The 'Bleep' Over: "What The Bleep Do We Know?"

Finally, I had some time to sit down and watch the recent docu-fanta-movie, What The Bleep Do We Know.  I say docu-fanta-movie, because this film is a unique blend of documentary, movie, and fantasy.  But the unique "blending" that this film is comprised of doesn't stop here.  The producers of What The Bleep Do We Know have embarked upon a cultural phenomenon that we will no doubt see much more of in the future: the blending of science with New Age spirituality.

The affinity between quantum physics and postmodernity has long been attested to.  And the contemporary and widespread interest in spirituality has also been observed as our culture's response to the failure of The Enlightenment project -- of modernity's inability to deliver on its promise to cure the problems of our world and deliver a reliable hope for our future.  Science no longer reigns supreme in today's culture as THE guardian of truth.  This is likely a disturbing thought, no doubt, to secular scientists, and I'm not all that surprised that, while continuing to discredit organized religion (Christianity in particular), some scientists are becoming bedfellows with New Age religion, in an attempt to integrate the legitimacy of scientific advances with the popular appeal of mystical spirituality.  And that is exactly what What The Bleep Do We Know appears to be doing.

Now, the science being presented in the film is very interesting -- quantum mechanics, string theory, and recent advances in neurological studies.  The film makers have done a fascinating job of presenting fairly complex concepts in an entertaining and easy-to-grasp manner.  But what especially bothered me was the way What The Bleep crosses the line between science and mysticism, presenting everything as equally true.  And that is why...

This is a disturbingly misleading film.

I am one of many bloggers who have drawn attention to the syncretism found within the Church -- and the evangelical Church in particular.  But here in this film, is a good example of how syncretism is a characteristic of our entire culture paradigm.  Ours is a postmodern world, and we should expect to find syncretism (among many other things) in all sectors of our world.

What is especially telling about What The Bleep Do We Know, is how the producers have featured the wisdom of the supposed 35,000 yr. old god of Atlantis -- Ramtha -- as "channeled" through Anerican, J.Z. Knight, AND have done so in a way which places this "ancient wisdom" on equal par with their panel of Ph.D's, M.D.'s, and the like.  This is almost beyond belief.

But the most striking thing about What The Bleep Do We Know, is the subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) arrogance which characterizes the film's message: we are our own gods, who can (in ways consistent with various scientific theories) control not only our future destinies, but our present realities.

I strongly suspect that many more films of this type will be produced in the years to come.  Hollywood knows that our culture is thirsty for spirituality.  Hollywood has also long been known for the way it commonly discredits and criticizes organized religion, especially Christianity.  We therefore need a new generation of apologists to arise within the body of Christ to engage this culture in thoughtful and effective ways.  Our modern techniques will no longer serve this purpose.  We need scientific theologians and theological scientists to help us navigate our way through the times ahead that will continue to challenge our ancient and most holy faith.

If you haven't seen this film, I urge you to.  And if you have, I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts regarding what I've shared here.

*for an interesting critique of the film, go here, or read my friend's newspaper review at Cinema In Focus.

Comments

[Dana Ames]

Hi Chris-
My best friend saw the film. She has wonderful insight into things in films that amazes me- sees not only the obvious but also with great depth. (She is the reviewer Whitewave at HollywoodJesus.)

Anyway, she was telling me that she didn't like it, because she felt the message that it was giving was something like, "Come on, folks- we have all this knowledge/power, so let's harness it in order to relieve our own personal suffering." Not so much helping needy people in the world, but a very hedonistic attitude that repelled and angered her, along with not really needing God or anything "spiritual". One of the reasons she is a Christian is that God knows suffering -the outworking of "original sin" that is also the common human condition- and indeed went all the way into that suffering to depths we will never know.

"When Jesus tells us about the Father we distrust him. When he shows us his Home, we turn away, but when he confides to us that he is acquainted with Grief, we listen, for that also is an Acquaintance of our own." -Emily Dickinson

Dana

[Charlie]

The film has spawned "What the Bleep" discussion groups in my area, and a local woman has become an evangelist for the film and its teachings -- she was featured in a big spread in the paper. I find it fascinating that these ancient "sources of wisdom" like Ramtha, or American indian spiritual practices, or Druidism, are all gaining so many followers.

One of the things these "faiths" have in common is they are practiced in a very self-affirming way. You are affirmed in your life choices, in your goodness and worth, and the goal is not to be transformed into something new, but to find harmony with yourself as your are, and with the "life forces" that are all around us.

And with "What the Bleep" particularly, you are being shown mysteries that few are privy to. I think of the appeal of the DaVinci Code, and the movie National Treasure, and the great interest in the paranormal -- there's something about being allowed to understand deep mysteries that draws people into these New Age spirituality movements. Mystery is very sexy.

The church needs to understand the appeal of these new spiritual movements to be able to effectively point people towards the Truth.

[Benjy]

I was glad that you were able to finally watch it. You have done a great job (like usual) to put into far better words what many us feel than we are able to do ourselves.

[Bill]

Here's some info on Ramtha that I found:

Ramtha, too, has a liking for Elizabethan accented
platitudes, despite having apparently
lived in Lemuria and Atlantis. However, “he” fared
badly in predicting a series of natural disasters
that didn’t happen (California and Florida did not
fall into the ocean, and acid rain did not poison
New England’s water supply). Followers who had
shifted house to be safe were not happy with him.
Then Knight was served an injunction; she’d been
telling followers that Ramtha recommended they
buy her Arabian horses, at up to US$250,000
each. Knight was discovered practicing Ramtha
voices, and then Ramtha began making homophobic
comments. Small wonder that Ramtha’s popularity
has waned in recent years. (http://www.skeptics.org.nz/download/flychannel.pdf)

[Pat]

I haven't seen the film, and I probably won't. As a longtime resident of the northwestern US, I've known of JZ Knight and Ramtha for more than two decades. I think it's safe to say that gnosticism and new age spirituality are alive and well, and probably always will be.

In this case, the messenger is very definitely worth considering, as you consider the point of the movie.

[DLE]

I keep wondering why there has been no one in the Christian faith to step into the shoes of Francis Schaeffer. Yes, Schaeffer still speaks through his writings, but we need a contemporary person of like brilliance who can personally confront the stupidity and vacuousness of today's society with intelligence and the Word of God.

No one seems to be taking up that mantle and it disturbs me.

[andii]

I'm looking forward to seeing the film when eventually it arrives in Britain, although I wonder whether it will make it; it's hard to think that it would do well here. I'm really hoping for footage that I can use in my lectures and seminars on New Age and Post-modern spirituality!
Dana's mediated crit is really helpful, thanks. The advance publicity [website etc] seems to be setting it up as very 'Shirley MacLean'. However, one of the things I will be looking out for is the way that science is used/co-opted in the implicit argument of the film. It's usually quite a revealing exercise to note the love/hate relationship with science in such things. Does that crop up at all?

[Dana Ames]

andii,
from what Whitewave told me, it's very much a "love" relationship with science; not so much "hate". Not having seen it myself, I can't confirm. As for the spirituality angle, that didn't make as much of an impression on her as the scientific. From comments above, it all sounds gnostic-like. Nothing new under the sun.
Dana

[Chris]

Great comments everyone! Andii, I too appreciated Dana's perspective, and would definitely agree with Charlie that "The church needs to understand the appeal of these new spiritual movements to be able to effectively point people towards the Truth".

This, held in balance with what Dan (DLE) has pointed out (i.e. the need for great minds to engage the culture today) would seem to be best.

P.S. Bill -- I appreciated the various points of info re: Ramtha (you made me laugh).

[andii]

I think it's spot-on to be saying that we need to be engaging at a deep level with the underlying world-views of this stuff. It needs a CS Lewis kind of analysis: penetrating yet popular [after all a lot of this stuff is 'consumed' at a popular level]. One of hte reasons I do the occasional teaching/learning event in NAM spirituality is because I think we have a lot to learn from these 'weathervanes' of popular spirituality.

One of the interesting [to me] reflections, is to pick up Dana's 'gnosticism' comment. Yes it is very often and exlicitly gnostic themes are very popular in NAM [less so in Wicca etc], yet a lot of the language and thinking is also holistic/integralist; how's that for a paradox. I have occasionally played them off against one another with New Agers, usually deconstructing gnostic ideas by appealing to a holistic approach [which I think is more Christ-friendly].

[Benjy (groovythpstr)]

To bring some balanced perspective to the conversation guys, let's not go the route that the Church has taken in the past and just write the entire film off either. Too many of us have done this too many times: i.e. last temptation of Christ, DaVinci Code, etc. etc.

Spiritual hunger is alive and well in our world today, but we need to think about the best ways of feeding the words of truth.

I'm afraid too many christians will not see how much value they could learn from the film and I'm also cautious that the same hungry people who feast on this movie don't want to tase anything we might offer b/c of our approach.

Keep up the great work Chris, and congrats on next wave.

[*anonymous]

*what follows are comments which were emailed to a dear friend of mine after he had encouraged a friend of his in the film "business" to visit Paradoxology and read my post concerning "What the Bleep Do We Know?" Upon my request, this friend of my friend granted permission to post his response anonymously -- for which I am very grateful (thank you!). This is a perspective which needs to be heard,and its likely that many folks feel the same way this person does. I post these remarks -- not for the purpose of necessarily challenging what has been shared or believed -- but in order to better inform and sensitize us to the real sentiments that real people are embracing about such things outside of our respective tribes. -- DP

Wow. What a twisting of what that movie is about. I love the quote that the movie basically tells people that you don't need God. Well, YES IT DOES!...at least from the standpoint that you don't need God to help make you feel better. Most people live their lives making God responsible for their feelings. That's my question to Christians: if you were never upset again, what would you need God for? What is your faith REALLY about? This movie makes stupid group-think Christians scared because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions...they want God to fix them. God's bigger than that, and the movie clearly spells out simple scientific truths about how to stop being upset, create the life you were made for, stop blaming God, and get on with your life. Is it truth? No. But does it work? Yes. Is it heresy? No. Now, I don't agree with EVERYTHING it says, but it sure beats the crap out of what's preached from the pulpit everyday. I'm disheartened by these people's arrogance, commitment to mediocrity in their lives, and insistence that they know best about how to live life powerfully...not serve Christ...live life. The Bible supports nearly everything in What the Bleep, why doesn't the church support the Bible?

[Chris]

Thanks to Jenny via Next-Wave (my post was also published there), here's another review of "What the Bleep Do We Know" by Cody Lail.

[mike]

I saw the film in a public theatre a few months ago - primarily 30's-40's crowd
When the credits roled giving the details of who the individuals in the film were - there was a burst of laughter when the supposed wisdom of the supposed 35,000 yr. old god of Atlantis - Ramtha - "channeled" through Anerican, J.Z. Knight was highlighted.
At that point the arrogance & the no longer hidden agenda of the producers was made visible.
it's an interested film, made more interesting by the agenda

[Da Costa]

It is even funny to see the reaction of religious people when they see something that shake their souls.
Most people would be very surprise if they could feel what's inside of them (in a mindless way).
It's a power beyond imagination,
if you are conscious of your entire being,
you can see everything coming.
People look for God in all places, churches, monasteries and etc, people pray, people do all kinds of
things to find God. But they forget to look inside,
there God resides, God made his home in our heart, it doesn't matter where you go, he is there with you and
when you depart from this world, he is there with you,
there isn't anything you could hide from God, he sees it all, all the time.
It doesn't matter EVEN your religion, he is the same for all, people just named him differently in different parts of the world in different times !!!!
The problem is that people want to unify the idea of God, They say: God is like that, and they writte a book about it. There is no definition for God, people will die trying to define God and they will fail. It's like trying to define freedom, in the moment you put freedom in a definition, it's not freedom anymore, it is locked in that concept. Do you get it?
But I was just trying to make a point about the movie and I believe that we live in between the chaos and the controled actions, our choice is the key for our future, you control your future choosing the best way that fits your need.
Religion can be a path, but not the answer.
The answer you find yourself, ask the correct question.
God bless you all.

[Isaac Shein]

Am I the only one who sees in this bullshit movie an obvious attempt to convince popular opinion that sexual orientation can be changed if you truly believe it?

The first hour of this bullshit movie was tolerable, in spite of:
-the ridiculous plot that any thinking person might find offensive
-the worst acting I've seen in my entire life (mexican soap operas have finer acting than this)
-the intrusively kitsch and annoying special effects.

However, the first half was tolerable, due to the sometimes inteteresting ideas presented.

But the second half of this bullshit movie just turned unbearable.... Manipulative, dogmatic, morally angled... this bullshit movie has an agenda, one that becomes clearer and clearer each passing frame.
Here is a summery of the discourse this bullshit movie takes in the second hour:
"Psychiatry and psychology have no say in the way humans behave."
"All you have to do is open your mind."
"You can change if you really want it."
"You know you really hate yourself when you look in the mirror."
"The images the media gives us are morally wrong."
"The happy ending is the girl resolves her repulsion to love and weddings, and ends up transforming herself and marrying the guy."

BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!!!
Ohh, did I mention it's bullshit?

Plus, the stupid fratboy humor at the loooooooong wedding sequence reminded me of Rush Limbaugh and Georgie Bushy and Rumsfeld who think they're playing Space Invaders with the world.

Someone asked me "HOW THE BLEEP DID THIS BULLSHIT MOVE EVER GOT INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION AND PRESS COVERAGE???"....

There can only be an answer:
A nice bank account.
A well organized network.
Only the wealthy, angry right wing cabal with an agenda would have the means and the motive to launch this bullshit movie... in order to manipulate popular opinion.

Am I the only one to see it????

[John Seip]

Quantum mechanics states that a tree or lamp does necessarily exist until someone looks at it. It may exist before someone looked at it, but there is no proof. In this way the movie points to us as humans being the ultimate observers, co-creating with God and bring things into our reality by opening our minds and observinng our environment. This is just an idea, but lets take that one step further and just say God is the ultimate observer bringing everything into existence in a constant and fluid manner. I feel like the tree was there before I saw it which would make me not the ultimate observer.

[Barb]

I thought the movie was great and I support the reaction it has received. The fact that so many people talking about it, challenging it's content, exploring the possibilities, re-thinking their positions .... how can that be a bad thing in such a screwed up world? I look forward to "What the Bleep Do We Know? #2"!

[Bootsy]

This movie is more of a philosphy, a religion, a theory, rather than actual fact. Agenda? You are your own god within the lifeforce. Didn't satan say we shall become gods in the Garden of Eden?

I thought of the movie today after I farted..I thought gee, I can't see it, but I sure can smell it.

[James]

All this talk about the concepts involved with Quantum Mechanics is a mute issue, this topic seems to be more about venting ones personal viewpoint rather then produce a realitive example for generic discussion..

There is string theory, advanced Quantum Theoritical mockups and all based entirely on the limted vocabulary we call "Mathematics"..

Quantum effects would dictate that any single example from one individual is as wrong as it is right as all examples are defined by the observer who is doing the observations.. In effect, Quantum Mechanics does a great job of proving its lack of existance as well as its ability to have already existed before being observed..

This is why mathematics cannot be fully trusted when utilized on the Quantum World and this is well known by those who deal with Quantum Mechanics so called "realities"..

It's because of this that the movie can do so well as it tries to define (or rather devine) it's point from a Quantum standpoint, that point being that the observer is the central component in the observation, but what is not presented is the other side of Quantum Mechanics, that being that in order to be observed, the "Potential" had to already exist in the first place, this potential is not defined as a limted point of observation, but rather a "fluidic" approach meaning that there is no single defining element that can be beyond a shadow of a doubt equal "zero" in a mathematical equation..

Long and short of it?... Simply that the mathematics for Quantum Mechanics and or theory, state that it cannot exist because the value is never approaching Zero..

I wish the movie had not done a disservice to the science community by approaching the matter in a manner that gives only a small glimps in the inner workings of Quantum Concepts.. I did find out that "Ramtha" was only one of the problems, the others involve the lack of telling the full story such as the water bottle experiments being performed on "frozen" water with the labels attached to them (in japanese no less)which was not double blind tested and has not been reproduced to prove the point..

Religion will always be here and fear and repression seem to be increasing and with this comes increased resolutions in a desire to find a place in todays world, it is a shame that money always seems to be the driving force to pull others into their private world of beliefs..

[Roy Cafferky]

Hi

My impression of 'Bleep' was one of supposedly connected flirtations between science (partic. QP) and new age 'spirituality'.

Without posing any real questions, or indeed answering any, it ambles about the philosophical playground, enjoying the bumps of it's unpiloted course, with only an editors eyes.

Enjoyable for only the possibilities.

[Matt]

In your account of what the bleep do we know you say that the film makers put this idea across that we are all gods?
What I could see in the film is that they were explaining in the singular. We are god and everything around us is god through the universe and beyond. We are all interconnected to everything. Therefore there is one god and we are it.

[Matt]

In your account of what the bleep do we know you say that the film makers put this idea across that we are all gods?
What I could see in the film is that they were explaining in the singular. We are god and everything around us is god through the universe and beyond. We are all interconnected to everything. Therefore there is one god and we are it.

[Eric]

I think the reason why Quantum Mechanics was brought into the picture was because it is the type of Science that people can begin to understand and connect to what is essentially the idea of "thought creates reality"

If they were to tell you that just by thinking, you can create reality, you would think they were nuts. Likewise in "The Secret", it's the same construct.

After increasing exposure to these movies, and alternate views, and from hearing Kevin Smith talking about his book "Gods in the garden", I begin to understand that we are indeed gods.
It is a long and protracted subject. You just simply have to do the research yourself. No amount of hearing what people say will matter if you don't do the research. Or worse, that you have already closed up your mind, and made up your mind before investigating and researching - the way Science is based on.

Truth CAN be stranger than fiction.

Just the other day, I tried Remote Viewing DVD, and I started out being very skeptical and played along, don't really care about what the result would be. Yet to my surprise, I correctly "viewed" the hidden "target", without knowing how I did it!
This is a case that I do not know the principles or mechanics of how it works, but seeing the result myself, I know that Remote Viewing works. It's a matter of whether how accurate can you "view" the "target", but yes, it works.
An analogy would be acupucture points, or meridian points. Thousands of years of Chinese practise proves that poking needles into acupucture points cures ailments, but no one is yet able to provide the scientific model of how the mechanics works.
Likewise Remote Viewing. Likewise thinking about something can actually bring events to come forth and produce results that you wanted.

Have you sometimes thought about a long lost friend, and then that day, this friend called you?
Do you have premonitions of future events, or did you create that phone call, or has the phone call already happened in the future, and you have actually lived through that phone call, and this instance of you is the 'yesterday you', one of the many 'you's along the string of time, and you happened to 'remember' that phone call because of your 'psychic connection' with the 'tomorrow you'?
Weird? Nonsense? New Age psycho-babble? Science-fiction?
Who is to tell what is the truth, when the truth that you know of now, may just be a half-truth, given that you may not know what IS the whole truth, or in scientific terms: you do not have the full set of data to come to a conclusion.

The Truth may be stranger than fiction.

[Eric]

I just want to respond to the following:
============================================
In your account of what the bleep do we know you say that the film makers put this idea across that we are all gods?
What I could see in the film is that they were explaining in the singular. We are god and everything around us is god through the universe and beyond. We are all interconnected to everything. Therefore there is one god and we are it.

Posted by: Matt | September 11, 2007 at 12:46 AM
============================================

I came to this site due to a google on "gods in the garden".
I am currently convinced that
1) we are gods
2) there are gods, and there is a GOD
3) the GOD may be our GOD of Earth, but he may be just a smaller god when compared to more powerful or older gods.
4) what we perceive as God, is only an expression of our ignorance compared to God's power. An ant would perceive us as Gods, due to its punity.

I think that there may be no such thing as a universal Creator, The One and Only One. This is a complex matter that cannot be expressed in a few sentences.

The belief that there is only one God, is what is causing all the religious killing and chaos around the world, where different religions claim their God is the Correct and ONLY one. There is no tolerance of each other, there is this mentality of 'either you are with me, or you are against me'.

There is no one God, no one ultimate creator.

If you just only be quiet and listen to what your heart says, and feel instinctively how you feel about this, you can only conclude, there cannot be one God.

Saying there is one God, would be ridiculous and defies logic.

What kind of being is so powerful that it has the technology to create the countless stars in the sky?

Ask your heart how can it be, and you will know the answer.