Hi everyone,
I’ve been intrigued by these responses, many of which assume that Tolkin is trying to create a story faithful to Revelation, but has failed to do so. Try to think about the film from another angle, in which doubt and skepticism about such belief might prevail, a film in which the idea of a god who allows human suffering is itself questioned. How would such a stance then represent Sharon’s conversion, the sect which she joins, and the way in which her “reality” unfolds at the end? Eric and Amy discuss this to some extent so take a look at their posts. And Christine poses a question at the end that really gets at this key issue.
The film met with a significant splitting of opinion when it was released. Many leading critics praised it, including NY Times’ Janet Maslin, and it won an award at Sundance, while some (though fewer) panned it. That alone makes it a worthy vehicle for discussion.
Finally, what might we make of the pearl? There are several references in Revelation to pearls: 17:4, 18:12, 18:16, and 21:21. Using them in the film doesn’t necessarily mean the film is portraying Revelation as happening. Might these be hints about the nature of born-again belief and its effects on believers?
One thing that came up for me that I forgot to mention in my post was this idea, by another philosopher whose name I’ve forgotten (but can look up) is this idea that if you believe the following:
1. Good’s purpose is to get rid of or lessen Evil in the world. 2. God is Good. 3. God is omniscient.
Then philosophically, you cannot believe that God is both “all-powerful,” and that God is “all-loving,” or “all-good.” Because if he was all-powerful, he could rid the world of Evil or could have made Good without Evil. However, if he was all-good and all-loving, people wouldn’t suffer. But the idea that God is both, at the same time, and that the above hold true makes for a philosophically (false and) difficult belief — I did feel that Tolkin was trying to display the wrestling with this belief.
I also once came across this woman’s blog where she wrote that she could never “believe” in religion even though she desperately wanted to – that she felt she was born with less ability to believe, or have faith, and needed proof. It made me think of how, perhaps, people are born with certain tendencies – or grow up in environments where tendencies are encouraged/discouraged, and that some people are inclined towards belief more. Like, I believed in Santa Claus way past most of my friends, and sometimes I still actually do. Others would think I’m totally silly or nuts, but to me it’s still a possibility, regardless of the logic it defies.
(Also — separate thing – it reminds me of a This American Life podcast listed under the name “Kid Politics,” here because I feel this issue of belief relates strongly to certain political arguments. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/424/kid-politics)
I’m intrigued by your assertion that if God were all good, then there wouldn’t be suffering. The philosophy needs to be taken a step further, with the assertion that “God is all good; therefore there is no suffering.” If you consider the idea that suffering does not exist, then you might conclude that suffering is merely an illusion that we have posited within ourselves. If we, humankind, were to truly recognize and internalize the notion that God is all good, then we would not experience suffering in the first place. That assumes a lot, mostly that there exists a God and that God is all good; conversely, if you believe that suffering is real, then you are saying either that you don’t believe in God, or that S/He is not all good or all powerful.