Tags
atheist, believer, catechesis, Catholic, cinema, Contact, Conversion, Drama, faith, God, ministry, movie, movie ministry, occam's razor, reason, Sacrifice, science
Palmer Joss: [Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God] Did you love your father?
Ellie Arroway: What?
Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him?
Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much.
Palmer Joss: Prove it.
Quote thanks to imdb.com
This “oldie but goodie” is one of my all time favorites. I have always been fascinated by the faith versus science debate. Do faith and science have to be exclusive of each other, or can science prove matters of faith?
“Blessed are those who have not seen, but believe.” John 20:29
Jodie Foster plays Dr. Ellie Arroway, a SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) scientist whose mother died during childbirth and was raised by her father until his death when she was around 10. Early in her career, she ends up doing SETI work in Puerto Rico where she meets Palmer Joss, played by Matthew McConaughey, whose questions of faith get under the skin of Ellie and all those involved in SETI research. Her time in Puerto Rico is short-lived as funding is pulled and she ends up working for innovator S. R. Hadden.
Then one night, the team stumbles upon a signal. It isn’t long before they realize that embedded within the signal is video and plans for a machine. There’s a lot of fumbling for credit and questions as to whether or not this signal is friendly or not. But, eventually, the machine is built and the search is on for who will take the maiden voyage in the machine. Palmer Joss comes back on the scene and ends up on the committee who is in charge of selection and tanks Ellie’s chance to go out of fear of losing her.
But, nothing is simple, and the person chosen to go dies when a religious zealot sabotages the machine. But, government redundancy being what it is, there was a second one built simultaneously and secretly, and Ellie goes after all.
While gone, she has an amazing experience, however, all they see back on earth looks like nothing happened. So then, a big debriefing occurs and Ellie’s experience is questioned since she has no proof of her experience.
There are tons of faith verses science exchanges throughout the movie – I wish I could list them all, but then it’s a great reason to check it out for yourself.
So, what do we learn in our contact with Contact?
1. Just because it hasn’t been proven yet, doesn’t mean it won’t or can’t be. The battle between faith and science have been ongoing and what is interesting is how many times they actually seem to reinforce each other or that they’ve bowed to each other. The Catholic Church has apologized to Galileo for refusing to acknowledge that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of vice versa. Catholic teaching at this point does not contradict evolution. You do not have to believe or deny the theory of evolution to be considered a Catholic in good standing. Those who choose to believe in evolution do so based on the idea that God’s time is not our standard seven-day calendar week. Therefore, the work of creating the world could have stretched across months, years or eons.
2. Watch what you say because one day, the shoe may be on the other foot. Ellie, I would venture to say, was atheist, but when it came to asking the panel to believe that she was really gone for about 15 hours, when all they saw was about two minutes of apparent failure. With no proof to speak of, she asked them to have faith in her. Sadly, her own arguments prior to her experience were used against her.
3. We are all searching for truth. Where do we come from? Why are we here? Are we alone? Are we as wired for God? Does God exist? What other questions might faith and science be trying to answer? Do you think they’ll come to an understanding, or do you think it will drive people to one side or the other?
4. Some of the most notable scientists have been believers. Why? Why are so many not? There’s an anecdote out there about Louis Pasteur and an atheist having a conversation when the atheist saw Pasteur pray the rosary. Whether or not the story is true, Pasteur was known for his Catholic faith. Many scientists claim that there is still too much out there that is unexplained to give up belief. Some say the more they learn, the more they believe in God because something so complex as our world and our bodies couldn’t be a fluke of misaligned atoms. Others, will always see science as proving we don’t need God. Does our upbringing or preconceived notions of faith affect how we view the findings in the field of science?
So, do you find yourself more in Ellie’s camp, or Palmer’s? Does it depend on the day, what’s going on in your life? Do you think Palmer ever waivered during the film?
So, if you haven’t seen this one in a while, I encourage you to watch it again… and if you’ve never seen it, it is a treat.
cinemacatechesis 
Did you read the book? It was far better than the movie.
No. I didn’t. But, having done that on other movies, I definitely can see your point. God Bless!
I really liked this movie, then I found out Sagan wrote it. The movie did not allow for a second trip to test the theory… In real life we would have tried it many times. The problem with the comparison in the movies is that Ellie was an eye witness and not at all like the examples in religion using revealed truth. Her experience can be repeated and tested and measured though the movie didn’t allow for it.
The thing about us hairless apes is that generally speaking you only have to show us a trick once. We’ll repeat it aplenty, invent our own way of doing it. In this the movie fails to represent both sides. If you say you have a corn variety that has such and such attributes, Monsanto will duplicate it and patent the source. That’s just how we are.
I vote with Sagan and science. It has a good track record, better than faith.
Yes, in reality, there probably would have been more tests assuming the machine was not destroyed during the first tests.
One could also claim government conspiracy in the end where they choose to with hold the recordings with the approximately 15 hours of static.
I chose to believe. You don’t. I’m okay with that if you are. God Bless.
In response to myatheistlife: Sagan and science have a better track record, better than faith–better at what, precisely? Faith and science operate in different ways pursuing different goals. Is one better than the other? They are different. It’s like saying apples are better than avocados, which makes no sense. You may like one and not the other, but to imply that one is better than the other is nonsense. Illogical. And not a good example of scientific thinking. Science helps me understand my father’s dementia, but faith helps me in my day-to-day life with him. I like both, I need both. It is not a question of either/or. It is both/and.
Btw, I saw the movie a long while back and read the book in the past year or so on the recommendation of a friend who is a theologian. The book is really quite something marvelous and, I agree, is much better than the film.
Peace be with you.
Pingback: The Letter Writer « cinemacatechesis