Friday, June 22, 2012
How Strong is the Case For Atheism?
Often, we hear "philosophers have been wrestling with these problems for centuries, and never found a solution." The truth is, it's more like "philosophers have been studying these things for centuries, but were never able to make everyone acknowledge the truth."
We live in a world that thinks (or seems to think) that everything can be decided with a vote, so of course, it's hard for people to understand, but just because not everyone agrees with you doesn't mean you're wrong.
One of the most baffling and astonishing phenomena in the history of mankind has emerged from this vote-based view of the universe; the re-emergence of atheism as a popular world view. This is utterly new, largely because of just how weak the arguments for atheism really are. Yet, you only realize this if you think about these arguments logically. Taking a show of hands won't convince you that atheism is wrong, for quite a few reasons, really.
No, the only way out is to start looking at the truth again. In logic, there is a method of proving a point by establishing that your own position is correct, independant of what your opponents say; which is known as forming "a positive argument." It's also possible, even if you can't prove your own position correct, to prove that your opponent is wrong by pointing out weaknesses or contradictions in their claims.
Atheism can't do either of these things, and Christianity can do both. There is no strong, positive proof that God doesn't exist. There isn't even any way to seriously challenge the proofs that exist for Christianity being right.
Proofs for Christianity? What? Yes, proofs. Positive proofs; the strongest kind. Here are a few of the strongest.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The Moral Argument
If God exists, we have a very strong reason for believing that morality is a real and objective thing. If God does not exist, we have a very poor reason for believing that morality is a real and objective thing. Objective moral values exist. Therefore, God exists.
The Ontological (of Existence) Argument
God is the greatest conceivable being. The greatest conceivable being would exist, necessarily, in every possible world. We live in a possible world. Therefore, God exists.
The Argument From Evil
Evil clearly exists. Evil is clearly wrong. In order for something to be wrong, there must be a standard of rightness to guage it by; something which is morally perfect. Therefore, God exists.
I may deal with these proofs, and a few others, in greater detail in a later season, but any one of them would be sufficient to establish the existence of God. Each is a strong, positive proof of God's existence, and none of them depend on emotional highs, or upbringing, or social situations, or blind faith.
If you're an atheist, just ask yourself this one question. Why are you an atheist? Every day, I ask myself why I'm a Christian, and every day, I answer that it's because that's where the strongest evidence points. As a Christian, I can defend my position rationally. As an atheist, I couldn't do that.
If you want my advice, you'll look into some of these arguments. Don't get hung-up on the datedness of the biblical language or symbolism, don't refuse to believe because of poor conduct that some religious people have demonstrated, and certainly don't refuse to believe because you don't want to obey any moral authority. If that -is- your reason for not believing, take some time to analyze that, and think it over in your mind. Don't flee from the difficulties this might present you with. Study them objectively.
However, if you're an atheist who just doesn't believe for -purely- intellectual reasons, then you're very similar to the kind of person I once was. I languished in agnosticism for close to ten years, because the only answers I ever received from the believers I knew was "Well, it doesn't challenge -my- faith." Don't let that kind of reply bias your study of these issues. Learn the real arguments in favor of Christianity, and learn the real arguments in favor of atheism, and then ask yourself; "Which one -really- has more evidence behind it?"
This is the path I took, and the place I wound up is an indication of where, in my view, the strongest proofs lie.
8 Weak Arguments for Atheism
Weak Argument 1: Gods Are Too Similar to Their Believers. For Example, the Norse Gods Were Norse, the African Gods Were Black, The Greek Gods Were Greek, Etc..., so of Course, the Jewish God is Jewish.
Response to Argument 1: There are many reasons why the Christian view of God doesn't even fall into a broad categorization of religions like this.
1. Jesus was only Jewish in his human nature. His divine nature wasn't Jewish, Norse, African or anything else like that.
2. Furthermore, actual Judaism of the time had a very firmly-established understanding that God was fundamentally different from any human being, and nothing about that has changed in Christianity. We believe that God is pure spirit, not black, white, Russian, etc...
3. Many of the Jews (most, I would say) absolutely refused to believe in Jesus, in spite of him being Jewish.
4. The Jewish and Christian understanding of God is an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, matterless, morally-perfect being who never sins or errs in judgment. A more -dissimilar being from man is hard to imagine.
5. Even supposing the last four points were wrong or false in some way, the argument still falls victim to what's called "the genetic fallacy." Namely, it tries to invalidate a claim by explaining where that claim came from. Therefore, the argument is neither valid, nor particularly strong.
-----
Weak Argument 2: Religions Have Too Many Contradictions to be Real Religions.
Response to Argument 2: Some religions do. Even most Christian groups contradict themselves in their teachings. However, the Roman Catholic Church does not. I won't pretend to defend every last religion and what they teach. I only defend one faith, and as it happens, that's all you need to defend. This argument is therefore a strawman; pretending that the Christian needs to defend something other than what they believe in.
-----
Weak Argument 3: Can You Prove the Universe Requires a Cause?
Response to Argument 3: According to scientific study, the idea that everything that begins to exist has a cause is a -very- strongly-proven law of existence as we know it. It has -never- been falsified, and it easily could be if we found something that began to exist without a cause. Therefore, it's not intellectually-honest to doubt this principle unless there is some evidence that runs contrary to it.
-----
Weak Argument 4: Believing in God is Like Believing in Santa Claus.
Response to Argument 4: This argument could also be applied to dinosaurs, fairies, leprechauns, etc, and it falls into two categories.
Category 1 is basically the normal version, where belief in God is compared to belief in some fictional thing, like a gryphon or Santa. However, this doesn't work, because we have good reasons to believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist; namely, no one is living at the north pole, making toys or flying around on Christmas Eve. There aren't any strong reasons for believing that God doesn't exist.
Category 2 is that belief in God is like believing in -invisible- fairies, or -undetectable- dinosaurs. However, this also isn't true. If, for example, there were an invisible fairy in front of me right now, I still wouldn't be obligated to believe it, because I have literally -no- evidence that it even exists, and this isn't the case with God. There's actually quite a bit of evidence that God exists.
There's a permutation of this argument where the dinosaur or fairy is repeatedly given more and more undetectable and supernatural traits, such as being beyond time and space, or even being matterless. However, this scuttles the whole argument. If something really -was- beyond time and space, or matterless, it would no longer be a fairy or a dinosaur, or Santa Claus, or anything else, because those things are what they are because of their forms, and forms can only exist if there's space for them to exist in, and matter for them to be composed of.
If you give up and attribute to the "dinosaur" -all- of the essential attributes of being uncaused, timeless, spaceless, matterless, morally-perfect, and so forth, then my reply is just that you've removed all of what once made it a dinosaur, and therefore, what you're called a "dinosaur," is really God. So this argument fails on the basis of its own circular logic, and isn't particularly strong.
-----
Weak Argument 5: If You Claim That God Designed the Universe, You Then Need to Explain Who Designed God.
Response to Argument 5: No, you don't. If you want to recognize that an explanation is the best one available, you don't need an explanation for that explanation. For example, if I'm exploring the wilderness, and I find an ipod lying on the ground, that clues me in to the fact that a human being was recently there, and lost their ipod. I don't need to know the whole geneology of that human being, or even their full name, to know that the technology proves that a person was present.
Furthermore, the very -premise- of God -implies- being uncaused, and therefore not being designed by anyone, so the question itself is incoherent.
-----
Weak Argument 6: The Idea of God contradicts the Laws of Nature, Which We're Now Very Familiar With.
Response to Argument 6: God is supernatural, which means that he exists beyond nature. Therefore, he does not contradict any laws of nature. They merely don't apply to him.
-----
Weak Argument 7: God, if he Existed, Would Need to be Beyond Human Comprehension, and Therefore Couldn't be Intelligent, Like us, But Would Need to be an Impersonal Force.
Response to Argument 7: There are many impersonal forces in the universe, but they're not "beyond" us. They -apply- to us, but they're not our superiors in the chain of life. If God were an impersonal force, he would merely be a part of nature, and would therefore not be God.
Additionally, in order to be superior to us, or even equal, God -must- have intelligence. After all, we have intelligence, and this is certainly a superior characteristic among animals. It's given us the ability to build houses, write poetry and fly to the moon, and is therefore a good thing, so obviously God, who is perfect, possesses it.
Finally, without intelligence, it would be impossible for God to create the universe, since if a timeless God were -impersonal,- he could only create other timeless things. After all, if the cause is timeless, then no additional conditions for creating can be introduced to it, and if the cause is timeless and all the conditions for creating are present, then God would be timelessly creating other timeless things.
The only way for God to be timeless, but for his creation to exist in time is for God to make a voluntary choice to create something different from himself. This is why this argument fizzles out on its own.
-----
Weak Argument 8: God, if he Existed, Would Need to Provide an Explanation For Everything That Exists, Both Good and Evil, But the Christian God Only Explains the Good, Since he Causes the Good, but Not the Evil.
Response to Argument 8: This one haunted me for almost a decade, but it's actually very simple to answer. God does not -cause- evil, but -does- provide a sufficient explanation for the evil, in that "evil" just means "an absense of good." Therefore, evil is essentially just the empty spaces in normally-good things. So, this argument isn't particularly strong.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Mere Christianity
By C. S. Lewis
Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5
Enjoyability: 4 of 5
I had to get to this book eventually. In apologetics circles, it's considered a classic. Strong-worded enough to be assertive, and yet still vague enough that it can be used by both Catholics and protestants alike to defend their faith.
I have to say straight-out that I consider most of this book to be a masterpiece, even though I generally balk at anything even the slightest bit vague. I had a few issues with the book from time to time, but none of them is anything major, and I can deal with them quickly in just a few paragraphs, while also covering the stuff I particularly liked.
Lewis is as much of, if not more of a popularizer than he is a theologian, so his prose and patterns of speech are nice and casual; usually easy to read, even when dealing with very complex subjects.
He first talks about natural law, the difference between right and wrong, and the reason for that difference. No disagreements here. Next, he discusses conceptions of God and our relationship with him. Still no complaints. Lewis is frequently amusing throughout these parts, as well as edifying. Many of his comparisons are obviously intended to be humorous, while still being entirely true and correct.
Next, he gets into the meat of morality, and several key sins, such as sins against the virtues, social morality, sexual morality, offenses against marraige and so forth. All good and important topics. The one problem I have here is that he describes sexual immorality as one of the "least bad" sins. It's not. In fact, it can be one of the most dangerous mortal sins, not because of its inherent severity, but because of its inherent draw, and the complexity of the issue, which often makes it hard to comprehend why it's wrong. The problem, of course, is that sexual immorality devalues another person for your own pleasure, and when you start devaluing people for pleasure, it's -very- hard to stop, until eventually, you devalue everyone, and the only person you care about is yourself. Sexual immorality, in other words, can lead to the mentality that other people exist only to give you pleasure or satisfaction, which is as far removed from Christian charity as you can get.
Next, the book gets into more of the virtues, as well as the vice of pride. I didn't think Lewis sufficiently pinned down just what exactly the sin of pride -is,- what makes it a sin and when, but I'm always looking for greater specificity in things like this.
Book four of Mere Christianity gave me, I think, the most problems. Let me see if I can outline them.
1. Lewis seems to think being nice is an inherently good thing. I can think of many situations where this wouldn't be the case, like a drill instructor, or a parish priest during his homilies. I'd have defined the difference between "nice" and "good" a bit more closely first.
2. There's something of a division within Christianity on the subject of whether the resurrected saints are completely different people, or whether they're the same people; just resurrected with a better chance to live their lives well. I'm of the latter school of thought. Lewis, it seems, is not. Related to that...
3. Lewis seems to imply that we need to sacrifice everything we've ever known, including our personhood, permanently, in order to make room for God. This is a misunderstanding. God is infinite. If we needed to "make room" for him, we could only do it by ceasing to exist. He seems to go back on this somewhat in the final chapter, but there's still the sense that the sacrifices of Christian life are permanent, not temporary, and that's not how I read Romans 8:11. I've always taken that verse to mean that all the things we have to give up in this life; "kill" here on Earth for the sake of doing right, will be restored to the saints in paradise, once the risk of sin is past.
Still, as I said, none of these issues is too major, and none really tells too badly against this book. Additionally, there's an analogy near the end of the book which, in my view, is potentially better than even the book's author seems to realize. He describes the Christian faith is a sort of seed of evolution, like lumps on the back of a horse, which will eventually turn into wings, and give it the power to outstrip all the other horses in its ability to leap over barriers. However, until they become functional wings, you won't notice much difference in its ability to leap barriers.
Now, the reason I say this is an even better analogy than he may have realized is that really, if a horse had incomplete, wing-like lumps on its back, it would, for the moment, be -less- capable of leaping over barriers, since it would be weighed down by those lumps. We often feel ourselves weighed down by the burden of having to do right; the difficulty of moral values in the face of an enemy who cheats repeatedly, and the realization that we can't achieve victory on these terms. We may even blame our faith for it. However, if we stick it out, if we wait a while, those burdensome lumps will become beautiful wings, and will become, not a hindrance, but an advantage. This, I think, shows some of the potential of this analogy. It's beautiful.
If you want a basic grounding in Christianity, you could do a lot worse that to pick this book up and leaf through it. It's got a lot of good answers, which you might just need someday when your kids start asking you big questions about life and the faith.
Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5
Enjoyability: 4 of 5
I had to get to this book eventually. In apologetics circles, it's considered a classic. Strong-worded enough to be assertive, and yet still vague enough that it can be used by both Catholics and protestants alike to defend their faith.
I have to say straight-out that I consider most of this book to be a masterpiece, even though I generally balk at anything even the slightest bit vague. I had a few issues with the book from time to time, but none of them is anything major, and I can deal with them quickly in just a few paragraphs, while also covering the stuff I particularly liked.
Lewis is as much of, if not more of a popularizer than he is a theologian, so his prose and patterns of speech are nice and casual; usually easy to read, even when dealing with very complex subjects.
He first talks about natural law, the difference between right and wrong, and the reason for that difference. No disagreements here. Next, he discusses conceptions of God and our relationship with him. Still no complaints. Lewis is frequently amusing throughout these parts, as well as edifying. Many of his comparisons are obviously intended to be humorous, while still being entirely true and correct.
Next, he gets into the meat of morality, and several key sins, such as sins against the virtues, social morality, sexual morality, offenses against marraige and so forth. All good and important topics. The one problem I have here is that he describes sexual immorality as one of the "least bad" sins. It's not. In fact, it can be one of the most dangerous mortal sins, not because of its inherent severity, but because of its inherent draw, and the complexity of the issue, which often makes it hard to comprehend why it's wrong. The problem, of course, is that sexual immorality devalues another person for your own pleasure, and when you start devaluing people for pleasure, it's -very- hard to stop, until eventually, you devalue everyone, and the only person you care about is yourself. Sexual immorality, in other words, can lead to the mentality that other people exist only to give you pleasure or satisfaction, which is as far removed from Christian charity as you can get.
Next, the book gets into more of the virtues, as well as the vice of pride. I didn't think Lewis sufficiently pinned down just what exactly the sin of pride -is,- what makes it a sin and when, but I'm always looking for greater specificity in things like this.
Book four of Mere Christianity gave me, I think, the most problems. Let me see if I can outline them.
1. Lewis seems to think being nice is an inherently good thing. I can think of many situations where this wouldn't be the case, like a drill instructor, or a parish priest during his homilies. I'd have defined the difference between "nice" and "good" a bit more closely first.
2. There's something of a division within Christianity on the subject of whether the resurrected saints are completely different people, or whether they're the same people; just resurrected with a better chance to live their lives well. I'm of the latter school of thought. Lewis, it seems, is not. Related to that...
3. Lewis seems to imply that we need to sacrifice everything we've ever known, including our personhood, permanently, in order to make room for God. This is a misunderstanding. God is infinite. If we needed to "make room" for him, we could only do it by ceasing to exist. He seems to go back on this somewhat in the final chapter, but there's still the sense that the sacrifices of Christian life are permanent, not temporary, and that's not how I read Romans 8:11. I've always taken that verse to mean that all the things we have to give up in this life; "kill" here on Earth for the sake of doing right, will be restored to the saints in paradise, once the risk of sin is past.
Still, as I said, none of these issues is too major, and none really tells too badly against this book. Additionally, there's an analogy near the end of the book which, in my view, is potentially better than even the book's author seems to realize. He describes the Christian faith is a sort of seed of evolution, like lumps on the back of a horse, which will eventually turn into wings, and give it the power to outstrip all the other horses in its ability to leap over barriers. However, until they become functional wings, you won't notice much difference in its ability to leap barriers.
Now, the reason I say this is an even better analogy than he may have realized is that really, if a horse had incomplete, wing-like lumps on its back, it would, for the moment, be -less- capable of leaping over barriers, since it would be weighed down by those lumps. We often feel ourselves weighed down by the burden of having to do right; the difficulty of moral values in the face of an enemy who cheats repeatedly, and the realization that we can't achieve victory on these terms. We may even blame our faith for it. However, if we stick it out, if we wait a while, those burdensome lumps will become beautiful wings, and will become, not a hindrance, but an advantage. This, I think, shows some of the potential of this analogy. It's beautiful.
If you want a basic grounding in Christianity, you could do a lot worse that to pick this book up and leaf through it. It's got a lot of good answers, which you might just need someday when your kids start asking you big questions about life and the faith.
Labrynth
Rated PG
Catholic-ometer: 3 of 5
Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5
Once upon a time, there was a decade called the 1980s. In that decade, a number of fantasy movies were released. They were stylish and thrilling, with good humor and likable characters, and they delivered moods well. The downside was that no matter how hard they tried, they could never seem to tell a story all the way through. Time after time, they either launched too quickly into the main plot without giving the characters any chance to shine on their own, or resolved the main problem too quickly, or in a confusing or unsatisfying way. Sometimes, the main villain would end the film with a speech that made no sense, and half the time, the entire premise of the film seemed to make very little sense until one spent about an hour pondering over it, and then, one had to wonder just why the director couldn't have been a little clearer about just what was really going on.
Seriously, though. Labrynth is clearly one such movie. It's as much a metaphor as it is a story, and the characters and situations can get very confusing if you don't view them in that way.
I kid 80s movies, though. Some actually did take the time to explain why they ended the way they did, but not many (the Princess Bride and the Neverending Story being perhaps the best examples.) Labrynth, in some ways, is midway between those films and the likes of "Legend," one of the most head-scratching films I've ever seen in my life (though I do remember enjoying it somewhat.)
Sarah is something that was very rare in the 80s; a girl who's utterly obsessed with other-world fantasy stories. She even cosplays as an adventurer in a secluded section of her neighborhood. However, every week, her parents force her to baby-sit her baby brother, who repeatedly gets on her nerves. Eventually, she wishes that the goblins would come and take him away. They do.
The goblins, led by a tall, dashing goblin king named Jareth, seize the child and carry him back to the castle in the center of the Labrynth, and it's up to Sarah to solve the puzzles of the Labrynth, get into the castle, and face off against the goblin king for the fate of her baby brother. Along the way, she makes friends, meets strange creatures, learns life lessons, etc... Her journey, in fact, is so bizarre and episodic that it could be compared with Alice in Wonderland.
The morals in the film come in two types; "minor," and "major." The difference is that some moral lessons (minor) only last one or two scenes, while others (major) can be inferred from the movie as a whole.
The minor lessons, on average, are a mixed bag, ranging from things that are -truly- moral, like forgiveness and faithfulness, to issues of mere good manners, like asking permission. However, none of them, at least, -encourage- immorality, so on the whole, I'd say I was impressed.
With regard to the major lessons of the film, I think some mistakes have been made on the part of certain past reviewers. Some reviewers seem to assume that the point of the film was supposed to be; Sarah needs to recognize that her fantasies aren't as important as the real people she knows. I don't believe that at all. If they'd wanted that to be the moral of the story, it easily could have been. My view of the major moral of the movie is this.
"We all have things we don't need, which we could easily give up for the sake of others, and which we should, because mere possessions aren't as important as people. However, don't worry. Just because you sacrifice to help people doesn't mean you need to give up your dreams. In fact, you may find them being fulfilled more often if you focus on helping others."
I think you'll find that if this -is- the moral of the movie, it fulfills it quite well, and for me, as a Christian, I consider this a better moral than "grow up and don't want odd or supernatural things anymore." We're -supposed- to want things to be different than they are in this life. That's half of the point. There's also something hauntingly-relevant about a movie where the main character is a female protagonist who initially doesn't want a baby, but eventually realizes what a mistake it is to get rid of him.
Jareth is a charming villain, Sarah is a likable protagonist, and the other characters never really get annoying. The sets, paintings, special effects and so on all look pretty nice, and the musical numbers are delightful; especially "magic dance."
I think the one exception to this generally-good graphics and sound quality is the "fire dance" segment, where the green screen effects are pretty terrible, and the song is somewhat ruined by the fact that you can barely hear what they're singing. Still, even that's somewhat enjoyable to watch.
The film itself is -very- high-fantasy, and in genre, is a bit of a cross between horror and comedy. There's a little rough language, but not often. There are points where the imagery is truly grotesque and terrifying, and yet, there's just enough levity to keep things from being too intense. Younger viewers will probably still be scared, though, because there's plenty to scare them. Even I got a few chills at some points in the film, because it tickles so many of those little, irrational horrors we all still have from when we were kids, like suddenly falling into a hole, normal things coming to life and talking, creepy faces uttering menacing warnings from inside walls, and doors not leading where they're supposed to. All of these things creep us out a little, even though we know they don't really happen.
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It's not specifically-Christian, but neither is it evil or determined to tear away at our moral fiber, like so many modern movies. It was an overall fun movie about a journey through a dark fantasy world where things don't make sense, with some good laughs, good visuals, good scares and good times, and I can't really ask for more than that.
Catholic-ometer: 3 of 5
Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5
Once upon a time, there was a decade called the 1980s. In that decade, a number of fantasy movies were released. They were stylish and thrilling, with good humor and likable characters, and they delivered moods well. The downside was that no matter how hard they tried, they could never seem to tell a story all the way through. Time after time, they either launched too quickly into the main plot without giving the characters any chance to shine on their own, or resolved the main problem too quickly, or in a confusing or unsatisfying way. Sometimes, the main villain would end the film with a speech that made no sense, and half the time, the entire premise of the film seemed to make very little sense until one spent about an hour pondering over it, and then, one had to wonder just why the director couldn't have been a little clearer about just what was really going on.
Seriously, though. Labrynth is clearly one such movie. It's as much a metaphor as it is a story, and the characters and situations can get very confusing if you don't view them in that way.
I kid 80s movies, though. Some actually did take the time to explain why they ended the way they did, but not many (the Princess Bride and the Neverending Story being perhaps the best examples.) Labrynth, in some ways, is midway between those films and the likes of "Legend," one of the most head-scratching films I've ever seen in my life (though I do remember enjoying it somewhat.)
Sarah is something that was very rare in the 80s; a girl who's utterly obsessed with other-world fantasy stories. She even cosplays as an adventurer in a secluded section of her neighborhood. However, every week, her parents force her to baby-sit her baby brother, who repeatedly gets on her nerves. Eventually, she wishes that the goblins would come and take him away. They do.
The goblins, led by a tall, dashing goblin king named Jareth, seize the child and carry him back to the castle in the center of the Labrynth, and it's up to Sarah to solve the puzzles of the Labrynth, get into the castle, and face off against the goblin king for the fate of her baby brother. Along the way, she makes friends, meets strange creatures, learns life lessons, etc... Her journey, in fact, is so bizarre and episodic that it could be compared with Alice in Wonderland.
The morals in the film come in two types; "minor," and "major." The difference is that some moral lessons (minor) only last one or two scenes, while others (major) can be inferred from the movie as a whole.
The minor lessons, on average, are a mixed bag, ranging from things that are -truly- moral, like forgiveness and faithfulness, to issues of mere good manners, like asking permission. However, none of them, at least, -encourage- immorality, so on the whole, I'd say I was impressed.
With regard to the major lessons of the film, I think some mistakes have been made on the part of certain past reviewers. Some reviewers seem to assume that the point of the film was supposed to be; Sarah needs to recognize that her fantasies aren't as important as the real people she knows. I don't believe that at all. If they'd wanted that to be the moral of the story, it easily could have been. My view of the major moral of the movie is this.
"We all have things we don't need, which we could easily give up for the sake of others, and which we should, because mere possessions aren't as important as people. However, don't worry. Just because you sacrifice to help people doesn't mean you need to give up your dreams. In fact, you may find them being fulfilled more often if you focus on helping others."
I think you'll find that if this -is- the moral of the movie, it fulfills it quite well, and for me, as a Christian, I consider this a better moral than "grow up and don't want odd or supernatural things anymore." We're -supposed- to want things to be different than they are in this life. That's half of the point. There's also something hauntingly-relevant about a movie where the main character is a female protagonist who initially doesn't want a baby, but eventually realizes what a mistake it is to get rid of him.
Jareth is a charming villain, Sarah is a likable protagonist, and the other characters never really get annoying. The sets, paintings, special effects and so on all look pretty nice, and the musical numbers are delightful; especially "magic dance."
I think the one exception to this generally-good graphics and sound quality is the "fire dance" segment, where the green screen effects are pretty terrible, and the song is somewhat ruined by the fact that you can barely hear what they're singing. Still, even that's somewhat enjoyable to watch.
The film itself is -very- high-fantasy, and in genre, is a bit of a cross between horror and comedy. There's a little rough language, but not often. There are points where the imagery is truly grotesque and terrifying, and yet, there's just enough levity to keep things from being too intense. Younger viewers will probably still be scared, though, because there's plenty to scare them. Even I got a few chills at some points in the film, because it tickles so many of those little, irrational horrors we all still have from when we were kids, like suddenly falling into a hole, normal things coming to life and talking, creepy faces uttering menacing warnings from inside walls, and doors not leading where they're supposed to. All of these things creep us out a little, even though we know they don't really happen.
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It's not specifically-Christian, but neither is it evil or determined to tear away at our moral fiber, like so many modern movies. It was an overall fun movie about a journey through a dark fantasy world where things don't make sense, with some good laughs, good visuals, good scares and good times, and I can't really ask for more than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)