Interesting observation of the film; The film deals with religion for ten minutes—it doesn't seem to be the real purpose of the film. So it's intriguing that you would approach it in this fashion. It got me thinking ...
How can "religion be evil" if it is merely a survival mechanism that has caused certain gene pools to be successful? If you weren't so blinded to your own manifestation of a religion, maybe you would understand exactly what you believe—that is, nothing is objectively evil. You call it evil because that's in the makeup of your social evolution that you can't seem to escape, not because you are thinking for yourself. Not because you are wise. How do you even know you are thinking for yourself? You cannot know that.
When Orcas play with their prey in a sort of tortuous frenzy, it isn't evil. When an alpha wolf dominates another wolf, it isn't being evil. It's using nature's tools. You see the connection here? Religion is just another tool of nature; it's an adaptation of nature—one of the most successful adaptions ever introduced into the genetic and social pools of human animals, because 95 percent of the world has the social and genetic makeup for religion. Which begs the question—how do you know that you aren't manifestly in that gene pool and that your anti-religious sentiment isn't just another mutated expression of that mechanism?
Whether any one religion is true or false, you cannot say that religion isn't a successful mechanism of survival. It's truth or falseness has been, so far, irrelevant to the survival of the species. That is all religion is—a mechanism. The only thing you can reasonably do is to hypothesize that a non-religious person has the greatest capacity to transfer their genetic makeup, but you would have no scientific basis for that view. It's just a guess that belies the facts of human history for more than 50,000 years. I am more than happy to accept your hypothesis that the human race is better off without religion, but you need to prove it. Unfortunately, your own unscientific bias gets in the way.
For instance, you cannot say that suffering and pain and sorrow and remorse are evil. You cannot say that "murder" in a moral sense is wrong. In fact, murder in a legal sense is also merely a mechanism of survival in which a people group believe that laws against murder will give them the best chance of survival. But that isn't to say that being a lone murderous wolf is wrong. There are many lone-wolf species; some species kill and eat their own species for survival. That doesn't make it evil. A lone-wolf type human being who kills or otherwise subjugates with a created religion isn't doing anything wrong. It's merely it's own survival strategy. The survival strategy might be doomed to failure, even, but that doesn't make it evil. It's just a test of nature. And because you can't see that, because you make these emphatic statements about religion being evil and the rote nature of genetic survival, it's clear you aren't any more insightful than any of the characters in this film—especially David Cross' so-called Christian character, who calls the book of Revelation the "book of Revelations"—who incorporates both populist evangelical and populist catholic dogma that has no basis in the Bible. He is a character who has no idea what he's talking about because he is fundamentally, inescapably affected by his social and genetic makeup—just like you. Just like me. Just like every person who has ever lived.
So good luck with that belief system. And I enjoyed the movie, which seemed nothing about religion but about observing self-centered relationships under the lens of a disaster.
reply
share
a1689
11 years ago
You just proved my point that people will kill and defend religion in the name of religion. No other life on earth does that -- killing/murdering life in the name of religion.
Again "religion is eveil".
We love our offsprings, because of gene and evolution, not because of religion.
This is very simple. The offsprings who are not loved and cared will have less chance to survive. Whose genes will have less chance to live on. So we are all offsprings of loved ancestors who loved. This proves love is built in in your gene.
The gene has no love will have less chance to pass on and ceases to exist.
This also proves most people(gene) do not like to kill/murder other life unless they are brainwashed to do so or they are to defend their and offsprings' survivor.
I also made a point that freedom of choice and freedom of religion and freedom of... are in conflict of certain religions.
If one believes in heaven and his/her love one(s) do not believe his/her heaven
What can the one do?
1. Ignore "freedom of choice and freedom of religion" and foce love one(s) to go to one's heaven and enjoy?
2. Respect "freedom of choice and freedom of religion" and suffer in one's heaven kowning love one(s) are buring in hell?
3. Join the love one(s) and get rid of the book?
4. Name calling me for sharing the TRUTH?
reply
share
Jexic1
11 years ago
They drink it. But there's no point n showing it. They take the drink, have some reminiscent conversation and fall asleep at the table. The end. The cut off is just a humorous way to avoid a depressing ending.
There's one simple explanation: David Lynch is bananas.
reply
share
daddie0
11 years ago
Interesting observation of the film; The film deals with religion for ten minutes...
I disagree with you here: the whole film is the Last Supper.
reply
share