Jul 27, 1997
I guess since I'm the host of this party I had better break the ice.
In spite of the fact that I believe that there are people on other
planets I don't think we will ever make contact with them. It would be
be great to be able to verify religion with this type of contact. Faith in its simplest form is to believe in
something that has "no data to go either way" to quote Ellie Arroway.
Jul 27, 1997
I'm still trying to get the bugs worked out of this stuff, but hey don't
be shy. This is almost live...I don't expect a perfect discourse on
God and Man, just tell the world what you think.
By the way, I can edit the stuff that shows up here. If you put something
here that you would like to have removed email me and I'll get it out
of here.
Jul 29, 1997
Today I saw the movie Contact for the second time.
I think it is a great movie that is well worth the almost three hours,
and four to six dollars, depending on where you are. I think it will
earn many awards. The movie raised the issue of comparing the
relationship between science and God. I personally am a lover of both.
I believe that the proof of the existence of God is found in science,
not denied by it. I believe that God created our universe as a representative of Him. Not that man created God as a representative of
science. I believe God is as much the Creator as He is the maintainer.
In Contact, Jodie Foster's character, Ellie Arroway, says something
like, " If I could ask them one question, (the Vagans) I would ask
them how they did it, how they were able to sustain themselves." I
don't think we are sustained merely by ourselves. We are maintained as
physical, living beings by God, through science. Just like the
computer your on now is maintained by electricity, but that electricity
is not just "accidentally" traveling miles and miles to your house,
someone pointed it that way, and is maintaining its flow. I'm curious
what people think Carl Sagan's #1 motive for creating this story is, I
am confused on that some, if you have an idea, or any comments on my
beliefs, I would like to know. Please e-mail me at Mrdanman@aol.com,
or just write it on Keith's page here. (thanks Keith)
Aug 3, 1997
I haven't seen Contact yet, but I recently read the book in preparation
for seeing the movie. Along with Carl Sagan, if I may guess at what he
would say, I think that faith and science must be compatible as long
as each is properly understood. If one's faith is threatened by
scientific discovery, especially in principle, then I think faith is
too narrow. But if science is practiced in such a way that it
allows no room for that which cannot be proved by scientific method or
if the method or a given theory become unquestionable tenets of
faith themselves, then science has stepped beyond its proper
boundaries. I think Carl Sagan spoke to both problems in Contact by
way of the dialogue between Ellie and the younger preacher (I can't
remember his name). As Hamlet says, there are more things in heaven
and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy -- and I would say
this applies to believer and scientist alike.
Aug 3, 1997
I've got to read the book. I wonder how closely the movie followed the
book. Thanks Dave.
Aug 4, 1997
I think that the movie Contact was a great one. There are some bugs that need fixing, such as the fact Jodie Foster is supposedly going on this great journey in this Transport machine. They know she's going to be traveling great distances in short amounts of time, but yet they don't equip her with a watch synchronized to theirs on Earth. Come on. And then to say that thing about the 18 hrs. of static at the end of the movie. What a letdown. The ending could have been better too.
But at any rate, the movie gets its point across. I think that both science and faith are important to understand in order to fully grasp the possibilities that exist when it comes to understanding our universe and beyond.
Personally, I like to believe what I see. I think that science has provided me with many answers to my questions. There do however go, many questions unanswered. I find that sometimes, religion can offer answers, but they sometimes don't make sense or cannot be proved. The movie talks a bit of proof, and what value can be assigned to proof. I think that proof matters.
I like science because proof matters. I want to see to believe. I will however, Not, rule out religion, because of what cannot be proved. While science can justify many answers its given, I cannot rule out the fact that the entire Universe may just be one of many in God's fishbowl.
Aug 4, 1997
Come on! Did anyone else see what this movie was about? I had read
that it was about science vs. religion. More like the Christians vs.
the lions. I've been waiting for this, the first movie entirely
devoted to Christian bashing! From the very beginning:
1. How come the only real "man of the cloth" represented wasn't
a Christian, but rather a New Age hipster who was in bed with Jodie
Foster before the first half hour was up? Christian values?
2. Mad Christian bomber stopping us from contact with aliens.
Didn't you just hate this guy?
3. The man of the cloth leading the blind man into the viewing
area. The blind leading the blind?
4. Jodie Foster finally at the end has a chance to proclaim
faith (in aliens) and immediately everything she is about is compromised.
Better faithless than stupid looking?
I actually enjoyed this movie, but in the same way I enjoy doing my
taxes. I know they're inevitable. Remember, faith doesn't make sense,
it makes faith.
Aug 6, 1997
OK Tom, I have to agree with part of what you said. I don't think that the entire
movie was devoted to bashing Christians but there's no denying that, over all,
the movie did not cast a positive light on religion. Even the guy who was chosen
to go because he believed in God used selfish deception to get there. I guess I
couldn't expect anything different out of Hollywood.
So, for those of you who have read the book, did Carl Sagan make the same
portrayal of religion?
I still hold to the idea that the Ellie Arroway was forced to face faith at the
end of the movie. It wasn't faith in the traditional religious sense, but she had an
experience that was real to her, yet mostly unprovable. I believe many faith
promoting religious experiences happen in the same way. From the outside such
experiences look fanatical or even insane, from the inside they change lives for
the better. From this perspective I think the end of the movie did cast a positive
light on religion (or at least the concept of faith) and a bright one at that.
During the alien sequence the alien picked up a handful of sand, which is
symbolic of worlds without end. What about intelligent life on other planets?
Think about the implications. Who created them? Do they have a Savior?
Josh, check out SETI's review of the movie
to see the nonsense from their perspective.
Aug 6, 1997
Contact inspired in me the idea that religion and science may simply be different means to the same goal. Anyone who looks very far into quantum physics will discover that many of the frontiers of science are far more fantastic than any religious account of creation or miracles.
As to whether we'll ever make "Contact" I think we need to examine some typical assumptions. We want to define intelligence by our standards as wielders of tools, changers of our natural world. But I could argue this as a poor measure of intelligence. What if true intelligence has little to do with technology, what if intelligence is more accurately displayed by, for instance, whales. They live peacefully, in harmony with the rest of nature, composing and singing songs we cannot comprehend. Yes, we humans are capable of much, but would an objective intelligence find us more intelligent than the whales, having taken our poverty, war, and environmental destruction into account?
Aug 7, 1997
I just saw the movie contact, and must admit that I really liked it.
There were a few things however that I must totally disagree with.
First, when they ask her (Jodie Foster) why they should send her as
the representative of the world when she does not believe in God,
when 95% of the planet does. This is simply not true. According to
The World Almanac (1994 edition), there are 240,310,000 professed
atheists and 876,232,000 non religious people in the world. Not to
mention all the children that are too young to have a believe one
way or the other. Second, it is my impression, that the movie tries
to reconcile science and religion. This is just preposterous if not
moronic. Religion has tried to stop the advancement of science
since the beginning of time. Religion is based solely in faith,
which is basically believing in something without proper evidence.
The scientific method, on the other hand, is based in observation and
experimentation, using empirical data.
Aug 7, 1997
While I am not a religious person, neither am I quite prepared to dismiss the idea that some "higher purpose" "Force" "Gaia" or simply that Mother Nature has some common link between living beings and their Universe that is equivocal to a benign "God" with a "preference", or "natural tendency" toward Harmony.
And while I fully support programs such as SETI as important parts of the human attempt to comprehend ourselves, I fear science has some problems with objectivity, too. Most of our scientific tools are extensions of our own limited senses, and can hardly help but be aimed with a bit of human prejudice. To dismiss what people try to define as faith simply because we can't prove or disprove their explanations of it is probably very poor science, too.
I have had a very few experiences I cannot explain by laws of physics as I understand them. Therefore, I am compelled to leave room in my science for hypothesis that could include my less provable experiences. For instance, if superstring theory holds up and we exist in ten or more dimensions as the brightest scientific minds suspect, isn't there perhaps room in one of those dimensions for some Nth dimensional physics that interconnects all manifestations of energy and tends to get subconsciously perceived as RELIGION among humans?
Aug 9, 1997
I'm reading the book...
Aug 13, 1997
None of the questions posed by this movie, are simply answered.
Contact was extremely thought provoking, it's meant to make you
think about your own beliefs and put them to test.
How many of us have put serious thought and trial behind our ideas.
Many of us simply believe. That isn't any way for one of the intelligent
races of the universe to go on.
Yes I do believe in other races of
intelligence, I don't think they gotten here yet, but they may, or we
may find them, if we keep trying.
The "watch" that one of you was talking about would have been magnetized
by the way.
The movie was about religion versus science. I think that God belongs
where he has always been in every human heart, an explanation for
what can't be explained, no more.
Aug 24, 1997
Contact is by far the best movie I have ever seen. I am in the middle
of reading the book. While the movie was more of a thinking movie
than an action movie, it still fit in a little action and suspense. As for
the ideas in the movie, I have been pondering them for two weeks
now. I am a Catholic, and I believe in God, but I admit that there are
some gaps and uncertainties in religion. I also love science, and I
admit that there are some gaps and uncertainties in science. I am
only 14, so I am still searching for answers. I have yet to see any
evidence that God doesn't exist, so I have no reason not to believe
in him. I will still search for the truth, though. That is one of the three
things all people want. Truth, purpose, and love. I have yet to get
any, but I am aiming to get all three.
Aug 29, 1997
Hi Keith, great idea to discuss popular culture as it relates to astronomy and science. After the Hale Bopp debacle in San Diego it seems that science can be misused as much as religion has been. I haven't seen the movie but have heard reviews from all perspectives. My interest is more in the question "can we make contact with other intelligence in the universe"? My guess would be not directly. If we ever do get anything along the lines of communication in the conventional sense, the radio wave it comes in on would have to be a primitive relic of an intelligence long dead at the hands of a planetary nebula. Just as we on Earth developed our technology gradually, sending primitive radio signals into space, so would we receive these kinds of signals before anything as advanced as what is represented in the movie Contact. I predict if we ever get any kind of signal from space it will sound similar to "Watson, is that you"?... and get more sophisticated as years go by.
Sep 1, 1997
After reading other responses, I have a few more things to say. (by
the way, the second response by "Daniel" is not me, I wrote the third
response at the top). I have come to the conclusion that a lot of
people think in the "Science .VS. God" theory. As I said earlier,
I love both science and God. Here's why I believe in a scientific
and awesome God: Science "creates" only science. It will always
be physical. Of all things ever known to man, none of it has ever
had the ability to feel emotion, love, or have the choice to make
choices except what we know on our planet. Even in the case of
evolution, it is un-explainable, man could take all the carbon, water,
guanine, cytosine, etc. and order it perfectly, yet he could never
create the concept of love, even if he created the body. From this info
I can see no other possibility. God must the true God, and I don't
think He has anything against science. I think the universe is so
eternally big so that we could look away from our finity and look
upon the most physical representative of our creator. -Dan
Sep 4, 1997
I am done with the book. For the most part I am pleasantly surprised that the
book and the movie were alike. They are not exactly alike but they followed each
other well in the important areas. There is much more to the book than just
science and religion, but that is what we are talking about here. My comments
are relatively lengthy so I added a link to them. Be forewarned: I talk about the
last few pages of the book. If you plan on reading the book you may not want me
to spoil it for you. I also talk a lot about faith. If you're bugged by that don't
bother to click below.
Sep 8, 1997
Well, I went to see the movie. It begins with an orbital view of south Florida and a radio signal of a current radio program. As the view starts pulling outward the radio signal gets older and older. Now I am presuming that the radio signal is being followed in a straight line, and that the view as we pull out should be in a straight line. But the view doesn't follow a straight line. As the camera pulls out the radio signal does a series of wild turns after leaving the solar system, which has apparently shifted into an orbit parallel to the plane of the galaxy. The next object it goes by is Jupiter, a mere 4 minutes away for a radio signal, but in this movie about 55 light years as we listen to Franklin D. Roosevelt addressing congress at the start of WW II. Next we pull back through the large Magellenic cloud which is well below the celestial equator (CE), then through what looks like the Lagoon Nebula which is well above the CE, then up to Vega which is directly overhead where it gets picked up by the alien life forms. Sort of a strange path for a radio signal that moves in a straight path. OK, I'll admit I'm being a bit picky. But does anybody really think NASA would have such lax security that a really stupid looking "religious zealot" could ride in the crew bus all the way out to the machine, get up in a restricted area and blow the thing up with a pipe bomb? And all political bias aside, how long is Clinton going to be the President? We all know that it would take years just to line up the contracts, approve the budgets, and get past the EPA regulations...not to mention all the lawsuits. Certainly the construction of a machine of the size and cost of this one would have taken a good decade. Do we have a Constitutional Convention to allow Clinton a third term or what? And anyone who's worked in a government program knows that all the fabrication facilities are crawling with government inspectors. Do you think they could secretly build a second machine without anyone knowing about it? Aside from these implausible, I thought religion got a pretty fair shake. Let's face it, they wouldn't come up with characters like the zealots in the movie if there weren't really some like that out there. But at least they confronted Jody Fosters character on her atheism. As for the end of the movie, why would the "Vegans" go to all the trouble of sending us plans for a machine, wait 26 years (plus the time it takes to build the machine) for a couple minutes of Jody Foster talking to an alien who looks like her dad? The movie writers should have left out the implausible bomb story line, lost the Howard Hughes character, and presented a more realistic scenario where Jody Foster gets to meet real Vegans and stays for more than a "hi, how's it going, now leave" conversation. Bottom line, the movie was entertaining, but if it was trying to be a serious piece of sci-fi it didn't convince me. Compared with the greatest sci-fi of all time "The Forbidden Planet" -1955, it was a distant C-.
Sep 8, 1997
An impressive entry from Scott C., especially the observation on the opening
sequence. Obviously you know the sky Scott. Thanks for the entry. You've got me curious about "The Forbidden Planet".
Sep 22, 1997
God - Religion - Space - Science - Aliens. What a mess to sort out. I
have not seen Contact but was interested in your Question Keith. My
2 cents worth is this, you can think about the universe and the
existence of God, as a matter of fact it's healthy to do so. If you
scramble your brain to the brink of insanity leaving you no further
ahead than when you started, just accept the inevitable. There are no
answers for the human race in this life. You believe what your
brain allows you to believe to survive. This is enough. Does God exist?
Who really cares? Do aliens exist? Again who cares? The mystery is
what really excites us. Play with the mystery, let it tickle your mind
and create vivid dreams of "what if", but be careful it does not
consume you. Life is wonderful! Science has done wonders for us humans
but so has religion. Flip the coin and see all the destruction done
by the same science and religion. It's all interesting stuff but it's
only stuff and all too soon we will be gone....where? Who cares!
Sep 28, 1997
I saw the movie "Contact" and was entertained, which is the whole
purpose that it was made. I felt that the conflict between religion
and science was weak because you couldn't believe in the faith of the
religious individuals in the movie. As for intelligent life on other
worlds, I think that it is possible and likely. But, I have to ask, if you
could go anywhere in the universe (because you can travel faster than
light) why vacation on earth? There has got to be more interesting
places and friendlier people out there somewhere! If not, Lord help us
all.
Oct 6, 1997
This entry is from the second name Daniel to appear on the screen,
Daniel2 if you will. I like Scott Cs entry, I've thought of a few of those things myself,
however, the radio wave thing in the beginning was a bit much, I have
no idea what they intended that to be, whether it be a straight line
or at a constant speed, I doubt either. It also didn't have to follow
the same radio signal. Contact may not have been the best sci-fi movie ever, but it was a very
good one. I think that it is what was needed now, it addressed the
concerns that many of us have, and many of us debate with others about.
Oct 10, 1997
To Danial2. Yea, I was being a little picky. But I just have this thing about Hollywood, they don't seem to care about accuracy, as long as they can put out a story. For someone who knows better to enjoy a movie that's inaccurate in a clinical sense, you have to sort of forget about how things would really happen. I guess that's what makes a real sci-fi buff, someone who doesn't get all caught up in the details. So let me say a couple of positive things about the movie. I liked the way they represented the wormhole. The material I have read on the subject of wormholes theorized that you would sense a movement forward but when you looked to the side you would still see forward or something like that. I think the movie did a good job of making that effect come across. I didn't understand the sudden stops and starts where she looked down on some civilization with the lights shining from the surface of a planet, then she was wisked off again. Maybe I should read the book, possibly it was supposed to represent some sort of orbital sling shot or something. I liked the idea that she was dropped through the machine in a few seconds earth time, but inside the ball 18 hours passed. I don't know why the subsequent investigation of the characters motivations would have kept that part a secret from investigators. Finally, even though the religious lead in the movie was outside of what would be considered mainstream religion, hey, at least he was painted as a positive guy without some hidden lifestyle or agenda. In Hollywood that's about as good as it's gonna get for awhile. I just wish they could have found a way to use a fictional President. It really makes me want to puke to see Clinton in a movie I paid good money to see. For seven bucks I want a REAL actor. Come to think of it, he's constantly acting.
Oct 12, 1997
Another good one from Scott C.
Oct 13, 1997
I think that one of the great things about sci-fi movies is that they
tend to present information that at first we perceive as impossible.
I suppose that in fiction, Contact is more believable than most. That
in essence is what made this movie great for me, the
possibility that this could happen (it is very possible). Research
has shown that all of the events that unfold in the movie are feasible.
Imagine if tomorrow we were faced with this situation, wouldn't that
be incredible. As fiction goes this movie was more believable to me
than another widely believed tale, one that can be found in a book
called, "The Bible". I happen to think that the Bible is an amazingly
unlikely work of fiction. One thing that bothered me about the movie is the cover up in the
end. Imagine that the people build an alien transport, one that they
have no way of knowing how works, and can only expect to be incredible.
Then they put a person in it who has a story to match the machine's
unique background. Why would they not expect the machine to do something
amazing with time. Wouldn't that be the only way, to alter time. That
is what holds us back now, we would have to expect an alien civilization
to have broken through that. Yet, the experts in this movie treat it with
a skeptical view. My question to them is, Why was the pod out of contact
of their sensors for that fraction of a second, where was it? Perhaps someday the people of the world will wake up to the harsh
reality of their delusion (I happen to think that 95% they refer
to in the movie are indeed delusional). And while the religious nuts
were given a fair shake in Contact, they were shown to be misguided,
if they can't be wrong. I don't think that the purpose of the movie was to prove religion
wrong, simply to open the eyes of people, and show them that there
is room for a creator and science, (ehem, doesn't include the bible).
Carl did a great job, the movie inspired all of us to write on this page
and I think that there have been few movies so accurate to the conflicts
of the day, and so accurate on the final outcome of those conflicts.
I saw Contact awhile ago, and it really made me contemplate science and religion. First of all, let me say that I am agnostic. I need concrete proof one way or another to actually admit that I believe in God. Some people say that their proof lies in their hearts, but I can not help but be skeptical. I was raised with an open-mind, but to me, religion is politics. Every church that I have had contact with has wanted members so that it can have money. I was at a Catholic wedding recently, and the priest claimed that we are all God's children, so we must put aside our different religions, yet on Sunday's, the priest claims that if you're not Catholic, then you're going to Hell. To me, science just seems more practical. It makes sense. What makes religious people so sure that there is a God? Please, let me know.
Oct 22, 1997
I have not seen the movie, but would like too. However I would like to share my thoughts on this subject. I have always wondered why scientists and scholars are considered to be the experts in religion. Does schooling or a diploma give one the authority to be called of god or to know of the mysteries of god? I do not feel that a scientist can be a link to God. Too many times I have read and heard of teachings of god mingled with philosophy and science and to only see the end result as confusion. To know God one must develop faith and have a desire to know him. I do not need science to prove the existence of a loving and caring father in heaven. When I look into the heavens at night I can only marvel at how perfect and in order our universe is. We live on a earth that rotates in orbit around its sun with air and trees and water. The stars with other planets and galaxies all in order. This is a glorious creation, planned and brought forth for all mankind. I feel that also there are other worlds very much like ours with man and women that look like us and from the same creator. Wouldn't it wonderful to think of one of these worlds having an Adam and Eve a starting a new world of children. Or to think of another Moses leading children of Israel from Egypt. Or to think of a savior who is right now gathering his apostles to feed his sheep. Yes it is wonderful look up into the stars and know we are all a part of a great plan...
Oct 22, 1997
There seems to be a lot of difference in peoples opinions of what God might be. I saw a TV documentary on the SETI program on one of the educational channels and an interesting thing was said by one of the big wigs of the SETI program. He said that a billion years ago the most complex creature on Earth was the worm. In terms of the age of the universe a billion years isn't that long. Just think of beings that may be a billion years more advanced than humans. Would we look at them as gods? Would they look at us as worms? Do we really want to find out? I'd hate to be used for bait to catch a big Horned-Nosed Flying Purple Bog Throg from the planet Spork. Someone also said they are agnostic and need proof of a god before accepting his existence. My thought is all you have to do is look at the way things are designed. Every organism is perfectly designed for what it's function is, be it a worm or a snail or a tree etc... If this is all a matter of chance couplings of chemicals in a changing environment I'd be surprised. The fact that heavy elements from a collapsed star can be turned into a little baby which can learn, love, recognize its parents, and some day reproduce a near replica of itself seems to me to be beyond the capability of chance. I see science as a way to affirm our belief in a higher being, not a way of dismissing it. I see a connection between the most different things that exist in the universe. Things like music and the shape of galaxies. It's the unexpected discovery of an unlikely relationship that I think will allow us to travel in time. By the way, if time travel is possible, where are they? Maybe they have enough sense not to mess with us or make their presence known. OK, I have reached the point to where I can no longer explain my thoughts so I'd better sign off. I'll let you know when I recover.
Oct 24, 1997
The fact that every living thing is formed with unique perfection
to fit its environment, and that a person can live and recongnize
is all a matter of science. Natural selection forces the issue. It made us these complex living things,
not chance. Almost everything
can be explained with natural selection. Doesn't the fact that we
can imagine, create, love, explore, invent, and simply be concious of
our world and lives make us more capable and adept to our environment than say....
a chicken. We as humans are a wonder of science. We are the very proof
of Darwin's convictions, not a freak chemical reaction, nor a result
of God's command. We have only our ancestors to thank for who we are,
and what we are capable of. But there is room still for God. After all science has not yet explained
the nature of reality, or matter, what created those. Higher civilization or
lifeform is what comes to mind, but then again, science may yet explain those things too.