Atheism deflated in ‘Horton Hears a Who’
Although the animated version of the classic Dr. Seuss book ‘Horton Hears a Who’ is but a children’s movie, it presents some deep philosophical and political quandaries.
In short, there is a lone voice, that of the Kangaroo and self proclaimed “law maker” in the jungle, who cries out “if you can’t see it, hear it, or feel it, it isn’t real!” when Horton the elephant tries to share his discovery of a “talking speck” which he surmizes must contain people since “specks can’t talk”. The Kangaroo suceeds in convincing the entire jungle population that Horton is crazy for believing such nonsense and manipulates the jungle population to destroy the flower that contains the speck with talking people.
The Kangaroo plays an antagonist role in an attempt to prevent Horton from spreading his so called “lie” in order to keep the other animals from believing Horton’s rediculous claim that people live in a speck.
When the Kangaroo convinces the mob to gather up against Horton, the argument that his belief in the people who live in the speck must be ended and the speck destroyed is a familiar one: “Think about the children!” This is voiced by the closed minded Kangaroo who convinces every last animal in the forest.
When all other logical arguments against the belief in the unknown fail in real life, of course, this is precisely what happens. “The children are rhetorically nationalized by the demagogue and anyone who disagrees is painted as an enemy of virtuous childhood.”
The even more important message is the closed minded, opinionated belief of the Kangaroo herself. She is so convinced in her mind that nothing exists but what she can see, feel, and hear that she refuses to open her mind to the evidence that is right in front of her face. She attacks Horton instead of listening to his evidence and presenting the philosophical difficulties behind Horton’s evidence. In refusing to believe what Horton believes she shows her own belief, the belief that the Whos don’t exist.
This is what I see all the time in my dealings with atheists. Most atheists I meet are the Kangaroo in this story. They dogmatically vocalize their beliefs or lack of beliefs and manipulate others to follow their lead. They are vocal, boistrus and sing a chorus of ad hominems so loud that people blindly follow their fallacies. As Hitlar once said “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually [people] will believe it.”
Well, in the end Kangaroo’s son eventually hears the Who’s yelling and succeeds in convincing the other animals that Horton is right which squelches the vocal objections of Kangaroo. Kangaroo is seen sulking in the final scene as she realizes that she has failed in her efforts to debunk Horton’s beliefs.
If you haven’t seen the movie I would encourage you to watch it. The movie presents many other philosophical issues that are worth exploring and discussing. The movie’s messages are vague enough to allow for varying interpretations, but there are those, such as myself, who hear a religious message is the script. It’s one that could have a significant impact on the younger generation if we are careful to help the young ones understand it.
All references to the movie Horton Hears a Who are the property of Horton Hears a Who by Ted Geisel (aka Dr. Seuss) Copyright 1954.
1. “if you can’t see it, hear it, or feel it, it isn’t real!”
2. “Kangaroo’s son eventually hears the Who’s yelling”
don’t you think atheist standpoint still prevails…
Horton is just kid story, nothing to do with atheism versus religion
Did you even read the article? It’s just an analogy. It isn’t meant to prove anything. It’s just to illustrate how stupid the Atheist’s position is.
I saw the movie and I can confirm it was knocking atheism the ENTIRE time. That atheists are evil and want to take religion out of the classroom, the atheists want to stop children from using their imagination, that atheists want to cage the believers. This movie has EVERYTHING to do with religion. The Who mayor keeps telling everyone to believe him about the person in the sky that they can’t hear or see. More than that, the movie is made so that if everyone in whoville does NOT believe in Horton, they will all BE PUT IN BOILING OIL! The major difference I say between religion in the real world and this movie, was that every time someone was convinced of the people they couldn’t see, there was physical proof involved. When the Whos believed the mayor they had to physically hear horton talking. The animals (even the baby kangaroo) were only convinced the Who’s were real after they literally heard the Who’s yelling. I think this movie actually teaches not in blind faith, but faith only with proof, although that is a very small and underlying lesson, that will NOT be realized by children. All children will do is relate the kangaroo as bad atheists and the Who’s as themselves, so they better believe in god or they’re gonna be put in boiling oil.
I know of no atheist who claims “If you can’t see it, etc., it doesn’t exist.”
What we DO say, is “in the absense of evidence, we abstain from believing.” This plays out in a way that seems similar–i.e., if we can’t see it we don’t believe it exists. However the distinction is an important one, because if we are faced with evidence that something unseen DOES exist, a good materialist will yield to the evidence.
Whereas people of religion, in the face of conflicting evidence, typically do not yield.
The Kangaroo isn’t an accurate example of scientific practice. If she were, she would have investigated Horton’s claims carefully. And then, even if she could not find any evidence supporting Horton’s claims, the Kangaroo still would not have demonized Horton or ostracized him. The point of science is to find out things. Science opposes orthodoxy. And “arif” is right that in the end, it’s physical evidence that persuades them Horton is right. So whatever the movie’s intention, this isn’t really a criticism of science or atheism. Before you can criticize atheism, you have to first figure out what it really is.
@John
Kangaroo refused to acknowledge the evidence, just like atheists do. THAT’s the point. The point is that Kangaroo, despite what others were saying, decided to remain closed minded and refuse to see the evidence that was right in front of her face.
It was Kangaroo’s bias and presumptions that kept her from hearing the Who. It’s often atheist’s bias and presumptions that keep them from seeing the evidence for a god.
The biggest difference is that Kangaroo finally couldn’t resist seeing the evidence and conceded. Atheists are more ignorant and stubborn then that.
@Jim Etchison
Well, I do. Just because YOU don’t know of any atheists who claim “If you can’t see it, etc., it doesn’t exist.†doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
But that’s the problem. There IS evidence. Just because you refuse to look at the evidence doesn’t mean there isn’t any. There is only an absence of evidence in your mind because you refuse to consider the evidence that is available. So I guess, according to you, that you aren’t a good materialist since you are faced with evidence that something unseen DOES exist yet refuse to acknowledge it.
People of religion hold to beliefs because of tradition. That’s not so of those who believe in God and aren’t religious – like the folks who run this site.
No, atheists are not like the Kangaroo. Real atheists would have said ‘ok present your evidence’. That’s it.
The problem is that in the movie, Horton just wants to be left alone and help the Whos. But in reality, Horton (religious people) would say ‘there are people talking to me that you cannot see, and they told me that all Monkeys are an abomination, and are not allowed to have relationships like the rest of us’. Monkeys are the gay people of their our society.
“There IS evidence”
No there isn’t.
I’m afraid in your hast to defend Atheism, you’ve missed the entire point of the post. Ultimately, analogies aren’t a good form of argument because they can’t prove anything, they only serve to illustrate. We’re just showing the stubborn fashion in which atheists blindly defend their beliefs with their noses stuck up in the air and if someone goes against their beliefs they try to intimidate them and/or manipulate things such as change the laws or try to imprison the opposing view to essentially enforce what amounts to be a gag order if people don’t agree with them.
In stead of giving Horton the benefit of the doubt, she closes her mind to the possibility and refused to consider the other side of the argument. The same things atheists do, and your post is a perfect example. Instead of considering the opposing view, you blindly and closed mindedly just state, “no there isn’t” in response to my assertion that there is evidence. So well done. You are a shining example of atheist dogma.