The link for the video can be found below. This is not an exhaustive response as I simply do not have time at the moment. I would however like to continue on this topic at another time.
Interesting how this video starts with an old woman in a religious setting with a look on her face like “Wow Gee I never thought of that?” (lol)
This video has a false assumption of what a believer is and or why they believe or have faith. It makes the assumption that ‘believers’ do not practice deep thinking or investigation on critical issues. It is clear that the video supporters do not support the metaphysical world at all. Which opens up an infinite amount of questions (love, conscious,beauty, etc..)
Beauty can be a flash of a smile or a consoling hug when a friend is down. Beauty can also be a log burning and the flames getting bluer and bluer. There is a saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but is that really true? True beauty is truth and truth that transcends our corporeal world. Is a flower more beautiful than justice and temperance? The real beauty is in the transcendental, those things that we cannot grasp, even our love for our loved ones. We cannot bottle our love; it transcends time. Beauty for most of us is visual, we love what we see and by what we see we decide weather we do not like something. This is key, as ‘non believers’ do not like what they see with believers. I suppose they get annoyed when someone attempts to evangelize them and yet the 'non believers’ make/support videos and when they don’t get the response they were so hoping for they claim that believers are ‘scared of the truth’ (?)
Do believer’s really disrupt ‘non believer’s’ lives?
Beauty is already received in the intellect and not merely in the material things. We search out for beauty. When our intellect reaches out for the essence of a thing, our intellect may have many ideas or unanswered questions of what that may be. When we accept something purely by the intellect alone we are abandoning love, by using love and imposing upon our intellect our spiritual will, we will find true beauty.
Before I get into particulars and go into detail, straight up this video is poorly executed and it really gives non-believers a bad rap.It is also clear at who this video is directed at, let’s not kid ourselves the video is directed specifically at Christians.
“Why you believe what you believe?” - such a profound question…who wrote this script….this video is obviously geared towards blind pew sitters and not those who have actually come to ‘believe through intellectual means and studying’ (yes those people do exist) The opening 20 seconds would be the part where I would normally stop a video like this because…well…..Yes..I have stopped to consider why I believe what I believe.
The narrator is attempting to make a case that people are born into faiths and cultural beliefs…yeah…we know that…is that supposed to shock us? . Believers do not generally believe that they have ‘lucked out’ to be born into their belief system. There is so many false assumptions in the narration. But this is too be expected as most ‘non believers’ (Atheists) are some of the most arrogant people in the world (Stephen Hawking) A quick side note: Buddhism is not a religion so I can only assume the reason for including footage of Buddhist practices’ is that the video supporters reject freedom of thought, the only right thinking is the ‘non believer’ thinking method (whatever that is). Do the supporters of this video even realize that being a ‘non believer’ is a belief system in itself?
After watching this video 3 times I have decided that I really cannot afford the time to go through line by line ( that is how I intended to write this ) instead I will try to generalize and keep my footnotes to a minimum.I will obviously have a slight bent to the Christian faith in reply as that is the belief I am most familiar with.It is clear however that the video makers have never gone beyond watching the History Channel to learn about world religions, anyone who states that World religions are comparable has probably never left their couch except to run to 7-Eleven.
One point I do have to make is the narrator refers to “The Cave” no doubt making reference to Plato. Talk about chewing up Socrates and spitting him out,. The narrator use of The Cave is the complete opposite of the intended analogy.The use of myth is as ancient as long as man has been able to speak.Yet the video attempts to make myths an evil thing. The great myth makers on literature have always expressed the importance of myth.Many skeptics wrestle with the question “How can Christianity be true, if it rests on foundations that are mostly mythical?”
Plato recognizes the limits to rational human activity, our reason alone has its limits. Plato is very characteristic, and when he can go no further, he tells a myth. His stories give expression to truth, story telling is important. A myth is the fullest expression of differentiated truth since it alone can adequately symbolize presence in reality.
20th century philosopher Owen Barfield exclaimed,
“Myths, which represent the earliest meanings, they were not the arbitrary creations of poets, but the natural expression of man’s being and consciousness at the time.”
One of the earliest poets was Hesiod. Hesiod’s writings would prepare the way for Plato and his speculations. Hesiod uses cultural contexts and the poets who came before him.Plato condemns the myths of Hesiod and Homer to advocate for a better kind of myth, one based on philosophical principles. Plato wants to link falsehood to the truth as much as possible.
Canadian philosopher Luc Brisson argues that for Plato, myths are effective tools that philosophers utilize to persuade less rational people to act in certain ways. This echoes Aristotle’s thought that man can create and build, but to do so he needs material and man cannot make matter.
The philosophy of Plato changed the old picture of the world. His ideas about the beginning of the world and immortality of the soul became a model for the Christian religion. Plato compared the human soul to a chariot in which white and black horses are harnessed. The beginnings of good and evil in man, with man having control of both horses.
Hegel said "myths and myth making can only find a comfortable home in more primitive times, and that modern philosophical discussions, and even the world at large, is no place for the fantastic stories of Gods and heroes". But films are important; filmmakers are the modern day version of a Hesiod or Homer. Peter Jackson realizes the importance myth can have on people.
“These films (LOTR) bewitch their audience, appropriating the power of myth by giving a semblance of what the audience wants. Like Isildur, we claim the ring as our own.”
For example the book of revelation and the final judgment, these things take place out side of our time and space, so they can only be explained through symbolism. Like a time traveler, if someone from the 14th century was thrust into the 21st for 2 min and had to recall what he saw, it would sound like a myth to the people back in the 14th century. As for various ‘heavens’ sounding familiar and very ‘earth like’ (my words)
Mystery does not mean, “We do not know anything about it”, mystery has to do with something we will never fully understand, even through eternity, we will never be able to grasp the infinite God. You can’t soak up the ocean with a speck of dust. (Can’t remember who said that). We can’t pretend to understand God and that is what ‘non believer’s are afraid of. They can’t get past themselves and the pride of accepting something that they can’t understand, and yet these non believers are constantly guilty of putting their trust (belief) in the things of this world so long as another ‘expert/scientist’ who shares their non belief agrees with findings. If we see design there is a designer, even non believer’s accept this principle in practice.(This reply just happened by chance don’t you know?) The principle of sufficient reason cannot be disregarded just ‘because'
This world is full of “things”, the world is a thing and even a thought is a thing.
Early philosophers recognized “being” as the first act of things that are subsisting by themselves, things that need no outside forces for them to be. Aristotle was a naturalist who would philosophize and study living things by the experimental method. This would involve the internal workings of a thing and a things very essence. For Aristotle this would be substance, which is the function of root of all the actions the thing performs. For the cause of all things being is its formal substance and what thrusts the things very being, and is the cause and principle behind things is the soul. Not only do philosophers ponder these things but myth makers recognize the metaphysical truth of things as well.
Jacques Maritain once observed that a poet and a metaphysician “play on a see-saw, taking turns rising up to the sky. The spectators make fun of the sport; but they are seated on the ground.” In this case I would propose the "Non believers" are the spectators.
Laudetur Jesus Christus !