It always bothers me visiting the Paul boards on IMDb. Every discussion seems to boil down to "It's anti religion!" followed by "No it isn't." What then follows is an endless circular argument that never gets resolved.
The fact is, the movie is not anti-religion. It's anti-biblical literalism, but that just makes sense. At no point does the movie make any positive claims about the existence of a god. In fact, the one time Paul does comment on it he makes an allowance for the existence of a god, he only suggests that it's unlikely.
Paul: Look, if it makes you feel any better, my existence only disproves the notion of the Abrahamic, Judeo-Christian God, as well as all single earth theologies. Science still hasn't categorically rule out the notion of divinity, even though evolutionary biology suggest the non-existence of a creator by probability alone.
Really the only reason it disproves the Abrahamic faiths is due to the fact that they're Earth centric. If they were to amend themselves to allow for life outside of Earth there would still be no problem. They could still just as easily claim to be "God's chosen people." They just couldn't claim the universe is centered around Earth, which I think pretty much everyone in this day and age can accept, even if one does believe we have a special place in God's heart.
Enjoy the movie for what it is; A fairly light comedy. The only reason I can see to be offended by any of the anti-biblical literalism jokes would be if one identifies too much with those characters. It isn't anti-Christian, it isn't anti-religion. It's against literal interpretations of religious texts. Which I think just makes sense.
How many observations about the world around us from 2,000+ years in the past have proven to be 100% accurate? While there may have been a basis in fact, our understanding of the world and the universe around us has changed significantly. For that reason alone I feel that we should constantly be reevaluating our position on all our beliefs.
-Dylan
No comments:
Post a Comment