Here is what the apostle Peter said in I Peter 1:11-12:
"Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."
According to these verses, the purpose of the prophecies was for us, the saints who are alive after the resurrection of Christ. Now, the prophets themselves must have had some understanding of “the things, which are now reported unto you,” such as “the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.” However, their understanding was incomplete: we as New Testament saints can now look back and have a more complete understanding of the events of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.
I think this principle applies to a lot of the Old Testament. Just as we can not fully understand Christ’s redemptive work from Old Testament prophecies alone, there are many things in the Old Testament that we can not understand from the perspective of the Old Testament alone. Take the Law for example.
As Paul says in Romans 3:20, “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” This confused many people in the Old Testament, for they thought that the purpose of the Law was to lead to salvation. However, there was still an understanding among Old Testament saints that salvation was not by the Law, but by grace (for example, David speaks of salvation by grace in Psalms 32:1-2, which is also quoted by Paul in Romans 4: 7-8). But, the full application of justification by grace was not understood. This confusion carried over into the early Church, where there were disputes as to what parts of the Law the Gentiles must follow (which was addressed by the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15). Here is what Paul had to say about one part of the Law:
"For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, they circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumsicion be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, it if fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?" (Romans 2:25-27)
Apparently, circumcision has no significance, it is keeping of the righteousness of the Law this is significant (Paul does say in I Cor. 7:19 that “circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God”).
Now, would an Old Testament saint know that circumcision is of no account to God? Maybe not. As pointed out before, they did have an understanding that salvation was through grace, not works, but considering that circumcision was an issue that was disputed among the early Church (and came to a head in the council at Jerusalem), there was some error in the thinking on circumcision. The same would apply to other aspects of the Law, such as eating unclean versus clean animals, keeping holidays and feasts, and other issues dealt with by the apostles in the Epistles. However, we have the New Testament to clarify and explain what is the significance of the Law to New Testament saints.
The purpose of this discussion is not to say that the Law is outdated or old, but the purpose of this discussion is to highlight that the Law (and the Old Testament as a whole, for that matter) is merely the beginning of God’s plan. That plan was completed and fulfilled in Christ’s death and resurrection, and now, looking back, we can have an understanding of what the whole plan looks like and better understand the various parts of the plan. Again, as Peter said, to the prophets “it was revealed that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel.”
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Villain-Turned-Heroes in Animated Movies
My sister commented that there have been several animated movies that came out in the last year that have a prominent character who starts out as a villain but eventually changes and becomes a hero in the end. I know of two of these characters: Gru from “Despicable Me” and Flynn Rider from “Tangled.” I want to compare these two characters to examine their “turn-around” from being a villain to being a hero. The purpose is to examine the “turn-around” and see how believable it is. Are these conversions a genuine change of character? Are these villains-turned-heroes laudable or subtly misleading?
(Warning: There will be many spoilers in this discussion, so if you haven’t seen either movie and don’t want to know what happens, you should not read on.)
Gru is the main character in “Despicable Me” while Flynn Rider is only the lead male in “Tangled.” Gru is a master criminal who has his own secret lab, a mad scientist at his disposal, and a legion of minions to do his will, while Flynn works with a couple of thug brothers. Despite these differences, they actually have a lot in common. They are both thieves. They both stumble upon a woman/girls that they have to work through. Gru find a trio of orphan girls who he finds can help him in his plot to steal the moon. Flynn Rider has the crown he just stole taken from him and hidden by Rapunzel, who will not give it back until he takes her to see the floating lanterns. Neither Gru nor Flynn like the arrangement: they seem to accept the prospect of working with these women grudgingly. But, eventually, they begin to have a fondness for the women.
Now the stories of Gru and Flynn Rider deviate from one another. I’ll focus on Gru first. Gru begins to be attached to the girls, and the movie demonstrates that the girls also have an attachment to him. This is shown in a scene where Gru has just been turned down by the Bank of Evil for a loan to build a rocket in order to steal the moon. This is a huge blow to Gru, as it has been his dream since a child to go to the moon, and now that dream has morphed into stealing the moon. He eventually has to tell his minions that the plan to steal the moon is off, but the girls decide to give him what little money they have to help Gru build the rocket. This action inspires the minions to do the same, and working together, they build the rocket.
The scene described above is the first thing I dislike about the plot of “Despicable Me.” The girls show their support for Gru by helping him steal the moon. Sure, stealing the moon is a fantastic idea, but why did the movie show them become supportive of his criminal actions? It’s like the viewers are not supposed to care that Gru is planning a theft, it’s just touching that the girls want to help him.
Anyway, while building the rocket, Gru faces a fork in the road: his mad scientist calls the orphanage so that they can come and take the girls back. The scientist, Dr. Nefario, says that the girls are slowing down the plan: Gru has to choose between them or stealing the moon. Gru chooses the moon. Later on in the movie, Gru calls this choice the worst mistake he ever made, demonstrating that he felt a remorse for giving up the girls. But how remorseful was he? When did he decide that the girls were worth keeping at the expense of the moon?
Never, actually. Gru does eventually rush to the girl’s rescue, right after he steals the moon. He has to rescue the girls from his enemy, Vector, who kidnapped them in order to get the moon from Gru. Gru does hand over the moon in an attempt to free the girls. It doesn’t work, however, and a chase scene ensues and the moon inadvertently is put back into orbit. Now, it may appear that Gru was willing to give up the moon to save the girls, implying that he considered the girls more important than his criminal activity. However, I don’t see that as the case. Remember what his original dream was: to go to the moon. He had accomplished that. Even though he gave the moon up, he could still say, “I went to the moon and stole it.” Quite simply, he accomplished his goal. It was only after accomplishing his goal that the girls took such a priority that he had to go rescue them. So he never really gave up anything valuable to save the girls, his priorities changed simply because the first priority was accomplished. This does not seem like true repentance to me.
So was Gru a true example of a hero-turned-villain? I don’t think so. Not only did caring for the girls become important only after he stole the moon, he never returned the moon to orbit himself: that was simply a lucky accident. So the movie “Despicable Me” made an attempt to show repentance, but failed to show Gru actually have change of heart.
Now what about Flynn? If anything, this guy starts out even worse than Gru does. After stealing a crown right out of the castle with the help of the Stabbington brothers, he eventually double crosses his associates in order to save his own skin. So not only is he a thief, he is a liar and a traitor, which puts him in stark contrast to Rapunzel, as she makes it very clear that when she makes a promise, she will always keep it (this becomes critically important later on).
In the course of taking Rapunzel to see the floating lanterns, Flynn begins to fall for her. Nothing unique there: why wouldn’t a guy begin to become attached to a pretty girl after spending several days with her? Then the test comes. Mother Gothel, Rapunzel’s fake, and extremely devious and manipulative, mother, tells Rapunzel that Flynn has no interest in her, he only has an interest in getting the crown back. So, she challenges Rapunzel to return the crown and see what Flynn does. So after Flynn takes her to see the lanterns, Rapunzel returns the crown to him. And Flynn does not abandon her.
Now, to be honest, events happen rather quickly after Rapunzel returns the crown to Flynn: the Stabbington brothers show up again and this time, they take advantage of Flynn and turn him over to the authorities. Mother Gothel double crosses the Stabbington brothers all for a show to convince Rapunzel that the world is just far too dangerous for her in order to convince Rapunzel that she must return to her tower and stay there. With all of this happening, we really don’t get to see whether Flynn was willing to give up the crown, and more importantly, give up his old way of life, for Rapunzel. As things go, there is actually reason to believe that he will continue a life a crime, for as he is on his way to be hanged, he is rescued by a gang of ruffians. But to be honest, that was not Flynn’s doing, that was the work of the horse, Maximus.
After being rescued from the gallows, Flynn Rider immediately rushes off to the tower to find Rapunzel, fearing that she is in danger. I might point out that at this point, he does not have the crown and he does not appear to have any intention of reacquiring it. Also, his fear that Rapunzel is in danger was true, for after arriving in the tower, he finds Rapunzel tied up, and then Mother Gothel mortally stabs Flynn. Rapunzel desperately wants to save Flynn by using her magical hair. Pleading with mother Gothel, she promises her that if she lets her save Flynn, she would stay with Mother Gothel forever.
Now here comes Flynn Rider’s true test. He has two choices: be healed by Rapunzel and let her become a permanent slave to Mother Gothel (not by force, but because Rapunzel promised it) or somehow try to save her. Guess what Flynn Rider does? He cuts Rapunzel’s hair. This renders her hair powerless, making Rapunzel useless to Mother Gothel, therefore permanently freeing Rapunzel from Gothel. But without her hair, Rapunzel cannot save Flynn. So unlike Gru, who accomplished his dream before rescuing the girls, Flynn gave up all his dreams (because, quite simply, he died) in order to rescue Rapunzel.
Now, a Disney princess movie could not end with the lead male character lying dead on the floor, so unbeknownst to anyone, enough magic remains in Rapunzel’s tears to revive and restore Flynn. But that doesn’t matter, as far as the test goes. Flynn had no idea that would happen, therefore when he cut her hair, he gave up all hope of rescue for himself in order that Rapunzel would be free. That is genuine repentance: Flynn Rider gave up everything, including his old way of life, to save someone he genuinely loved.
So while “Despicable Me” attempts to show a villain-turned-hero change, it failed, but instead showed a man who never gave up his way of life, only refocused it. “Tangled,” however, showed genuine devotion and repentance, and that makes it a much better movie than “Despicable Me” could ever be.
(Warning: There will be many spoilers in this discussion, so if you haven’t seen either movie and don’t want to know what happens, you should not read on.)
Gru is the main character in “Despicable Me” while Flynn Rider is only the lead male in “Tangled.” Gru is a master criminal who has his own secret lab, a mad scientist at his disposal, and a legion of minions to do his will, while Flynn works with a couple of thug brothers. Despite these differences, they actually have a lot in common. They are both thieves. They both stumble upon a woman/girls that they have to work through. Gru find a trio of orphan girls who he finds can help him in his plot to steal the moon. Flynn Rider has the crown he just stole taken from him and hidden by Rapunzel, who will not give it back until he takes her to see the floating lanterns. Neither Gru nor Flynn like the arrangement: they seem to accept the prospect of working with these women grudgingly. But, eventually, they begin to have a fondness for the women.
Now the stories of Gru and Flynn Rider deviate from one another. I’ll focus on Gru first. Gru begins to be attached to the girls, and the movie demonstrates that the girls also have an attachment to him. This is shown in a scene where Gru has just been turned down by the Bank of Evil for a loan to build a rocket in order to steal the moon. This is a huge blow to Gru, as it has been his dream since a child to go to the moon, and now that dream has morphed into stealing the moon. He eventually has to tell his minions that the plan to steal the moon is off, but the girls decide to give him what little money they have to help Gru build the rocket. This action inspires the minions to do the same, and working together, they build the rocket.
The scene described above is the first thing I dislike about the plot of “Despicable Me.” The girls show their support for Gru by helping him steal the moon. Sure, stealing the moon is a fantastic idea, but why did the movie show them become supportive of his criminal actions? It’s like the viewers are not supposed to care that Gru is planning a theft, it’s just touching that the girls want to help him.
Anyway, while building the rocket, Gru faces a fork in the road: his mad scientist calls the orphanage so that they can come and take the girls back. The scientist, Dr. Nefario, says that the girls are slowing down the plan: Gru has to choose between them or stealing the moon. Gru chooses the moon. Later on in the movie, Gru calls this choice the worst mistake he ever made, demonstrating that he felt a remorse for giving up the girls. But how remorseful was he? When did he decide that the girls were worth keeping at the expense of the moon?
Never, actually. Gru does eventually rush to the girl’s rescue, right after he steals the moon. He has to rescue the girls from his enemy, Vector, who kidnapped them in order to get the moon from Gru. Gru does hand over the moon in an attempt to free the girls. It doesn’t work, however, and a chase scene ensues and the moon inadvertently is put back into orbit. Now, it may appear that Gru was willing to give up the moon to save the girls, implying that he considered the girls more important than his criminal activity. However, I don’t see that as the case. Remember what his original dream was: to go to the moon. He had accomplished that. Even though he gave the moon up, he could still say, “I went to the moon and stole it.” Quite simply, he accomplished his goal. It was only after accomplishing his goal that the girls took such a priority that he had to go rescue them. So he never really gave up anything valuable to save the girls, his priorities changed simply because the first priority was accomplished. This does not seem like true repentance to me.
So was Gru a true example of a hero-turned-villain? I don’t think so. Not only did caring for the girls become important only after he stole the moon, he never returned the moon to orbit himself: that was simply a lucky accident. So the movie “Despicable Me” made an attempt to show repentance, but failed to show Gru actually have change of heart.
Now what about Flynn? If anything, this guy starts out even worse than Gru does. After stealing a crown right out of the castle with the help of the Stabbington brothers, he eventually double crosses his associates in order to save his own skin. So not only is he a thief, he is a liar and a traitor, which puts him in stark contrast to Rapunzel, as she makes it very clear that when she makes a promise, she will always keep it (this becomes critically important later on).
In the course of taking Rapunzel to see the floating lanterns, Flynn begins to fall for her. Nothing unique there: why wouldn’t a guy begin to become attached to a pretty girl after spending several days with her? Then the test comes. Mother Gothel, Rapunzel’s fake, and extremely devious and manipulative, mother, tells Rapunzel that Flynn has no interest in her, he only has an interest in getting the crown back. So, she challenges Rapunzel to return the crown and see what Flynn does. So after Flynn takes her to see the lanterns, Rapunzel returns the crown to him. And Flynn does not abandon her.
Now, to be honest, events happen rather quickly after Rapunzel returns the crown to Flynn: the Stabbington brothers show up again and this time, they take advantage of Flynn and turn him over to the authorities. Mother Gothel double crosses the Stabbington brothers all for a show to convince Rapunzel that the world is just far too dangerous for her in order to convince Rapunzel that she must return to her tower and stay there. With all of this happening, we really don’t get to see whether Flynn was willing to give up the crown, and more importantly, give up his old way of life, for Rapunzel. As things go, there is actually reason to believe that he will continue a life a crime, for as he is on his way to be hanged, he is rescued by a gang of ruffians. But to be honest, that was not Flynn’s doing, that was the work of the horse, Maximus.
After being rescued from the gallows, Flynn Rider immediately rushes off to the tower to find Rapunzel, fearing that she is in danger. I might point out that at this point, he does not have the crown and he does not appear to have any intention of reacquiring it. Also, his fear that Rapunzel is in danger was true, for after arriving in the tower, he finds Rapunzel tied up, and then Mother Gothel mortally stabs Flynn. Rapunzel desperately wants to save Flynn by using her magical hair. Pleading with mother Gothel, she promises her that if she lets her save Flynn, she would stay with Mother Gothel forever.
Now here comes Flynn Rider’s true test. He has two choices: be healed by Rapunzel and let her become a permanent slave to Mother Gothel (not by force, but because Rapunzel promised it) or somehow try to save her. Guess what Flynn Rider does? He cuts Rapunzel’s hair. This renders her hair powerless, making Rapunzel useless to Mother Gothel, therefore permanently freeing Rapunzel from Gothel. But without her hair, Rapunzel cannot save Flynn. So unlike Gru, who accomplished his dream before rescuing the girls, Flynn gave up all his dreams (because, quite simply, he died) in order to rescue Rapunzel.
Now, a Disney princess movie could not end with the lead male character lying dead on the floor, so unbeknownst to anyone, enough magic remains in Rapunzel’s tears to revive and restore Flynn. But that doesn’t matter, as far as the test goes. Flynn had no idea that would happen, therefore when he cut her hair, he gave up all hope of rescue for himself in order that Rapunzel would be free. That is genuine repentance: Flynn Rider gave up everything, including his old way of life, to save someone he genuinely loved.
So while “Despicable Me” attempts to show a villain-turned-hero change, it failed, but instead showed a man who never gave up his way of life, only refocused it. “Tangled,” however, showed genuine devotion and repentance, and that makes it a much better movie than “Despicable Me” could ever be.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The Foundation of Human Rights
Here is a quote from Mark Levine which he spoke on his radio show on Thursday (4/14): “But in order to have unalienable rights, there has to be a power beyond man and beyond government.” To set the context, Levine was talking about elected officials who want to be fiscal conservatives but avoid the social issues. Levine’s point was that our country was founded on morality that came from religion (another quote from the same segment is “the founding [of our country] is based on a belief system,”), so one who wants to be a conservative but is avoiding a moral code is in fact acting contrary to the constitution and is thus not a true conservative.
I agree with Mark Levine. I agree that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles derived from the Bible. In particular, I want to focus on the idea in the first quote above: the idea that unalienable rights (which are considered to be precious in our country) can only exist if there is “a power beyond man and beyond government.” I will do this by contrasting two ideas for the foundation of unalienable rights. The first idea for the foundation of unalienable rights is the Judeo-Christian view. In this framework, rights come from God. Quite simply, that is why they are unalienable: they come from Him and since He is unchangeable and all powerful, He will not take them away and no one else can take them away. In this sense, to say that unalienable rights are natural is to mean that because they have been given to us by God, they are therefore part of our nature. In a similar fashion, since God is the Creator of the world, He is also Nature’s God.
The other view of unalienable rights also sees rights as natural, but their idea of nature is different. Instead of being a part of the nature that God gave to man, rights are natural because they are derived from nature. This is the atheistic or agnostic view: since God does not exist (or we don’t know or care whether He exists), rights are not coming from an outside authority, they are simply intrinsic in the way the world works. The problem with this view is that rights can not be unalienable. If there is no eternal God outside of nature, then there is no guarantee that these rights will not change. For instance, most atheists and agnostics acknowledge some form of biological evolution. In this framework, man has not always existed. Rather, man’s lineage arose from apes. So were there human rights before man existed? There couldn’t be, because there was no concept of a human. Human rights must have arisen after the arrival of humans. Therefore, human rights can not be eternal, for they must be conditional on something (at the very least, on the existence of humans). If those conditions change, the rights change (or vanish).
Some sharp atheists might note, “But in the Bible, humans weren’t created until the six day. Therefore, human rights could not have been in existence the first five days of the creation week and therefore, they must also be conditional on the existence of humans.” The error with this statement is simply that in the Bible, human rights are not dependant on humans: they are dependant on God. God always intended to create humans (He even built the world around the existence of humans) so He had human rights in mind from the beginning of creation. Without an outside authority who bestows rights on His creation, the only thing rights can be derived from is the natural world itself, and if that is always changing, human rights can also change, and they are therefore not unalienable.
So I agree with great conservatives like Mark Levine who hang our sacred rights on the existence of a God who grants rights to His creation. Denying this outside authority is to deny the foundation of human rights.
I agree with Mark Levine. I agree that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles derived from the Bible. In particular, I want to focus on the idea in the first quote above: the idea that unalienable rights (which are considered to be precious in our country) can only exist if there is “a power beyond man and beyond government.” I will do this by contrasting two ideas for the foundation of unalienable rights. The first idea for the foundation of unalienable rights is the Judeo-Christian view. In this framework, rights come from God. Quite simply, that is why they are unalienable: they come from Him and since He is unchangeable and all powerful, He will not take them away and no one else can take them away. In this sense, to say that unalienable rights are natural is to mean that because they have been given to us by God, they are therefore part of our nature. In a similar fashion, since God is the Creator of the world, He is also Nature’s God.
The other view of unalienable rights also sees rights as natural, but their idea of nature is different. Instead of being a part of the nature that God gave to man, rights are natural because they are derived from nature. This is the atheistic or agnostic view: since God does not exist (or we don’t know or care whether He exists), rights are not coming from an outside authority, they are simply intrinsic in the way the world works. The problem with this view is that rights can not be unalienable. If there is no eternal God outside of nature, then there is no guarantee that these rights will not change. For instance, most atheists and agnostics acknowledge some form of biological evolution. In this framework, man has not always existed. Rather, man’s lineage arose from apes. So were there human rights before man existed? There couldn’t be, because there was no concept of a human. Human rights must have arisen after the arrival of humans. Therefore, human rights can not be eternal, for they must be conditional on something (at the very least, on the existence of humans). If those conditions change, the rights change (or vanish).
Some sharp atheists might note, “But in the Bible, humans weren’t created until the six day. Therefore, human rights could not have been in existence the first five days of the creation week and therefore, they must also be conditional on the existence of humans.” The error with this statement is simply that in the Bible, human rights are not dependant on humans: they are dependant on God. God always intended to create humans (He even built the world around the existence of humans) so He had human rights in mind from the beginning of creation. Without an outside authority who bestows rights on His creation, the only thing rights can be derived from is the natural world itself, and if that is always changing, human rights can also change, and they are therefore not unalienable.
So I agree with great conservatives like Mark Levine who hang our sacred rights on the existence of a God who grants rights to His creation. Denying this outside authority is to deny the foundation of human rights.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Which Sabbath?
Which “Sabbath” should be honored? The fourth commandment instructs us to honor the Sabbath, which is Saturday, the last day of the week, yet most Christians worship on Sunday and treat that like the Sabbath. Now there is a precedent for meeting to worship on Sunday. The early church met on Sundays for breaking of bread and apparently for worship (Acts 20:7) and Paul gave instructions for the collecting of gifts that were to be sent to Jerusalem to occur on Sunday, presumably because that was when the Christians congregated (I Cor. 16:2). The reason for Christians meeting on Sunday is because we commemorate Christ’s resurrection by worshiping Him on the day of the week that He arose. What of Saturday? Are we no longer to honor Saturday? After all, the reason the fourth commandment instructs us to keep the Sabbath is because that is the day God rested from His creation during the creation week. Has Christ’s resurrection exceeded the end of God’s creation in importance? I think that question is faulty because it presumes that only one day of the week can be honored. Why not honor both Saturday and Sunday? Our society already does this: Saturday and Sunday are the weekend, a time distinct from the rest of the week. The reason for the separation of Saturday and Sunday has been largely lost by our culture, but the template is still there: honor the weekend as special days distinct from the other days of the week.
Monday, March 14, 2011
On Brute Facts
Brute facts. They are brute because you can’t change them, they just are. There is no kind way to use them: a brute fact is introduced into in argument to smash an opponent’s argument, not mold it.
Certain people seem to think that they have cornered the market on brute facts. Atheists like to contrast their brute facts with the faith of Christians. An atheist may claim that the facts may seem hard and cruel, but at least they are true, unlike faith, which is ultimately based on wishful thinking.
But those who rely on brute facts to settle an argument don’t know what brute facts are. What they fail to understand is that brute facts don’t exist. For that matter, a fact doesn’t exist outside of an arbitrary definition.
Take something that should be very simple to accept as fact, like length. Two people, Joe and Jake, desire to know the length of a piece of rope. Without making any prior measurements, Joe claims that the rope is 3 meters long. Jakes decides to differ and claims that the rope is not 3 meters long. So, being a couple of bright young men, Joe and Jake decide to settle the argument by measuring the rope using a meter stick. They measure the rope and it turns out to be 2.5 meters long.
Rather than allowing the measurement to settling the issue, Joe decides to be stubborn. No, the rope is 3 meters long. Joe claims that the meter stick is wrong: it is slightly short so it is no longer accurate. So Joe and Jake decide to measure the meter stick for accuracy. They collect all the meter sticks they can find and compare them. It turns out that all the meter sticks have the same length.
Still, Joe is not convinced. Sure, all the meter sticks they have collected prove that there is consistency among the meter sticks, it does not prove that any one of them represent a true meter.
At this point in the narrative, it may seem that Joe is making a frivolous argument and is simply being stubborn rather than admit his error. But Joe has a point. Has there been a brute fact so far? The original meter stick may very well be too short. Joe is also correct in noting that repeatability is not the same thing as accuracy. A meter stick that is 4 cm short will always provide measurements that are 4 cm shorter than the true length of an object. Additionally, multiple meter sticks that are all 4 cm short will all give precisely the same length for an object, but they will all be wrong.
But what’s the probability of several meter sticks all being 4 cm short? Very high, if they were all manufactured at the same time in the same place in the same manner.
How can Joe and Jake be certain that they did not collect all the meter sticks created from one bad machine? Well, they can measure their meter stick against the standard for a meter. A meter is the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second. Assuming Joe and Jake have the necessary equipment to measure light in a vacuum and 1/299,792,458th of a second, they may then verify the length of their meter stick. They measure the stick and verify that it is a meter.
But Joe refuses to give up. No, that definition of a meter is not good. It has just got to be the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/271,451,789th of a second. Jake counters the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second is the definition of a meter. Then Joe questions who made that definition…
And then it hits both of them: a meter is an arbitrary unit of length. “Definition?” I thought there would be a brute fact behind the length of a meter.
Arbitrary should be explained at this point. “Arbitrary” is not the same thing as “random.” To say something is random is to say that the occurrence of an event was not controlled. Arbitrary events are controlled but arbitrary events are not the direct cause of previous events. For example, Marge painted her room purple because she likes purple. Obviously, Marge’s likes controlled the decision in painting her room purple. But Marge also likes white unicorns. Why didn’t her like of white unicorns cause her to paint white unicorns on the walls of her room? Simply because Marge arbitrarily chose one action over another. There was no necessary cause but there was reason.
The same can be said with any definition devised by man. A meter is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second because a group of men settled upon that definition. There were reasons for that definition, but nothing that dictated that that must be the definition of a meter. Rather, an arbitrary standard was chosen in order to make all measurements uniform.
But that only shows that human measurements are arbitrary. The fact that the units of measure are arbitrary should not affect the validity of the world that they are used to measure. No, but…
What happens when Joe and Jake discuss the color of the sky? Jake says the sky is blue, Joe says that it is green. To prove that Joe is wrong, Jake takes a blue card and holds it up to the sky, illustrating that the card and sky are both blue. While Joe agrees that the card is blue, he claims that the sky and the card are not the same color. Jake claims that Joe is just being silly. Obviously, Jake sees that the card and the sky are the same color, so Joe must see the same thing. But Joe points out that Jake can not know what Joe sees: only Joe can perceive the world according to Joe’s sense.
How can Jake prove to Joe that the sky is blue? Jake can ask every person in the world what color the sky is and they may all say that the sky is blue, but Joe just claims that only proves that everyone’s eyes are precise: it does not prove that they are accurate.
Jake then acquires a spectrophotometer, measures the wavelength of light coming from the card and the light coming from the sky and shows that they are the same wavelength. Joe reminds Jake that all he has done is use a sophisticated machine in place of a pair of human eyes: just because the spectrophotometer agrees with all of mankind that the sky is blue, that still only shows precision, not accuracy.
Frustrated, Jake claims that the sky must be blue because the interaction of sunlight with the atmosphere scatters blue light. Joe asks why this must be so. Jakes say that multiple scientists came up with the laws that dictate the behavior of light. Joe claims that the agreement of the scientists only proves precision, not accuracy.
At this point, Jake throws up his hands and leaves. Clearly, Joe will never accept that the sky is blue, just like he never accepted that the rope was 3 meters long.
Why did Jake fail to convince Joe? Was Joe so stubborn that he could never be convinced? Partially, but more importantly, Jake could not muster a single brute fact that Joe had to accept. Every fact Jake referenced to prove that the rope was 3 meters and that the sky was blue relied on an arbitrary definition or consensus among multiple people.
Such is the way with brute facts. Every brute fact ultimately rests on the observations made by a person or persons. But what standard exists to prove that all of those observations are accurate? Even if every person in the world agreed on one observation, that can only demonstrate precision, not accuracy. So what standard exists to prove that any human observation is valid?
Here, then, is the bitter irony: brute facts can not trump faith. Rather, brute facts must rely on faith. Why? Faith does not appeal to wishful thinking. Rather, faith appeals to a higher standard. Only by referencing an authority outside of human observation can human observation ever be verified.
The Christian has a standard he can point to prove that human observations are valid. That standard is God, and He gave us His standard in the Bible.
What standard does the atheist have? None. Since he does not believe in God, removed the one thing that can every verify the validity of his observations.
Certain people seem to think that they have cornered the market on brute facts. Atheists like to contrast their brute facts with the faith of Christians. An atheist may claim that the facts may seem hard and cruel, but at least they are true, unlike faith, which is ultimately based on wishful thinking.
But those who rely on brute facts to settle an argument don’t know what brute facts are. What they fail to understand is that brute facts don’t exist. For that matter, a fact doesn’t exist outside of an arbitrary definition.
Take something that should be very simple to accept as fact, like length. Two people, Joe and Jake, desire to know the length of a piece of rope. Without making any prior measurements, Joe claims that the rope is 3 meters long. Jakes decides to differ and claims that the rope is not 3 meters long. So, being a couple of bright young men, Joe and Jake decide to settle the argument by measuring the rope using a meter stick. They measure the rope and it turns out to be 2.5 meters long.
Rather than allowing the measurement to settling the issue, Joe decides to be stubborn. No, the rope is 3 meters long. Joe claims that the meter stick is wrong: it is slightly short so it is no longer accurate. So Joe and Jake decide to measure the meter stick for accuracy. They collect all the meter sticks they can find and compare them. It turns out that all the meter sticks have the same length.
Still, Joe is not convinced. Sure, all the meter sticks they have collected prove that there is consistency among the meter sticks, it does not prove that any one of them represent a true meter.
At this point in the narrative, it may seem that Joe is making a frivolous argument and is simply being stubborn rather than admit his error. But Joe has a point. Has there been a brute fact so far? The original meter stick may very well be too short. Joe is also correct in noting that repeatability is not the same thing as accuracy. A meter stick that is 4 cm short will always provide measurements that are 4 cm shorter than the true length of an object. Additionally, multiple meter sticks that are all 4 cm short will all give precisely the same length for an object, but they will all be wrong.
But what’s the probability of several meter sticks all being 4 cm short? Very high, if they were all manufactured at the same time in the same place in the same manner.
How can Joe and Jake be certain that they did not collect all the meter sticks created from one bad machine? Well, they can measure their meter stick against the standard for a meter. A meter is the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second. Assuming Joe and Jake have the necessary equipment to measure light in a vacuum and 1/299,792,458th of a second, they may then verify the length of their meter stick. They measure the stick and verify that it is a meter.
But Joe refuses to give up. No, that definition of a meter is not good. It has just got to be the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/271,451,789th of a second. Jake counters the distance traveled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second is the definition of a meter. Then Joe questions who made that definition…
And then it hits both of them: a meter is an arbitrary unit of length. “Definition?” I thought there would be a brute fact behind the length of a meter.
Arbitrary should be explained at this point. “Arbitrary” is not the same thing as “random.” To say something is random is to say that the occurrence of an event was not controlled. Arbitrary events are controlled but arbitrary events are not the direct cause of previous events. For example, Marge painted her room purple because she likes purple. Obviously, Marge’s likes controlled the decision in painting her room purple. But Marge also likes white unicorns. Why didn’t her like of white unicorns cause her to paint white unicorns on the walls of her room? Simply because Marge arbitrarily chose one action over another. There was no necessary cause but there was reason.
The same can be said with any definition devised by man. A meter is the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second because a group of men settled upon that definition. There were reasons for that definition, but nothing that dictated that that must be the definition of a meter. Rather, an arbitrary standard was chosen in order to make all measurements uniform.
But that only shows that human measurements are arbitrary. The fact that the units of measure are arbitrary should not affect the validity of the world that they are used to measure. No, but…
What happens when Joe and Jake discuss the color of the sky? Jake says the sky is blue, Joe says that it is green. To prove that Joe is wrong, Jake takes a blue card and holds it up to the sky, illustrating that the card and sky are both blue. While Joe agrees that the card is blue, he claims that the sky and the card are not the same color. Jake claims that Joe is just being silly. Obviously, Jake sees that the card and the sky are the same color, so Joe must see the same thing. But Joe points out that Jake can not know what Joe sees: only Joe can perceive the world according to Joe’s sense.
How can Jake prove to Joe that the sky is blue? Jake can ask every person in the world what color the sky is and they may all say that the sky is blue, but Joe just claims that only proves that everyone’s eyes are precise: it does not prove that they are accurate.
Jake then acquires a spectrophotometer, measures the wavelength of light coming from the card and the light coming from the sky and shows that they are the same wavelength. Joe reminds Jake that all he has done is use a sophisticated machine in place of a pair of human eyes: just because the spectrophotometer agrees with all of mankind that the sky is blue, that still only shows precision, not accuracy.
Frustrated, Jake claims that the sky must be blue because the interaction of sunlight with the atmosphere scatters blue light. Joe asks why this must be so. Jakes say that multiple scientists came up with the laws that dictate the behavior of light. Joe claims that the agreement of the scientists only proves precision, not accuracy.
At this point, Jake throws up his hands and leaves. Clearly, Joe will never accept that the sky is blue, just like he never accepted that the rope was 3 meters long.
Why did Jake fail to convince Joe? Was Joe so stubborn that he could never be convinced? Partially, but more importantly, Jake could not muster a single brute fact that Joe had to accept. Every fact Jake referenced to prove that the rope was 3 meters and that the sky was blue relied on an arbitrary definition or consensus among multiple people.
Such is the way with brute facts. Every brute fact ultimately rests on the observations made by a person or persons. But what standard exists to prove that all of those observations are accurate? Even if every person in the world agreed on one observation, that can only demonstrate precision, not accuracy. So what standard exists to prove that any human observation is valid?
Here, then, is the bitter irony: brute facts can not trump faith. Rather, brute facts must rely on faith. Why? Faith does not appeal to wishful thinking. Rather, faith appeals to a higher standard. Only by referencing an authority outside of human observation can human observation ever be verified.
The Christian has a standard he can point to prove that human observations are valid. That standard is God, and He gave us His standard in the Bible.
What standard does the atheist have? None. Since he does not believe in God, removed the one thing that can every verify the validity of his observations.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Power (Exposes) Corrupt(ion)s
It is said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This phrase is recalled in political discussions, usually used to indicate that government officials can not be trusted, because they are in a position of power and therefore, they must have been corrupted.
However, I think this phrase is wrong. The basic meaning may be correct: as people gain more power, their actions often becomes more corrupt. However, to say that power corrupts means that good people will become corrupted by power: that power is the actual agent of corruption.
Natual man is already corrupt, there is nothing needed to make man corrupt. So power does not cause corruption, but power can expose corruption. As a person gains more power, he find himself less and less under authority (at least, less under human authority) or capable of evading authority (at least, temporarily). With no checks on his behavior, his corruption can reign free with no one able to stop him.
The difference between power corrupting and power allowing corruption is important. If a man is not corrupt (in other words, if he is a Christian and therefore has a new nature), then there is no corruption to be exposed. There might be a temptation to misuse the power, but a Christian has the power, from God, to resist that temptation.
So, in terms of politics, government officials are not necessarily corrupt. Like the rest of us, whether or not they are corrupt depends on their relationship with God.
However, I think this phrase is wrong. The basic meaning may be correct: as people gain more power, their actions often becomes more corrupt. However, to say that power corrupts means that good people will become corrupted by power: that power is the actual agent of corruption.
Natual man is already corrupt, there is nothing needed to make man corrupt. So power does not cause corruption, but power can expose corruption. As a person gains more power, he find himself less and less under authority (at least, less under human authority) or capable of evading authority (at least, temporarily). With no checks on his behavior, his corruption can reign free with no one able to stop him.
The difference between power corrupting and power allowing corruption is important. If a man is not corrupt (in other words, if he is a Christian and therefore has a new nature), then there is no corruption to be exposed. There might be a temptation to misuse the power, but a Christian has the power, from God, to resist that temptation.
So, in terms of politics, government officials are not necessarily corrupt. Like the rest of us, whether or not they are corrupt depends on their relationship with God.
The Sactity of Life
The headline of a recent article read “Pharmacy Mistakenly Gives Pregnant Woman Abortion Pill” (article found at http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/26761744/detail.html). Most of the story is in the headline, but the details are: a woman who was six-weeks pregnant picked up what were supposed to be antibiotics but turned out to be a drug used for inducing abortions. The mix-up occurred because the abortion pills were intended for another patient with a similar name. Now, the woman is struggling to save her baby.
The story is a tragedy, but it highlights an irony. The woman is trying to save her unborn child from a drug that can function to kill an unborn child. The life of her unborn child is precious to this mother, but in a different circumstance, a mother may take the same pill with the intention of killing her unborn child. For those who may say, “That’s harsh, characterizing a woman taking a pill as a mother attempting to kill her baby,” let me ask, what should it be called? A woman is trying to save the life of her baby from the drug, so a woman taking the drug intentionally is trying to end the life of (in other words, kill) her baby.
But probing deeper, what makes the difference between taking the pill by mistake and taking it intentionally? Why is the life of one child worth struggling to save while the life of another is intentionally discarded? Strangely, the answer is, because of a high regard for life. Not a regard for the life of the child, but a regard for the life of the mother. If the child fits into the mother’s life, the child is precious. If the child does not fit into the mother’s life, it is discarded. This thinking is consistent with humanist thinking: humanists argue that an individual human life should be protected because that life can benefit the progress of the society or the human species. There is no love for the life itself, only for what the life can do for a collective group. It is only a step to take that thinking to, “How can this life benefit me personally?” which leads to mothers killing their unborn children.
I don’t know what the motives of the woman in the article are. Maybe she just wants the child for her own benefit, maybe she genuinely regards the life of the child as sacred. But regardless, secular society views life in terms of utility. This utilitarian view of life stands in stark contrast to the Christian view of life. As the Creator of life, of every human life, God alone can determine when a life should end. God has given instructions for people to bring death to another human being, such as in capital punishment, self-defense, or war, but even in these circumstances, it is not human desire that determines when a life ends, it is human judgment in accordance with God’s will.
While the utilitarian view of life leads to an irony, the Christian view leads to a paradox. If life is sacred to God, why are Christians taught that “whosoever shall lose his life for [Christ’s] sake and the Gospel’s, the same shall save it” (Mark 8:35)? The answer to this paradox is simple: just as life is sacred because it is sacred to God, the life of a saint is only worthwhile if it is lived for God. If a saint dies for God, if a Christian is martyred, God is glorified. That is why Christians view life as sacred to God and yet we are willing to give our lives away for God, because it is all for God’s glory. Secular man lives for the benefit of themselves and that drives their morality. Christians live for the glory of God and that drives our morality.
The story is a tragedy, but it highlights an irony. The woman is trying to save her unborn child from a drug that can function to kill an unborn child. The life of her unborn child is precious to this mother, but in a different circumstance, a mother may take the same pill with the intention of killing her unborn child. For those who may say, “That’s harsh, characterizing a woman taking a pill as a mother attempting to kill her baby,” let me ask, what should it be called? A woman is trying to save the life of her baby from the drug, so a woman taking the drug intentionally is trying to end the life of (in other words, kill) her baby.
But probing deeper, what makes the difference between taking the pill by mistake and taking it intentionally? Why is the life of one child worth struggling to save while the life of another is intentionally discarded? Strangely, the answer is, because of a high regard for life. Not a regard for the life of the child, but a regard for the life of the mother. If the child fits into the mother’s life, the child is precious. If the child does not fit into the mother’s life, it is discarded. This thinking is consistent with humanist thinking: humanists argue that an individual human life should be protected because that life can benefit the progress of the society or the human species. There is no love for the life itself, only for what the life can do for a collective group. It is only a step to take that thinking to, “How can this life benefit me personally?” which leads to mothers killing their unborn children.
I don’t know what the motives of the woman in the article are. Maybe she just wants the child for her own benefit, maybe she genuinely regards the life of the child as sacred. But regardless, secular society views life in terms of utility. This utilitarian view of life stands in stark contrast to the Christian view of life. As the Creator of life, of every human life, God alone can determine when a life should end. God has given instructions for people to bring death to another human being, such as in capital punishment, self-defense, or war, but even in these circumstances, it is not human desire that determines when a life ends, it is human judgment in accordance with God’s will.
While the utilitarian view of life leads to an irony, the Christian view leads to a paradox. If life is sacred to God, why are Christians taught that “whosoever shall lose his life for [Christ’s] sake and the Gospel’s, the same shall save it” (Mark 8:35)? The answer to this paradox is simple: just as life is sacred because it is sacred to God, the life of a saint is only worthwhile if it is lived for God. If a saint dies for God, if a Christian is martyred, God is glorified. That is why Christians view life as sacred to God and yet we are willing to give our lives away for God, because it is all for God’s glory. Secular man lives for the benefit of themselves and that drives their morality. Christians live for the glory of God and that drives our morality.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
The Definition of Life
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
