Roger Nygard's "The Nature of Existence" is Wonderful!
I just finished previewing a copy of this documentary to be released Nov. 23rd. It is fascinating as we hear from people around the globe what they think about the meaning of existence. This link does a great job telling you what it's about. Nygard goes on a quest to know the answer(s) and he comes back with a few meager suggestions when all is said and done. It's well done, contains some great humor, and is very educational.
For me it helps the viewer understand why the Outsider Test for Faith is required. It's required because we need a way to decide between these competing visions about the meaning of existence, that's why. I watched it with my wife, and mother-in-law who is a staunch Christian. I asked her what she thought of everyone else but the Christians interviewed in the film, and without hesitation she replied that they were all wrong. Wow! Christians must say what she said. But how can they? At least they would want to adopt some kind of lower common denominator set of beliefs.
The one beef I had with the movie is that Nygard treats atheism as just one more of the rabble voices in the crowd. However, if he treated it as the skepticism it truly represents which simply doubts what the others affirm, this wouldn't make for a widely appealing film, now would it? For then it would be a film promoting skepticism.
For me it helps the viewer understand why the Outsider Test for Faith is required. It's required because we need a way to decide between these competing visions about the meaning of existence, that's why. I watched it with my wife, and mother-in-law who is a staunch Christian. I asked her what she thought of everyone else but the Christians interviewed in the film, and without hesitation she replied that they were all wrong. Wow! Christians must say what she said. But how can they? At least they would want to adopt some kind of lower common denominator set of beliefs.
The one beef I had with the movie is that Nygard treats atheism as just one more of the rabble voices in the crowd. However, if he treated it as the skepticism it truly represents which simply doubts what the others affirm, this wouldn't make for a widely appealing film, now would it? For then it would be a film promoting skepticism.
5 comments:
I will do my best at trying to watch this as soon as possible but just a remark.
We do need documentaries educating people that the word scepticism isn't depreciative at all.
I must say though that I don't look at Atheism as a purely sceptic line of though towards religion dogma.
I see every line of thought that refuses to accept religious or any dogma at all as the right way of continuous improvement over who we are as the living being with the responsibility of making the best out this life as we can and at the least amount of time possible.
Well, I guess I don't like labels that's all.
"For me it helps the viewer understand why the Outsider Test for Faith is required."
Did the apostles of Jesus Christ need to employ an OTF? Do Christians who observe miracles? or Christians who experience a personal relationship with the Holy Creator?
Question how you could ever be unbiased about a relationship...
How can any human put aside everything assumption and build accumulative case arguments without prior learning. It can't be done objectively...and deception is the logical result of starting with invalid assumptions based on circular reasonings (like defining the world we see as independent of the super natural)ridiculous possibilities (abiogenesis and possibility of no Uncaused Cause - or possible other universes, etc), and inductions (tens of thousands of inductions which lead to the deception of universal common descent theory when species are distinct in the fossil record, and NO new genes ever emerge from a population without a template of information already present from which to encode such genes.
Q.E.
"It's required because we need a way to decide between these competing visions about the meaning of existence, that's why."
Accumulative case argument..and not being blind to the uniqueness of an Infinite Creator and Uncaused Cause, Who is logically quite different from all finite beings which He created and owns (or later disowns).
"I watched it with my wife, and mother-in-law who is a staunch Christian. I asked her what she thought of everyone else but the Christians interviewed in the film, and without hesitation she replied that they were all wrong."
Somebody "will be" wrong when there are competing beliefs regarding objective reality and the Truth that is consistent with God's Omniscience. If she lands on the side of truth...then she is correct to point out that others have missed such truth and fallen into deception.
"Wow! Christians must say what she said. But how can they?"
Accumulative case argument.
Ongoing personal relationship.
God has opened up their spiritual eyes so they are no longer blind to the SPIRITUAL things of God.
The deduction that things which are incongruous with truth are in error and the result of deception.
"At least they would want to adopt some kind of lower common denominator set of beliefs."
Or they know their Infinite Creator and this Creator has led them to truth by His Grace.
Think I'll pass on this film. I just have never understood why or how there would be a "meaning" to existence. In the course of my life circumstances have come about so that I've had to the opportunity to do rewarding, exciting things, even things that were of great benefit to my fellow humans, but I've never felt like I was "destined" to do anything. The "meaning" of a life is even more ephemeral than life. I have enough to do to stay alive and healthy and care for my family. Having some sort of mythological framework imposed on my life just seems like a pointless complication.
watched it with my wife, and mother-in-law who is a staunch Christian. I asked her what she thought of everyone else but the Christians interviewed in the film, and without hesitation she replied that they were all wrong.
How can they all be wrong when there isn't complete disagreement between all the others.
I suppose I can see why the OTF may look good with a rigid all or nothing look at all the other perspectives. Problem is, that just isn't an intellectually credible or honest way to deal with other perspectives.
Hello,
I just watched the trailer and thought that was interesting and certainly a movie worth looking in to.
But may i ask a favor? Please don't bunch all christians into one steryotipical catagory or mindset. Christians all different and all have personal unique opinions that differ from one another. Just as one skeptic from another. Mr. Loftus, would agree on that point.
Although you have the benefit of having seen the movie, and i only the trailer (please take this into account). I don't think that the movie really presents one side from another, but meerly reports what the guy found. So treating Athisim like Christianity and Hindusim, Taoism ect....is quite appropriate. For it is just one out of several views that is being presented with the guy trying to find out people's opinoins.
I do intend to see the movie and won't make a clear jugment untill i do see it. Just like when i watch other documentaries of the sort.
Sincerly,
-galadhur
P.S. Yes, i am a christian.
Post a Comment