Search
HotUKDeals – Vouchers & Deals
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
The new HotUKDeals app is now available! Discover an enhanced way to get the best deals from your...
VoucherCodes: Discounts, Deals
Shopping and Lifestyle
9.0
Rate It
App
VoucherCodes is your go-to app for the UK's best voucher codes, discounts, deals and savings for...
vouchercloud: vouchers offers
Lifestyle and Shopping
7.4
Rate It
App
Get the best savings and offers for your favourite restaurants, high-street stores, supermarkets and...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020
Spectacular action set pieces done "in camera" (1 more)
Branagh and Debecki, both superb
Sound mix makes dialogue unintelligible (1 more)
In the words of Huey Lewis, "You're too darn loud"
Only Nolan and Schrödinger’s cat knows what’s going on.
Tenet is the long awaited new movie from Christopher Nolan. The movie that's set to reboot the multiplexes post-Covid. It's a manic, extremely loud, extremely baffling sci-fi cum spy rollercoaster that will please a lot of Nolan fan-boys but which left me with very mixed views.
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
More of the same
Who would have thought we would get to this? I certainly didn’t. After the right royal mess 20th Century Fox made of everyone’s favourite anti-hero, Deadpool, in X-Men Origins: Wolverine all those years ago, it felt like a solo outing would never be possible, never mind a sequel.
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
Deadpool senior went on to gross nearly $800million worldwide, impressive for an R-rated (15 certification) flick, and was an undisputed king of comic-book hero movies. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was for Marvel Studios, Deadpool was a huge gamble that paid off massively thanks to Ryan Reynold’s brilliant comic-timing and an origins story that wasn’t done to death. Naturally, a sequel was always on the cards. But are we looking at a sequel of Empire quality or Speed 2: Cruise Control?
Wisecracking mercenary Deadpool (Reynolds) is back, and this time he decides to joins force with three mutants – Bedlam (Terry Crews), Shatterstar (Lewis Tan) and Domino (Zazie Beets) – to protect a boy from the all-powerful Cable (Josh Brolin).
One-half of John Wick’s directing team, David Leitch, is thrust into the directing chair for Deadpool 2 after Tim Miller was unceremoniously dumped from the project due to creative differences with Ryan Reynolds (read into that what you will). Thankfully, he brings that trademark style that we again saw in Atomic Blonde to this sequel and with that comes plenty of stylised action and a neon/grey colour palate plus a Celine Dion number that’s just begging for parody status.
Surprisingly, that all works rather well for this film. Propped by another cracking performance from Ryan Reynolds who has really found his calling after years of mediocrity. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he was absolutely born to play this role and his dry wit is given much more room to breathe this time around.
The rest of the cast are fine, if a little underdeveloped. Zazie Beets probably makes the most impact as mutant, Domino, but even she is a little underpowered when compared to the brilliant work the MCU has done on its heroes over the years. Josh Brolin (who must be getting paid rather handsomely this year) is great as Cable, though it is difficult to hear his voice and not immediately think of Thanos. T.J. Miller returns in a heavily reduced role as does Reynolds’ on-screen girlfriend Morena Baccarin who is criminally underused.
Story wise, it’s pretty much more of the same and that’s no bad thing. The fourth-wall breaking is as fresh as it felt two years ago and is cleverly used to hide the necessary exposition to bring the audience up-to-speed with what’s been happening in Deadpool-ville over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members
The comedy hits more than it misses, though the constant quipps can be exhausting, and the action is filmed as confidently as you’d expect from the man who brought Keanu Reeves screaming into the 21st Century, but there is some incredibly poor CGI that is at odds with a movie costing over $100million. By incredibly poor, I don’t mean just a bit naff, I’m talking laughably bad.
The finale is vibrant, action-packed and as Deadpool himself says, CGI-filled, but it’s a little unoriginal and very much like its predecessor, though the inclusion of one particular character that I won’t spoil here is great fun to see.
There are also plenty of X-Men Easter eggs for fans to enjoy too. From characters showing up where you’d least expect them to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it Stan Lee cameo, the film is full to the brim of in-references that only the most hardened of comic-book fans will notice on the first watch.
Thankfully, there is plenty of repeat-watch value in Deadpool 2, thanks mainly to the returning cast members. Reynolds, T.J. Miller, Leslie Uggams (Wade Wilson’s blind roommate Al) and Karan Soni (taxi driver Dopinder) are welcome returnees and ensure the film has a little heart, though not too much. After all, that wouldn’t be the Deadpool way.
Overall, Deadpool 2 is a confident sequel to one of the best comic-book movies there is. What it does right, it does very well indeed. The comedy, performances and action are all spot on. Unfortunately, there are some very poor special effects over the course of the film and in an effort to make everything bigger and badder, it occasionally feels like a mass of scenes put together to make a film. A worthy sequel, but not an Empire or Spider-Man 2 in this instance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/16/deadpool-2-review-more-of-the-same/#more-6342
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.