Basically, this debate is the rationality debate.
DTC is saying that it is a poor movie that teaches children to accept conclusions generated outside of rationality. The protagonist is apparently very rational and skeptical.
I’ll take the side of the movie.
The ancient Greeks invented logic and rationality. They invented it as a tool to solve certain problems. The primary function of the tool of rationality is that of definition. We continue to define things in terms of their relation to other things until we have a sufficient number of relationships to give us an approximation of understanding.
Once we realize that modern rationality is a tool, and not an end unto itself, we can say some interesting things about it:
There is sometimes more than one tool that can do a given job. The ancient greeks may well have come up with some alternate system that we use instead. They came up with rationality. Maybe one of these alternate systems would have been better than rationality.
As a tool rationality has flaws and limitations, like a hammer. A hammer is not the ideal tool to solve all problems. Those who are a slave to rationality are only using the hammer.
A proof of the flaw of rationality is that it does not address meaning. This relates to this, this relates to the other… so on and so forth. Another proof is that rationality is itself irrational. Think about it. Inevitably over-applied rationalism leads to solipsism.
If we are to subscribe to rationality will still have to take many things as givens, on faith, such as physical existance. All our data comes from our senses. Even if we do accept the data it still doesn’t address the “why” of something.
Let us examine a hypothetical incident:
A house catches fire. A man enters the burning house and attempts to rescue the people trapped inside. He in turn is trapped and let us say he and three others die.
From a rational standpoint we can state:
“Three biological entities of the “meat puppet” variety were coincident in space time with a conflagaration of their domicile. A fourth meat puppet joined them, and the group was oxidized into ash carbon and volatile chemicals. So what?”
From this standpoint we are simply describing a chemical reaction that occured without meaning.
From a more humane standpoint we can impose some articles we consider on faith… values and describe the event with meaning.
“Three children were trapped in a fire. A stranger sacrificed his life in a selfless attempt to rescue them, but all four burned to death. God rest their souls.”
With a little faith and a little value things certainly sound better. If nothing else there is that. With rationality we cannot legitimately explain why the man sacrificed himself in the rescue attempt, nor even why the whole thing is worth mentioning in the first place.
To give something meaning we need something else besides rationality. It supplies no meaning.
So, as described in the OP, the Polar Express is an argument against becoming a slave to rationality, and therefore a being empty of meaning. This is a good lesson for children as it seems that most go through some stage where rationality is their God, and they pretend not to care or place value on anything because it said meaning or value cannot be rationally demonstrated.
That attitude is, of course, immature. Therefore the movie identifies one of the risks and pitfalls of a burgeoning understanding of the world, and is a good lesson.
