Thursday, December 30, 2010

Thoughts on Tron: Legacy

(Warning: the following contains some spoilers.)

Tron: Legacy is a visually spectacular movie with strong links to the original and an interesting story. Sine a majority of the movie takes place inside a computer (in a place called the Grid), one would expect that the rules of life would be different from the real world. And indeed, it is, with light-cycles and aircraft being from a handlebar to programs regenerating lost limbs. However, some rules would still have to apply to both the Grid and the real world. The movie acknowledges this, primarily when a discovery made in the Grid was spoken of as potentially having an impact on science and religion for humans. Because of this connection, an examination of the events and characters in the movie can reveal interesting implications and comparisons to the real world.

There were three types of beings in the Grid: users, programs, and isos. Users is the name given to humans in the Grid. Programs are literally computer programs, but in the grid, they exist as a physical body. Isos are also programs living in the Grid but they were not created by humans. Rather, they arose spontaneously when conditions in the Grid were just right.

The relationship between the users and programs was a key element in the movie. Many times, the users were granted almost deity status because they created the Grid and the programs. Yet, the ruler of the programs, whose name was Clu, was in rebellion against the users because Clu was designed to create a perfect environment. However, Kevin Flynn, the original creator of the Grid and the creator of Clu, was fascinated by the isos when they showed up, because their existence challenged man’s understanding of reality. The isos were not perfect, so Clu regarded them as inferior, as not belonging in the Grid, so, he sought to destroy them which led Clu into rebellion against Kevin Flynn, his maker.

The creature being in rebellion against the creator is not a new concept: that is the natural state of man toward God. However, the similarity of Tron: Legacy to Christianity ends there. Unlike God who is infinite while His creation is finite, the users were in no way infinite compared to the programs. The users had some abilities that the programs did not, but in almost every other way (such as in strength, knowledge, power, and mortality), they were equal to the programs.

Not only is the equality of users and programs significantly different from Christianity, it is contrary to logic. Can a created thing be equal, much less superior to, its creator? No, it can not. As the Bible illustrates, what right or ability does a pot have to say to the potter, why have you made me so? (Isa.29:16, Rom. 9:9:20-21) But what about other things man has created? Many machines are far faster, stronger, precise, and have a higher endurance than any man. But man did not create the physical body of these machines: man took pre-existing parts and rearranged them into a new pattern. So the physical properties of a machine are not an ex nihilo (“out of nothing”) creation. Man can not claim to have created the physical matter of a machine. However, the design of a machine is ex nihilo. The design of a machine may copy a previous design and it may utilize physical properties of matter, but ultimately, the design is an arbitrary arrangement for an arbitrary function. No human creation comes close to matching the complexity of a human and none have genuine intelligence or creativity like a human has. So in terms of its design, all human creations are vastly inferior to humans.

Programs are an interesting type of human creation. A program must exist in a physical medium (usually, a circuit board) but a program itself is almost pure design: it is nothing more than a complexly organized series of commands. Programs can run through a series of commands faster than a human can, but their activity is limited to the commands given to them by people. So of all human creations, programs should be the most inferior to humans since programs involve very little rearrangement of pre-existing matter. The only way a program could be superior or equal to a human would be if a program were capable of improving its abilities beyond the capabilities a human gave to it. Such a self-improvement would be impossible since that would require a program to spontaneously generate new information in the form of novel commands that confer new functions on the program. This is an impossibility because information is ultimately arbitrary: while information has a function and purpose, information is only generated when an outside entity decides to make a change to something or someone else.

Returning to the movie, the only way Clu could prove to be a challenge to Kevin Flynn would be if the Grid existed in a world where new data was spontaneously generated. This is consistent with the origin of the isos, as they were living things created by spontaneous generation. So the Grid is a world that can not exist, as it allows the generation of information out of nothing without an outside entity. Furthermore, since the Grid must exist within the real world, the real world of Tron: Legacy must also be an impossibility. Thus, in the movie when Clu shouts, “Where are you, Kevin Flynn?” in mockery of the users’ power, there should be an impression of irony, for while that challenge may mimic the mockery of an atheist, Kevin Flynn is nothing like God. While God was incarnate, He still have power over His creation. Kevin Flynn, however, exists in a world where his equals can be created out of nothing with no cause. In such a world, nothing is a more powerful entity than any being.

Monday, December 27, 2010

Secular Conservatives and Charity

Ann Coulter had an interesting column this week titled, “Scrooge was a Liberal.” (Here is a link to the article: http://www.anncoulter.com/) The article was about how, despite the fact that liberals bellyache about providing for and taking care of the poor, they give far less to charities than conservatives do. However, I want to focus on one aspect of the article. Ann Coulter noted that, according to a study, while religious conservatives are the most generous group (in terms of dollars given to charities), secular conservatives are the stingiest. Coulter chalked this up, tongue in cheek, as she usually does, to secular conservatives being “mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.” However, I think that there is something else at work here.

What is conservatism based on? First, it might be helpful to define what “conservative” means. Based on what I have read and heard, I would define conservatism as the idea that freedom within the law is the birthright of all people, and therefore government should be restricted in order that it does not infringe on the people’s freedom. A key phrase in there is “within the law.” Freedom is not seen as a license that allows the bearer to commit any kind of activity without restrictions: there are restrictions based on morals and ethics. Morals and ethics represent a standard that some outside authority sets and enforces. Usually, a conservative’s morality is derived from Judeo-Christian thought, so ultimately, whether it is consciously acknowledged or not, conservatism rests on God.

If conservatism is based on God, then it makes sense that religious conservatives are the most generous group: their political philosophy is consistent with their religious philosophy (i.e. they acknowledge God in their religious life and their political life), so they behave as God instructs them to. Part of that instruction includes helping the poor. Now, a Christian does recognize that it is their business to assist the poor and not the business of government to force participation in charities or taxation of people in order to “help” the poor, as Ann Coulter points out in her article. But, the individual instruction to help a fellow brother or sister is in the Bible, and conservatives obey that commandment in their personal lives.

Now let’s look at the secular conservative. For these people, their religion (or lack of one) is inconsistent with their political philosophy: they don’t acknowledge God in their religious life but they do acknowledge God in their political life. Such a situation would lead to confusion. Moreover, why is a secular conservative conservative? Presumably, because they want more freedom. But why do they want freedom? A religious conservative may cite morals or ethics to say that freedom is right or good, but what reason can a secular conservative have for espousing freedom? None, unless it is a selfish desire to live his life as he wants. It would appear then that a secular conservative is, at his core, selfish. Such an attitude is not conducive to charity.

Does this sort of reasoning explain other groups as well? Aside from religious and secular conservatives, Ann Coulter also mentioned religious and secular liberals in her article. She pointed out that secular liberals are the second stingiest group. This makes sense based on their worldview. Liberalism sees it as the government’s duty to care for and protect people. When it comes to the poor, it is the government’s responsibility to provide for them. In this view, the government takes on a godlike aura: the government provides for, guides, leads, and protects its people. Ultimately, liberalism is atheistic (which, to mention Ann Coulter again, is the focus of her book, Godless, The Church of Liberalism). So secular liberals are consistent: they don’t acknowledge God in their religious or political lives. And what does this lead to? Stinginess, as they wait and lobby for the government to do something about all these poor people around them.

What of the religious liberals? This group is the second most charitable, coming in after the religious conservatives. Religious liberals are inconsistent, since they acknowledge God in their religious life but bow to government in their political life. These people would be confused, having the instruction to take care of the poor but also sitting around waiting for government action. The result? A mixed response resulting in a mediocre amount of charity.

So perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on secular conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) for being stingy. After all, their stinginess is simply a result of their beliefs. But that's the point, isn't it? Do people understand, or care, about the results of their ideas? Hopefully, they do, and based on the results of their beliefs, they can reconsider the foundations of their ideas.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Thoughts on Ezekiel's Temple

There is some dispute as to the identity of the temple described in Ezekiel chapters 40-47. Chapters 40-42 describe the physical structure of the temple, chapters 43-47 describes laws and activities associated with the temple. Here are some of the ideas as to the identity of this temple: it is 1) a literal temple yet to be built, 2) Zerubbabel’s temple, built after the return from captivity, 3) a figurative temple, and 4) an ideal temple that has not and will not exist. The identification of the temple is important, for not only does it pertain to eschatology, the description of the temple and its activities includes animal sacrifices (such as in Ezekiel 40:38, 43:18-27, 44:27, 45:18-25). The question then arises: if the temple in Ezekiel is a literal temple that will be built in the future, are sacrifices a necessary part of worship in the future? Some people cite these passages as evidence that ceremonial laws in the Torah will be followed in the future and so should be followed today as well.

Ironically, pointing out that Ezekiel’s temple involves sacrifices should be cited as evidence that it is not a temple that will be built in the future. Hebrews 10 compares sacrifices in the Old Testament law to Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. Verses 10-12 compare the old sacrifices, which were performed every year because they could not take away sins, to Jesus’s sacrifice, which paid for sins once for all. Verse 18 sums it up, “Now where remission of these [sins] is, there is no more offering for sin.” The point is, because of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, there is no need, no purpose, for sin sacrifices. So rather than citing Ezekiel’s temple as evidence that sacrifices will be performed in the future, the fact that sacrifices have no purpose after Christ’s death and resurrection means that Ezekiel’s temple was not and will not be built after Christ’s death and resurrection.

There is another verse which also shows that Ezekiel’s temple could not exist after Christ’s resurrection. This is Ezekiel 44:9, which says that no one uncircumcised in the flesh can enter in the sanctuary of the temple. Yet, I Cor. 7:19 and Gal. 5:6, 6:15 all say that circumcision is nothing, it has no importance to Christ. If circumcision has no importance in Christ, and if there is only one way to God, and that is through Christ, then a temple to worship God can not exclude those who are uncircumcised.

Since the rules of worship for Ezekiel’s temple include sin sacrifices and exclusion of the uncircumcised, Ezekiel’s temple could not have been built after Christ’s resurrection, and so it will not be built in the future. What then is the identity of Ezekiel’s temple?

There is an interesting connection between Ezekiel’s temple and Zerrubbabel’s temple, the temple that was built after the return from captivity. Ezekiel says that the sons of Zadok shall be priests in the temple (Ezekiel 40:46, 43:19, 44:15). Ezra was a priest restoring the law and worship in the temple after the return from captivity. Ezra is descended from Zadok (compare I Chr. 6:3-15 to Ezra 7:1-5), the same Zadok who was priest during David’s reign (I Chr. 18:16) and whose descendents were priests in Solomon’s temple (I Chr. 6:8-10) and were priests during Hezekiah’s reign (II Chr. 31:10), which indicates they were faithful to God up to the conquest of Judah.

The connection between the sons of Zadok being priests in Ezekiel’s temple and Ezra being a descendant of Zadok indicates that Ezekiel’s temple and Zerrubbabel’s temple are one and the same. There is an objection to this idea: the dimensions of Zerrubbabel’s temple does not match the dimensions given in Ezekiel. A partial answer to this objection may be derived from Ezekiel 43:10. In this verse, God instructs Ezekiel to give the pattern of the temple to Israel. Perhaps the dimensions given in Ezekiel are not a prophecy of a temple but a blueprint for a temple, a blueprint which was never fully obeyed by Israel. It should also be pointed out that not everything in Ezekiel’s description of the temple is literal. For example, Ezekiel 47:1-12 describes a river flowing from the temple that will heal anything it comes in contact with. So perhaps Zerrubbabel’s temple is Ezekiel’s temple in imperfect form with the figurative parts removed. Whatever Ezekiel’s temple is, based on the previous discussion of sacrifices and circumcision, we know that it not something that will be built in the future.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

The Problem with a Government of the People

There has been a debate bout tuition going on in England. Apparently, Parliament has recently passed a low that has raised college tuition. As can be expected, college students were not happy about this decision. I heard a sound bite of one of these students giving her opinion of Parliament. She said something like, “They need to remember they work for us. Right now, they are making future voters mad.”

The idea that government officials work for the people, as expressed by this student, scares me. This student seems to think that it is the job of civil government to make her life easier. Now, in a broad sense, civil government is supposed to make life easier for people. Life is easier when criminals are caught and punished rather than being allowed to roam free and rob, steal, and kill. Business is easier when just commerce laws are enforced rather than deception and bribery ruling all transactions. However, the brunt of life, such as financial burdens incurred by higher education, are the responsibility of the individual. Responsibility implies freedom of choice, such as people being responsible enough to choose to go to college or not go to college, to go to a community college or to a four-year college. But responsibility also implies bearing the consequences of one’s actions, such as being responsible to pay for a four-year college’s tuition rate versus a community college’s tuition rate.

Unfortunately, I think many people let the idea that government works for the people cloud their understanding of responsibility. Government of the people stands in contrast to other ideas of government, such as the divine right of kings. But while a government where the citizens vote can be a check on the divine right of government officials, some citizens take their ability to vote and skew it to be a divine right of the electorate. “I vote, so officials have to listen to me, so they must do what I want them to do.” This view is simply incorrect. Rather, while civil government is subject, to a degree, to the people, the people are subject to government. Thus, a codependency exists between government officials and the electorate: officials write and pass laws which the people (including the officials) are subject to, and the people have the ability to remove officials as they see fit. Where in this loop does authority come from? The answer is: neither from the people nor from the government, but from God.

All authority comes from God. As Christ said after his resurrection: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). Civil governments are only one power of many on earth, and they are subject to Christ along with every other authority. God even makes specific claims to control and to have authority over government officials (John 19:11, Rom. 13:1-6, Ps. 2:10-12). So the codependency between civil government and the electorate is so both holds the other responsible to God’s Law. If officials and the electorate stray from God’s will, however, the codependency will devolve into a ring of mutual dependency. Then, the government buys support from the people with handouts and programs, and the people feed off the government, willingly accepting and demanding support and privileges. And in the end, you get college students protesting a tuition hike.