The movie Contact emphasizes the commonality of science and religion in their search for truth, but it makes the mistake of equating two inherently different positions. It is necessary to clarify the difference between scientific hypotheses and philosophical views.
The main character, Dr. Ally Arroway (Jodie Foster), is an astrophysicist searching for extraterrestrial intelligent life. One day, she receives an alien signal from Vega and realizes that it is the blueprints for a transportation machine. After overcoming many obstacles, she boards the machine and meets an alien life form in the form of her father on Vega, 26 light-years away. But when she returns without evidence, with only vague conversations and hallucinatory memories, she faces intense suspicion for her 18-hour experience, which was only a moment in time on Earth. When she finally faces a hearing, she is unable to answer many of the questions and is forced to admit that the accusations are valid. But she tearfully pleads that it would have been easier to deny the experience in the first place. As a human being, she knows the memories are true, and she’s seen that humans are not alone in the universe, so she can’t deny the experience. Back at the lab, Ally answers a child’s question about whether there are aliens with a quote from the movie. “It would be a waste of space if we were the only ones in this big universe.”
The above is the plot of the 1997 movie Contact. The movie suggests that science and religion have similarities and can be the same in their pursuit of truth. This is expressed through the two central characters. Ally, the protagonist, is determined to explore the existence of aliens, even when other scientists criticize her work as useless. Her lover, theologian Jas, on the other hand, insists that there is a God, even though he can’t prove it. The two seemingly different characters are initially at odds, but as the movie progresses, they come to respect and understand each other’s beliefs. Ally and Jas symbolize the positions of believing in the existence of aliens and the existence of God, respectively. The movie uses these two characters to suggest that there is common ground between the two positions.
The message is first revealed in a scene where Jas and Ally meet at a scientists’ party and then sneak away to stare at the night sky together. Ally says that since she was a child, she has looked at the mysterious universe and imagined that there must be intelligent civilizations within it, leading her to believe that humans are not alone. Jas recounts his own experience. By starting from the same place and coming to seemingly similar conclusions, the movie conveys to the audience the similarity of both positions. This theme, which is forgotten as the case progresses, is further emphasized in the hearing scenes. Ally, who says she doesn’t believe in God because of the lack of evidence, is attacked with the same questions she has used to criticize Jas, a theist, since her alien encounter. However, instead of rebutting her opponent’s arguments, she seems to acknowledge them. Here, the audience sees a superimposition between the protagonist and Jass, and is given the image that science believing in aliens and religion believing in God may not be so different. The movie goes one step further. As he walks Ally to her car after the hearing, he tells the reporter that he believes what she believes. Ally warmly grabs his hand, and the two seemingly opposing positions are reconciled.
This theme is compelling because it suggests a positive future for science and religion. However, the movie makes one error along the way. It ignores the fact that there is a difference between claiming that there is a God and claiming that intelligent life exists somewhere out there. They are fundamentally different, independent propositions. The scenes that the film inserts to emphasize their similarities are a cinematic device, but they do not close the essential gap. Therefore, let’s break down the two positions, represented by Dr. Ally Arroway and her lover, Father Jas, according to their dictionary definitions. By definition, Ally’s argument is a “hypothesis,” while Jas’s is a philosophical “view.
The main character, Ally, represents the opinion of scholars about the existence of aliens. Scholars like her argue that given the vast size and age of the universe, there must be intelligent life beyond Earth. This fits the dictionary definition of a “hypothesis”. The definition of a hypothesis is “a theory that is established by logical inference based on scientific data and makes predictions about the cause or legitimacy of an object or phenomenon that are difficult to prove or verify under realistic conditions.” The alien claim is a hypothesis if it meets this definition. The rationale is that there are a lot of stars in the universe. The Milky Way galaxy alone has a spherical group of stars at its center, up to 16,000 light-years in diameter, with hundreds of billions of stars. The number of celestial bodies is even higher when you add in the planets that accompany them. Currently, the scientific community estimates that about 10 stars capable of hosting habitable planets are born every year, and the probability of a star having a planet is calculated to be about 0.1. Furthermore, the probability that a star system will have habitable planets and moons is close to 100% for Earth. Therefore, it can be concluded that the probability of life outside of Earth is very high. The probability of intelligent life is calculated through the Drake equation. It was devised by Dr. Frank Drake to calculate the number of intelligent civilizations in the galaxy using several variables, and according to his calculations, the number of civilizations in the galaxy could range from about 10,000 to millions. In this process, we can see that the argument for intelligent life is based on a probabilistic calculation, and that it uses logical inference to predict phenomena with respect to lawfulness. The claim is therefore a “hypothesis.
Father Jass represents theism. Among various religions, Christians like Father Jass assert the existence of a transcendent being with power, a God. Although it seems similar to the former in that it deals with a transcendent being and lacks direct evidence, theism is not a “hypothesis” based on scientific data, but a “view” based on arguments. Several lines of evidence show this. First, dictionaries categorize the word as an opinion. Wikipedia defines theism as “Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists”. The Encyclopædia Britannica also defines it as “the view that all finite or limited things are in some way subordinate to and distinct from a single supreme or ultimate being (which may be referred to as a person), though fully capable of power of their own.” Both of the two most widely used encyclopedias, with many people involved in their creation, categorize theism as a belief, or opinion, rather than a theory or hypothesis. Second, theism does not fit the definition of a hypothesis. It is not subject to probabilistic calculations, as in the case of aliens, and there is no scientific theory or evidence to support it. Therefore, it is a logical inference, but it does not meet the definition of a hypothesis because there is no scientific data to base it on. For this reason, theists focus on proving their claims with arguments rather than presenting scientific theories. This has led to a number of arguments, which can be categorized into cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral arguments. However, most scholars today agree that none of these arguments prove the existence of God in the strict sense of the word and are based on highly refutable premises. A hypothesis cannot be the result of an argument that has no data on which to base it, and that begins with a premise that is open to challenge. Therefore, theism is not a hypothesis, it is a view, and a fundamentally different proposition from the “hypothesis” of alien existence.
This is not to deny the movie’s claims. I agree that science and religion can be reconciled in the pursuit of truth, and I believe that this can bring these two historically antagonistic fields together for the betterment of humanity. I’m just pointing out that the reasoning behind the argument is flawed. Claiming equivalence between hypotheses and views that are inherently different is like claiming that a mango and a melon are the same fruit because they are similar in color and shape. A fallacious argument is open to rebuttal and cannot be reliably supported, which can make the argument unconvincing. As much as I agree with the movie’s message and admire its brilliance, I’m left with the feeling that a more logical argument would have strengthened the argument. Of course, movies are a medium for free expression of ideas and can be viewed as an expendable commodity to be enjoyed. But the subject matter of Contact is too profound for that. With a more careful choice of material and more thorough evidence, I think it could have been a great movie that would have made a big mark in the history of cinema.
I’m a blog writer. I want to write articles that touch people’s hearts. I love Coca-Cola, coffee, reading and traveling. I hope you find happiness through my writing.