If you missed watching the ending of the movie in class, here it is on YouTube, in two parts (some overlap):
Ellie, the self-professed skeptic and agnostic, gets a taste of her own medicine as she returns from her life-changing encounter with alien beings only to face skepticism and incredulity when she cannot produce any physical evidence of her trip.
Compare the extraordinary experiences of Palmer and Ellie. How are they similar, and how are they different? What do you think the movie is trying to say about how we should form beliefs about the world? Is the demand for physical evidence always a reasonable one?
Palmer experienced God and Ellie experienced Alien contact. the fact that they were trying to find the truth plays a significant role. they were both not sure of what they experienced but found a way to use that as the answer. the movie suggests that most people need proof to form beliefs. almost everyone who believes in God has no proof, but they know that he exists. they know that there must be a more superior power. However everyone is not so sure that aliens do exist because they did not grow up thinking about it as much as they think about God. physical evidence is not always reasonable, because sometimes we all must trust that what we believe is the truth.
ReplyDeleteThere are many similarities between Palmer's experience and Ellie's experience. The main similarities being that both of their experiences are questioned and not believed and that neither of them can describe the experience with words. Another similarity is that both of their experiences involve them being confronted by an otherworldly being. The only real difference between the two is that we actually see Ellie's on screen, while we only hear about Palmer's. I think the movie is trying to tell us to stick to what you believe in no matter what and don't give up that belief. They show this by having both Ellie and Palmer face times where their beliefs are questioned and even mocked at some points but still defend their beliefs. It's also trying to say not to form your beliefs like the crowd who flip-flopped between not believing Ellie and making fun of her to cheering her on outside of the courthouse. I don't think the demand for physical evidence is necessary in all situations, especially one like Ellie's and Palmer's
ReplyDeletePalmer's and Ellie's experiences with God and aliens are alike in a few ways. They both are on faith, except for the 18 hours of static while Ellie was in her P.O.V. Ellie's faith is that she got top talk to her dad again, while Palmer's experience was with God. Niether one of them has that much evidence to prove that it really happened, but faith itself. The major difference I find with their experiences is that more people trust Palmer's experience rather than Ellie's experience. The reason for that is, more people believe in God rather than some sort of alien. The movie is trying to show that you should believe in what you believe in. And that if you have faith than you do not really need physical evidence, because if you know what happened then it does not really matter what opther people think about the subject. The demand for physical evidence is only needed if you want people to believe in you. Unless it has to do with Palmer's experience he had no evidence, but people still trusted him. So, the only evidence a person really needs is faith itself. If you believe in something and you know it really happened then you are the only physical evidence needed. So, sometimes you need physical evidence and other times you need faith. Sometimes faith is the only thing you can have.
ReplyDeleteEllie and Palmer both had experiences that they could not describe. Palmer says that he knew that he could not have made it up because his intelligence was not capable of doing so. Ellie was so overcome by what she saw that she said that "they should have sent a poet". They both are so overwhelmed that they can find no words to describe it. It is this indescribability that makes others so doubtful: they have trouble believing someone who cannot clearly decribe what happened. The skeptics then fall back on their old standby: a demand for proof. Now whether it is right or wrong to insist on proof depends on the situation. Demanding proof can save us from conspiracy theories and other absurd claims, but it can also prevent us from seeing thing that are true, but cannot be proven.
ReplyDeleteEllie an Palmer have faith at the end because they seen things they couldn't prove or explain. So then she realizes on faith something that she thinks is real but no proof about it. I think the movie is trying to say even though you don't have proof doesn't mean it isn't real. Plus even if you knew you would lose faith if you also had proof(reason). If you can make God bleed people will stop believing in him. Which will make it seem obsolete and will want more power and still look for the answer even though it was right in there face all along.
ReplyDeleteEllie and Palmer had very similar experiences. They were obviously similar in how each person came out of the experience with nothing more than a memory. Also, both experiences were met with support and criticism. Ellie and Palmer found new faith that they hadn't had before. The movie is trying to say that we shouldn't completely rule anything out without experiencing it first hand. The demand for physical evidence is one many people make without a second thought, though this movie proves that while it may seem like the most logical approach to finding truth in a matter, it may very well not be.
ReplyDeleteI think that, in the end, the movie isn't saying anything one way or another. What Contact teaches us is how similar faith and reason can be, but doesn't say anything about what that may mean, aside from perhaps, that conflicts between the two are unreasonable and pointless. There are some differences between Palmer's experience and Ellie's, however. Ellie's does indeed have a notable degree of evidence behind it, most notably the camera's recording, but Palmer's does not. Thus, while Ellie does take some things by faith, and now knows how it feels to be disbelieved on something that matters deeply to her because of a lack of proof, she does not take as many things be faith as Palmer. The demand for physical evidence, however, is ultimately a good thing, as it allows the truth to be separated from people just making things up for their own reasons. Really, what this movie is telling us, based on its positive portrayal of both religious and nonreligious people, is that faith in unprovable beliefs can be a good thing, so long as you actually mean them.
ReplyDeleteEllie and Palmer both had very similar experiences. They were trying to find the truth and they did but they could not prove and had no evidence. Both of these required faith which Ellie now has. I think the movie is trying to say we should form a belief on what evidence we have and if not but on faith. The demand for physical evidence in necessary because that will divide the fine line between faith and reason and truth.
ReplyDeleteBoth Ellie and Palmer experience a moment in which they both find the truth that they had been searching for. However, neither of them can describe the best moments in their lives. No one believes their statements because they possess no physical proof. In our society, proof is not always necessary. Over 90% of the world believes in a being superior to us, but can they prove this? No, but this does not stop them from pursuing that truth that humanity constantly strives for.
ReplyDeleteThe way Ellie and Palmer both described thier experiences it seemed as though they we identical experiences. They both couldn't describe what happened in any detail so therefore they had no edvidence. Both of their experiences needed faith to believe in, and put your reputation and life on the line. In certain situations edvidence is needed but ina religion stand point you need to have faith that your point is correct.
ReplyDeletePalmer and Ellie describe their experiences in nearly the same way: they were both left speechless by their experiences and both could feel a power greater than themselves at work. They are quite different, though. We know that aliens are the cause of Ellie's experience. They seem to possess more knowledge than humans, making them seem more powerful. On the other hand, we know nothing about Palmer's experience other than that he was blown away by it. Anything could have happened. For all we know, it may have really been an act of God that occurred. I think the movie is trying to say that we should form our beliefs based off of what knowledge we already have as well as what existing beliefs we have. The demand for physical evidence is not always reasonable. For example: if I were to have a dream that a lion ate me there would be no way to prove that I actually had the dream, but I would know that it did happen. Sometimes there is just no way to prove that something is true and people need to accept that.
ReplyDeleteEllie's experience in deep space is similar to Palmer's in that it is deeply and intensely spiritual, and neither has any substantive evidence that their experience occurred, only a memory, and FAITH. They are different mainly in that each approached their experience as different people, and thus their lives were changed in different ways and to different degrees. Palmer became a deeply spiritual and religious man (if he wasn't already) and Ellie came out far more faithful and far less sceptical about experiences of the beyond. It is cruelly ironic indeed that she experiences that whiplash of her own sceptical nature so strongly, but it is crucial to the development of her character and to her growth as a person.
ReplyDeleteThe movie says in the end that physical evidence cannot necessarily be produced, though the experience may be more real indeed than one on earth, with a plethora of evidence and hordes of witnesses. It is in many cases unreasonable to demand tangible evidence of an experience, but it is equally unreasonable to believe everything without proof. The film suggests strongly that we take a middle-ground approach with both methods-- using Palmer as a role model.
Having her friend Palmer agree with her is such a big thing because she knows now she's not alone. An example of when they both experinced something unusual was when Palmer experienced god and Ellie experienced a different universe with "aliens". They both know when they blink and when their eyes shut their gonna be the only ones who see the sparkles of experiences they had no on else know s who, what was there and how it looked. Everyone was not sure to believe Ellie or not but you have to have FAITH in her and TRUST in the things she says. We have no proof to show that god is real and we have no proof that aliens are real but if you have enough faith in what you want you know that what you are believing in is true!!
ReplyDeleteEven though Ellie and Palmer's experiences were different, they both got the same reaction. Palmer experience God and Ellie experienced aliens. When Palmer talks about God, he is talking about his faith and how he KNOWS that he is real. People being people are obviously going to doubt him because there is no "proof" of God. When Ellie talks about her experience with aliens, she is talking about her passion. She doesn't worship aliens but she believes deeply in them and she believes in her heart that she came in contact with them. But again, because there was no evidence the men jumped all over her. Is it important to have evidence? Of course. Is it a necessity? Absolutely not. The fact that she even went through a worm hole and described the experience as she did should have been enough proof. Instead, they got upset and said that she should have just ended the project and stop wasting money. I think this movie is trying to say that, when we form ideas and beliefs, we should always be passionate but we should have proof because there always will be those people who want proof and if they don't get it then they will be quick to pounce.
ReplyDeletePalmer's and Ellie's experiences are similar because they cannot explain what they are witnessing in the experience. They also have a hard time convincing other people of their own experiences. The two experiences are different because Ellie's experience came about from science while Palmer's came from God. Also Ellie's experience seems to be material, that she can feel and touch things in her experience where Palmer's experience is in his head. I think the movie is saying that we should form believes based on how we perceive experiences. Not everyone will witness the same experiences or in the same ways, nor can everyone believe that one person had a particular experience. The demand for physical evidence is a very reasonable one in the sense that people cannot be expected to just believe what others say they witnessed. If someone said they say a unicorn, we couldn't just automatically believe them, we'd want physical proof. In that type of example, it is completely reasonable to want physical evidence of someone else's experience. On the other hand, if someone's experience were something like Palmer's, demanding physical evidence from that person would be offensive. It would be questioning their religious beliefs and soundness of mind.
ReplyDeletePalmer is a religious man who has a revaluation that leads him to have a complete dedication to God. Palmer finds his experiences unquestionable and therefor valid. Ellies experience was extraterrestrial and She also can swear that ti happened. Ellies experience wasnt religious, simply enlightening. both gain a strong sense of faith from heir experiences
ReplyDelete