14 responses so far.

• 1 Ronster // May 18, 2009 at 7:04 am

  Although even after he points out he's from Belfast, you think it must be some kind of joke.

  Belfast via Katmandu perhaps. Bizarre accent. And Scots are normally so good at emulating Northern Irish, too.

• 2 Tom // May 18, 2009 at 2:15 pm

  Think there's a great deal of discussion to be had about the violence that is being passed in PG-13 (or in the UK 12A) cert films. Perhaps enough to fill a whole show?

  'This Film Is Not Yet Rated' had some interesting points to make about how ridiculous the American rating system is (the UK's is only slightly better), but focused too much on tracking down the identities of the ratings board.

  I agree with Jett's view on how unbalanced it all seems when graphic violence is so often on show but sex (and that's healthy, normal sex between two loving people) is absolutley taboo. European cinema seems to get the balance right.

• 3 Eric // May 18, 2009 at 11:44 pm

  For a movie that so aggressively attempts to attach such salient meaning to symbolism, it sure lacked oh, I don’t know, symbols.

  Ron Howard is a loose cannon…in the worst connotations of that phrase.

• 4 peter // May 19, 2009 at 1:20 pm

  I think the bigger concern for me is how this ever escalating pg-13 has essentially destroyed the r-rated studio picture. Thus, if a movie costs more than 20 million nowadays, it MUST be pg-13, which has resulted in both a stifling of creative vision, and an increasingly violent pg-13 rating. This is particularly bothersome in regards to action movies, because I feel personally that you need that edge there to help show that this isn't a video-game, that death has weight and consequence. Even a hard pg-13 movie like Taken, everything is treated empty and weightless, with mostly bloodless deaths, and I think this is actually much more harmful to the viewer than showing that violence and blood.

• 5 Dale // May 21, 2009 at 8:12 am

  “Though I suspect Ron Howard and Tom Hanks wouldn’t consider themselves, unlike Dawkins, experts in fields they haven’t studied.”

  Indeed, I doubt Ron Howard and Tom Hanks consider themselves experts on “the intersection of faith and science.” They make moving pictures.

  Please state what Richard Dawkins has gotten wrong by dint of his assumed unfamiliarity with “faith” — by which I take you to mean theology, perhaps? Philosophy?

  Exactly what did Dawkins neglect to study that, had he given it the attention it deserves, would have (or should have) altered his conclusions? Did Bart Ehrman, John W. Loftus, Hector Avalos, and Dan Barker, all of whom came to substantially equivalent conclusions as Dawkins on the “interaction between faith and science,” also neglect to study whatever you're talking about?

  I realize I've posed a big question here, but this is a big blog (they all are — the internet is far from full), and as you said, these topics “deserve a better hearing.”

  Thanks.

• 6 Gareth Higgins // May 21, 2009 at 9:05 am

  I meant nothing more than the fact that Richard Dawkins wrote what he appears to think is a credible intellectual book about theology and religion, which, once read, shows no sign whatsoever of anything more than a passing acquaintance with some of the most distorted visions of what he is claiming to understand. Dawkins has a more refined and capacious mind than I do; but writing a book like 'The God Delusion' without engaging in anything more than a high school magazine level of study of theology seems to me, at the very least, intellectually suspect.

• 7 Jett Loe // May 21, 2009 at 10:18 am

  hey gareth, wanted to reply to your original post earlier – but in a video comment, unfortunately that functionality is down right now so will be brief in text:

  we've spoken before about your view that dawkin's take of theology is facile, and as you put it, at a 'high school magazine level' – i think that's correct re: comparing the people/concepts he discusses to your grasp/vision of faith/theology.

  the thing is – the folks dawkin's talks about in his book – the ones who literally believe in satan/demons, (NOT as metaphor – but as reality), are legion – not everyone has your subtle approach. i just got back from a couple of days away in eastern tennessee and saw with my own eyes a congregation of THOUSANDS nodding along, saying “that's right” to a preacher who says the United Nations is a front for the anti-christ and hinted quite clearly that president obama himself might be the 'dark one'.

  the folks in the pews sure seemed convinced. and it's this kind of non-reflection = swallowing the con man's codswallop that dawkins and others attack.

  i know plenty of smart people who have faith – but i'd call it philosophical inquiry – these smart folks just happened to be inculcated/raised in organised religion – so it becomes the framework for the philosophical apprehension of the world.

  does that make any sense?

• 8 Dale // May 22, 2009 at 1:28 pm

  I really do realize this is a film blog, not a religion-vs.-atheism blog, but …

  Here's what I'd say about Richard Dawkins: (a) He has said many times — and I think he has a very good point here — that the relevance of theology depends completely on the quality of an underlying truth claim, namely that a god either does or does not exist. If god does not exist, then theology does not matter at all, as it is nothing more than an edifice of word games and just-so stories founded on a delusion. If god does exist, nothing could be important than theology (defined here as the discipline devoted to understanding god's revelations, his will, his rules, etc.)

  (b) While Dawkins has no discernible background in theology, his work in science establishes his expertise as an evaluator of hypotheses — he has a very strong record of winnowing what's demonstrably true from the nice-sounding-but-false, the not-particularly-nice-sounding-but-false, and the outright-laughably-false. He is very explicit about his method — it's all on the table. He has applied that demonstrated acumen to the question of god's existence/non-existence and found the hypothesis that god exists is, in his best judgment, false (he rates it a 6 on a 7-point scale where 1=100% certainly true and 7=100% certainly false).

  Maybe he succeeded or failed in arriving at that conclusion, and maybe his method for getting to that conclusion is subject to criticism — people differ — but it is his central conclusion. I think he's right with (a) above, and that being so, he does indeed spend no time on theology. I would expect him to change on that — I know I would — were someone to successfully demonstrate, with strong reasoning and evidence and a supportable truth-evaluation methodology whose terms are specified, that the 6 needs to be dialed back to a lower number.

  Departing from Dawkins's views now and speaking only for myself, I would simply ask you whether and to what extent you've considered all the theology you've rejected — Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, other Christian sects, etc. I don't claim to know the answer — maybe you've done precisely that. I recall you have a divinity background, and maybe that means you've studied all the theology on the books in exhaustive detail.

  So I my smart-ass but still serious question is this: do you insist that every thinking person, yourself included, devote serious attention all the theology he/she does not currently embrace — suspending judgment until it has all been given a fair hearing? Or do you just apply this to Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and other atheists?

  Truly the conversation never ends.

• 9 Ellie // May 25, 2009 at 12:21 am

  Hi all – and sorry, guys, but I think you'll have to change the name of the blog to “the god talk” after all!
  But; as someone with a degree in theology, I felt compelled and somewhat qualified to put in my two cents at this point.
  Obviously, as someone who has devoted a substantial amount of time to studying the subject that Dawkins thinks shouldn't be taught in universities, I probably don't need to tell you that I'm not his biggest fan. Anyway:

  Jett: “It's this kind of non-reflection = swallowing the con man's codswallop that Dawkins and others attack”
  - If this is the case, then what Dawkins dislikes is how gullible or unthinking some/most people are. But I don't think that's it; he really does dislike religion.

  Dale: “theology (defined here as the discipline devoted to understanding god's revelations, his will, his rules, etc.)”
  - This is not what theology is. It's a part of it, of course, no denying that. But I don't think it's the main part of theology, unless you're studying for priesthood. In an academic setting, the study of theology includes what you might call 'philosophy of religion' -type questions, i.e. 'does god exist?', 'how could we know if god existed?', 'if god existed, what would god be like?', and so on. Crucially, for Gareth's statement about Dawkins considering himself an expert in a field they haven’t studied, it also involves questioning the nature of religion, the development of scripture, orthodoxy; in other words, theology asks the all the same questions that Dawkins asks. (Dawkins obviously provides different answers!) Throughout, he presents himself as knowledgeable about the answers that “theology” gives – but he actually misrepresents them.

  Oof – that's a bit long! Sorry for hijacking this thread. So much for Angels and Demons, eh? It must be a very interesting film, seeing as how the topic got changed so quickly…

• 10 StanleyRumm // May 25, 2009 at 2:00 am

  I've kept away from this, not least because I don't like to promote a crap movie by associating myself with it in any way, but also because of the skin, teeth & feathers possible direction of the comments.

  But as someone who is a non-believing child of God I think I am compelled and somewhat qualified to say I don't dislike the idea of god, nor the surface values espoused in his name so much as the People he tends to inspire.

  They tend to have either a mad glint in their eye and ferocious temper that that stamps out all discussion, or the same “knowing, winking, empty smirk” I mentioned recently certain cool filmmakers have (to keep this somewhat on topic).
  I can't stand either type.

  Dawkins' fervent anti-godness seems to have the same venom and spit as any religion, in the same way as, say, Michael Moore tends to adopt the same nasty and underhand tactics as the worst of Fox news or some far-right wing of the Republican party.

  The only Truth is uncertainty. We – don't – know.
  I don't believe there is a God, but fairy muff if there is. I'm sure He'll understand my not caring.
  Now leave me alone.

  I've long held the view that Heaven is a vast garden, full of sweet-smelling flowers and God-fearing people of every religion.
  Hell is the same place.

• 11 Eric // May 25, 2009 at 2:01 am

  This thread is a mile deeper than anything 'Angels & Demons' had to say about science vs. religion (which was nothing, by the way). Leave it to Hollywood to sidestep anything resembling substance in favor of a banal car chase.

• 12 Ellie // May 25, 2009 at 7:21 am

  Hi all – and sorry, guys, but I think you'll have to change the name of the blog to “the god talk” after all!
  But; as someone with a degree in theology, I felt compelled and somewhat qualified to put in my two cents at this point.
  Obviously, as someone who has devoted a substantial amount of time to studying the subject that Dawkins thinks shouldn't be taught in universities, I probably don't need to tell you that I'm not his biggest fan. Anyway:

  Jett: “It's this kind of non-reflection = swallowing the con man's codswallop that Dawkins and others attack”
  - If this is the case, then what Dawkins dislikes is how gullible or unthinking some/most people are. But I don't think that's it; he really does dislike religion.

  Dale: “theology (defined here as the discipline devoted to understanding god's revelations, his will, his rules, etc.)”
  - This is not what theology is. It's a part of it, of course, no denying that. But I don't think it's the main part of theology, unless you're studying for priesthood. In an academic setting, the study of theology includes what you might call 'philosophy of religion' -type questions, i.e. 'does god exist?', 'how could we know if god existed?', 'if god existed, what would god be like?', and so on. Crucially, for Gareth's statement about Dawkins considering himself an expert in a field they haven’t studied, it also involves questioning the nature of religion, the development of scripture, orthodoxy; in other words, theology asks the all the same questions that Dawkins asks. (Dawkins obviously provides different answers!) Throughout, he presents himself as knowledgeable about the answers that “theology” gives – but he actually misrepresents them.

  Oof – that's a bit long! Sorry for hijacking this thread. So much for Angels and Demons, eh? It must be a very interesting film, seeing as how the topic got changed so quickly…

• 13 StanleyRumm // May 25, 2009 at 9:00 am

  I've kept away from this, not least because I don't like to promote a crap movie by associating myself with it in any way, but also because of the skin, teeth & feathers possible direction of the comments.

  But as someone who is a non-believing child of God I think I am compelled and somewhat qualified to say I don't dislike the idea of god, nor the surface values espoused in his name so much as the People he tends to inspire.

  They tend to have either a mad glint in their eye and ferocious temper that that stamps out all discussion, or the same “knowing, winking, empty smirk” I mentioned recently certain cool filmmakers have (to keep this somewhat on topic).
  I can't stand either type.

  Dawkins' fervent anti-godness seems to have the same venom and spit as any religion, in the same way as, say, Michael Moore tends to adopt the same nasty and underhand tactics as the worst of Fox news or some far-right wing of the Republican party.

  The only Truth is uncertainty. We – don't – know.
  I don't believe there is a God, but fairy muff if there is. I'm sure He'll understand my not caring.
  Now leave me alone.

  I've long held the view that Heaven is a vast garden, full of sweet-smelling flowers and God-fearing people of every religion.
  Hell is the same place.

• 14 Eric // May 25, 2009 at 9:01 am

  This thread is a mile deeper than anything 'Angels & Demons' had to say about science vs. religion (which was nothing, by the way). Leave it to Hollywood to sidestep anything resembling substance in favor of a banal car chase.

Leave a Comment