Theological Notebook: The Movie "Contact" and the Myth of a Conflict Between Science and Religion

[novak]

Here's a question: Why? In fact, that's my favourite question! But it's not too clear by itself, so let me give a little background so you can understand my specific use of the question.

Comments

[weaklingrecords]

Hey, that's why I left the (pre-)seminary, too!

[novak]

And a grateful world thanks you!

[frey_at_last]

Amen! This movie was silly enough on its own (all the questions in the world are answered if there are other beings out there somewhere in space impersonating our dead relatives?), but it was such a horrible perpetuation of a false conflict and inane pseudo-arguments that I wish I could stop anyone else from ever seeing it.

Worse, I watched it over three class periods in a high school Physics class, where my teacher seemed to think it was the most brilliant articulation of "Science vs. Religion" ever made. Also he liked the part at the beginning where it zooms out past planets and other galaxies into the universe. (And he stopped it at every stage to explain what we were looking at and every five minutes thereafter to explain what had just happened. This is why it took us three class days.)

But I do love Jodie Foster!

[novak]

And I suppose it's good that a teacher like yours is trying to do something he thinks is progressive regarding the dialogue between the two disciplines, but I suspect that this is a good illustration about the dangers of "a little knowledge." "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." - Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism, 1709

As I try to look at this dynamic in our culture, as awful as I find both the political Right and the political Left, I think I have to blame the Secular Left on this score, for the smug dismissal of any more reflective look at Religion (in the Theological or Philosophical mode) because they've already been taught as dogma that it's all been disproved long ago, thus excusing them from doing the work themselves. I hope that's not dismissive, myself, or a gross caricature: it really does seem to be what I observe time and again.

[frey_at_last]

I think I would have taken it better if he *had* been trying to address "dialogue between two disciplines" - but, as you describe so well, I don't even think it occurs to him that theology has a right to call itself a discipline. He mostly talked about presenting a "cultural" dilemma - that is, in our society there are intellectual scientists with a discipline, and then there are some very feeling and intuitive people who have some challenging, but subjective, (at best) insights or (at worst) fantasies. (And you also have to be careful, because these same people also like to protest in hordes whenever mankind tries to make some kind of progress that contradicts their monolithic religious ideology!)

[mosinging1986]

(Here via frey_at_last)

It never really dawned on me until I read this, but I really should DESPISE this film, and for all the reasons you've listed here. And yet it's one of my favorite films of all time. Part of it is that I love space-y movies in general. I love Jodie Foster as an actress as well. And Jena Malone as the young Ellie was wonderful. But everything you've said here is spot on.

I printed out this post so I could read it at lunch time, and have it so marked up that I don't think I can even reply without copying half your post, LOL!

If you're at all interested, my running commentary on it is HERE.

If I wasn't so very exhausted, I'd say something more intelligent. So I guess I'll just say thanks for such a thoughtful commentary. Would it be ok to link to this on my journal?

[novak]

Oh, of course you can link to it: you don't need my permission to do that, once I've made the mistake of publicly posting something! :-)

I don't want to give the wrong impression: I love this movie, too, even if it annoys me at times by wallowing in misunderstandings or stereotypes that belie its lofty agenda or self-conception.

Yes, while recognizing Foster's great acting, Jena Malone gets props, too: I also wondered whether she used that gift or went on to do other things. (Huh. I just looked her up on IMDB and see that she has indeed continued acting. I see she worked on Foster's project The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys, which a DRE friend of mine discussed with Foster at the Sundance Film Festival. And that she was the standout as the daughter in Stepmom, which I'd never put together....)

Now I"m off to your commentary....

[novak]

I record my reply to mosinging1986 here for record-keeping's sake.

[novak]

Your point about the reduction of religion to faith is pertinent: there are significant implications in that as both what the culture has come to believe, and even more now that it has gained legal force in the United States with the Supreme Court in Locke v. Davey legally defining it as merely "belief." (See the First Things symposium on "Theology as Knowledge".) Reason itself has been isolated from Faith, whereas I always try to point out to my students that that in the other parts of our lives (along with the "religious") we clearly build Faith upon Reason: we apply data and experience and judgment to decided to have faith in a friend or not. But if you define Faith as "belief," instead of "trust," even though it far more means the latter in Christianity, you'll soon get that problem or mock-solution of setting Faith and Reason up as opposites, rather than as part of a continuum of something deeper that includes the two, that maybe we could call Reflection, or hell - let's get really Christian and theological (and maybe even

[cerulianphoenix]

I have only seen parts of the movie but really caught some of what you are saying. Thanks for the thoughts, what you wrote should be more commonplace knowledge in the world today.

[novak]

Well, I still very much enjoyed the film... but thanks!

[nimoloth]

Probably because science is generally taught consistantly and logically throughout school, and stated as fact, whereas religion is rarely taught in a constructive and critical way, if at all, and rarely put down as fact, but rather, opinion. And sunday school and church (from a Protestant point of view) does not fill this gap either - I was forced to go to sunday school until I was about 16 and it did not convince me at all of the validity of Christianity in the way school convinced me of the validity of science.

PS This would be a good post for interacademia, which is sadly quiet at the moment... We need more people on board!

[midnightmelody]

whereas religion is rarely taught in a constructive and critical way, if at all, and rarely put down as fact, but rather, opinion

I really think that 'religion' is appallingly taught in the UK, and I am always heartened by novak's accounts of teaching high-school in the US. In the UK, I the pick-and-mix approach of most curricula up to age 16 seems to mean that religious studies is taught more as low-level anthropology (a description of social and cultural practices, with a superficial nod to the thoughts behind them) than as theology or philosophy. In trying to promote 'tolerance and understanding', we have reduced faith to a social activity.

I second the comment about interacademia. From a purely selfish perspective, I do not have enough scholarship influencing my life at the moment!

[nimoloth]

Indeed, all I remember from RE classes (Religious Education, for the first few years of secondary) was a lot of Amnesty International information and a brief section on Buddhism or Hinduism (can't remember which). We did visit a mosque in primary school, which was interesting.

[novak]

Yes, as per the response I just gave to midnightmelody, I think that in our generation(s), what's happened is that teaching religion moved radically away from the hard-core content it used to focus on to a 1960s/70s emphasis on "feeling," which is fine in itself, to bring the faith to a more mystical, experiential side that was under-emphasized in a more purely dogmatic approach. But in the same way the physical sciences will die if you solely teach technology/application to the exclusion of theory, in the same way spirituality dies without theology/philosophy. Or its loses its depth and fecundity. And so you end up with nothing more than a sprinkling of progressive human rights politics, and an intimation of world-religions dialogue