Science versus Religion?

[timcc22]

First of all, I've watched this movie twice so far (both the original and the DC). Any movie that is thought-provoking and causes so much debate is a great piece of work. Donnie Darko certaintly qualifies as such in my opinion. Anyways here's my two cents...

As I've read through many of these topics I noticed that alot of people have one theory or another on the movie. I really just want to bring up the fact the movie can be explained in two totally different directions at the same time. The Christian Church and science continue to have an ongoing "war" between each other. For example the Church believed that Earth was the center of the universe, yet now there is scientific evidence that Earth revolves around the Sun. Then there's the debate between God creating Earth (and thus life) and the Big Bang Theory from science. Two conflicting views, two diffent explanations.

Donnie Darko can be explained perfectly using "The Philosophy of Time Travel." I'm not even going to go into it since its been extremely well documented by other posters. But it works, and the entire chain of events can be spelled out using this theory.

However, the movie can also be examined through (only) religious aspects. The entire movie might be a dream where he has an epiphany that there really is a higher force (along with finding love with Gretchen, compassion with Cherita, the importance of family, etc...). In this way the lessons learned are very similar to those found in the Bible. So, Donnie's fate is to be the world's Savior (very Christ-like). He then sacrifices himself for the betterment of others. Donnie Darko the superhero.

It's open to interpretation (obviously), yet I believe both major interpretations are right and both occur concurrently. I'm sure that Richard Kelly intended for this to happen. The movie parallels real life. When a miracle occurs, scientists are always ready to find a logical explantion. But others would rather just chalk it up as an act of God.

There's just so much going on in this movie and I don't want to make this post too long, but I promise to further explain myself if need be. Please post your opinions...

As a side not, remember when Dr. Monnitoff mentions that Roberta Sparrow was a Nun and then suddenly dropped out, wrote the book, and became a science teacher? Possibly she "switched sides" from religious beliefs to science...?

[KISMET]

I totally agree. This movie is a reflection on the two most debated subject today, and the movie can be interpreted either way

[Madridarko]

Hello, great thread... The subject which transends actually quite a bit into my own personal beliefs.... I am ussually trieng to find the "middle ground" of the argument, and in this Science vs. religion thing, I try to apply that and find a possibility to where both are possible... I just think that instead of placing them against each other, people should start seeing them more as working together cooperatively... I most likely enjoy and follow science because it offers imperialistic proof and we would still basically be medieval barbarberics without it's advacements it offers, but I view religion more as a moral and spiritual crutch I can rely on... There are many people out there that believe in the possibility of of a non-existant god, and I respect their opinion. I personally don't know if he does exist or not, but in my opinion, there is somebody out there.... It is just cruel to think that there is no purpouse in life except reproduce hence passing on genetic material...

In conclusion, my belief is that one day, we will be able to prove that one compliments the other... But for right now, we have to decode through all the changes that religion went through to find the core essence.....

about the PoTT, actually, eventhough I know that it doesn't actually state direct words, I think that the PoTT was meant to insinuate that this had a religious purpouse while trieng to incorporate a bit of science.

[Bigboy]

I agree with Mad on this, in spirit (sic).

The standpoints of science and religion aren't as polaric as many think.
For example, any scientist worth his salt will tell you that you can't prove a negative - no matter how big your sample, it only takes one verifiable 'positive' datum to disprove the negative hypothesis. So any scientist who says equivocally "There is no God", with no empirical evidence either way, is not applying science. Indeed there are many scientists with faith.

Another place where the two ideas seem to clash is creationism vs evolution. I don't think they need to clash at all.
I'll cite Christian creationism here - Genesis states that the world (universe) was created in 6 days. The only real problaem with this is that the length of a 'day' is indefinable before you have a Sun and Earth! Also it is widely held that God is independent of TIme, so applying a time period such as a day to Him seems incongruous. From the original texts/stories I think that 'day' in this context probably better translates to 'period of time'. If you make that period of time, say, a billion years, then the '6 days' of Genesis tally up fairly well to what we know of the time scales and order of cosmology and evolution.
If you go on to argue design vs chance in evolution - if God truly is omnipotent then He could have designed the 'big bang' to play out in a specific way to result in the creation of the Earth and the evolution of man.
(It's interesting to note that the various constants that underpin physics would only allow life as we know it to exist if they happen to be within a very narrow range of values - it lends credence to the idea of cosmic design)

As far as this applies to DD, i think that the religious and scientist concepts of the movie can run concurrently - it needn't be a matter of "either/or".

[KISMET]

I agree with both of you- Your points were very well posed. I agree that science and religion can and do have a common ground, and not that Donnie Darko Can't be interpreted as a combination of both but it also can be interpreted as either or.

[Alexandra]

Apr 28, 2005 9:16:21 GMT -5 Bigboy said:

I agree with Mad on this, in spirit (sic).

The standpoints of science and religion aren't as polaric as many think.
For example, any scientist worth his salt will tell you that you can't prove a negative - no matter how big your sample, it only takes one verifiable 'positive' datum to disprove the negative hypothesis. So any scientist who says equivocally "There is no God", with no empirical evidence either way, is not applying science. Indeed there are many scientists with faith.

Another place where the two ideas seem to clash is creationism vs evolution. I don't think they need to clash at all.
I'll cite Christian creationism here - Genesis states that the world (universe) was created in 6 days. The only real problaem with this is that the length of a 'day' is indefinable before you have a Sun and Earth! Also it is widely held that God is independent of TIme, so applying a time period such as a day to Him seems incongruous. From the original texts/stories I think that 'day' in this context probably better translates to 'period of time'. If you make that period of time, say, a billion years, then the '6 days' of Genesis tally up fairly well to what we know of the time scales and order of cosmology and evolution.
If you go on to argue design vs chance in evolution - if God truly is omnipotent then He could have designed the 'big bang' to play out in a specific way to result in the creation of the Earth and the evolution of man.
(It's interesting to note that the various constants that underpin physics would only allow life as we know it to exist if they happen to be within a very narrow range of values - it lends credence to the idea of cosmic design)

As far as this applies to DD, i think that the religious and scientist concepts of the movie can run concurrently - it needn't be a matter of "either/or".

Er, so you're obviously completely entitled to your opinion. I just wanted to clarify what I think are some misunderstandings of the subject at hand. If it all boils down to differing opinions than great, but I thought it worthwhile to respond just in case, as this is a subject important to me.
The views of science and religion are indeed polaric. Firstly, religion's scientific fallacies extend way beyond the traditional focus on 'creationism vs big bang'. It's true that the creation account of the bible is very vague, and although even in its abiguity almost every mistake possible is made (for instance, the order of creation in direct contradiction with geological science, light and dark being created before the sun and moon, stars created as a seeming 'afterthought' and thus implied to be exactly what they seemed to be to primative humans:tiny, insignificant specks of light), that can be easily rationalized away by the 'allegory' claim.
But the Bible makes many, many more fallacious 'scientific' claims in its many volumes. If you are interested, I will elaborate, but I don't wish to ramble unecessarily.
And to your contention that 'you can't prove a negative' - you are completely right. This is usually true. However, most atheists do not attempt to 'prove a negative'. This is a common misunderstanding. The ones that do actually have a logical and philosophical basis for doing so; but it is a complex and lengthy convo, so I shall ignore that faction for the time being.
The majority of non-believers merely posit that weight of 'proof' lies on the side of the claimant. 'Bare assertions' can have no inherent scientific or logical value. It is not necessary to 'prove a negative' in order to be an atheist, just as it not necessary to 'prove a negative' in order to posit a disbelief in unicorns. There is not an equal burden of proof/evidence: the responsibility lies solely with the party making claims. Should claims be woefully unsubstantiated and arguably inherently illogical, it is only logical to disregard them.

Sorry if I came off sounding a bit defensive/aggresive/etc.... just this is an obviously important issue and I think most posters here are intelligent enough to take it in the spirit of intellectuality, and not as a personal affront.

[bruce]

temperament. In terms of function, G10 has a great improvement. As the latest model of Cannon, Canon G10 has the highest 14.7 million pixels rolex Submariner reating some of the best-known luxury timepieces in the world. It is no surprise that Breitling been a pioneer in the world of aviation, since they bega gucci replica d famous brand watches has become more and more closer.Tracing the history of celebrities wearing famous watchesIn 1851, Queen Victoria bought rolex replica uk where the controversy lies. My answer to this will be NO. The big brands and their designers make big fortune from the genuine items which cost the HP Batteries goods for our friends. Girls usually like mobile phones. The appearance of mobile phones attracts them at the first glance. Nokia E63 is such a gucci replica ike other Casio Watches Replicas watches, Chanel Watches Replicas.To judge whether a man is tasty or not, the three following things are enough: replica watches disappointment. I knew my habit would change again.I unbolted my money pot, took out the saved money that should have treated you your loving rolex Sea Dweller pursue happiness, including the poor. In this modern lifestyle we lead, with high pace, people tend to get pressure from all directions, it is very imp Hermes Replica erent famous watches on your wrist, you will gain a lot of glory and happiness.A man with a watch is a man with success. He has the time concept swiss rolex d the certificate holder was actually to narrow to hold anything. So that pathetic purse, if can still be called a purse, finally found its way i gucci bags rance. I had no idea about the price of her gym clothes, but there was a wonderful accessory – a black Chanel bag. This bag was made from Cheap Hermes modern antique – This modern vintage is the particular unique style point of view that defines the exact Fossil brand and its many products. I Hermes Replica Fashion Week. I think everyone should have an ED Hardy Cap for the upcoming summer as well for the fashion. laptop batteries antique table world auctions a record, a 1933 for an American bankers customized watch, its clinch a deal valence 1,100 million dollars. This watch is gucci handbags ore styles available there. People can definitely get an excellent timepiece with great functions of this brand over the Internet.In the modern so Replica Hermes The new Seiko watch , called Ananta Spring Drive Moon Phase, features a shiny steel case. It is said that Seiko adopts its unique " rolex Yachtmaster he year 1947, the company is founded with its focus mostly on the clothing business. In the course of the particular 1950s, it has expanded its rolex Masterpiece For example, we can easily remember circle is NewYork, pentagon is L. A. , triangle is paris and squar is Tokyo. Jacob&Co watches' shells a replica rolex ality Breitling replica will surely make the wearers feel amazing. It is guaranteed to be seeing as close to the particular original seeing as Asus Batteries e stainless steel for its dial, fully embodying men' s charm and masculinity. And its unidirectional rotating bezel greatly facilitates the w discount watches every accident is coincidence; if you do not, all coincidence is accident. We were classmates in primary school, schoolmates in middle school, rolex Datejust II ciety, most people have become quite fashion-conscious. The fashionable replica handbags have become the must-have fashion and faddish accessories rolex replica uk