Agnosticism and Ridley Scott

In order to answer certain questions, sometimes we need to develop the right tools to get the answers. I would suggest having an open mind is a tool. To be a scientist I would suggest also you would need an open mind. An agnostic disposition does not have to exclude having an open mind, neither does having faith. Gaining knowledge through science on the other hand is a different matter. Science has been at odds with the Vatican for centuries so it is not that difficult to come up with a story that is going to convulse them ( Somnium 1630, by Johannes Kepler). The real trick is how do you get the Vatican to take on science without upsetting the apple cart? After all it took the Catholic Church until 1992 to look at vindicating Galileo. Did the knowledge he obtained through science really stop people having faith? One of the few people in history to take a scientific approach and make it acceptable to the Catholic Church was Thomas Equinas (1225 – 1274). What Ridley has done is to have an open mind approach and ask, if we can travel through star systems will we come across something that either points to a Devine creator or not. Is the human race a result of another life forms intervention? I think the film does reflect an agnostic with an open mind in my opinion, up to a point, but I personally don’t feel the questions/points raised by Ridley are offensive. A very simplified analogy I would put on this is, if Ridley Scott were Galileo then Shaw would be Thomas Equinas

It's a delicate subject(obviously.) Scott decided to do it because he has an opinion and thoughts he wants to share and have us indulge. For the sake of that, i think he had his views in mind when making this movie and wants everyone who sees and, whether they enjoy it or not, think about it. To think about whether or not rligion or science is "right."

I've heard that Science and Religion might have more in common than previously thought.

Actually the Fallen Angels might be the Anunnaki or Nefilim that some have interpreted from some old Sumerian tablets. The Bible speaks of the Anakim which is a Hebrew word from Anaku which is an Akkadian word associated with their Anunnaki.

Prometheus presents several different religious or philosophical viewpoints through its primary characters. Weyland presents us with the "god is dead, we are the new gods" point of view. Holloway is the closest to a true atheist with his desire to prove that all organized religion is a lie. What may trouble the Church the most is actually Shaw - her beliefs are hardly orthodox Christianity. The last time I checked seeding by ancient aliens is not part of the Nicene Creed. Ultimately, the movie is agnostic in viewpoint in that it does not deny the possibility of the divine, but we still haven't seen it, nor have we come any closer to understanding it.

Batchpool@ Perhaps some atheists with moral rectitude actually rejecting the false notion of God, but If I recall well, Dante suggested that they were not accepted either (agnosticism and atheism) in heaven or hell. I wonder what place has a believer who becomes an unbeliever in the movie? How can we call to this? She tries to go to Paradise because she has many doubts. It is a clear example of an agnostic person. But the concept that defines the philosophy of atheism, begins with the origins of Greek philosophy, (Thales, Democritus, Epicurus) on the first attempt of philosophers (Ionian school) to explain the world, in the Middle Ages almost disappeared. Later travels to empeiriokritismo and naturalistic philosophy of the 16th and 18th century (Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes) and the French philosophers atheists (Cholmpach, Diderot)

Malex@ According to one of the Prometheus virals, Weyland character ties to the atheist philosopher Nietzsche, Weyland believes in nothing, he is personified very clear as an atheism, remember his last words before dies "there is nothing".

malex234, I agree that the characters represent the viewpoints of atheism - Charley Holloway as you said, but Peter Weyland takes it a step further, he not only denies organized religion like Christianity, but downright takes on the mantle of God and thinks the engineers are the same as him so are on the same level. Shaw although she is nontraditional, believes in faith particularly in Christianity evidenced by her final log. "It is New Years day, the year of the Lord 2094." But like Ridley Scott, the overall tone of the film is agnostic.

Weyland was also a superstitious man, which is interesting for an atheist, because it means he did have a type of faith, although it wasn't religious: [i]Superstition is a belief in supernatural causality: that one event leads to the cause of another without any physical process linking the two events, such as astrology, omens, witchcraft, etc., that contradicts natural science[/i] He wanted Shaw on board almost like a lucky charm or something. You could even say that it worked - landing right in front of the pyramids was certainly lucky. I really like how the story is grounded in sci-fi, but has an air of the supernatural hanging over it. It keeps you wondering if there's more to the events in the story than what science could explain. I like that.

@mateo. Nietzcheism is a philosophy unto itself. Weyland may well represent the Nietzchean superman and I believe that he saw himself as such. I don't believe that Weyland believed in nothing, but rather I believe that his final words relate to the lawrence of arabia quote "there is nothing in the desert" and no man needs nothing. Weyland thought he was coming to the fount of life, but instead he found a desert - a place of death which to him is nothingness.

its quiet useless to debate over agnostic or atheistic viewpoints od Scott. The point is IMO to recognize that alien/ prometheus transports [i]demonic[/i] material. Its a fact that the ancient astronaut theory replaces christian belief, you also could also say its a ´basic´ materialistic standpoint.. cheers

@kane. While I would agree that alien and prometheus have dark and sinister undertones, I'm not sure what you mean by the "transports demonic material" comment. If you're suggesting that the engineers are in fact demons then I can see that. -Ridley himself called them dark angels referencing lucifer and his gang from paradise lost. If you're calling the questioning of traditional christianity in these movies demonic, then I suggest you watch no further as I don't think you're going to like where ridley is heading in the future. He's raised the big questions - either he is going to give us answers that we may not like, or I think more likely given his own beliefs, leave us with more questions.

This is what I believe Shaw is. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism]Deism[/url]

hey malex, Apart that I personally LOVE dark, sinister, gory, occult movies as long as they have a GOOD story ( Omen, Alien, Exorcist, Terminator, Zombie whatever) . I have no prob with scientific or theologic themes either! The question is how able many of the kids are today that dont have the background. Example, in the 90ies ( yes I´m 40 Years old ;) ) the media was quite analog compared to today. Public tv wasn´t stuffed with occult series and ancient alien BS. The real UFO/ abduction stuff isn´t playground neither. Think of all vampire/werewolf/CSI stuff thats going on, kids live in a complete different media world. Its a fact that this stuff is actual occult, I see this as an educational and mass media control thing. Yes, the NWO is real. More and more we live in an actual luciferian world ( some more satanic) . Many demonic things go on, too. Just a reminder. cheers

@kane. Thanks for the explanation. You and I are roughly contemporaries and you are correct in that there is more "paranormal" content on tv etc. Personally I find much of it it to be unintentionally hilarious. I still get a smile every time I think about the episode of Ancient Aliens featuring Moses and his nuclear powered manna machine.

theory? nope..it becomes kinda real superstitious cult..... in [i]thinking[/i]. [img]http://i.imagebanana.com/img/9y57ixto/ancientaliens.jpg[/img]

[i]But there are two differences, the atheist denies the existence of God and the agnostic people considered inaccessible by humans all knowledge of the divine and evereything that transcends or goes beyond what is seen or experienced.[/i] right, these positions are there for quite a time now and our time is a fantastic one for that discussions. For me its a false claim to say ´naccessible by humans all knowledge of the divine´. There actually is professional research and knowledge of these things like out-of-body-experience, higher consciousness, Reiki , which works with higher functions of the bodies. Anthroposophic science is deep into that, too...and offers fantastic insights. cheers

Not agnostic, but gnostic. The Engineers may have created humans, but Shaw asks 'who created them?' This is a concept in gnosticism with the Engineers standing in place of the Archons. [quote][i]In late antiquity the term archon was used in Gnosticism to refer to several servants of the Demiurge, the "creator god" that stood between the human race and a transcendent God that could only be reached through gnosis.[/i][/quote] The 'creator gods' were considered false gods.

Ancient Aliens is just preposterous by claiming any legitamacy, with speakers like the before mentioned Giorgio Tsoukalos [img]http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/856755_10151338752425745_387173898_o.jpg[/img] This man is completely off his rocker but laughing all the way to the bank so it just goes to show you can sell your very credibility for income but worse, I suspect he actually believes his own BS! This is disturbing and If I hear him use the word 'extraterrestrial' again I think I am going to become physically ill. Its especially exasperating that there is an entire channel devoted to unqualified subject matter. Troubling is the fact that on rare occasions, the history channel will accurately cover UFO phenomena but they seem to be unable to make any distinction between plausibility and implausibility. Worse, its even possible that a few things crazy hair George T. says may be possible, but any truth is evenly measured in with equal portions of untruth so unless you have taken the time to research the topic thoroughly that would allow you to distinguish between the two, as most viewers don't - and I am not only referring to those biased in favor of the series, but the population in general, you are probably not going to be able to tell the difference. This fact makes his fraudulence all the worse. Those organizations that probably do exist to discredit any factual UFO sightings in the public eye, should just put him on salary as they would be hard pressed to find one with the level of public celebrity that he has, that comes off as so completely ridiculous as to discredit the entire subject by the mere opening of his mouth.

There is no proof of aliens, even less ´ancient´, thats absolutely speculative and even superstitious thinking. And it is completely set up. There are powerful groups in secret services and mass media that have interest in spreading dumb lies because it helps their agenda.

Boy, are you guys going to feel silly when the Aliens come. :^)

hm, some people here seem already be infected by the AA plague..;) silly? sillier than this guy? impossible..not in this world ;) [img]http://i.imagebanana.com/img/0dnxw9qn/1zp2np1.jpg[/img]

I think Ridley Scott has created a very agnostic film, but with a hint of Poe's Law thrown in. Many atheists and scientists dislike the film, claiming that it panders to religion, and disregards science. In fact I think Ridley Scott is gilding the lilly in some scenes, so much so that it makes them the least enjoyable scenes - death of Milburn and mutation of Fifield is the one I'm thinking of. there are so many things in that scene that would be 'pushing buttons' for anyone who takes the book of Leviticus seriously. And yet behind this apparent pandering to such myths he always leaves the door open for explanations that are not supernatural, but these are merely hinted with far more subtle clues. The film could have been done a lot more simply, but less intruiging, if the crew who live longest, did not have the competing ideas of rationalism (David) and dogmatic belief (Shaw). And of course, there are those who accept Shaw's very survival as proof that she was right, ignoring the fact that she didn't have a miraculous intervention. It was getting off her butt and running, that saved her, as well as David being able to get them off the planet. Otherwise she would have either been killed, or died looking up at an empty sky while her air runs out.