Someone in an earlier thread (last week) linked to a website promoting the movie "The God Who Wasn't There". I found the trailer on that site intriguing so I ordered the movie and watched it last night. I'm not going to link to the site from Hatrack for reasons that should become apparent, but I thought the DVD was worth a review.
First, I say "the DVD was worth a review" and not "The movie". The movie isn't worthy of the material that accompanies it on the DVD. The blurbs, hype, trailer, and cover art all seem to promise something insightful, but what you get is more of a harangue. The writer/director/narrator Brian Flemming does have an interesting and provocative premise, (i.e. that the historical record of Jesus is almost non-existent, and there is far more evidence that the story of his life was cobbled together from dozens of earlier "hero myths") but he is so obviously sold on it that he doesn't seem to care about actually convincing anyone. Everything is presented as so obvious that clearly those who don't see the truth are deluded. Interestingly, I don't have a problem with his ultimate conclusions, but I think his approach completely undercuts any value in his arguements. The result is little more than intellectual masturbation.
Flemming starts with "The story of Jesus" in 6 minutes, recapping the main events through a montage of old film footage of the silent-era type sped up to make the portrayals look even more ridiculous than they probably would have at normal speed. His commentary at this is irreverent and has a mocking tone. This tone continues through the film, only fading to the background when he has interview footage with scholars who have clearly thought more about this subject than Flemming himself has.
The film ends with Flemming returning to the Christian School where he was educated. He has an interview with the dean/principal/headmaster/whathaveyou of the school, allowing him to talk about the goals of teaching kids religious dogma first, and all else in the light of these supposed truths, then turns the tables in a way that makes the interview very uncomfortable for both the principal and the viewer. Interestingly he leaves the camera rolling and includes footage in the film of the principle accusing him (quite civilly) of setting up the interview under false pretenses and doing it out of revenge for personal feelings of betrayal or dissatisfaction with his spiritual experiences. It's interesting that he left the footage in because at least one viewer couldn't help but think there was truth to that accusation. He concludes with footage in the chapel where he was "born again" 3 or more times as a boy and where he gets closure by (in his terms) "denying the holy ghost", thus effectively negating any points he had made for the premise and turning the movie into a personal gripe.
HOWEVER, the DVD include some 66 mintues (4 minutes longer than the film itself) of extremely interesting unedited footage of interviews with scholars in the fields of folklore, myth, philosophy, and history. The people he interviews are lucid, thoughtful, and just as strong in their convictions as Flemming, but seem to be able to articulate their thoughts without mocking. A couple seem no less convinced of the importance of their assertions about the non-existence of Jesus as a historical figure, but none of them have the mocking, grudge-bearing tone Flemming can't shake.
If the subject is even mildly interesting to you, I'd highly recommend buying the video just for the extra footage. (I can't even remotely recommend it for the film itself.) Or better yet, buy the books by these people interviewed for this film: Richard Carrier , Alan Dundes , Sam Harris , Robert M. Price , and others. I plan to.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I downloaded it and watched it. There wasn't much to it that I didn't already know, and it was way too personalized for my taste. This was obviously someone who went to a Christian school that was particularly nutty, and he has anger issues about it.
The scene at the end with him standing in the chapel at his old school, pointing the camera at himself, and saying, "I deny the holy spirit" was so spiteful that it was almost funny.
I agree with KarlEd about the "mocking, grudge-bearing tone".
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
These are the books/films I know of that make a case for someone's religious views.
Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis. Calm, rational, and I couldn't poke holes in it.
"Why I Am Not a Christian," Bertrand Russell. His main reason was that Christ frightened people when he told them about hell, so Christ was evil. A 3-year-old could see through this: Mommy told him not to touch the stove, because it would burn him bad; therefore Mommy is evil.
Russell also repeated Kant's debunking of some strange medieval argument for the existence of God; valid, I'd say.
What the Bleep Do We Know, Anyway? was popular among my New Age friends. It backed up its producer's philosophy by applying the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to macroscopic objects (us). There wasn't a hint of grudge-bearing in it, but after she'd done that, and went on to discuss how God is a nonentity, having her hand-picked experts agree with her, w/o any reasoning to back it up. I stopped watching, still feeling friendly toward the producer (who was also the star -- it was a sort of documenary), but no longer interested in her views.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance showed views I had never encountered, and once again I couldn't poke holes. He might call them religious views -- he'd sometimes refer to "the Buddha" -- but I'd call them philosophy.
What others? I like to read coherent arguments for positions, whether I agree or not. Not mocking or grudge-bearing ones, though.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Will, you might be interested in Robert Pirsig's second book, Lila: An Inquiry into Morals. (Pirsig wrote Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.)
Added: I kind of think of Pirsig as the Bill Watterson of philosophy, or at least of metaphysics. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis. Calm, rational, and I couldn't poke holes in it.
Would you like me to poke holes in it? It's not hard. I'm not trying to be snarky; it's just that I always see people holding up this book as unassailable apology, and the problem is that it's really, really not that good.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. I don't get that either. I automatically poked holes in his arguments - and I'm "on his side".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:"Why I Am Not a Christian," Bertrand Russell. His main reason was that Christ frightened people when he told them about hell, so Christ was evil. A 3-year-old could see through this: Mommy told him not to touch the stove, because it would burn him bad; therefore Mommy is evil.
This is such a total misrepresentation of Russell's essay that it borders on trolling. (Take it from an expert.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Just to clarify: Russell's one real mention of Hell is to observe that he does not believe Christ could have been the finest and most moral man who ever lived, because he believes that Hell -- and consequently a belief in Hell -- is inherently immoral. Russell begins by rejecting the possibility of Hell for various reasons, and concludes that a preacher (like Christ) that threatens people with a non-existent Hell cannot be a moral exemplar, since he feels it smacks of vindictiveness. The majority of the essay deals with other things, however.
(Note: this is not a claim that I find Russell's argument inherently convincing. In fact, I think he makes the same mistake C.S. Lewis does here. But YMMV.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Russell also points out that Jesus doesn't merely warn people of Hell, he appears to take active pleasure in the concept, what with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that's going on. Here's the relevant quote:
quote:You will find that in the Gospels Christ said: "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell." That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about hell.
I must say that, quite apart from the actual point Russell is making, I absolutely love the dry British understatement in that. "It is not really to my mind quite the best tone." Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
By the way, Tom, when you say that Russell is making the same mistake as Lewis, it is not entirely clear to me which mistake you refer to. Could you clarify, perchance?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
He's taking as a given something he finds self-evident -- that Hell is not only a foolish concept but an immoral one -- and is ascribing to Christ motivations based on not only his assumption but on quotations that Russell would be among the first to admit are unreliable. Lewis does something similar when he attempts to prove that no sane, non-evil person would claim to speak for God; leaving aside the issue of whether Christ is correctly quoted, it's impossible to say authoritatively whether Christ genuinely believed what he said (with or without being insane enough to function), whether Hell really does or does not exist, and whether statements of fact given the presumed existence of Hell can be considered primarily "vindictive."
Guessing at motivation based on millennia-old, third-party quotations is a fool's errand. (And there's also the issue that Russell appears to consider himself qualifies to critique Christ's "tone," which suggests that he does not consider God's behavior above reproach. While the reverse leads to other inconsistencies, concluding that Christ is permitted to voice strongly-felt criticisms without being "bad" is not that large a stretch, and invalidates Russell's argument.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that infinite punishment for a finite crime is immoral. And as for considering Christ's behaviour as above reproach, well, that's the whole point Russell is making, that it's not! When arguing "this is not the way the most moral person in the world would act", it is eminently reasonable to point out where someone is going wrong! Otherwise you're just conceding the other guy's assumptions, and then why have a debate at all?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that infinite punishment for a finite crime is immoral....When arguing "this is not the way the most moral person in the world would act", it is eminently reasonable to point out where someone is going wrong!
Here's the problem: Russell assumes that things (including moral standards) which would apply to humans would also apply to God or his representatives. Many Christians would not grant that possibility. Now, I agree that this makes conversation and debate rather difficult -- after all, you might just as well say "Jesus actually smote that fig tree because there was a demon on it, and the apostles just didn't see it and he didn't feel like mentioning it" -- but it also means that it's not a "lock," either.
The assumption that man's rules for ethical behavior also apply to God is not one that most Christians would seriously consider for long, once they recognized the problems inherent in that assertion.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's true that Christians tend to retreat into Might Makes Right if pushed on where their 'objective' morals come from; but Russell is explaining why he believes what he does, and then it's perfectly consistent to say "Well, I don't think Might makes Right, actually."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And that's fine. But then what he's really saying is "I have an ethical system of my own, and your God doesn't live up to it." That's a perfectly good reason not to worship a god, but I think it's a shame Russell doesn't seem to realize that's all he's saying.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, I think his argument is a little more than that; he is also saying "Further, you lot claim to be living by the same ethical system, you just haven't noticed your god not living up to it. And even after you've thought about it, you would probably prefer my system to the one your god actually espouses."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I suppose that's true. Except that I believe many Christians have thought about it, and are okay with exceptions being made for God.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not sure about that, actually. I can see someone arguing "Might makes right is a fine thing when the one with the might is really good". That would be reasonably consistent, in the same way that a monarchist can argue that a really smart monarch is better than a democratically elected average Joe who has to appease various factions. And I can see people arguing "You don't know all the consequences of that; maybe the other choice would be worse." But I think there are few people who would argue "I would follow my god even if it were shown to be Really Evil."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I think there are few people who would argue "I would follow my god even if it were shown to be Really Evil."
The standard response here is that it is impossible to demonstrate that an ineffable God is Really Evil (tm), since His motives are definitionally ineffable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And the counter-response would be that you cannot use this as a reason to believe in the goodness of the ineffable god. You have only two bases for judgment : One, the words, and two, the actions, of the god. You cannot use the words, because an evil god could easily claim to be both good and ineffable. That leaves the actions; and you have to judge these by ordinary human morality. To use the rules laid down by the god (to wit, "Don't use human rules on me, 'cos I'm gooder than you lot") is circular; it already assumes that the god is in fact good. I mean, this is just the kind of thing that an evil god would say, isn't it!
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:"Why I Am Not a Christian," Bertrand Russell. His main reason was that Christ frightened people when he told them about hell, so Christ was evil. A 3-year-old could see through this: Mommy told him not to touch the stove, because it would burn him bad; therefore Mommy is evil.
This is such a total misrepresentation of Russell's essay that it borders on trolling. (Take it from an expert.)
No, it's not, of course. Proof is easy to come by, too.
Now, everyone can decide for him/herself who's trolling, without the need to take over Karl's thread with even more of that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The main reason involves Christ being evil? Quoting from the essay you conveniently linked . . .
quote:why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness.
How is the essay proof that, among other things, he's saying Christ is evil? He's quite clear he considers Christ virtuous but flawed -- human -- but not evil.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)