(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.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Real Men and Intrusive Pat-downs
A caller on the Rush Limbaugh Show asked a couple of questions, “Why aren’t real men doing anything about the pat-downs at airports” (implicit in the question was the idea that a real man would violently protect his family from an intrusive pat-down) and “When do we take up arms to protect ourselves from Obama?” (The questions given here are paraphrases of the caller’s questions simply because I could not remember them word for word.)
These sorts of questions bother me and they make me mad when they are asked in an air of condescension (as this caller did). The reason is because even though they are given in an air of authority, these questions are born of ignorance. Take the first question. The answer to the question is: real men don’t LET their families go through intrusive pat-downs. True, that may not be the aggressive, masculine man’s way of dealing with problems. But what good will aggression do? So a father gets mad as his child is being patted down, punches the TSA agent, and then promptly gets arrested for assault and carried off to jail. Yes, that took care of the problem, didn’t it? Miss your flight and get arrested all at once. While that may be the “masculine” man’s way of dealing with problems, the wise man would know that there is no way to get onto an airplane without going through some kind of intrusive screening, and simply stop flying. “But that doesn’t take care of the problem,” one might object. First of all, it might. If airlines have a severe drop in customers because of people avoiding the screening process, they might get rid of the intrusive screening so as to remain in business. Otherwise, they’ll lose customers to buses and trains, not to mention gas stains as people drive around the country rather than fly. Second, there are other ways to take care of the problem. The biggest is simply to have a general outcry over the procedures, something which is going on right now. The more people who are aware of the problem, the more people who will protest the problem, and unless the TSA and airports are completely tone deaf, they will change their rules. There might even be legal action that can be taken. So avoiding airports to avoid intrusive screening procedures is not wimpy, that is what wise men do. Wrathful men who feel they need to hurt someone to get their point across are those who go into the lion’s den (airport terminals, in this case) raring for a fight with no hope of victory.
And speaking of people who have a desire to do harm to others to get their point across, what about the idea that we are being complacent by not taking up arms against intrusive government? Our country has a built in function for removing corrupt officials who pass freedom-killing legislation: it’s called elections! “When do we take up arms to protect ourselves from Obama?” How about: we DID rebel against Obama on November 2nd and we did it WITHOUT guns. And the rebellion will be completed with the 2012 elections. It would be foolish to resort to violence just because we want an immediate, vengeful fix.
Now, I want to make it clear that I am not against violence. I think there is a place for a man to protect his family and loved ones with physical violence, and I also think that there are times when people should rebel against their government. However, like everything else in life, there is a time for violence and a time for non-violence. In the case of intrusive pat-downs at airports and a freedom-grabbing government, that time is not now: there are still other options available. And like the founders of this country, who only rebelled against Great Britain when all appeals to the king and parliament failed, we should exhaust all legal means of change before we begin an open rebellion. Real men don’t put their families as risk by inciting unnecessary wars and fights.
These sorts of questions bother me and they make me mad when they are asked in an air of condescension (as this caller did). The reason is because even though they are given in an air of authority, these questions are born of ignorance. Take the first question. The answer to the question is: real men don’t LET their families go through intrusive pat-downs. True, that may not be the aggressive, masculine man’s way of dealing with problems. But what good will aggression do? So a father gets mad as his child is being patted down, punches the TSA agent, and then promptly gets arrested for assault and carried off to jail. Yes, that took care of the problem, didn’t it? Miss your flight and get arrested all at once. While that may be the “masculine” man’s way of dealing with problems, the wise man would know that there is no way to get onto an airplane without going through some kind of intrusive screening, and simply stop flying. “But that doesn’t take care of the problem,” one might object. First of all, it might. If airlines have a severe drop in customers because of people avoiding the screening process, they might get rid of the intrusive screening so as to remain in business. Otherwise, they’ll lose customers to buses and trains, not to mention gas stains as people drive around the country rather than fly. Second, there are other ways to take care of the problem. The biggest is simply to have a general outcry over the procedures, something which is going on right now. The more people who are aware of the problem, the more people who will protest the problem, and unless the TSA and airports are completely tone deaf, they will change their rules. There might even be legal action that can be taken. So avoiding airports to avoid intrusive screening procedures is not wimpy, that is what wise men do. Wrathful men who feel they need to hurt someone to get their point across are those who go into the lion’s den (airport terminals, in this case) raring for a fight with no hope of victory.
And speaking of people who have a desire to do harm to others to get their point across, what about the idea that we are being complacent by not taking up arms against intrusive government? Our country has a built in function for removing corrupt officials who pass freedom-killing legislation: it’s called elections! “When do we take up arms to protect ourselves from Obama?” How about: we DID rebel against Obama on November 2nd and we did it WITHOUT guns. And the rebellion will be completed with the 2012 elections. It would be foolish to resort to violence just because we want an immediate, vengeful fix.
Now, I want to make it clear that I am not against violence. I think there is a place for a man to protect his family and loved ones with physical violence, and I also think that there are times when people should rebel against their government. However, like everything else in life, there is a time for violence and a time for non-violence. In the case of intrusive pat-downs at airports and a freedom-grabbing government, that time is not now: there are still other options available. And like the founders of this country, who only rebelled against Great Britain when all appeals to the king and parliament failed, we should exhaust all legal means of change before we begin an open rebellion. Real men don’t put their families as risk by inciting unnecessary wars and fights.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Things God did not Create
There is a “proof” of the non-existence of God that I have heard a couple of times. It goes something like this:
Person 1: Did God create everything?
Person 2: Yes, God created everything.
Person 1: Does evil exist in the world?
Person 2: Yes, it does.
Person 1: If evil exists, and if God created everything, then God must have created evil.
Person 2: But God is not evil nor the author of evil.
Person 1: Therefore, God did not create everything, and therefore God must not be the Creator of everything, thus God doesn’t exist.
The typical answer to this argument goes something like this: evil occurs when God’s rules are not obeyed. Evil is the absence of good, therefore evil does not exit. This is analogous to darkness. Darkness is the absence of light, darkness is not a thing in and of itself. Similarly, evil is the absence of good, evil is not a thing in and of itself.
I’ve found the argument that “evil does not exist” a little unsettling. First of all, how can “good” exist but not “evil”? Both words are used to describe actions: so and so did a good thing, or so and so did an evil thing. Both evil and good have the same origin (a person’s thought or will determines his actions) so how can one exist and the other doesn’t?
Second, the comparison to light and darkness doesn’t hold up. Yes, darkness is the absence of light, but darkness describes a physical phenomena, and God created the physical world. Look at Gen. 1:2. It describes the newly created world as being dark. Therefore, God did create darkness, and if God created darkness, then the analogy would indicate that God also created evil.
I think the solution to the opening “proof” of God’s non-existence is simply this: God did not create everything.
“Heresy! How can you say such a thing?”
Before the stake and firewood are brought out, let me explain. There is a slight of hand going on in the opening argument. When person 2 affirms that God created everything, what he means is that God made the whole universe. However, when person 1 categorizes evil as something that exists (and therefore, part of everything), he is using “everything” to mean the sum total of all things, events, and ideas. So there are two definitions of “everything” being used: “everything is the whole universe,” and “everything is all things, events, and ideas.” These two definitions may seem to be the same, but they are not. Allow me to elaborate by describing those things, events, and ideas God did not create.
First of all, God did not create Himself. He is eternal and has therefore existed from eternity past and will exist to eternity future. Besides, it is impossible for something to create itself. At its creation, something comes into existence, by definition. Yet, something must be in existence in order for it to create anything. So for something to create itself, it would have to be in existence (in order to create itself) and not in existence (it doesn’t exist prior to its creation) at the same time, breaking the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, God could not have created Himself.
While I’m using a logical argument, let’s touch on the fact that God did not create logic. The laws of logic are part of God’s nature, and therefore they also apply to His creation. The law of non-contradiction exists because God is eternal, unchanging, and consistent. The principle of uniformity (not to be confused with the principle of uniformitarianism, the former being the idea that natural laws apply everywhere over time and space, the latter being an idea about the rate of geological actions) also exists because God is eternal, unchanging, and consistent (for a further explanation of how logic is an expression of God’s nature, see “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” by Dr. Jason Lisle, pg. 196-198). God did not create wisdom for wisdom is an expression of God’s thoughts (Prov. 3:19, if God used wisdom to create the earth and heavens, wisdom must have been around before God began creation, before He created anything). God did not create ethics for all the moral laws He gave to man are an expression of His nature. All of these things are an expression of some part of the nature of God. If God did not create Himself, then He also did not create His nature, therefore He did not create those things that are an expression of His nature.
There are things that man created that God did not create. Since man was made in God’s image, we have creative abilities. If we have the ability to create things, then there must be things we created that God did not. For instance, God did not create the internal combustion engine. Now, man does not have the ability to create things out of nothing, so the physical matter that comprises the parts of an internal combustion engine was not created by man. However, the design was created by man. Some might argue that there are physical restraints that have to be met in order for an internal combustion engine to function, therefore man may have simply “discovered” how to build an internal combustion engine rather than actually designing one. While there are physical constraints (such as temperature, forces, available materials, and so forth) that dictate some aspects of the design of an engine, the exact design was created by man. Consider: there is the familiar piston engine and there is the Wankel rotary engine. Both are internal combustion engines, both function under the same physical conditions, but they have different designs, both of which were created by men.
So what can be concluded? There are three things God did not create: Himself, expressions of His nature, and designs made by humans. Therefore, God did not make everything if “everything” means all things, events, and ideas. So how does this relate to the existence of evil? God did not create evil. Man created evil when he rebelled against God in the Garden.
Person 1: Did God create everything?
Person 2: Yes, God created everything.
Person 1: Does evil exist in the world?
Person 2: Yes, it does.
Person 1: If evil exists, and if God created everything, then God must have created evil.
Person 2: But God is not evil nor the author of evil.
Person 1: Therefore, God did not create everything, and therefore God must not be the Creator of everything, thus God doesn’t exist.
The typical answer to this argument goes something like this: evil occurs when God’s rules are not obeyed. Evil is the absence of good, therefore evil does not exit. This is analogous to darkness. Darkness is the absence of light, darkness is not a thing in and of itself. Similarly, evil is the absence of good, evil is not a thing in and of itself.
I’ve found the argument that “evil does not exist” a little unsettling. First of all, how can “good” exist but not “evil”? Both words are used to describe actions: so and so did a good thing, or so and so did an evil thing. Both evil and good have the same origin (a person’s thought or will determines his actions) so how can one exist and the other doesn’t?
Second, the comparison to light and darkness doesn’t hold up. Yes, darkness is the absence of light, but darkness describes a physical phenomena, and God created the physical world. Look at Gen. 1:2. It describes the newly created world as being dark. Therefore, God did create darkness, and if God created darkness, then the analogy would indicate that God also created evil.
I think the solution to the opening “proof” of God’s non-existence is simply this: God did not create everything.
“Heresy! How can you say such a thing?”
Before the stake and firewood are brought out, let me explain. There is a slight of hand going on in the opening argument. When person 2 affirms that God created everything, what he means is that God made the whole universe. However, when person 1 categorizes evil as something that exists (and therefore, part of everything), he is using “everything” to mean the sum total of all things, events, and ideas. So there are two definitions of “everything” being used: “everything is the whole universe,” and “everything is all things, events, and ideas.” These two definitions may seem to be the same, but they are not. Allow me to elaborate by describing those things, events, and ideas God did not create.
First of all, God did not create Himself. He is eternal and has therefore existed from eternity past and will exist to eternity future. Besides, it is impossible for something to create itself. At its creation, something comes into existence, by definition. Yet, something must be in existence in order for it to create anything. So for something to create itself, it would have to be in existence (in order to create itself) and not in existence (it doesn’t exist prior to its creation) at the same time, breaking the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, God could not have created Himself.
While I’m using a logical argument, let’s touch on the fact that God did not create logic. The laws of logic are part of God’s nature, and therefore they also apply to His creation. The law of non-contradiction exists because God is eternal, unchanging, and consistent. The principle of uniformity (not to be confused with the principle of uniformitarianism, the former being the idea that natural laws apply everywhere over time and space, the latter being an idea about the rate of geological actions) also exists because God is eternal, unchanging, and consistent (for a further explanation of how logic is an expression of God’s nature, see “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” by Dr. Jason Lisle, pg. 196-198). God did not create wisdom for wisdom is an expression of God’s thoughts (Prov. 3:19, if God used wisdom to create the earth and heavens, wisdom must have been around before God began creation, before He created anything). God did not create ethics for all the moral laws He gave to man are an expression of His nature. All of these things are an expression of some part of the nature of God. If God did not create Himself, then He also did not create His nature, therefore He did not create those things that are an expression of His nature.
There are things that man created that God did not create. Since man was made in God’s image, we have creative abilities. If we have the ability to create things, then there must be things we created that God did not. For instance, God did not create the internal combustion engine. Now, man does not have the ability to create things out of nothing, so the physical matter that comprises the parts of an internal combustion engine was not created by man. However, the design was created by man. Some might argue that there are physical restraints that have to be met in order for an internal combustion engine to function, therefore man may have simply “discovered” how to build an internal combustion engine rather than actually designing one. While there are physical constraints (such as temperature, forces, available materials, and so forth) that dictate some aspects of the design of an engine, the exact design was created by man. Consider: there is the familiar piston engine and there is the Wankel rotary engine. Both are internal combustion engines, both function under the same physical conditions, but they have different designs, both of which were created by men.
So what can be concluded? There are three things God did not create: Himself, expressions of His nature, and designs made by humans. Therefore, God did not make everything if “everything” means all things, events, and ideas. So how does this relate to the existence of evil? God did not create evil. Man created evil when he rebelled against God in the Garden.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Efficiency of Common Sense Profiling
With full body scans and enhanced pat-downs being implemented at airport security checkpoints, the issue of the effectiveness (and intrusiveness) of screening procedures has been brought up again.
Since there is a general outcry over the body scans and pat-downs, some people have suggested that rather than being intrusive and ethically-questionable, airport security should simply use profiling. The arguments for profiling include, 1) it is used to great effect in other countries (such as Israel) and 2) it would be cheaper and quicker. The arguments is that it can be abused, and it is demeaning and contrary to a free society.
As for the argument that profiling can be abused, of course it can. So can full body scans (will scans of attractive women be saved?) and pat-downs (will men doing pat-downs give women extra attention?). For that matter, so can military powers, tax laws, judicial appointments, judicial rulings, bail outs, trade laws, medical laws, and so forth. What aspect of government can not be abused? So there is nothing special about profiling that makes it more abusive than other laws or procedures.
What about the argument that profiling demeaning and contrary to freedom? To answer this critique, a closer look at profiling is in order.
There are some people who hear the word “profiling” and perceive “black men have a predisposition to violence,” or “being of Middle East descent makes one a terrorist.” In other words, these people see profiling as attributing a behavior to a person because of a physical characteristic. This is not what is meant by those who advocate profiling by airport security. They advocate criminal profiling. Criminal profiling involves knowing who a criminal is and using the criminal’s characteristics to find him. For example, a witness at a scene of a robbery describes the suspect as a man, 6 foot 4 inches tall, with blond hair. Therefore, cops will profile all 6 foot, 4 inch, blond haired men as possibly being the robber, not because 6 foot, 4 inch, blond haired men have a predisposition to robbery, but because a known robber has those characteristics. The same strategy can apply to groups: members of one group (say, terrorists) have common characteristics (young men of Middle Eastern descent). So profiling young, Middle Eastern men at airports is not based on the theory that being a young man born in the Middle East makes a person a terrorist, it is based on the knowledge that other terrorists are young Middle Eastern men.
So, to use criminal profiling is not to say, “Because you have feature X, you are more prone to do Y,” rather it is to say that “Criminal A has feature X. You have feature X, therefore the possibility exists that you are criminal A.” The former statement is condescending, demeaning, and does not look at men as equals. The latter statement is good police work based on common sense. I should also point out that it is not sufficient: while profiling can focus attention on a specific type of person, highlighting who should be watched or scrutinized, it is not sufficient to convict a person. Still, it is more efficient to focusing attention on a selected group of people rather than treating every airplane passenger as a potential terrorist.
Since there is a general outcry over the body scans and pat-downs, some people have suggested that rather than being intrusive and ethically-questionable, airport security should simply use profiling. The arguments for profiling include, 1) it is used to great effect in other countries (such as Israel) and 2) it would be cheaper and quicker. The arguments is that it can be abused, and it is demeaning and contrary to a free society.
As for the argument that profiling can be abused, of course it can. So can full body scans (will scans of attractive women be saved?) and pat-downs (will men doing pat-downs give women extra attention?). For that matter, so can military powers, tax laws, judicial appointments, judicial rulings, bail outs, trade laws, medical laws, and so forth. What aspect of government can not be abused? So there is nothing special about profiling that makes it more abusive than other laws or procedures.
What about the argument that profiling demeaning and contrary to freedom? To answer this critique, a closer look at profiling is in order.
There are some people who hear the word “profiling” and perceive “black men have a predisposition to violence,” or “being of Middle East descent makes one a terrorist.” In other words, these people see profiling as attributing a behavior to a person because of a physical characteristic. This is not what is meant by those who advocate profiling by airport security. They advocate criminal profiling. Criminal profiling involves knowing who a criminal is and using the criminal’s characteristics to find him. For example, a witness at a scene of a robbery describes the suspect as a man, 6 foot 4 inches tall, with blond hair. Therefore, cops will profile all 6 foot, 4 inch, blond haired men as possibly being the robber, not because 6 foot, 4 inch, blond haired men have a predisposition to robbery, but because a known robber has those characteristics. The same strategy can apply to groups: members of one group (say, terrorists) have common characteristics (young men of Middle Eastern descent). So profiling young, Middle Eastern men at airports is not based on the theory that being a young man born in the Middle East makes a person a terrorist, it is based on the knowledge that other terrorists are young Middle Eastern men.
So, to use criminal profiling is not to say, “Because you have feature X, you are more prone to do Y,” rather it is to say that “Criminal A has feature X. You have feature X, therefore the possibility exists that you are criminal A.” The former statement is condescending, demeaning, and does not look at men as equals. The latter statement is good police work based on common sense. I should also point out that it is not sufficient: while profiling can focus attention on a specific type of person, highlighting who should be watched or scrutinized, it is not sufficient to convict a person. Still, it is more efficient to focusing attention on a selected group of people rather than treating every airplane passenger as a potential terrorist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
