on Zeitgeist the movie... (stop recommending it!!!)
ok, guys, we need to stop talking about this movie. we need to stop recommending that people watch it. in the last week i've seen mention of the movie contributing to one member's abandonment of their faith and another person recommending that a Christian watch it. why am i saying that we need to stop? because the film is total bullshit and rarely, if at ever, intersects with scholarly consensus or reality at any time. you recommend this movie, and someone takes the suggestion and watches it, and you will shoot yourself in the foot if your aim is to convince them of anything, much less to get them to begin a process of questioning anything. if a person, after watching the movie, does what everyone should do, actually do some research into whether or not the film's claims are verifiable, they would find that the claims are absolutely not. the movie is filled with exaggerations, half-truths, and, best case scenario, poor research or, worst case scenario, outright lies and dishonest picking and choosing of source material that backed up the film-maker's presuppositions.
i won't even attend to the crackpot conspiracy theories about the Fed and 9/11- giving that silliness attention only serves to raise its credibility, something no one should be interested in doing. but since this is an atheist community and the film is being relied on and recommended i would like to provide some critical information i've found about the first part of the film, that of the comparisons between Jesus and pagan mythology.
first, the film's sources:
an honest appraisal of the evidence for anything naturally includes both the evidence for your assertion and against your assertion. stacking the deck by not including any mention whatsoever of the vast amount of scholarship that flatly denies your claims is dishonest and should make us extremely cautious of the conclusions.
the movie relies largely on the work of two persons, Gerald Massey and "Acharya S", that name being the pen name of Dorothy M. Murdock.
Massey was born, lived, and wrote between 1828 and 1907. he was NOT a trained Egyptologist and his work was and still is ignored by Egyptologists. in fact, his name doesn't appear in M. L. Bierbrier’s Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995) and none of his work appears in Ida B. Pratt’s very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942)[1]. taking your information from a source such as this calls into question the entire premise. we must ask why the film-maker has to resort to this kind of source- from the 19th and early 20th century, non-scholarly, totally ignored work- if there are respectable sources available to rely on?
Ms. Murdock at least, according to her website, is trained in the subject matter. but her conclusions too are totally rejected by the scholarly consensus. W. Ward Gasque, in investigating similar claims made by the author Tom Harpur, sent an email to twenty leading Egyptologists from Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria. he included a sample of Harpur's (and by extension and similarity, Murdock's) claims and asked these Egyptologists their opinion on the conclusions. Gasque writes, "The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ." Robert M. Price, himself a "mythicist" believing that Jesus Christ never existed and is a total myth, reviewed Murdock's book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, and laments that "Those of us who uphold any version of the controversial Christ Myth theory find ourselves immediately the object not just of criticism, but even of ridicule. And it causes us chagrin to be lumped together with certain writers with whom we share the Christ Myth but little else. even though he himself is a mythicist he finds her scholarship on the subject lacking- "She is quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations... The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney." Price's review is not a kind one. we should mention that "Acharya" means "guru" or "teacher" and that Ms. Murdock is apparently a follower of "New Age Spirituality" and its attending pseudo-scientific tripe. is it any wonder then that in her book she cites as sources James Churchward, promoter of the imaginary lost continent of Mu; Charles Berlitz, apologist for sunken Atlantis; Zechariah Sitchin, advocate of flying saucers in ancient Akkadia.
i could go into more of the film's sources but they are all of the same character- dated and eclipsed by more recent scholarship, of the type that's been called "fringe nonsense", or both. it's worth mentioning too that the attribution of the sources on the movie's page is just poor- no page citations to enable someone to verify the specific statements that are being attributed to these authors. you'd have to read the entire book to verify that the statements made by the film-maker are accurate and in context. as i began, a fair and honest treatment of the evidence would have included the evidence against the film-maker's assertions as well as that for his assertions. here we find none of that whatsoever.
as for the specific claims the film makes...
Bruce Metzger on the difficulties of making comparisons between Jes...
Richard Carrier on the Luxor inscription referred to in the movie.
Edward Winston on the film's sources.
Tim Callahan on the movie's claims.
Jim Lippard on the movie (including the 2nd and 3rd parts).
Jay Kinney on the movie.
a reasonable and well researched refutation of Ms. Murdock's claims...
an answer to Ms. Murdock's response to the above refutation.
another Christian site addressing the idea of Jesus as a copy cat m...
Rook Hawkins on some problems in Ms. Murdock's work.
Bart Ehrman commenting on Christ Myth theorists.
to finish up this post i'll let the film-maker himself give us all some advice. there's a "Statement" page on the movie's page. though the statement has been changed from what it once read there are places on the internet where the original statement has been preserved. the original statement finished by saying, "...it is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves..."- i couldn't agree more and i urge everyone to do just that.
i won't even attend to the crackpot conspiracy theories about the Fed and 9/11- giving that silliness attention only serves to raise its credibility, something no one should be interested in doing. but since this is an atheist community and the film is being relied on and recommended i would like to provide some critical information i've found about the first part of the film, that of the comparisons between Jesus and pagan mythology.
first, the film's sources:
an honest appraisal of the evidence for anything naturally includes both the evidence for your assertion and against your assertion. stacking the deck by not including any mention whatsoever of the vast amount of scholarship that flatly denies your claims is dishonest and should make us extremely cautious of the conclusions.
the movie relies largely on the work of two persons, Gerald Massey and "Acharya S", that name being the pen name of Dorothy M. Murdock.
Massey was born, lived, and wrote between 1828 and 1907. he was NOT a trained Egyptologist and his work was and still is ignored by Egyptologists. in fact, his name doesn't appear in M. L. Bierbrier’s Who Was Who in Egyptology (3rd ed, 1995) and none of his work appears in Ida B. Pratt’s very extensive bibliography on Ancient Egypt (1925/1942)[1]. taking your information from a source such as this calls into question the entire premise. we must ask why the film-maker has to resort to this kind of source- from the 19th and early 20th century, non-scholarly, totally ignored work- if there are respectable sources available to rely on?
Ms. Murdock at least, according to her website, is trained in the subject matter. but her conclusions too are totally rejected by the scholarly consensus. W. Ward Gasque, in investigating similar claims made by the author Tom Harpur, sent an email to twenty leading Egyptologists from Canada, USA, UK, Australia, Germany, and Austria. he included a sample of Harpur's (and by extension and similarity, Murdock's) claims and asked these Egyptologists their opinion on the conclusions. Gasque writes, "The responding scholars were unanimous in dismissing the suggested etymologies for Jesus and Christ." Robert M. Price, himself a "mythicist" believing that Jesus Christ never existed and is a total myth, reviewed Murdock's book, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, and laments that "Those of us who uphold any version of the controversial Christ Myth theory find ourselves immediately the object not just of criticism, but even of ridicule. And it causes us chagrin to be lumped together with certain writers with whom we share the Christ Myth but little else. even though he himself is a mythicist he finds her scholarship on the subject lacking- "She is quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations... The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney." Price's review is not a kind one. we should mention that "Acharya" means "guru" or "teacher" and that Ms. Murdock is apparently a follower of "New Age Spirituality" and its attending pseudo-scientific tripe. is it any wonder then that in her book she cites as sources James Churchward, promoter of the imaginary lost continent of Mu; Charles Berlitz, apologist for sunken Atlantis; Zechariah Sitchin, advocate of flying saucers in ancient Akkadia.
i could go into more of the film's sources but they are all of the same character- dated and eclipsed by more recent scholarship, of the type that's been called "fringe nonsense", or both. it's worth mentioning too that the attribution of the sources on the movie's page is just poor- no page citations to enable someone to verify the specific statements that are being attributed to these authors. you'd have to read the entire book to verify that the statements made by the film-maker are accurate and in context. as i began, a fair and honest treatment of the evidence would have included the evidence against the film-maker's assertions as well as that for his assertions. here we find none of that whatsoever.
as for the specific claims the film makes...
Bruce Metzger on the difficulties of making comparisons between Jes...
Richard Carrier on the Luxor inscription referred to in the movie.
Edward Winston on the film's sources.
Tim Callahan on the movie's claims.
Jim Lippard on the movie (including the 2nd and 3rd parts).
Jay Kinney on the movie.
a reasonable and well researched refutation of Ms. Murdock's claims...
an answer to Ms. Murdock's response to the above refutation.
another Christian site addressing the idea of Jesus as a copy cat m...
Rook Hawkins on some problems in Ms. Murdock's work.
Bart Ehrman commenting on Christ Myth theorists.
to finish up this post i'll let the film-maker himself give us all some advice. there's a "Statement" page on the movie's page. though the statement has been changed from what it once read there are places on the internet where the original statement has been preserved. the original statement finished by saying, "...it is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves..."- i couldn't agree more and i urge everyone to do just that.
-
Comment by Nikolas Robinson on May 17, 2009 at 6:46pm -
That film bothers me precisely because it corresponds with a philosophy I've held for a damn long time. I would prefer that someone believes something entirely incorrect for the right reasons than believe something correct for the wrong reasons...essentially I respect a religious, spiritual individual who has spent a great deal of time and "soul searching far more than I respect any of those knee-jerk atheists or anything else along those lines. It's more important to believe what you believe because of conscious, well considered introspection and study than because of anything else...even if what you believe is totally incorrect.
Zeitgeist promotes that sort of ignorant acceptance of nonsense...and even if it might nudge people along toward a line-of-reasoning similar to my own, it's for all the wrong reasons.
-
Comment by Nelson on May 17, 2009 at 6:53pm -
well said Nikolas! i have often said something similar regarding those atheists who left their religion because of some harm done to them by their religious community or indeed by their pastor. the fact that a person's religious community or pastor has harmed them says nothing about the truth or falsity of that religion. only reason, logic, and critical thinking decide what is true and what is not. now, to be sure, many of these people, once they leave their religion, go on to apply reason, logic, and critical thinking and so the harm done to them was merely the impetus behind their initial arrival at atheism but it is just as true that a good number do not and only remain atheists because they are angry with their treatment at the hands of those of their former religion.
as you say, believe or do not believe, but do so for the right reasons.
-
Comment by Nikolas Robinson on May 17, 2009 at 6:59pm
-
Amen :D
Yeah, the initial impetus, it can manifest as anything, it's what follows that initial cause to question faith that matters...but I worked with someone a while back who actually said something to the effect of, "I'm an atheist because of how much god has allowed me to suffer." I'm paraphrasing, of course, this was years ago...but the overall sentiment is still accurate. And I'm sorry, but that statement is internally inconsistent at best...if the suffering she'd lived through had led her to question her faith, and that had subsequently led to further analysis, that would be fine...but that sort of rebellious adolescent mentality isn't any good for anyone...and, by all rights, makes atheism look utterly ludicrous to anyone who really becomes exposed to that particular philosophy through that individual...so it's ultimately harmful for atheism all around.
-
Comment by Nelson on May 17, 2009 at 7:07pm
-
agree 100%! in that instance too that a person is angry at a god for the treatment they've perceived to have received at the hands of this god says nothing about whether the religion is true or not. what is more, i wouldn't even call such a person an atheist. in making the statement, "i'm an atheist because of how much god has allowed to suffer," the person seems to be tacitly acknowledging that a god does indeed exist but that they are refusing to worship due to the treatment they've received from this god. now, if a person says, "i'm an atheist because Christianity (or any other religion) can't explain the suffering that goes on in the world and attempts by the theologians to do so are rife with the mental gymnastics of sophistry, full of contradictions"- then ok, that's another story.
-
Comment by Nikolas Robinson on May 17, 2009 at 7:14pm
-
Absolutely...that's precisely how I feel when I hear someone state something that ill-conceived. Bitterness with god doesn't make you an atheist, in fact, if you are capable of expressing bitterness towards some manner of god, you are clearly a theist...can't very well express bitterness or resentment towards something that doesn't exist.
-
Comment by Nelson on May 17, 2009 at 7:18pm
-
again, perfectly correct.
"I cannot be angry at God, in whom I do not believe."
-- Simone de Beauvoir
-
Comment by Cara Coleen on May 17, 2009 at 10:40pm -
I'm actually glad you posted this blog! You know, I watched that movie and a lot of what it said about Jesus seemed credible, but... there was something about the whole thing that bothered me a lot.
I was raised in a Christian home; more specifically, non-denominational and/or Baptist. Growing up, there was a lot talk about Revelations, the "end times" and the Rapture, and everything related to that. It was all conspiracy theories and crazy talk about sinister men planning to take over the world via computer-chip implants. A "one world government" was one of the biggest worries on the minds of those who bought into this stuff. It's hard to really relay the "end time" prophesies to people who aren't familiar with it, but... I feel the Zeitgeist too closely resembles that mode of thought. In retrospect, it felt like I was being sucked back into the religious vortex I had just escaped... HA!
I would like to know what of the claims he made about Jesus, in relation to Mithra and the other sons of gods born to virgins on Dec 25, are true or somewhat true. Do you have any info on that?
-
Comment by Stacy B on May 17, 2009 at 11:37pm -
You know, I've refrained from watching this film because the cultish following it attracted rang of people clutching at anything that justified their feelings about religion, that essentially ripped on the religion that they personally dislike, and of a pop culture treatment of religious scholarship. It felt dirty just for the fact that it was so popular with that certain crowd, though I never saw any good reviews of it from informed sources. I still haven't seen it, so I have no idea what "information" it contains, but the cheerleader-like response it garnered does not give the impression it was solid evidence, but more a bunch of supposed refutations of a religion that some people flat out hate. I.e. they would back anything that let them say "neener, neener you stupid Christians!" I don't see how that attitude is helpful, nor how a film that bolsters that attitude is helpful.
Intellectual fraud is very high on my list of irritants. Anyone who is willing to forgo solid research, unbiased presentation of facts, and honesty just to manipulate people into backing their cause (which it appears Zeitgeist does) is not someone worth following. As you guys have said, do real research and base your beliefs, whatever they are, on that. It's living life based on wishful thinking or misinformation or in some way ignoring reality that I'd like to combat. I'm not looking to add to that with more misinformation just because it supports what I believe.
Thanks for the post, Nelson. :)
-
Comment by Nelson on May 18, 2009 at 12:46am
-
thanks for the comments Cara and Stacy. glad you enjoyed the post.
@Cara:
from my research it seems that there are certain, often tenuous, parallels between some of the pagan sun-gods like Mithras. however, there are several problems in trying to figure out which parallels are authentic and which are not. i'll list just 3 to give you an idea of the difficulty.
1. to begin with, when we compare Jesus to the gods of pre-Christian religions, the problem is that many of these religions are called "mystery religions", that is, the followers of these religions took vows of secrecy. consequently, the beliefs, traditions, dogma, doctrine, and rituals of these religions are, on a scale of known to unknow, much closer to the unknown side of the scale. without much knowledge of these religions on what basis can we hope to make valid comparisons?
2. just as with most religions there are competing traditions, varied theologies. take Christianity for instance, we all know how many different theologies are in existence today. the situation was no different for the mystery religions that came before Jesus. the problem this presents is that if we try to compare Jesus to one or more of these religions how do we know that the idea that, for instance, Mithras was born on Dec. 25, was a generally accepted belief among followers of Mithras? it could have been a fringe belief or it could have been a polemic aimed at the followers by competing traditions. this difficulty is related to the first insofar as we have very little information about what these followers believed.
3. much of the information we do have is from writings that exist from a time AFTER Jesus lived, sometimes well after. so the difficulty here is that we don't know whether the beliefs as they are relayed to us are in pure unaltered form or if indeed those beliefs themselves have been influenced by early Christianity!
that the late Jews/early Christians were influenced by Alexandrian theology, by Philo, by the Stoics, by Hellenism, i've rarely seen doubted by scholars. indeed, there is good reason to believe that things like the virgin birth legend was informed by mythologies pre-dating Jesus. what the mythicists seek to do is overemphasize the tenuous parallels, ignore the very good reasons for understanding that a Galilean man named Jesus, an itinerant Jewish teacher, did exist so as to claim that Jesus is an out and out myth. they seem to believe that if there are parallels in the gospels between earlier mythologies and Jesus that it means that Jesus was made up out of whole cloth. but what they ignore is the far more likely solution, the solution accepted by the vast majority of historians and new testament scholars, that, while he did actually exist, the legends surrounding him that were built up by his followers were informed by earlier mythologies. they essentially throw the baby out with the bath-water. you need not believe that the entirety of the gospel narrative is based on historical fact to believe Jesus existed.
if you want to know who Jesus was and what he taught so far as historical scholarship and new testament criticism can tell us check out Bart Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Ehrman tells us the scholarly consensus, that consensus i might add is more than a hundred years old, he tells us how we know what we know, the methods used to extract Jesus from the legends.
-
Comment by Johnny on May 18, 2009 at 12:19pm -
Awesome post Nelson!
I am one of those that had this movie contribute to my deconversion; but not blindly. I'd had doubts and mostly written-off religion, but had not investigated or pursued my non-belief. A friend sent it to me, and asked if I knew if the part on religion was accurate. I had not seen it before, and was initially amazed and sucked in by it. The conspiracy theories on nine-eleven and the banking industry raised my skepticism a little though. I set about trying to research some of the information on the religious part of the movie. I struggled to find any solid information; but found enough to determine that some had merit, some jumped to conclusions based on little information; and a lot of it was over stated and inaccurate.
The movie raised my curiosity, but the research I did really led to a large part of my disbelief. Unfortunately because it raised my curiosity and I researched it, I assume it could do the same for others; so I'm one of those who recommended it a time or two. MikeTheInfidel pointed me to this link that does a really good job of laying out where the movie is accurate and (mostly) where it is not; and the site author lists all his sources. Since reading through that site, I've not recommended the movie anymore.
I'd like to read some of Ehrman's stuff and have added several of his books to my growing "to read" list. For anyone interested in the Jesus mythology, looking for an easier movie version, I thought 'The Hidden Story of Jesus' that Compass did was pretty good (Part 1 & Part 2).
What's new today
Forum
Why do atheists ask for so much proof to believe in God?
Started by Mercedes in Welcome to Think Atheist. Last reply by archaeopteryx 6 hours ago. 545 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Salty Water = Proof for Creationism?
Posted by Teri G on May 24, 2013 at 2:29am 5 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!
Join Think Atheist