MovieChat Forums > The Ledge (2011) Discussion > Finally a movie about Rationality and At...

Finally a movie about Rationality and Atheism VS the evil of Religion

posted 10 years ago by Dejay
15 replies | jump to latest

The movie is flawed, but I loved it because NOBODY dares to make religion a theme like that. There are actual arguments from a rational standpoint made in the movie. There is sometimes the "nerdy liberal atheist girl" in movies, but they are mostly surrounded by religious people and it's not made a major point in the movie.

I'm an atheist, I believe god doesn't exists.
But I do believe in the IDEA of god. Humans needed religion during their scientific and cultural evolution to come to terms with mortality and as religion as the progenitor of science. E.g. Creation myths can be seen as early and pretty wild scientific theories. The idea of god is that there is a perfect being, all powerful and rational, that loves us. I believe that this being doesn't exist YET, but that humanity should strive to become this being, to become gods. Even if we'll never manage it.

So I'm not a militant atheist like Gavin. I do believe that religion, just like the creative process, psychotherapy or relationships can help a person to come to grips with the human condition and grown past his own weaknesses. Our "soul" (the function of the biological machine that is our brain) is infinitely complex and certain images in your mind can make you happier, more productive and healthier. If talking to an imaginary friend who wants you to be good and who will always love you makes you better, hell why the fvck not.

I'm against "dogmantic" organized religion, people who believe the word of god is final. If god existed, he wouldn't stop speaking as humanity develops. Be it through new prophets or personal prayer, every person should develop his own understanding of religion, his own "My Christianity 1.2 Beta".
Certainly fundamentalism needs to be fought. Fought with prosperity, education, by creating a middle class who want to send their daughters to university. Bombs or sanctions to induce economic hardship only increases fundamentalism.

Some of the arguments for atheism in the movie where flawed, especially the one that Gavin never could be a suicide bomber. He actually suicide bombed at the end for a cause he believed in. There are plenty of examples of other suicide bombers who didn't have religious motivations (Kamikaze bombers or Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff who tried to suicide bomb Hitler).

I don't believe that religion has a monopoly on ethics either. Ethics, love, compassion, they are a necessary development of evolution. Any rational being that developed by evolution MUST have ethics. That is my personal atheistic religion =) I also believe that Gavin and Shana sinned when they cheated on Joe, sin as something that diminishes their soul. Not as something like bad Karma, just some *beep* you should not do.

About the other parts of the movie, I agree that the acting wasn't top notch, the story and plot where rather straightforward, and the scene that annoyed me most is when Gavin was "too polite" to take the gun on the bible away from Joe. And that he didn't tell the detective the truth and thereby actually endangered Shana's life (as he didn't know what Joe would do after he jumped).

I loved that the cop didn't want to say grace that evening. It doesn't even mean that he "lost" his religion, it just would have felt so horrible after the incident that he would sit down and pray like business as usual.

What are other movies where atheism vs religion is actually discussed?

[–] LoupGarouTFTs 10 years ago

And yet, for all your pontificating, the atheist went out of his way to attempt to steal the man's wife. How "moral" of him. He sure showed that evil Christian by committing suicide, didn't he?

[–] oundjianm 10 years ago

I have to agree somewhat with what you are saying here..
Personally I found this film very frustrating, I am an atheist but could not stand Gavin.

He even admits to originally wanting to just "liberate" Shana and that it was a game for him. I know that was only at first and he then fell in love with her but to me that's nearly twice as bad as simply being a scumbag wanting to screw Joe's wife, Because any man with morals will know that what he has done is wrong and would stop himself from continuing.
It does not mean that they cannot be together but it would then become Shana's decision, it would be in her hands. SHE would have to talk to Joe, figure things out and either work on her marriage or leave. AND that's another thing that infuriated me was the way Shana was portrayed as this innocent angel, she was the one most at fault.

As an atheist I obviously loved the last scene where Hollis skips grace at dinner because it stood for something. It was a way of saying he is in control of his fate and his family life and no-one can destroy that but himself so there was no need to ask for extra help. I do not see it as a sign of respect for Gavin however because I refuse to believe that Gavin had any impact on Hollis.

This may seem like a victory for atheists but to me this is the worst kind of publicity for atheism.
A blonde muscly douche playing games with another man's wife then talks about how he swerved instinctively to protect himself in the car crash where instead of protecting his only child he ends up being the reason the truck hit her.
To make things worse instead of trying to work things out with his wife he cannot get past his own guilt and leaves her too. Now to me that screams cowardice and yeh the only thing he could do at the end was jump and I was glad he did.

Surprisingly enough I related MUCH more to Joe minus all the dogmatic stuff...
He lost everything in his life once and he fought as hard as any person could to keep what he had finally been able to rebuild. Of course when he loses it at the end he looks like the "bad guy" but was he really all that bad?
He was cold and emotionless but only because it was clear that he found it hard to show emotion, that he needed drugs and other vices to make him feel because inside he felt dead.. And I can relate to that feeling more than I could express. I will concede he may not have been the kindest man outwardly and not the most expressive but his heart was always in the right place and the woman of his life was being taken away by some up himself kid that just wanted to screw a pretty lady..

Anyway, in conclusion this film was a reel rollercoaster for me. I was completely angry with the atheist and the only thing im glad he did was jump and I felt very strongly for the ultra dogmatic re-born Christian. The only character I didn't have problems with was Hollis but again it kind of angered me that he had to be the "catholic". It just felt all very calculated as to who should be the good kind of Christian who should be the extremist and obviously not much thought went into the atheist who to me came off as an arrogant piece of tvrd.

Also, I find Liv Tyler to be probably the prettiest woman in Hollywood but the character she played was so irritating, she acted like such a dummy, oblivious to the world around her, like she had a very limited amount of free will ( like many female characters in films) like they don't know any better or shouldn't be to blame for the complete CHAOS going on around them.. argghh anyway, just pisses me off...

In response to the OP I completely disagree, this is NOT a victory for atheism this is just another way of ultimately showing that atheists are know it alls who think they can do anything and just because it was so romantic of him to die for his love of Shana or for love in general, like a true "hero" that it somehow made it all OK...
NO... JUST NO.....

[–] lucyjewels2 10 years ago

I don't believe he left his wife, she left him...anyway that's what he said in the movie. I don't believe he maliciously turned the vehicle to "save himself," I think that he had so much guilt that he blamed himself for his daughters death, or his wife may have said it to him so it stuck with him. What I was curious about was his religious beliefs BEFORE his daughter died? He seemed bitter and angry about God. He lost his wife, his daughter, his home, his life...I am very aware that all of that can rattle your faith. I am a parent that lost a child at a very young age, also lost my home, my spouse within the following year as a result. The pain was just too much to comfort or to be there for each other. So my guestion was what his beliefs were before the tragedy. I as well did not agree with him sleeping with another mans wife, but with it only being two years since the accident, I'm sure it gave him some relief from his pain, being loved by another and being able to look forward in life as they "could be happy," as they stated. That's my two cents worth, not related to being religious or agnostic. Just saying.

[–] weepingwillow314 10 years ago

he can't steal what's being given freely. Shana had the sort of life where she was always seeking a loving father figure ... when she saw Gavin comforting the maid so caringly, I notice she wanted him quite a lot after that.

_________
don't blink

[–] mizhu 10 years ago

I expected a movie about a man being blackmailed into jumping, or not, off a ledge. This is nothing like 'Phone Booth'.

But I really enjoyed it because it reaffirmed my beliefs as an agnostic.

[–] dwterrell 10 years ago

I don't watch many movies or TV shows but I can't recall, outside of a TBN special or something, where Christianity was portrayed in a positive light. They are either portrayed as neutral, hypocritical, dogmatic, or worldly.

I find it interesting at the number of atheist who have never been God but then also know exactly how one would operate.

Its not about a monopoly on ethics its about which ethics. Most say adultery is fine... the bible says it is not... history proves the bible correct as no culture that has embraced adultery, and has done so for the last 2-3 hundred years exists. Out of 5k plus years of human existence... that's saying something.

At any rate.. the things in this film were quite stereotypical. I didn't understand not saying grace at the end though. But then again... what I think about faith as a person of faith may differ from what the person who wrote this understands.

[–] Dejay 10 years ago

I don't watch many movies or TV shows but I can't recall, outside of a TBN special or something, where Christianity was portrayed in a positive light. They are either portrayed as neutral, hypocritical, dogmatic, or worldly.

I'd say where religion is a theme, it is more often than not used as a dramatic ploy to have fanatical or misguided people do or say evil things out of dogmatic faith.
But much more frequently Christianity is portrayed as positive in a not so overtly fashion. Being religious and having faith is more or less the norm and as positive, which does have a strong effect on culture.

I'm not sure what you mean by "claiming to know how god operates". The bible tells us Christianities version of how god operates. Just because he created us doesn't give him the right to enslave us forever and tell anyone what to think. That's just unethical :)

About ethics and adultery, I agree adultery is unethical as long as both partners swore to be faithful. Nothing wrong with open marriages as long as it works for both (which is probably very rare).

[–] dwterrell 10 years ago

The bible tells us specific things that God has done and will do. It tells us some of the things he has said.

It, however, does not reveal God in his totality which means we have no idea what he will or won't do unless he has either spoken about it or been consistent with it in the past.

Logically Speaking....

If God created us, then he has every right to do with us as he chooses.

[–] Dejay 10 years ago

If God created us, then he has every right to do with us as he chooses.

Well from my atheist point of view that's just crazy. You can't create and then "own" people and do with them as you please, because it's not a principle that can be generalized. What if corporations start to breed people as slaves?
For example Kant's categorical imperative states that an action is ethical if it maximizes the benefits for people AND can be made a universal rule. So slavery could be said to be more beneficial than evil, but since the slaves themselves couldn't rationally agree to this rule, it isn't an ethical rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative
It's basically an attempt for a "purely formal and necessarily universally binding rule on all rational agents", similar to JC's more empirical sermon "Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets".

Or for example, if god created all humans, he might be happy dicking us around, but what about the "uber-god" that created god? (It's absolutely logical to assume that god was created by another even more powerful god, since god can't have evolved because evolution is just a lie from the pits of hell hehehe)
Now Uber-god could demand that god betrays all his principles, puts all good people in hell and all the bad people in heaven. And that would just be bollocks! So how could god agree that slavery or total ownership over people is a good rule? If god is an ethical and a rational being, he would have to concede that people should be free to choose what to do and to believe without being punished for it for all eternity.

You could of course insist that god has a special right and is above morality because he is so powerful and "unknowable". But certain things are true no matter what, like god couldn't dispute 1+1=2. If he puts himself above his own principles, demands obedience without giving rational cause, he is just a dictator. Then his commandments are just a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. "Do as I say or I smash you!". Even if god did exist, it must be open to humanity to pursue a better way to ethical behavior than a fixed and unchanging rule book (for example, to choose not to kill or discriminate your gay neighbors). Even if god did exist a commandment that does not make sense because it contradicts science must be disobeyed.

Same rules apply.

[–] dwterrell 10 years ago

Corporations can't own people. Only God can "own" people. You don't own you, God owns you.

In the context of God, Kant's imperative is completely irrelevant.

God has no creator. You can not be "All Powerful" and have creator. That is illogical.

Any human based logic you use regarding how God should operate is invalid as God does supersede any human based logic because it lacks God's perspective.

Like I said before. You have never been God so you have no idea how God should or would operate.

[–] ciprianl 10 years ago

The concept of a being that's all powerful is illogical. Can God create a rock that's so heavy that even He can't lift it?

[–] dwterrell 10 years ago

God isn't ignorant.

Would you create a goal for yourself that you wanted to accomplish but make it so hard you never will?

Why do you think God has less sense than you?

[–] JeopardyLeyton 8 years ago

Most say adultery is fine

Where do you live that you've come to the conclusion that most say adultery is fine?!! Most people think adultery is awful, it's acknowledged as one of the most painful things you can do to a person you love! People divorce over it, break up over it, kill over it. I don't think many people AT ALL think adultery is fine, which you've actually agreed to, seeing as you brought up the fact that no culture has embraced adultery - that's because most people DON'T think adultery is fine!

[–] dwterrell 8 years ago

Adultry is any sex act done outside of marriage. Therefore single hetrosexual people having sex are comitting adultry. Some peole call sex between single people fornication.

[–] bespin0079 8 years ago

Here's one from 1924: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on5Ufl14N7s