The movie Contact..

[Gingerbread Demon]

The movie contact got me thinking. I love this movie but it feels so very political what with Ellie being an avowed atheist, and the political footballing about whether or not she should be the one to go in the machine and see what it does. I'm wondering if we ever had such a venture for real and given the chance to visit aliens using a machine they provided the plans for would the same kind of nonsense happen in the real world?

Would we be trying to send a believer like they wanted to do in the movie or would merit prevail and the best person for the job be selected?

What do you think?

I'd like to think for such a venture we don't have any politicians anywhere near the choosing of our first human ambassador for extraterrestrial contact, for such an event. I'm probably being way too hopeful and optimistic.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

If you enjoyed the film (which is great), then you absolutely must read the novel it's based on. It delves deeper into those themes you brought up.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

If you enjoyed the film (which is great), then you absolutely must read the novel it's based on. It delves deeper into those themes you brought up.

I am going to get a copy of it.... I've been dying to do just that but never get around to it.

Just that part of the film, which is most of it frustrates me no end. Why would it matter if an atheist or a believer were in the capsule? What difference would it have made?

They should have sent someone like a Daniel Jackson in all honesty, not that that would matter either, because the aliens had bugger all to say in the movie.

 

[Christopher]

If you enjoyed the film (which is great), then you absolutely must read the novel it's based on. It delves deeper into those themes you brought up.

Seconded. The movie is excellent, but it barely scratches the surface of the ideas in the book. I think the movie also focuses more heavily on the religious debates, though they are present in the book to an extent.

 

[Mr Awe]

Thirded about the book. I read that book right when it came out.

As for the selection process, I think there would definitely be politicians involved. They always like to stick their fingers in stuff. And, I actually wouldn't be surprised if there was a call for a believer. It's frustrating in the movie, but it seems realistic to me. If someone is going to represent humanity, what does that actually mean. Apparently most people believe in a higher being, so it makes a certain sense.

What always surprised me was that Sagan, who was an athiest, included "evidence" of a higher being of some sort in the novel.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Seconded. The movie is excellent, but it barely scratches the surface of the ideas in the book. I think the movie also focuses more heavily on the religious debates, though they are present in the book to an extent.

True, although there was a whole major character focused on the religious angle (who was merged with the love interest to become the Matthew McConaughey character).

 

[Allyn Gibson]

What always surprised me was that Sagan, who was an athiest, included "evidence" of a higher being of some sort in the novel.

Sagan didn't call himself an "atheist." Ann Druyan says in this article: “Carl meant exactly what he said. He used words with great care. He did not know if there was a god. It is my understanding that to be an atheist is to take the position that it is known that there is no god or equivalent. Carl was comfortable with the label ‘agnostic’ but not ‘atheist.'”

 

[Mr Awe]

Sagan didn't call himself an "atheist." Ann Druyan says in this article: “Carl meant exactly what he said. He used words with great care. He did not know if there was a god. It is my understanding that to be an atheist is to take the position that it is known that there is no god or equivalent. Carl was comfortable with the label ‘agnostic’ but not ‘atheist.'”

Alright agnostic. But, I've read a lot of his writing and interviews over the years and he often comes across as atheist. But, that's cool, I'm agnostic myself. Actually, I'm trying to decide whether I'm atheist or agnostic. How's that for being unsure!

I suspect that he and I are in the same boat. Knowing that we don't know for sure that there is no god, yet suspecting that's probably the case combined with the fact that there is no evidence that there is one.

It's still interesting that in the novel he basically encoded a god into the math of the universe.

 

[Mr Awe]

I read the article that Allyn posted. Very interesting. It seems like he was very close to being an atheist but rejected the label.

From the article:

David Grinspoon, a planetary scientist whose father was Sagan’s best friend, and who referred to Sagan as “Uncle Carl,” tells me by e-mail:

“In his adult life he was very close to being an atheist. I personally had several conversations with him about religion, belief, god, and yes I agree he was darn close. It’s really semantics at this level of distinction. He was certainly not a theist. And I suppose I can relate because I personally don’t call myself an atheist, although if you probed what I believe, it would be indistinguishable from many who do use that term.”

David Morrison, one of Sagan’s students back in the day, tells me by e-mail, “Carl acted like an atheist but rejected the label. I guess it seemed too absolute to him. He always tried to be open to new evidence on any subject. ”

 

[Christopher]

Being skeptical of the specific claims and doctrines of organized religion isn't the same as ruling out the possibility that the universe could've been created by some higher intelligence. For all we know, the universe could have been deliberately created by an incredibly advanced scientific civilization, or might even be a computer simulation. Considering that a possibility is a far cry from believing that the Earth was created in six days or that you have to perform a specific ritual to ensure a healthy childbirth or that you have to donate all your money to a megachurch in order to buy salvation.

Gene Roddenberry was the same way. He didn't accept that the doctrines of the church he'd been raised in were correct, and was skeptical that any organized religion was anything more than a way for some people to assert power and control over others, but he was very interested in spirituality and the question of a Creator. He just thought that, if there were some ultimate answer to the universe, it was something humans hadn't figured out yet, or something we had to search for as individuals rather than just reading out of a book.

There's a line Howard Weinstein wrote for Captain Picard in the Star Trek: TNG novel Power Hungry (p. 102) that I think sums up Roddenberry's worldview, and possibly Sagan's: "...that no structure or philosophy devised by man could ever hope to represent or replicate divinity."

 

[psCargile]

I don't think religious convictions would be a consideration for the vetting process.

And what if the aliens are religious?

 

[Christopher]

I don't think religious convictions would be a consideration for the vetting process.

If American politicians got involved in the vetting process, you can bet they would be.

 

[Mr Awe]

If American politicians got involved in the vetting process, you can bet they would be.

One hundred percent agreed!

 

[Mr Awe]

I don't think religious convictions would be a consideration for the vetting process.

And what if the aliens are religious?

Despite not being religious myself, if we were ever to make contact with ET, I am very curious about whether they are religious themselves. It might be the case that some species tend towards religion while others don't. And, what are those religions like? How do other intelligences explain the creation of everything outside of the scientific explanation? And, what if a species completely explained the origin and evolution of both the universe and intelligent life without the need for god(s), what then?

In other words, I've always wondered if religion is a uniquely human defense mechanism for living in an cold, uncaring universe or more of a universal thing?

 

[Christopher]

In other words, I've always wondered if religion is a uniquely human defense mechanism for living in an cold, uncaring universe or more of a universal thing?

Well, that depends on how you define it. The thing is, even different human cultures don't all define religion or gods the same way. So I imagine aliens would have belief systems that could be roughly considered religious or spiritual but would have their own distinctive aspects. That's always the tricky part in cross-cultural interaction -- the risk of assuming that the other culture defines its terms the same way you do, which can lead to massive misunderstandings. (E.g. when Captain Cook and his crew were identified as "gods" by the native Hawaiians. They didn't understand that a god in that culture was a societal role that was obligated to follow a certain set of rules at a certain time, rather than an absolute power to be worshipped, so when they came back at the wrong time and were no longer coincidentally fitting into the cultural rules for gods, they had become a disruption and had to be killed to restore cosmic order.)

I think human religious and supernatural beliefs are outgrowths of the way the brain works. We construct models and symbols in our minds to understand the world; we basically create the world we perceive through the way we think about it, in a way. So we tend to imagine that the external world is constructed in a similar way, or to project our internal symbols and representations for things onto the outside universe. And our minds let us imagine, predict, and extrapolate things beyond what we can observe; we need to do that in order to anticipate problems and conceive of solutions and strategies. So that leads us to imagine causes beyond the world we observe, and we project our own intelligence and creativity onto those causal forces. Religion is the externalization of imagination. (I just finished reading Neil Gaiman's American Gods, which expresses a similar idea.) And I don't think intelligence can happen without imagination, without the ability to model possibilities and solutions and so on. Certainly a technological, starfaring civilization could only be developed by a species with the capacity for imagination, abstraction, and creativity, and those drives tend to result in some form of spiritual belief.

 

[Mr Awe]

Well, that depends on how you define it. The thing is, even different human cultures don't all define religion or gods the same way. So I imagine aliens would have belief systems that could be roughly considered religious or spiritual but would have their own distinctive aspects. That's always the tricky part in cross-cultural interaction

And that's exactly why I wonder what their religions are like--if they have something analogous. Human religions are created by human minds. How about alien minds?

I think human religious and supernatural beliefs are outgrowths of the way the brain works. We construct models and symbols in our minds to understand the world; we basically create the world we perceive through the way we think about it, in a way. So we tend to imagine that the external world is constructed in a similar way, or to project our internal symbols and representations for things onto the outside universe. And our minds let us imagine, predict, and extrapolate things beyond what we can observe; we need to do that in order to anticipate problems and conceive of solutions and strategies.

I think it's partly that. But, I think a larger part is the primal fear of death. No one (almost) wants to cease existing. I like me and I don't want me to end. Ok, religion has an answer. There's also the cruelty of the universe (that implies intent but I'm thinking only of it from a human point of view). Terrible things can happen to good people. Why? The simplest answer is that the universe doesn't care because there is no overseeing consciousness. Things just happen without reason--more of a probabilistic view. It's akin to asking why a coin flip resulted in the heads side up. That random probabilistic nature can be distressing due to the uncertainty. Religion has an answer to that too. God has a purpose for everyone and we can't understand that purpose.

This might not contradict what you're saying but I think it's more a reaction to fear and uncertainty.

Certainly a technological, starfaring civilization could only be developed by a species with the capacity for imagination, abstraction, and creativity, and those drives tend to result in some form of spiritual belief.

Just as a thought experiment, I was wondering what a intelligent species but without creativity would be like. More of a logical species. I think they'd do OK technology-wise. They might not make leaps like we do sometimes. But, they could certainly make observations, extrapolate, and trial and error. I'd imagine that there's a vast array of different types of intelligences. We like to think think, learn, and make decisions logically. But, research shows that's not the case. Emotion plays a huge role in all of that. That may not be true for some ETs.

 

[Gary7]

I think the whole religious angle was concern about a very deep level of unwavering loyalty to humanity and be representative of the vast majority of people on Earth (who are religious). However, I think that was a very flawed requirement. A high degree of objectivity is what was required. And tremendous diplomatic ability. For it shouldn't matter if the aliens were religious or not. The right person could navigate a very amicable discussion without causing discord or animosity.

Does the book avoid that stupid bungle at the end of the movie where 19 (?) minutes of static was recorded in just a few seconds? The video camera would be a true measure of reality, as even if it couldn't record a legible image or audio, it would act as a trip chronometer. Knowing how clever Ellie was, I thought it shamefully out of character for her not to have brought it up right away.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Does the book avoid that stupid bungle at the end of the movie where 19 (?) minutes of static was recorded in just a few seconds? The video camera would be a true measure of reality, as even if it couldn't record a legible image or audio, it would act as a trip chronometer. Knowing how clever Ellie was, I thought it shamefully out of character for her not to have brought it up right away.

It's actually much stranger in the novel. The time spent on the planet is longer, Ellie isn't the only person who was there (the capsule held five people, IIRC) so there were other witnesses, but all the recordings were gone and the moment the capsule fell through the machine to the other side the transmission from Vega ceased on Earth (ie., it stopped broadcasting 26 years before), which only made more people think it was all a hoax. It has always seemed to me that the broadcast shut off when it did because the wormhole went back in time 26 years, so that when the capsule appeared in the Vega system the aliens knew they no longer needed to broadcast the signal.

Ellie's conversation with her "father" is also more interesting, as I recall. The wormhole network was left behind by an earlier civilization, and the civilization her "father" belongs to was engaged in a massive work of stellar engineering.

 

[Silvercrest]

And what if the aliens are religious?

Then we'd better hope we fit somewhere in their world-view. Otherwise they'll see us as "heretics", "blasphemers", or "abominations", and react accordingly.

 

[Gaith]

Alright agnostic. But, I've read a lot of his writing and interviews over the years and he often comes across as atheist. But, that's cool, I'm agnostic myself. Actually, I'm trying to decide whether I'm atheist or agnostic. How's that for being unsure!

It's quite normal, seeing as there are two major semi-competing definitions of atheism:

As the caption states, there's overlap between the terms "agnosticism" and "implicit/weak atheism". I suspect that many, if not most, agnostics, would say that the term "implicit atheist" describes them, but that many of those same people shy away from the term "atheist" due to the particular social unpopularity of "strong/positive/hard atheism".​