Inquiry into Life (13th ed. by Sylvia Mader, published by McGraw-Hill) is the textbook I use to teach Principles of Biology. Since it is a biology textbook, one of the first things it does is define a living thing. It does so by listing seven characteristics of living things:
1) Living things are organized
2) Living things acquire materials and energy from their surroundings
3) Living things reproduce
4) Living things respond to stimuli (react to their environment)
5) Living things are homeostatic (that is, they maintain nearly constant chemical and physical conditions inside their body)
6) Livings things grow and develop
7) Living things have the capacity to adapt to their environment
Pretty simple, right? It is easy to see how common, living things fit these characteristics. The human body is organized, humans acquires materials and energy by eating, reproduce, grow and develop, react to their environment, have constant internal conditions (such as constant body temperature or blood pH), and we can adapt to our environment.
But what about tricky things, like a quartz crystal? Let’s go through each of the characteristics in turn and see how ell a quartz crystal fits.
1) A quartz crystal is organized. It has a regular arrangement of silica and oxygen molecules.
2) A quartz crystal can acquire materials and energy. For example, silicate can come out of solution and join a quartz crystal, thus the quartz crystal has acquired the silicate.
3) A quartz crystal can grow. When silicate is added to a quartz crystal, the new material is used to build up the crystal. In other words, the crystal grows.
4) A quartz crystal can reproduce. A new crystal can grow off of an existing crystal.
5) A quartz crystal can respond to stimuli. When pressure (a stimulus) is applied to a quartz crystal, the crystal responds by creating an electrical current. This is called piezoelectricity.
6) A quartz crystal is homeostatic. Its molecular structure remains constant.
About the only things a quartz crystal can not do is adapt to its environment. When the environment changes, a group of quartz crystals can not change in response: they will all remain exactly the same.
So, am I seriously suggesting that a quartz crystal might be alive? No, but this is a good illustration of how these seven characteristics of life are only barely able to define a quartz crystal as a non-living object. After all, there was only one criterion that the quartz crystal did not meet: they can’t adapt to their environment.
True, many of the “living” characteristics of quartz are a stretch. They acquire materials by pulling silicate out of solution from around them? That’s just a natural process. But isn’t an animal eating a natural process as well? But they are still different. So what is this difference?
Information. Laws of physics drive the movement of silicate so that it bonds with a quartz crystal. They crystal itself is not doing or directing anything. In contrast, an animal eating is not a passive process. Instinct drives an animal to eat, the structure and chemistry of the digestive tract and the various controls on the digestive tract (both hormonal and neural) cause food to be broken down and absorbed, and molecular machines at the cellular level use this food to build new cells to cause the organism to grow or to maintain its structure. Ultimately, the acquisition of materials and energy is driven by information in DNA which provides instructions for the molecular machines, the hormonal and neural controls, and the structure and chemistry of the digestive tract.
Matter of fact, most of the characteristics of life can be reduced to information. We have already discussed acquiring materials and energy, so that is 1). The others are:
2) The structure of an organism is directed by 3) growth and development which is controlled by information in DNA. In contrast, the structure of a quartz crystal is controlled entirely by physical laws.
4) The process of reproduction requires division of cells, which is controlled by information in DNA. The growth of a new quartz crystal is entirely controlled by physical laws.
5) Organisms respond to stimuli in a controlled manner. Signals are received, the information from the signals is processed, and an appropriate response is given. This process requires existing receptors, processing units, and the necessary information to guide them, which once again ultimately comes from the information in DNA. In contrast, piezoelectricity is a natural phenomena dictated by natural laws.
6) Homeostasis is actively controlled by an organism. Once again, this requires receptors, processing units, and a response, all of which requires information in DNA. A quartz crystal maintains its structure only because it is a very stable mineral.
Now, don’t think that it is DNA that causes life. DNA is merely a medium that stores genetic information. The real control in all of these characteristics is the information itself.
Seeing how almost everything an organism does is ultimately dictated by information, wouldn’t it be easier to define a living thing in terms of its informational content? But, my textbook can not do that. Why not? Because it must focus on adaption, not information.
Unlike the other six characteristics, adaption is not necessarily bound to information. The important factors in adaption are survival and inheritance. Whatever feature allowed for survival must be passed on to the survivor’s offspring or the adaptation will be lost in the first generation. In living organisms, information codes for these adaptations. However, information is irrelevant to the identification of adaption, since adaption is only defined in terms of survival and inheritance. The fact that information codes for adaptations actually poses a problem because information must have been created by something, and the only thing known to create information is an intelligent being.
In order to prevent any acknowledgement of a Creator, it is necessary to ignore the importance of information to life. Thus, the only thing that could possibly distinguish life from non-living matter is physical descriptions of living things. That only works so far, as illustrated by the quartz crystal, since both living and non-living objects partake in natural processes. So, adaption must be added as part of the definition of a living thing. After all, if there is no Creator, organisms must have gained their organization and methods for acquiring materials and energy, reproduction, growth, development, and homeostasis from something, and adaption is the best explanation around.
Or there really is a Creator.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Messenger of God, A Story
Christy Johnson was walking out of the campus library. It was a dark night: the sky was overcast so the moon and stars did not shine. Fortunately, there were several street lamps around campus that gave sufficient light for her to see by.
Christy was a sophomore, and it was the middle of the fall semester at the state university. So far, she was undeclared, but she was starting to lean toward a major in medicine, or at least be something that had to do with anatomy and human physiology. She was leaving the library because she had met there with some friends to review a chemistry midterm that they were going to be taking tomorrow. It was a cram session, although no one wanted to call it that. Christy figured that she would be able to pass the test easily enough, but she hoped she could at least do better than the average for the class.
As she walked down the sidewalk toward her car, her mind drifted from the facts, laws, and chemical formulas that they had been reviewing, to a rough calculation of what her likely test score would be tomorrow and how that would affect her grade. She was distracted by her thoughts so that when she walked down one particular sidewalk that ran next to a building that happened to cast a shadow over the walkway, she didn’t notice the darker shadow that began to follow her. In fact, she remained ignorant of what was happening until someone grabbed her from behind and put a hand over her mouth.
“Stay real quiet sweetheart,” a man’s voice whispered in her ear, the word “sweetheart” coming out in a maniacal mocking tone. Christy tried to scream but the man’s hand was firmly on her mouth. She tried to struggle and fight back, but his other arm held her firmly so that there was little she could do. The man carried her as he moved alongside the building, with Christy dragging her feet all the way, trying to slow him down.
They had just rounded the corner of the building, and her assailant was still holding her firmly, when she heard him yell out, “What the…” His phrase was cut short by a loud thumping sound, and then Christy could feel him falling, carrying her with him. However, his grip loosened on her, so she struggled free. She tried to right herself, and would have fallen, but someone else grabbed her arm and held her up. Despite the fact that a stranger was gripping her arm firmly in his hand, Christy didn’t feel frightened or startled.
When she was back on her feet, a voice beside her said, “Come one, let’s get out of here,” as the person gently pulled her away from the building. The voice sounded firm, but kind. They hurried out of the shadow of the building, and then Christy glanced at the person leading her away from her attacker. He was a young man: he looked like he was only a few years older than Christy. He was tall and handsome looking, with blond hair and blue eyes. He moved confidently, with long, steady strides.
“Did he hurt you?” the man said.
“No,” Christy said. She was a little shaken by everything that had just happened, so she really didn’t have anything to say.
“Where’s your car?” he asked.
“Over there,” Christy said, pointing across the parking lot.
“I’ll walk you there,” he responded. He let go of her arm, but stayed beside her as they walked toward her car.
Christy looked at the man again. She hadn’t seen him before, so it sort of surprised her how confident he was. It was almost like he knew her, like he was just escorting a friend who needed protection. For his part, he said nothing, walking beside her in silence.
When they got to her car, Christy unlocked the door, opened it up, and got inside. The young man said to her, “You should be safe now. So I’ll leave, I’ve got some things to do.”
Christy nodded, as if she understood. Then, as he was starting to turn away, she asked him something that she had wanted to ask since she first saw him, “What is your name?”
He turned back toward her, with an odd expression on his face. He had a subtle smile, but Christy couldn’t tell whether he was amused by something or whether he was keeping a secret. “Michael Guardian,” was his answer. Then he turned away and walked off with his rapid, steady strides. Christy sat there for a while, watching him go before closing her door, starting her car, and driving home.
The next day, Christy had to focus on the chemistry mid-term. However, her mind kept drifting to the events that had happened the previous night. Who was Michael Guardian? The more she thought about it, the odder he seemed. He didn’t seem odd in a sinister way, more in a mysterious, intriguing way. Later on that day, she told a friend of hers, Heather Walker, about what happened last night. Heather was very eager to hear the story and very curious about the details.
“Wow, that’s an amazing story!” Heather remarked. “It sounds kind of exciting.”
“Well, it was really scary at first, when that guy attacked me,” Christy reminded her.
“But yeah, but then that guy showed up. You have no idea who he is?”
“No, I’ve never seen him before, and I didn’t recognize his name. Did his name sound familiar to you?”
“No, I’ve never heard of a Michael Guardian.”
“He’s probably a student here,” Christy speculated. “I mean, he just showed up, so he was probably doing something late at night like we were at the study group.”
“Hey! Maybe you can get on the university web site and check the student directory. You can look him up and get in contact with him,” Heather suggested.
“Oh, I don’t know, I don’t really have a reason to contact him. He might not even be in the directory.”
“Why not? You just said that he is probably a student here.” Heather said. She was surprised by Christy’s apparently quick disregard for her own observation.
Christy was quiet for a moment. Finally, she said, “Well, there were many strange things about him. For instance, he has a strange name. Michael Guardian?”
“So it’s a strange name. What does that mean?”
“There were other things, too. He just appeared from nowhere, quickly and swiftly rescued me from that guy, and the way he walked me to my car, he seemed to know that I was going to my car.”
“That wouldn’t be hard to figure out. You were headed to the parking lot.”
“Maybe,” Christy conceded. “But he also had a very noble, strong appearance. Something about him seemed unreal.”
Heather was quiet for a moment, then cautiously said, “Where are you heading with this, Christy?”
“Isn’t Michael a name of one of the angels? And don’t people talk about guardian angels? And he said that his name is Michael Guardian? Maybe he was trying to indicate something.”
Heather smiled. “Christy, I think you are taking it a little too far.”
Even though Heather thought that she was reading more into it than there was, Christy still thought that there was something strange about Michael Guardian. However, she never checked the college directory, mainly because she was busy with her classes and forgot about it whenever she had time. However, there was another incident that took place about three weeks later that brought her in contact with Michael again.
Christy was driving home from school one day. Her mind was distracted again this evening. A paper for her biology class was coming due in a week, and she was on the verge of entering panic mode as the work for the paper became more pressing. She had part of her rough draft written, but the ending, particularly the conclusion, wasn’t coming along too well. She was starting too think that a science major might not be the thing for her.
She was so distracted that she failed to see the car in front of her putting on its brakes to slow down until she almost plowed into its rear bumper. When she finally noticed it, she screamed, slammed on the brakes, and then swerved wildly to the side, since she was obviously too close to stop in time. Unfortunately, this maneuver sent her off the edge of the road. The highway she was on happened to be on a hill as it rose to cross a street, so her car careened down the hill, rolling over a few times before crashing against a tree.
When the car came to a halt, Christy remained still for a moment, trying to orient herself. She was upside down, being held in her seat by her seat belt. Her car was upside down, the front window was smashed, all the windows were cracked or shattered so that she could not clearly see through them. Slowly she brought her hand to her head, starting to cry a little. She felt a little bit of blood on her face, and her body was sore, but she wasn’t sure where she was hurt. She tried to unbuckle herself, but the buckle was stuck. Suddenly, she noticed something. She smelt smoke. She twisted around to look at the back of her car. She could see an orange glow. Her car was on fire! Now she desperately tried to unbuckle herself, but the latch refused to open. She tried to pull herself out, but the belt was tight.
Christy started to scream in panic. Just then, the passenger window was smashed open. She looked and saw someone forcing himself through it. He reached up and grabbed her buckle. “Stop struggling!” he told her. Christy was too panicked now to listen. She just responded by screaming “Get me out!”
The man couldn’t open the latch either. His arm pulled away, and for a second, Christy thought that he might back out and leave her. But then he reached up with both hands. One arm held her up against the seat with the other reached for the strap. Suddenly, the strap let go of her as it was cut in two. Christy started to fall from her seat but the man’s strong arm controlled her descent so that she landed softly on top of him. Then, before Christy could even react, he grabbed her and practically threw her out of the passenger window. Then he hurried out after her.
Once out of the car, Christy picked herself up off the ground and began to run away from the car. She felt a little dizzy, so she had to stop a short way off, kneeling down to try and regain her sense of balance. As she was kneeling, she became aware of someone standing next to her. She looked up. She almost gasped as she recognized Michael.
“Are you okay?” he asked, as he knelt in front of her. “Your head is bleeding pretty badly.”
“I… I think I’m okay.”
“Just take it easy. Help is coming.”
Christy glanced back at her car. Flames were beginning to engulf its entire body. She looked back up at Michael.
“You’ve rescued me again,” she said.
“You seem to be in need of a lot of rescuing lately,” he responded.
Sirens could he heard in the distance, signaling the arrival of a rescue vehicle.
“Who are you?” Christy asked.
“Didn’t you ask me that last time, Christy? My name is Michael Guardian.”
“I mean, what are you?”
Michael gave her the same quizzical, mysterious look that he gave her last time. “What am I?” he repeated.
Just then, a fire truck pulled up. The firemen rushed out of the truck, most of them getting to work putting the fire out. A couple came over to Christy and Michael. Michael stood up as they approached.
“Were you involved in the crash?” one of the firemen asked Michael and Christy.
“I was not,” Michael answered. “But she was.”
The fireman knelt down and look at her head. “You’ve got a bad cut. Nothing serious, though you appear to have had some blood loss. How are you feeling?”
“A little dizzy,” Christy replied.
“Any broken bones or other injuries?” the fireman continued.
Suddenly, Christy whirled around toward Michael. “How do you know my name?” she asked. But he wasn’t there. She turned back towards the fireman, who was giving her a strange look. “Sorry, what did you say?” she asked him.
Naturally, Christy had to relate the story of her accident to Heather, and so she also had to tell her about Michael once again.
“So, your mysterious guardian angel showed up again?” Heather asked, in a slightly mocking tone.
“I’m serious, it was him.”
“Oh, I believe you. But do you still think he’s an angel?”
“Why not? He knew my name, and then he just disappeared.”
“So he left without saying goodbye, that doesn’t mean he disappeared. And if he was an angel, how come he had to struggle to get you out of the car? Wouldn’t that be a piece of cake to a supernatural being?”
“I don’t know, I can’t really claim to know how a supernatural being would behave. But I do know that a person would not know my name without asking or learning it from someone else. I didn’t tell him and no one I know knows who he is.”
“Okay, Christy. I think we should just do that little experiment of checking his name in the school directory, to see if he really is a flesh and blood person or if he is an angel.”
“Alright, let’s go.”
The two girls headed off to the library to use one of the computers there. Accessing the school’s student directory was easy enough, as they had done that several times to track down friends and classmates. But the search for Michael Guardian came up empty.
“See?” Christy said triumphantly. “He isn’t here.”
“So he’s not in the directory,” Heather retorted. “That doesn’t mean he isn’t human. People other than students come onto campus, and besides, the second time you saw him wasn’t even on campus.”
“But it was only a couple miles away from campus,” Christy responded.
“That still could be a coincidence.”
For the next several weeks, Christy kept her eyes open for Michael. Even though she thought he would only show up when she was in trouble, she would still glance over her shoulder, as if he would be walking behind her, guarding her every step.
Finally, the semester began to come to a close. With finals approaching, Christy’s schedule became more packed, but she still had other things to plan for, like the next semester. Since she was still trying to figure out what she wanted to major in, she talking to students and faculty outside of the departments she was currently taking classes in. That is why she was walking down the Devlon Hall one afternoon. Devlon Hall was where the archaeology department was located, and she was going to meet with Dr. Benhart, one of the professors in this department. There were several offices along the hallway she was walking down, and she was glancing at the names so that she could find Dr. Benhart’s office. Suddenly, she stopped dead in her tracks. One of the offices had several names on it, likely an office being shared by several graduate students. But what stopped her was one of the names: Michael Guardian.
Christy’s heart was beating rapidly. The office door was open, so she crept up and glanced inside. There were three desks, two of which were empty, but at the third sat a young man. Even though he was sitting with his back to her, Christy recognized him as Michael. Slowly, she walked into the room.
Michael must have heard her footsteps, because he stopped whatever he was working on and turned around to face her. When he saw who it was, he smiled.
Michael spoke, “Hello again. I’m glad to see you aren’t in any trouble at the moment.”
Christy didn’t answer. So many ideas, thoughts, and emotions were running through her mind that she didn’t know where to begin, or how to even bring a coherent thought together, for that matter.
There were a couple of awkward seconds of silence, which Michael broke by asking, “What did you mean when you asked me what I am?”
It still took Christy a second before she could respond, but finally she said, “I thought… You appeared out of nowhere twice to rescue me and I… I just wondered how you were able to do that, and… and what that would make you.”
Michael once again gave her that quizzical, knowing look. “I’m nothing special, if that’s what you are getting at. The fact that our paths crossed would best be explained by coincidence.”
“But how did you know my name?”
“When I escorted you to your car, I saw some homework lying in the back seat. They had the name ‘Christy’ on them, so I presumed that was your name.”
“Why didn’t your name show up in the student directory?”
“You tried finding me? Well, my name should be in the directory, or at least one of the directories. Did you look in the directory for the whole school?”
Christy thought a moment. No, she hadn’t checked the full directory, she just checked the undergraduate directory, and of course Michael wouldn’t be there, since he was a graduate student. It was dawning on her that everything she presumed to be special or unique about Michael was fading away. She began to blush.
“No, I didn’t look in the directory for the whole school. I guess I’ve been jumping to conclusions about you. Just a bunch of coincidences, I guess.”
“Coincidences, to us at least,” Michael said. “While I can not say that I intended to show up when you needed help, that doesn’t mean that those ‘accidents’ weren’t planned by Someone.”
Christy looked at Michael with a puzzled expression. “What are you talking about?” she asked.
Michael turned around and pulled a book out of his drawer. Then he turned back to Christy. She could see that the book was very thick and was leather bound. Michael opened up the book and said, “Let me tell you about this Someone.”
Christy was a sophomore, and it was the middle of the fall semester at the state university. So far, she was undeclared, but she was starting to lean toward a major in medicine, or at least be something that had to do with anatomy and human physiology. She was leaving the library because she had met there with some friends to review a chemistry midterm that they were going to be taking tomorrow. It was a cram session, although no one wanted to call it that. Christy figured that she would be able to pass the test easily enough, but she hoped she could at least do better than the average for the class.
As she walked down the sidewalk toward her car, her mind drifted from the facts, laws, and chemical formulas that they had been reviewing, to a rough calculation of what her likely test score would be tomorrow and how that would affect her grade. She was distracted by her thoughts so that when she walked down one particular sidewalk that ran next to a building that happened to cast a shadow over the walkway, she didn’t notice the darker shadow that began to follow her. In fact, she remained ignorant of what was happening until someone grabbed her from behind and put a hand over her mouth.
“Stay real quiet sweetheart,” a man’s voice whispered in her ear, the word “sweetheart” coming out in a maniacal mocking tone. Christy tried to scream but the man’s hand was firmly on her mouth. She tried to struggle and fight back, but his other arm held her firmly so that there was little she could do. The man carried her as he moved alongside the building, with Christy dragging her feet all the way, trying to slow him down.
They had just rounded the corner of the building, and her assailant was still holding her firmly, when she heard him yell out, “What the…” His phrase was cut short by a loud thumping sound, and then Christy could feel him falling, carrying her with him. However, his grip loosened on her, so she struggled free. She tried to right herself, and would have fallen, but someone else grabbed her arm and held her up. Despite the fact that a stranger was gripping her arm firmly in his hand, Christy didn’t feel frightened or startled.
When she was back on her feet, a voice beside her said, “Come one, let’s get out of here,” as the person gently pulled her away from the building. The voice sounded firm, but kind. They hurried out of the shadow of the building, and then Christy glanced at the person leading her away from her attacker. He was a young man: he looked like he was only a few years older than Christy. He was tall and handsome looking, with blond hair and blue eyes. He moved confidently, with long, steady strides.
“Did he hurt you?” the man said.
“No,” Christy said. She was a little shaken by everything that had just happened, so she really didn’t have anything to say.
“Where’s your car?” he asked.
“Over there,” Christy said, pointing across the parking lot.
“I’ll walk you there,” he responded. He let go of her arm, but stayed beside her as they walked toward her car.
Christy looked at the man again. She hadn’t seen him before, so it sort of surprised her how confident he was. It was almost like he knew her, like he was just escorting a friend who needed protection. For his part, he said nothing, walking beside her in silence.
When they got to her car, Christy unlocked the door, opened it up, and got inside. The young man said to her, “You should be safe now. So I’ll leave, I’ve got some things to do.”
Christy nodded, as if she understood. Then, as he was starting to turn away, she asked him something that she had wanted to ask since she first saw him, “What is your name?”
He turned back toward her, with an odd expression on his face. He had a subtle smile, but Christy couldn’t tell whether he was amused by something or whether he was keeping a secret. “Michael Guardian,” was his answer. Then he turned away and walked off with his rapid, steady strides. Christy sat there for a while, watching him go before closing her door, starting her car, and driving home.
The next day, Christy had to focus on the chemistry mid-term. However, her mind kept drifting to the events that had happened the previous night. Who was Michael Guardian? The more she thought about it, the odder he seemed. He didn’t seem odd in a sinister way, more in a mysterious, intriguing way. Later on that day, she told a friend of hers, Heather Walker, about what happened last night. Heather was very eager to hear the story and very curious about the details.
“Wow, that’s an amazing story!” Heather remarked. “It sounds kind of exciting.”
“Well, it was really scary at first, when that guy attacked me,” Christy reminded her.
“But yeah, but then that guy showed up. You have no idea who he is?”
“No, I’ve never seen him before, and I didn’t recognize his name. Did his name sound familiar to you?”
“No, I’ve never heard of a Michael Guardian.”
“He’s probably a student here,” Christy speculated. “I mean, he just showed up, so he was probably doing something late at night like we were at the study group.”
“Hey! Maybe you can get on the university web site and check the student directory. You can look him up and get in contact with him,” Heather suggested.
“Oh, I don’t know, I don’t really have a reason to contact him. He might not even be in the directory.”
“Why not? You just said that he is probably a student here.” Heather said. She was surprised by Christy’s apparently quick disregard for her own observation.
Christy was quiet for a moment. Finally, she said, “Well, there were many strange things about him. For instance, he has a strange name. Michael Guardian?”
“So it’s a strange name. What does that mean?”
“There were other things, too. He just appeared from nowhere, quickly and swiftly rescued me from that guy, and the way he walked me to my car, he seemed to know that I was going to my car.”
“That wouldn’t be hard to figure out. You were headed to the parking lot.”
“Maybe,” Christy conceded. “But he also had a very noble, strong appearance. Something about him seemed unreal.”
Heather was quiet for a moment, then cautiously said, “Where are you heading with this, Christy?”
“Isn’t Michael a name of one of the angels? And don’t people talk about guardian angels? And he said that his name is Michael Guardian? Maybe he was trying to indicate something.”
Heather smiled. “Christy, I think you are taking it a little too far.”
Even though Heather thought that she was reading more into it than there was, Christy still thought that there was something strange about Michael Guardian. However, she never checked the college directory, mainly because she was busy with her classes and forgot about it whenever she had time. However, there was another incident that took place about three weeks later that brought her in contact with Michael again.
Christy was driving home from school one day. Her mind was distracted again this evening. A paper for her biology class was coming due in a week, and she was on the verge of entering panic mode as the work for the paper became more pressing. She had part of her rough draft written, but the ending, particularly the conclusion, wasn’t coming along too well. She was starting too think that a science major might not be the thing for her.
She was so distracted that she failed to see the car in front of her putting on its brakes to slow down until she almost plowed into its rear bumper. When she finally noticed it, she screamed, slammed on the brakes, and then swerved wildly to the side, since she was obviously too close to stop in time. Unfortunately, this maneuver sent her off the edge of the road. The highway she was on happened to be on a hill as it rose to cross a street, so her car careened down the hill, rolling over a few times before crashing against a tree.
When the car came to a halt, Christy remained still for a moment, trying to orient herself. She was upside down, being held in her seat by her seat belt. Her car was upside down, the front window was smashed, all the windows were cracked or shattered so that she could not clearly see through them. Slowly she brought her hand to her head, starting to cry a little. She felt a little bit of blood on her face, and her body was sore, but she wasn’t sure where she was hurt. She tried to unbuckle herself, but the buckle was stuck. Suddenly, she noticed something. She smelt smoke. She twisted around to look at the back of her car. She could see an orange glow. Her car was on fire! Now she desperately tried to unbuckle herself, but the latch refused to open. She tried to pull herself out, but the belt was tight.
Christy started to scream in panic. Just then, the passenger window was smashed open. She looked and saw someone forcing himself through it. He reached up and grabbed her buckle. “Stop struggling!” he told her. Christy was too panicked now to listen. She just responded by screaming “Get me out!”
The man couldn’t open the latch either. His arm pulled away, and for a second, Christy thought that he might back out and leave her. But then he reached up with both hands. One arm held her up against the seat with the other reached for the strap. Suddenly, the strap let go of her as it was cut in two. Christy started to fall from her seat but the man’s strong arm controlled her descent so that she landed softly on top of him. Then, before Christy could even react, he grabbed her and practically threw her out of the passenger window. Then he hurried out after her.
Once out of the car, Christy picked herself up off the ground and began to run away from the car. She felt a little dizzy, so she had to stop a short way off, kneeling down to try and regain her sense of balance. As she was kneeling, she became aware of someone standing next to her. She looked up. She almost gasped as she recognized Michael.
“Are you okay?” he asked, as he knelt in front of her. “Your head is bleeding pretty badly.”
“I… I think I’m okay.”
“Just take it easy. Help is coming.”
Christy glanced back at her car. Flames were beginning to engulf its entire body. She looked back up at Michael.
“You’ve rescued me again,” she said.
“You seem to be in need of a lot of rescuing lately,” he responded.
Sirens could he heard in the distance, signaling the arrival of a rescue vehicle.
“Who are you?” Christy asked.
“Didn’t you ask me that last time, Christy? My name is Michael Guardian.”
“I mean, what are you?”
Michael gave her the same quizzical, mysterious look that he gave her last time. “What am I?” he repeated.
Just then, a fire truck pulled up. The firemen rushed out of the truck, most of them getting to work putting the fire out. A couple came over to Christy and Michael. Michael stood up as they approached.
“Were you involved in the crash?” one of the firemen asked Michael and Christy.
“I was not,” Michael answered. “But she was.”
The fireman knelt down and look at her head. “You’ve got a bad cut. Nothing serious, though you appear to have had some blood loss. How are you feeling?”
“A little dizzy,” Christy replied.
“Any broken bones or other injuries?” the fireman continued.
Suddenly, Christy whirled around toward Michael. “How do you know my name?” she asked. But he wasn’t there. She turned back towards the fireman, who was giving her a strange look. “Sorry, what did you say?” she asked him.
Naturally, Christy had to relate the story of her accident to Heather, and so she also had to tell her about Michael once again.
“So, your mysterious guardian angel showed up again?” Heather asked, in a slightly mocking tone.
“I’m serious, it was him.”
“Oh, I believe you. But do you still think he’s an angel?”
“Why not? He knew my name, and then he just disappeared.”
“So he left without saying goodbye, that doesn’t mean he disappeared. And if he was an angel, how come he had to struggle to get you out of the car? Wouldn’t that be a piece of cake to a supernatural being?”
“I don’t know, I can’t really claim to know how a supernatural being would behave. But I do know that a person would not know my name without asking or learning it from someone else. I didn’t tell him and no one I know knows who he is.”
“Okay, Christy. I think we should just do that little experiment of checking his name in the school directory, to see if he really is a flesh and blood person or if he is an angel.”
“Alright, let’s go.”
The two girls headed off to the library to use one of the computers there. Accessing the school’s student directory was easy enough, as they had done that several times to track down friends and classmates. But the search for Michael Guardian came up empty.
“See?” Christy said triumphantly. “He isn’t here.”
“So he’s not in the directory,” Heather retorted. “That doesn’t mean he isn’t human. People other than students come onto campus, and besides, the second time you saw him wasn’t even on campus.”
“But it was only a couple miles away from campus,” Christy responded.
“That still could be a coincidence.”
For the next several weeks, Christy kept her eyes open for Michael. Even though she thought he would only show up when she was in trouble, she would still glance over her shoulder, as if he would be walking behind her, guarding her every step.
Finally, the semester began to come to a close. With finals approaching, Christy’s schedule became more packed, but she still had other things to plan for, like the next semester. Since she was still trying to figure out what she wanted to major in, she talking to students and faculty outside of the departments she was currently taking classes in. That is why she was walking down the Devlon Hall one afternoon. Devlon Hall was where the archaeology department was located, and she was going to meet with Dr. Benhart, one of the professors in this department. There were several offices along the hallway she was walking down, and she was glancing at the names so that she could find Dr. Benhart’s office. Suddenly, she stopped dead in her tracks. One of the offices had several names on it, likely an office being shared by several graduate students. But what stopped her was one of the names: Michael Guardian.
Christy’s heart was beating rapidly. The office door was open, so she crept up and glanced inside. There were three desks, two of which were empty, but at the third sat a young man. Even though he was sitting with his back to her, Christy recognized him as Michael. Slowly, she walked into the room.
Michael must have heard her footsteps, because he stopped whatever he was working on and turned around to face her. When he saw who it was, he smiled.
Michael spoke, “Hello again. I’m glad to see you aren’t in any trouble at the moment.”
Christy didn’t answer. So many ideas, thoughts, and emotions were running through her mind that she didn’t know where to begin, or how to even bring a coherent thought together, for that matter.
There were a couple of awkward seconds of silence, which Michael broke by asking, “What did you mean when you asked me what I am?”
It still took Christy a second before she could respond, but finally she said, “I thought… You appeared out of nowhere twice to rescue me and I… I just wondered how you were able to do that, and… and what that would make you.”
Michael once again gave her that quizzical, knowing look. “I’m nothing special, if that’s what you are getting at. The fact that our paths crossed would best be explained by coincidence.”
“But how did you know my name?”
“When I escorted you to your car, I saw some homework lying in the back seat. They had the name ‘Christy’ on them, so I presumed that was your name.”
“Why didn’t your name show up in the student directory?”
“You tried finding me? Well, my name should be in the directory, or at least one of the directories. Did you look in the directory for the whole school?”
Christy thought a moment. No, she hadn’t checked the full directory, she just checked the undergraduate directory, and of course Michael wouldn’t be there, since he was a graduate student. It was dawning on her that everything she presumed to be special or unique about Michael was fading away. She began to blush.
“No, I didn’t look in the directory for the whole school. I guess I’ve been jumping to conclusions about you. Just a bunch of coincidences, I guess.”
“Coincidences, to us at least,” Michael said. “While I can not say that I intended to show up when you needed help, that doesn’t mean that those ‘accidents’ weren’t planned by Someone.”
Christy looked at Michael with a puzzled expression. “What are you talking about?” she asked.
Michael turned around and pulled a book out of his drawer. Then he turned back to Christy. She could see that the book was very thick and was leather bound. Michael opened up the book and said, “Let me tell you about this Someone.”
Monday, January 10, 2011
Foundation for Logic
Many people want a universal standard of truth. There are a few people who are content with relativism where personal ideology leads to personal truth for every individual. But most people want some standard of morals that everyone in society should abide by. Religion provides a basis for morality for many people. However, there are others who are unsatisfied with religion: they see belief in a deity as arbitrary, which means that there is no real universal standard found in religion, only personal beliefs. These people may be atheists or agnostics, or they may even be religious but feel uncomfortable with holding other people to their standards. As such, they must appeal to a different universal source of truth: reason and logic.
What is reason? There are two types: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning starts with two premises and reaches a conclusion following laws of logic. For example:
All dogs have three legs. (Premise 1)
Henry is a dog. (Premise 2)
Therefore, Henry has three legs. (Conclusion)
Notice that deductive reasoning is only as good as its premises. In the example, the reasoning is valid (the conclusion follows the premises) but the conclusion is false because one of the premises is false (since most dogs have four legs). To be assured that a conclusion is true, it must be established that the premises are true. Sometimes, a premise can be shown to be true by deductive reasoning. But that only results in two more premises which will have to be verified in turn. Ultimately, there will have to be at least two premises whose truth is verified by some other means otherwise deductive reasoning will be based on unverified premises.
The other type of reasoning is inductive. With this type of reasoning, a conclusion drawn from one or multiple objects or events is extrapolated to all objects and events. Inductive reasoning is frequently used in science where observations are made in the laboratory and the results are extrapolated to events that take place outside the laboratory in the real world. Inductive reasoning must follow rules of logic, but its greatest weakness is that it relies on an assumption of uniformity. Uniformity means that the rules that apply to one event (for example, in the laboratory) also apply to other events (in the real world). Can it be shown that uniformity is true? Inductive reasoning can not verify uniformity for it assumes uniformity to be true to begin with. Deductive reasoning can not verify it until at least two premises are verified by some other means. What about observation? Don’t we see uniformity all around us? After all, pure water evaporates at 100 oC everywhere it is tried, therefore the same rules for the evaporation of water apply everywhere. But that is using inductive reasoning: yes, water has always evaporated at 100 oC every time it is tried, but it has not been tried in every possible location or event. Therefore, conclusions from a group (every time it has been tried) are extrapolated to all objects and events. In the end, uniformity can not be verified by logic, reason, or observation, leaving uniformity as an assumption.
Lastly, consider logic itself. How can the rules of logic be verified? Take the law of non-contradiction, for example. The law says one object can not exist in two mutually exclusive categories at the same time. For example, something can not be dead and alive at the same time, since those two states of being are mutually exclusive. How can we know that this law is true? Inductive reasoning can not be used unless uniformity is verified. Observation can not since it will use inductive reasoning to extrapolate from a group of events to all possible events. Deductive reasoning can not unless at least two premises whose truth is known by some other means are found. In conclusion, logic and reason can not be shown to reach truth unless multiple assumptions (at least two foundational premises, uniformity, and the rules of logic) can be shown to be true. Unless these assumptions are verified, using logic to reach universal truth is an arbitrary assumption.
Since logic by itself is an assumption, what can be used to validate it? A God who created everything (Gen. 1:1, John 1:3), who never changes (James 1:17, Num. 23:19), and who uses reasoning Himself (Isa. 1:18) would be a good start. Seeing that the God of the Bible makes these claims, it is no wonder that He would say that knowledge comes from Him (Prov. 1:7, 9:10). So if someone wants to use logic and reason to determine truth, he must first accept the existence of God. Otherwise, his use of logic and reason is nothing more than an arbitrary assumption.
What is reason? There are two types: deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning starts with two premises and reaches a conclusion following laws of logic. For example:
All dogs have three legs. (Premise 1)
Henry is a dog. (Premise 2)
Therefore, Henry has three legs. (Conclusion)
Notice that deductive reasoning is only as good as its premises. In the example, the reasoning is valid (the conclusion follows the premises) but the conclusion is false because one of the premises is false (since most dogs have four legs). To be assured that a conclusion is true, it must be established that the premises are true. Sometimes, a premise can be shown to be true by deductive reasoning. But that only results in two more premises which will have to be verified in turn. Ultimately, there will have to be at least two premises whose truth is verified by some other means otherwise deductive reasoning will be based on unverified premises.
The other type of reasoning is inductive. With this type of reasoning, a conclusion drawn from one or multiple objects or events is extrapolated to all objects and events. Inductive reasoning is frequently used in science where observations are made in the laboratory and the results are extrapolated to events that take place outside the laboratory in the real world. Inductive reasoning must follow rules of logic, but its greatest weakness is that it relies on an assumption of uniformity. Uniformity means that the rules that apply to one event (for example, in the laboratory) also apply to other events (in the real world). Can it be shown that uniformity is true? Inductive reasoning can not verify uniformity for it assumes uniformity to be true to begin with. Deductive reasoning can not verify it until at least two premises are verified by some other means. What about observation? Don’t we see uniformity all around us? After all, pure water evaporates at 100 oC everywhere it is tried, therefore the same rules for the evaporation of water apply everywhere. But that is using inductive reasoning: yes, water has always evaporated at 100 oC every time it is tried, but it has not been tried in every possible location or event. Therefore, conclusions from a group (every time it has been tried) are extrapolated to all objects and events. In the end, uniformity can not be verified by logic, reason, or observation, leaving uniformity as an assumption.
Lastly, consider logic itself. How can the rules of logic be verified? Take the law of non-contradiction, for example. The law says one object can not exist in two mutually exclusive categories at the same time. For example, something can not be dead and alive at the same time, since those two states of being are mutually exclusive. How can we know that this law is true? Inductive reasoning can not be used unless uniformity is verified. Observation can not since it will use inductive reasoning to extrapolate from a group of events to all possible events. Deductive reasoning can not unless at least two premises whose truth is known by some other means are found. In conclusion, logic and reason can not be shown to reach truth unless multiple assumptions (at least two foundational premises, uniformity, and the rules of logic) can be shown to be true. Unless these assumptions are verified, using logic to reach universal truth is an arbitrary assumption.
Since logic by itself is an assumption, what can be used to validate it? A God who created everything (Gen. 1:1, John 1:3), who never changes (James 1:17, Num. 23:19), and who uses reasoning Himself (Isa. 1:18) would be a good start. Seeing that the God of the Bible makes these claims, it is no wonder that He would say that knowledge comes from Him (Prov. 1:7, 9:10). So if someone wants to use logic and reason to determine truth, he must first accept the existence of God. Otherwise, his use of logic and reason is nothing more than an arbitrary assumption.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Creator/Creature Relationships in Other Movies
(Warning: This post contains spoilers of the Jurassic Park movies and The Truman Show)
In my last post, I examined Tron: Legacy in light of how the creators (users) were related to the creature (programs) and spontaneously generated being (isos). That movie was in error because the creator had no real power over his creation. In this post, I want to look at a couple other movies which also have the creator/creature relationship as a central focus of the story.
The Jurassic Park series uses a classic plot: scientists create or bring to life creatures which then get loose and attack the scientists (and any innocent bystanders). In these movies, there are references to the Jurassic Park scientists as the creator of the dinosaurs. For instance, in the second movie, the CEO of INGEN says, in reference to the dinosaurs, “A creature brought back from extinction has no rights. We made them, we own them.” And in the third movie, while walking through an old laboratory where the dinosaurs were bred, one of the characters asks, “So this is how you make dinosaurs?” and the paleontologist character answers, “No, this is how you play god.”
But, despite their status as creator, the scientists loose control of the dinosaurs, who escape their cages and escape genetic failsafes which were supposed to make their propagation impossible. The movie attributes the ability of the dinosaurs to escape and survive apart from their creators as the result of nature. “Nature will find a way” was the ominous warning given before everything went haywire. So in the Jurassic Park movies, blind, undirected nature was a more powerful force than human intelligence.
Or at least, that’s what they wanted you to think. Ironically, nature had nothing to do with the events in the movie. Rather, it was human shortcomings that facilitated the escape of the dinosaurs. First, it was a human who, motivated by greed, shut down the power in the park which allowed the dinosaurs to escape. Second, the dinosaurs had been engineered to not be able to breed, since all the dinosaurs produced were female. Yet, the dinosaurs were capable of breeding. The reason was because of amphibian DNA inserted into their genomes. This amphibian DNA was used to fill in gaps in the dinosaurs’ DNA so that a complete genome could be created. Allowing the dinosaurs to breed was an unintended consequence of the amphibian DNA. So the dinosaurs escaped not because the creature usurped the creator, but because the humans were not the real creators of the dinosaurs: they were merely using pre-existing parts and information. As one character in the first movie said, “You stood on the shoulders of giants, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, packaged it, put it on a tray, and now you want to sell it, you’re selling it!” He may have intended the “giants” to be evolutionary process, but as evolution had nothing to do with the events in the movie, “giants” would better mean the original creator of the dinosaurs, namely, God.
Another movie I want to analyze is The Truman Show. There are several allusions to a creator/creature relationship existing between two of the characters in the movie: Truman and Christof. Christof was the creator of a TV show and Truman was the star, only Truman didn’t know it. Truman lived in an artificial world controlled by Christof and populated by actors following scripts directed by Christof.
As the movie progresses, Truman begin to notice irregularities and peculiarities that cause him to question the reality of his world. The climax of the movie occurs when Truman has reached the edge of the artificial world as he attempts to leave. Christof had been watching Truman’s escape, throwing various hazards in Truman’s way attempting to get him to turn back. Finally, Christof speaks to Truman directly, his voice broadcast to Truman from out of the clouds. When he first hears this voice speaking to him, Truman asks, “Who are you?” Christof answers, “I am the creator… of a popular TV show.” Obviously, Christof sees himself as a god of his little world and Truman is his pet subject. While trying to talk Truman into returning to the life he was familiar with, Christof says, “ know you better than you know yourself.” Truman quickly responds, “You never had a camera inside my head!” And of course, Christof did not. Christof’s failure was the gimmick he built into the show: the star of the show didn’t know he was on TV and thus was following no scripts. Despite attempting to be a god, Christof failed because his subject (Truman) was not his creation, and thus Truman was not subject to nor inferior to Christof, but rather was his equal.
Here is the comparison between Tron: Legacy, the Jurassic Park movies, and The Truman Show: all portray a creator/creature relationship but they do it in various degrees of reality. In Tron: Legacy, the creator and creature are equals, because in the world of Tron: Legacy, the creator is a weaker entity than nothing. This portrayal is in stark contrast to reality. In the Jurassic Park movies, the creator/creature relationship is accurate. Since the creator only re-assembled pre-existing parts, the creature was not a novel creation and was capable of escaping the creator. However, the Jurassic Park movies err by attributing the escape of the creatures to the force of nature. The Truman Show is the most accurate, for it shows the folly of a man trying to absolutely control something he did not create.
In my last post, I examined Tron: Legacy in light of how the creators (users) were related to the creature (programs) and spontaneously generated being (isos). That movie was in error because the creator had no real power over his creation. In this post, I want to look at a couple other movies which also have the creator/creature relationship as a central focus of the story.
The Jurassic Park series uses a classic plot: scientists create or bring to life creatures which then get loose and attack the scientists (and any innocent bystanders). In these movies, there are references to the Jurassic Park scientists as the creator of the dinosaurs. For instance, in the second movie, the CEO of INGEN says, in reference to the dinosaurs, “A creature brought back from extinction has no rights. We made them, we own them.” And in the third movie, while walking through an old laboratory where the dinosaurs were bred, one of the characters asks, “So this is how you make dinosaurs?” and the paleontologist character answers, “No, this is how you play god.”
But, despite their status as creator, the scientists loose control of the dinosaurs, who escape their cages and escape genetic failsafes which were supposed to make their propagation impossible. The movie attributes the ability of the dinosaurs to escape and survive apart from their creators as the result of nature. “Nature will find a way” was the ominous warning given before everything went haywire. So in the Jurassic Park movies, blind, undirected nature was a more powerful force than human intelligence.
Or at least, that’s what they wanted you to think. Ironically, nature had nothing to do with the events in the movie. Rather, it was human shortcomings that facilitated the escape of the dinosaurs. First, it was a human who, motivated by greed, shut down the power in the park which allowed the dinosaurs to escape. Second, the dinosaurs had been engineered to not be able to breed, since all the dinosaurs produced were female. Yet, the dinosaurs were capable of breeding. The reason was because of amphibian DNA inserted into their genomes. This amphibian DNA was used to fill in gaps in the dinosaurs’ DNA so that a complete genome could be created. Allowing the dinosaurs to breed was an unintended consequence of the amphibian DNA. So the dinosaurs escaped not because the creature usurped the creator, but because the humans were not the real creators of the dinosaurs: they were merely using pre-existing parts and information. As one character in the first movie said, “You stood on the shoulders of giants, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, packaged it, put it on a tray, and now you want to sell it, you’re selling it!” He may have intended the “giants” to be evolutionary process, but as evolution had nothing to do with the events in the movie, “giants” would better mean the original creator of the dinosaurs, namely, God.
Another movie I want to analyze is The Truman Show. There are several allusions to a creator/creature relationship existing between two of the characters in the movie: Truman and Christof. Christof was the creator of a TV show and Truman was the star, only Truman didn’t know it. Truman lived in an artificial world controlled by Christof and populated by actors following scripts directed by Christof.
As the movie progresses, Truman begin to notice irregularities and peculiarities that cause him to question the reality of his world. The climax of the movie occurs when Truman has reached the edge of the artificial world as he attempts to leave. Christof had been watching Truman’s escape, throwing various hazards in Truman’s way attempting to get him to turn back. Finally, Christof speaks to Truman directly, his voice broadcast to Truman from out of the clouds. When he first hears this voice speaking to him, Truman asks, “Who are you?” Christof answers, “I am the creator… of a popular TV show.” Obviously, Christof sees himself as a god of his little world and Truman is his pet subject. While trying to talk Truman into returning to the life he was familiar with, Christof says, “ know you better than you know yourself.” Truman quickly responds, “You never had a camera inside my head!” And of course, Christof did not. Christof’s failure was the gimmick he built into the show: the star of the show didn’t know he was on TV and thus was following no scripts. Despite attempting to be a god, Christof failed because his subject (Truman) was not his creation, and thus Truman was not subject to nor inferior to Christof, but rather was his equal.
Here is the comparison between Tron: Legacy, the Jurassic Park movies, and The Truman Show: all portray a creator/creature relationship but they do it in various degrees of reality. In Tron: Legacy, the creator and creature are equals, because in the world of Tron: Legacy, the creator is a weaker entity than nothing. This portrayal is in stark contrast to reality. In the Jurassic Park movies, the creator/creature relationship is accurate. Since the creator only re-assembled pre-existing parts, the creature was not a novel creation and was capable of escaping the creator. However, the Jurassic Park movies err by attributing the escape of the creatures to the force of nature. The Truman Show is the most accurate, for it shows the folly of a man trying to absolutely control something he did not create.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
