has been followed a half-dozen times since I moved to my area; it starts with general intro questions about whether I thought wars were a bad thing and whether and why I thought the world was going to crap, and whether I thought there was something behind it. Inevitably, this is guided towards reasoning that because people are not following [the Christian] religion any more, morals have disappeared and decadence rules, and that a belief in God would fix it all. This was accompanied by a Bible being offered to me to read, with some random assurances that 'they knew the world was round back then' and 'they knew about bacteria' as an implication that the bible contains all the facts worth knowing before those scientists came around and found out about them a second time around.
After assuring them that I had read enough of the Bible at school as a child under pain of death (or, at least a good telling off) they asked my opinion of evolution, which seemed to be the point of the visit.
'Do you believe in Evolution?',
'Well, 'believe' isn't really the correct term as it isn't a faith, but I think that evolution can explain the processes of how most things on the planet came to be as they are.',
'See, that's what I don't get about evolution, how can a whale just 'grow' some fins if it wanted to?',
'Well, what you have said to me there tells me that you don't understand the evolutionary process..',
'And the idea of a whale and a cow combining together to make an entirely new species..',
'Please, let me stop you there. You have shown me that you have little or no grasp on what evolution actually is. You are going from door to door, spreading a mutated, ridiculous twist on the theory of evolution, and then providing people with a much more convenient alternative which amounts to little more than 'God did it'.'
'Are you saying we are lying!?',
'That's not what I am saying. I think that you are two pleasant, intelligent people who would not knowingly spread misinformation about something to get people on your side, but that is what you are doing. Have you read 'On the Origin of Species'?',
'No, what's that?',
I cried a little inside.
'It's the seminal work by Charles Darwin, explaining his theories for the interrelationships between the animal orders. It explains in laymans terms the theory behind Evolution, some of the observable evidence in the real world, and how it continues to change things'.
'I don't have time for that'.
'It's a shame you should take such a view. You should read it not only for your own personal development, but to also become fully aware of that which you are denouncing. If you have no idea what it is you are refusing to believe in, how do you know it isn't true?',
'Erm..', (one of the ladies grips her bible a little tighter) '..but you have not accepted the words of the Bible, so why should I even go out of my way to buy this book?',
'You came to my house professing the words of the Bible and stating that evolution has no scientific basis in fact, and you have done the same for other people and will do again. The onus is not on me to convince you or to spend time and effort reading something I do not believe in or agree with, you have made it your job to convince me and other people that God exists and that evolution is false, and so far you have only shown me that your knowledge is limited to the biased discussions from your own flock.',
'Well..',
'I would like you to take at least one thing away from this debate - that your idea of what evolution is, is fundamentally wrong. And now that I have told you this, it would probably not go down very well with your God if you knowingly continue knocking on doors down this street using your inaccurate descriptions to get people to join your flock. You would be using lies to achieve your goal.',
'I can understand your point, but what I believe is in this Bible', (tries once again to offer me it)
'You* should* read Darwins' book, taking time to understand the concepts within it, and then come to a conclusion - your own conclusion - as to whether it is right or not. And you should do this without having the barrier laid down in your head that says 'if what is written goes against the bible account, it must be false'.
The first lady nods begrudgingly, at least I have got her to understand the situation. I smile sympathetically to her, as I feel I have just knocked the ground from her feet. Perhaps a bit of diplomacy is required.
'It is feasible that God exists and evolution is also correct - they're not mutually exclusive. It's feasible that God may have started life and then sat back and watched as the evolutionary processes did their stuff. After all, nobody yet knows where life actually came from..',
However, the second lady who has remained quite quiet until now, is gearing up for an attack on another front.
She says with conviction, 'I do not believe in evolution.'.
'That is quite a statement. All forms of evolution?',
'All forms. They are all wrong.'.
'Because we need to be clear about this, there is the general term 'Evolution', which was around before the time of Darwin and refers to the change and refinement of things, and the specialisation, 'Evolution by Natural Selection', which is part of Darwin's theory.'
'No, all evolution is a lie. Everything was created by God'.
I guess she is concentrating a little too hard on denying the Darwinian evolution to realise quite what she is saying. I am standing next to my front door and notice the complex lock mechanism.
'Evolution is not a lie, it is all around us, observable and demonstrable in many forms, such as the evolution of the motor car, evolution of internet websites, and even the process of evolution leading to this lock on my door. When locks were first invented many years ago they used a basic mechanism for the lock that was easy to circumvent; and as people found ways to open a locked door, the locks were refined and different types of locks - 'sub-species' if you will - emerged that were suited to specific environments. For example a lock for a door is different than for a window or a car, and some are still simple because the simplicity suits that purpose (eg a lock on a shed door), whereas some are more complicated (I point to the mechanism inside the front door), and others are even more so, such as electronic locks requiring a retina scan as the 'key'.',
'But if you were to take the lock apart and place the component pieces on the ground, it wouldn't put itself back together would it?'.
I was a little gobsmacked at her counter-argument, but I finally saw where she was going with it.
'No, it would need me to come along and stick it back together again....',
'Exactly! So that is like what our relationship with God is like. He creates us and everything around us, it all needed a creator.',
'But Darwinian evolution provides us with an alternative theory of how we have arrived at this point in time..',
Sensing an opportunity, she takes it: 'Aha! Exactly! Evolution is a theory, nothing more. You do not have proof.'.
'Evolution is a theory because it is not realistically provable. In order to come to an absolute proof, a person would have to live for millions of years tracking the changes in all the species of plant and animal on the planet, and show the shifting changes within a species as a whole over that time. We cannot do this in our lifetime.'.
'So it is not provable',
'..because the limiting factors are 1) how long we have been actively cataloguing animal species and the development of technology to accurately record them, 2) how long we have known about Darwins' theories, and 3) the lifespan of human beings. In theory, we will be able to prove it in a million years time, because then we will have catalogued such changes..'.
'But it is not provable now!',
'Only in so much that the theory of gravity is not provable, because it is a scientific theory We cannot accurately say that gravity will always be around, or that it is predictable, or that it occurs everywhere in the solar system. Yet gravity is a demonstrable fact, and I don't think that the church will be trying to disprove that any time soon. Evolution is also a fact for similar reasons.',
'No! That is not right. Evolution is nothing more than a theory and will never be proven.',
'Well not quite. Leaving aside the wealth of evidence taken out of the earth to support macroevolution (i.e. the big changes), the process of microevolution is far more practical to demonstrate and has actually been replicated and proven in a lab. A bacterial strain has shown the ability to absorb a chemical within glucose that it couldn't originally do because the evolutionary process that occurs between successive generations of the bacterial cells produce genetic mutations, some of which were progressively better at metabolising the chemical, which in turn drove the evolutionary path towards a new strain. This experiment took about 20 years, because the individual stages of evolution are far closer together with bacteria as they multiply at a far faster rate compared to that of larger animals.'.
Shortly afterwards, the debate disintegrated and reached a rather inconclusive end. The ladies could see they had not won a convert with their arguments. They thanked me for my 'interesting viewpoint' and after an offer of an issue of The Watchtower, I thanked them and they went on their way as it was getting cold. I don't know if they went next door because I was all religion-ed out and just wanted to put it behind me for the day.
You're probably wondering when I'm going to get to the crux of this post, and it's now. The trap I refer to in the title is that of strong religious conviction. After all the other things I have levelled at the notion of believing in a god over the years (incidentally, I will fight for the right for people to believe in a religion, as that is part of a free society, I just find it ridiculous that people do) this incident has brought home to me one particular characteristic: the truth is no longer relevant to the argument.
Taking Christianity as an example, (although this could be applied to any of the Abrahamic religions, and some other select groups too). If you attempt to convince a person of faith something that contradicts the implied or direct writings of the Bible, they will not believe it. You can debate with them, you can point them towards information and supporting evidence, but you will get nowhere.
Why is this so? Oversimplified explanations may involve a lack of intelligence on the part of the believer, or a lack of articulation on the part of the persuader, or simply a reluctance for the believer to take a dent to their pride and admit that they were wrong. I believe that there is a more convincing argument - fear.
Fear is what drives people to make decisions based on the information in their immediate surroundings. Fear has been used throughout the ages to get people in line. Additionally, the nature of human beings is to form a communal group of people striving for the same goal - humans originate from the pack cultures of apes and we feel naturally safe within one. We see example of this all through society; religions, football supporters, gangs in school playgrounds, and many more.
If you manage to persuade someone to join your religious group, it would not be such a difficult thing once they fully buy into the faith, to stop them from leaving by proclaiming eternal damnation in the pits of hell if they were to leave, meted out by the very god you have just got them to unflinchingly believe in. You can crank this up a notch by threatening similar punishment by even letting these thoughts enter their head. The trap is set.
The Bible is seen by the faithful as an absolute. It decides for them what is truth and what is fiction. Such a book of God has great power, and if someone were to discover something that appeared to be true but was not in the Bible - or worse still, contradicted it - they would suffer exclusion from their cosy group at best, and burning in the pits of hell at worst if they were to even consider accepting that which they see in front of them. People do not like change, and such an alteration in the foundation of their lives is not a pleasant prospect. Reasoning with them that the Bible was produced a long time ago when human knowledge was a fraction of what it is now is useless against such an immovable object.
The Bible even has its own section on the subject, where Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge forever casts the human race into sin. Its message is clear. Don't go hunting down knowledge, because you'll end up paying for it. The bit they left out was, that the greater the sum of human knowledge, the less room there is for the notion of a god. If we were to universally accept evolution as the process by which life has become as it is now, then a whole job lot of pruning and editing will be needed to make the Bible relevant again, an unthinkable act.
This is the trap that religious people find themselves in. The information is out there, proofs and evidence and accounts and data, most of which freely available, but the believer cannot allow themselves to consider it, for the consequences for themselves would be grave. This goes not only for that which has direct contradiction with the holy books (such as evolution by natural selection), but also those theories and concepts that support them.
One example is the concept of continental drift, and the tectonic plates slowly shifting around the continents of the world. These theories which were a topic of controversy 100 years ago, but their eventual acceptance as scientific fact helped lend credence to evolutionary flow; the isolation of a group of animals by continental drift, which would then evolve separately according to their new environment. We know that this shifting takes place - the UK is measurably moving away from France and towards America at a rate of a few centimetres per year for example - yet many of the faithful wipe whole swathes of such knowledge from the list of acceptable things to understand or believe in - simply by the process of association. To believe in them would be to give credence to that which would get them a first class ticket to hell.
Again, whether evolution is correct or not doesn't matter to a person of faith. They just aren't allowed to consider it.
Without wishing to sound glib, Atheists have no such restrictions; they are free to accept or reject things purely based on the evidence and reasoning to hand, with eyes unclouded. This is not a perfect system: it may be that something an Atheist holds true is actually not, but the process that the person used to arrive at their conclusion was not flawed; it was because of the accuracy of the information at hand, not because they felt compelled by dogma to take one explanation over another.
This is truly the definition of free thinking, and I hope for a time when we can all be freer to think for ourselves, and avoid falling into such traps.
There followed the standard thread of friendly debate that has been followed a half-dozen times since I moved to my area; it starts with general intro questions about whether I thought wars were a bad thing and whether and why I thought the world was going to crap, and whether I thought there was something behind it. Inevitably, this is guided towards reasoning that because people are not following [the Christian] religion any more, morals have disappeared and decadence rules, and that a belief in God would fix it all. This was accompanied by a Bible being offered to me to read, with some random assurances that 'they knew the world was round back then' and 'they knew about bacteria' as an implication that the bible contains all the facts worth knowing before those scientists came around and found out about them a second time around.
After assuring them that I had read enough of the Bible at school as a child under pain of death (or, at least a good telling off) they asked my opinion of evolution, which seemed to be the point of the visit.
'Do you believe in Evolution?',
'Well, 'believe' isn't really the correct term as it isn't a faith, but I think that evolution can explain the processes of how most things on the planet came to be as they are.',
'See, that's what I don't get about evolution, how can a whale just 'grow' some fins if it wanted to?',
'Well, what you have said to me there tells me that you don't understand the evolutionary process..',
'And the idea of a whale and a cow combining together to make an entirely new species..',
'Please, let me stop you there. You have shown me that you have little or no grasp on what evolution actually is. You are going from door to door, spreading a mutated, ridiculous twist on the theory of evolution, and then providing people with a much more convenient alternative which amounts to little more than 'God did it'.'
'Are you saying we are lying!?',
'That's not what I am saying. I think that you are two pleasant, intelligent people who would not knowingly spread misinformation about something to get people on your side, but that is what you are doing. Have you read 'On the Origin of Species'?',
'No, what's that?',
I cried a little inside.
'It's the seminal work by Charles Darwin, explaining his theories for the interrelationships between the animal orders. It explains in laymans terms the theory behind Evolution, some of the observable evidence in the real world, and how it continues to change things'.
'I don't have time for that'.
'It's a shame you should take such a view. You should read it not only for your own personal development, but to also become fully aware of that which you are denouncing. If you have no idea what it is you are refusing to believe in, how do you know it isn't true?',
'Erm..', (one of the ladies grips her bible a little tighter) '..but you have not accepted the words of the Bible, so why should I even go out of my way to buy this book?',
'You came to my house professing the words of the Bible and stating that evolution has no scientific basis in fact, and you have done the same for other people and will do again. The onus is not on me to convince you or to spend time and effort reading something I do not believe in or agree with, you have made it your job to convince me and other people that God exists and that evolution is false, and so far you have only shown me that your knowledge is limited to the biased discussions from your own flock.',
'Well..',
'I would like you to take at least one thing away from this debate - that your idea of what evolution is, is fundamentally wrong. And now that I have told you this, it would probably not go down very well with your God if you knowingly continue knocking on doors down this street using your inaccurate descriptions to get people to join your flock. You would be using lies to achieve your goal.',
'I can understand your point, but what I believe is in this Bible', (tries once again to offer me it)
'You* should* read Darwins' book, taking time to understand the concepts within it, and then come to a conclusion - your own conclusion - as to whether it is right or not. And you should do this without having the barrier laid down in your head that says 'if what is written goes against the bible account, it must be false'.
The first lady nods begrudgingly, at least I have got her to understand the situation. I smile sympathetically to her, as I feel I have just knocked the ground from her feet. Perhaps a bit of diplomacy is required.
'It is feasible that God exists and evolution is also correct - they're not mutually exclusive. It's feasible that God may have started life and then sat back and watched as the evolutionary processes did their stuff. After all, nobody yet knows where life actually came from..',
However, the second lady who has remained quite quiet until now, is gearing up for an attack on another front.
She says with conviction, 'I do not believe in evolution.'.
'That is quite a statement. All forms of evolution?',
'All forms. They are all wrong.'.
'Because we need to be clear about this, there is the general term 'Evolution', which was around before the time of Darwin and refers to the change and refinement of things, and the specialisation, 'Evolution by Natural Selection', which is part of Darwin's theory.'
'No, all evolution is a lie. Everything was created by God'.
I guess she is concentrating a little too hard on denying the Darwinian evolution to realise quite what she is saying. I am standing next to my front door and notice the complex lock mechanism.
'Evolution is not a lie, it is all around us, observable and demonstrable in many forms, such as the evolution of the motor car, evolution of internet websites, and even the process of evolution leading to this lock on my door. When locks were first invented many years ago they used a basic mechanism for the lock that was easy to circumvent; and as people found ways to open a locked door, the locks were refined and different types of locks - 'sub-species' if you will - emerged that were suited to specific environments. For example a lock for a door is different than for a window or a car, and some are still simple because the simplicity suits that purpose (eg a lock on a shed door), whereas some are more complicated (I point to the mechanism inside the front door), and others are even more so, such as electronic locks requiring a retina scan as the 'key'.',
'But if you were to take the lock apart and place the component pieces on the ground, it wouldn't put itself back together would it?'.
I was a little gobsmacked at her counter-argument, but I finally saw where she was going with it.
'No, it would need me to come along and stick it back together again....',
'Exactly! So that is like what our relationship with God is like. He creates us and everything around us, it all needed a creator.',
'But Darwinian evolution provides us with an alternative theory of how we have arrived at this point in time..',
Sensing an opportunity, she takes it: 'Aha! Exactly! Evolution is a theory, nothing more. You do not have proof.'.
'Evolution is a theory because it is not realistically provable. In order to come to an absolute proof, a person would have to live for millions of years tracking the changes in all the species of plant and animal on the planet, and show the shifting changes within a species as a whole over that time. We cannot do this in our lifetime.'.
'So it is not provable',
'..because the limiting factors are 1) how long we have been actively cataloguing animal species and the development of technology to accurately record them, 2) how long we have known about Darwins' theories, and 3) the lifespan of human beings. In theory, we will be able to prove it in a million years time, because then we will have catalogued such changes..'.
'But it is not provable now!',
'Only in so much that the theory of gravity is not provable, because it is a scientific theory We cannot accurately say that gravity will always be around, or that it is predictable, or that it occurs everywhere in the solar system. Yet gravity is a demonstrable fact, and I don't think that the church will be trying to disprove that any time soon. Evolution is also a fact for similar reasons.',
'No! That is not right. Evolution is nothing more than a theory and will never be proven.',
'Well not quite. Leaving aside the wealth of evidence taken out of the earth to support macroevolution (i.e. the big changes), the process of microevolution is far more practical to demonstrate and has actually been replicated and proven in a lab. A bacterial strain has shown the ability to absorb a chemical within glucose that it couldn't originally do because the evolutionary process that occurs between successive generations of the bacterial cells produce genetic mutations, some of which were progressively better at metabolising the chemical, which in turn drove the evolutionary path towards a new strain. This experiment took about 20 years, because the individual stages of evolution are far closer together with bacteria as they multiply at a far faster rate compared to that of larger animals.'.
Shortly afterwards, the debate disintegrated and reached a rather inconclusive end. The ladies could see they had not won a convert with their arguments. They thanked me for my 'interesting viewpoint' and after an offer of an issue of The Watchtower, I thanked them and they went on their way as it was getting cold. I don't know if they went next door because I was all religion-ed out and just wanted to put it behind me for the day.
You're probably wondering when I'm going to get to the crux of this post, and it's now. The trap I refer to in the title is that of strong religious conviction. After all the other things I have levelled at the notion of believing in a god over the years (incidentally, I will fight for the right for people to believe in a religion, as that is part of a free society, I just find it ridiculous that people do) this incident has brought home to me one particular characteristic: the truth is no longer relevant to the argument.
Taking Christianity as an example, (although this could be applied to any of the Abrahamic religions, and some other select groups too). If you attempt to convince a person of faith something that contradicts the implied or direct writings of the Bible, they will not believe it. You can debate with them, you can point them towards information and supporting evidence, but you will get nowhere.
Why is this so? Oversimplified explanations may involve a lack of intelligence on the part of the believer, or a lack of articulation on the part of the persuader, or simply a reluctance for the believer to take a dent to their pride and admit that they were wrong. I believe that there is a more convincing argument - fear.
Fear is what drives people to make decisions based on the information in their immediate surroundings. Fear has been used throughout the ages to get people in line. Additionally, the nature of human beings is to form a communal group of people striving for the same goal - humans originate from the pack cultures of apes and we feel naturally safe within one. We see example of this all through society; religions, football supporters, gangs in school playgrounds, and many more.
If you manage to persuade someone to join your religious group, it would not be such a difficult thing once they fully buy into the faith, to stop them from leaving by proclaiming eternal damnation in the pits of hell if they were to leave, meted out by the very god you have just got them to unflinchingly believe in. You can crank this up a notch by threatening similar punishment by even letting these thoughts enter their head. The trap is set.
The Bible is seen by the faithful as an absolute. It decides for them what is truth and what is fiction. Such a book of God has great power, and if someone were to discover something that appeared to be true but was not in the Bible - or worse still, contradicted it - they would suffer exclusion from their cosy group at best, and burning in the pits of hell at worst if they were to even consider accepting that which they see in front of them. People do not like change, and such an alteration in the foundation of their lives is not a pleasant prospect. Reasoning with them that the Bible was produced a long time ago when human knowledge was a fraction of what it is now is useless against such an immovable object.
The Bible even has its own section on the subject, where Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge forever casts the human race into sin. Its message is clear. Don't go hunting down knowledge, because you'll end up paying for it. The bit they left out was, that the greater the sum of human knowledge, the less room there is for the notion of a god. If we were to universally accept evolution as the process by which life has become as it is now, then a whole job lot of pruning and editing will be needed to make the Bible relevant again, an unthinkable act.
This is the trap that religious people find themselves in. The information is out there, proofs and evidence and accounts and data, most of which freely available, but the believer cannot allow themselves to consider it, for the consequences for themselves would be grave. This goes not only for that which has direct contradiction with the holy books (such as evolution by natural selection), but also those theories and concepts that support them.
One example is the concept of continental drift, and the tectonic plates slowly shifting around the continents of the world. These theories which were a topic of controversy 100 years ago, but their eventual acceptance as scientific fact helped lend credence to evolutionary flow; the isolation of a group of animals by continental drift, which would then evolve separately according to their new environment. We know that this shifting takes place - the UK is measurably moving away from France and towards America at a rate of a few centimetres per year for example - yet many of the faithful wipe whole swathes of such knowledge from the list of acceptable things to understand or believe in - simply by the process of association. To believe in them would be to give credence to that which would get them a first class ticket to hell.
Again, whether evolution is correct or not doesn't matter to a person of faith. They just aren't allowed to consider it.
Without wishing to sound glib, Atheists have no such restrictions; they are free to accept or reject things purely based on the evidence and reasoning to hand, with eyes unclouded. This is not a perfect system: it may be that something an Atheist holds true is actually not, but the process that the person used to arrive at their conclusion was not flawed; it was because of the accuracy of the information at hand, not because they felt compelled by dogma to take one explanation over another.
This is truly the definition of free thinking, and I hope for a time when we can all be freer to think for ourselves, and avoid falling into such traps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)