• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Skepticism, atheism, and belief as themes in movies

 
 
 
Underseer

Underseer

Contributor
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
11,413
Location
Chicago suburbs
Basic Beliefs
atheism, resistentialism
[YOUTUBE]uBw6EvIxIS8[/YOUTUBE]

I'm not going to bother seeing this movie as I've seen countless other things like this.

  • Character: I saw the thing! I definitely saw the thing!
  • Evil Skeptic/Atheist Character: Do you have evidence for the thing?
  • Character: No, but you should believe me anyway!
  • Later in the movie: thing appears
  • Character: Ah ha! This proves that you should have believed me even when I didn't have a scrap of evidence supporting my claims!
  • Audience: Ah ha! This validates my belief in [fill in the blank]! Those meanie meanheads shouldn't ask me to demonstrate that my truth claims are true!

The appeal of this same storyline we've seen in countless movies is that people with all kinds of different ludicrous beliefs will view this movie as proof that they are correct about whatever it is that they believe in. Why? Because our primitive ape brains think that works of fiction count as supporting evidence:

[youtube]NfyoDgszas0[/youtube]

So no matter what you believe in: vampires, alien visitation, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, fairies, elves, ghosts, demons, djinn, werewolves, Yahweh, Vishnu, Odin, you will see these movies and feel that your beliefs are validated and that other people are wrong to question your beliefs.

Because fiction is supporting evidence.

Except of course, fiction isn't supporting evidence.

There are an infinite number of things that might be true, but which have no supporting evidence or inadequate supporting evidence. If this counts as proof of Yahweh, then it also counts as proof of Vishnu, but if Vishnu is real, then the Bible/Torah/Quran is false because they claim to represent the one and only true god, and the various Hindu holy scriptures are similarly false for similar reasons. So if this is valid support for truth claims, then it leads to mutually exclusive truths.

How do we distinguish between unproven claims that might be true? How do we tell which ones actually are true and which ones aren't to be taken seriously?

That, uh, is what supporting evidence is for. The thing that believers don't want to use because they know it won't support their truth claims.
 
There seems to be 2 regular paths for skeptics in movies/stories/etc.

1) The one who is dismissive, and will never believe, at times even when confronting with the supernatural whatever they will still deny. Death usually follows shortly after
2) The convert who once confronted with the supernatural will abandon all science and reason, following blindly whatever the legends of the thing claim


Rarely is the third option taken. One example of this that comes to mind is Sleepy Hollow with Johnny Depp. He is a scientists trying to start the field of forensics. The police are annoyed with him, so send him to Sleepy Hollow to investigate the deaths there. Of course Ichabod finds the Headless Horseman is an actual ghost, but he does not give up science. Instead through his investigation he is able to find the conspiracy that is going on in town, and what is directing the Horseman to its targets.
 
Did anyone see Trollhunters? A very funny film, in which a believer's secret faith in Jesus leads to his precipitous demise partway through the film, in a direct reversal of the usual trope described above.
 
The Grey doesn't really have it as a theme, but I'd say it's certainly present there.
 
Well, it makes for better movies than the alternative:

Character: I think that guy's a vampire
Atheist: I don't think vampires are real
Character: Well, it turns out that you were correct and now I'm deservedly in prison for chasing some old guy around with a wooden stake just because he preferred to stay indoors. I'll see you in 7 to 10 years.
 
To state the obvious storytelling probably goes back to early human tribal campfires.

Beowulf. Greek creatures. The oldest question, what is truth?
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Well, it makes for better movies than the alternative:

Character: I think that guy's a vampire
Atheist: I don't think vampires are real
Character: Well, it turns out that you were correct and now I'm deservedly in prison for chasing some old guy around with a wooden stake just because he preferred to stay indoors. I'll see you in 7 to 10 years.
Click to expand...

You know what I would prefer?

Character: The Ooga Booga monster is real!
Other character: Oh? What's your evidence?
Character: I shouldn't need evidence! You should believe whatever I say no matter what!
Other character: No.
Ooga Booga monster: Argle bargle glorf nork!
Other character: See, that's evidence. Now it's reasonable to believe.

- - - Updated - - -

steve_bank said:
To state the obvious storytelling probably goes back to early human tribal campfires.

Beowulf. Greek creatures. The oldest question, what is truth?
Click to expand...

Truth isn't a thing. It's a property of ideas. If you can't demonstrate that an idea is truth, then the idea carries none of the power of actual, demonstrable truths.

But we can't acknowledge that as a society because then all the theists would get their panties in a wad and start killing people. You know how they get.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Well, it makes for better movies than the alternative:

Character: I think that guy's a vampire
Atheist: I don't think vampires are real
Character: Well, it turns out that you were correct and now I'm deservedly in prison for chasing some old guy around with a wooden stake just because he preferred to stay indoors. I'll see you in 7 to 10 years.
Click to expand...

That would actually make for an awesome and movie with a hilarious surprise ending, especially if the film was convincing throughout that the vamp was real and made you think the skeptic was your typical trope going to be proven wrong.

In general, there certainly could be thrillers and horror films where the skeptic turns out to be correct and there still is a danger that drives the action and fear, but a natural one. I think it's just lazy unimaginative story telling that leads most stories to use supernatural occurrences as an easy crutch rather than figure out a way to eventually explain the weird occurrences in a way that is non-paranormal yet still interesting and unexpected.

Regardless, even when the events do turn out to be a supernatural or otherwise an improbable cause, there is no reason to make it seem like those who initially doubted it are stupid assholes who deserve their deadly fate. Again, that is just lazy character development, relying upon tired tropes and one dimensional good vs. evil character.

I enjoy fantasy and sci-fi that presumes a possible but previously unknown or even implausible world. But I find it much more compelling when it doesn't just throw all realism out the window, contradict known reality for no reason integral to the story, and depends upon psychological implausibility where characters don't react in plausible ways or are portrayed negatively for doing what would actually make sense in that situation, just b/c they don't have the omniscience of the writer and the audience.
 
The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe - Digory Kirke

Peter: You're not saying you believe her?
Professor Kirke: What, and you don't?
Susan: Of course not. I mean, logically, it's impossible.

Professor Kirke: What do they teach in schools these days?

"Logic!" said the Professor half to himself. "Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn't tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.”
 
Wow, I never bothered to watch that movie, but it really highlights the idiocy of Lewis' argument.
 
There are other options than her being mad or lying or telling the truth. She could be simply mistaken.
Plus other options also exist. Imagine I have an opaque box and a handful of marbles - I put some marbles in the box, and ask you how many marbles are in the box.
Say you reply four. This is outside the scope of lying or truth, and madness is irrelevant. You are right or wrong in your guess (and can only know which is true when I reveal the contents of the box).
 
To claim there are four marbles without any rational basis for making that claim (or deceptive motive) comes under the category of madness. Eg. If I claim I am a poached egg (to use Lewis' example) I am not merely 'mistaken'.
 
Lion IRC said:
To claim there are four marbles without any rational basis for making that claim (or deceptive motive) comes under the category of madness. Eg. If I claim I am a poached egg (to use Lewis' example) I am not merely 'mistaken'.
Click to expand...

To claim that someone could feed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish comes under the category of madness.
 
It is pretty clear that Lion IRC has gone mad.
 
How is not referring to someone who is mistaken as 'mad' not itself a mistake, and therefore madness?

At the very least it is insulting, and it frankly helps obscure the issue. To say that Lucy isn't mad, and therefore cannot possibly be mistaken is, frankly, quite stupid. Sane people are mistaken all the time. To dismiss that possibility is moronic.

When you are forced to distort meaning and reason to fit something in your world view, then it is a sign that your worldview is incorrect. Why are you so married to Lewis' trilemma? It is faulty; replace it! The fact that you would rather characterize a mistake as insanity than discard some pseudo-philosopher's silly argument speaks volumes about you and your goals.

Categories, words and definitions are all arbitrary. They can be useful if honestly, consistently and rationally used. When someone rejects the idea that these things are arbitrary, while at the same time distorting them to produce a particular conclusion, and who then pretends the conclusion is meaningful because the definitions and categories are NOT arbitrary; this person is using words deceptively. Such is the case with Lewis' Trilemma.

This is why I reject semantic arguments out of hand. Lewis' Trilemma is nothing more than a semantic argument meant to produce a 'True' conclusion by mischaracterizing and dismissing alternative conclusions.
 
Yes, Lewis could have added 'mistaken' as a fourth option but clearly he includes...sincerely thinking of ones self as a poached egg, in the category of madness.

That's not semantics. The trilemma is fair because Lucy isn't mistaken on account of wilful ignorance. Neither is she mistaken on account of a lack of evidence or rational justification.
 
It is semantics, because he's deliberately using one word in place of another in order to provoke an emotional response, while the facts remain the same. "Mistaken" is the most reasonable and likely alternative explanation, for all religious experiences. He attempts to kneecap that argument by redefining it as 'madness,' and implying that we atheists are accusing religious people of being 'mad.' It insults the atheists, while causing the religious to draw together defensively. It is a faulty, deceitful, and completely word-based argument, with nary a fact to show for it.
 
Notice how Dawkins' book is called The God Delusion.
...not The God Mistaken Belief

Semantics?
 
If I was deliberately lying about having seen Jesus Resurrected, I would know I was lying. And I would be rational insofar as I had a motive for the fraud. This would be the case irrespective of whether my motive was 'pure' (noble lie) or selfish for personal gain. And if someone else discovered undeniable evidence of my deliberate lie, they could conceivably get me to acknowledge that I was lying. The game would be up. I might outwardly continue to lie in order to mitigate my punishment but the rational liar still knows they are lying.

If I was deluded, mad, hallucinating, psychotic episode, etc. I wouldn't think or know that I was lying and there would be no 'motive' for my uncontrollable madness. I might claim to be a poached egg and expect everyone to bow down and call me The Eggman and worship me with financial tithes - which might make me happy - but I'm not lying when I call myself a poached egg. I'm just insane.

A sincere person who is honestly mistaken about whether they saw Jesus after three days doesn't fall into either of the above two categories any more than a sincere person who ISNT mistaken when they say they saw Jesus after three days. They are both telling the truth about what they believe and why they believe it. Lucy Pevensee isn't a lunatic or a liar and she isn't mistaken in her reporting of what she saw.

I say Lewis regards the trilemma as a choice between;
a) Rational, sane person commited to telling the truth about what they saw (or who they are)
b) Rational liar who knows they are lying and has a rational motive for lying.
c) Irrational lunatic who won't and or can't process the same epistemology as a) and b)
 
True, Dawkins is a writer trying to sell books, like Lewis. Your point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom