CalvinDude.com

Yesterday, I stopped by the store and noticed in the book aisle that Michael Crichton had a new book out called Next.  Since I enjoy Crichton’s works (although I do have to say he’s got a problem with endings) and since it was on sale for 30% off, I picked it up.  Then, I spent this morning reading the book.

Obviously, therefore, I would say that once you start the book you can’t put it down.  Actually, that’s not quite accurate.  Crichton, who writes in brief sections, begins the book with a few sub-chapter length sections that are hard to follow.  But by the time you get to about page 5 or 6, it’s off to the races and then you won’t be able to put it down.

This book, like most of Crichton’s, deals with science and ethics.  Specifically, Next deals with genetic engineering.  The novel is sprinkled with many real articles from scientific news stories about various aspects of genetics, as well as some fictional things that Crichton makes up.  Crichton’s blend of fact and fiction works so much better than Dan Brown’s lame attempts in The Da Vinci Code.

As usual, Crichton keeps you turning the pages to the very end.  The ending to this novel is actually one of his better endings, although it felt a little too rushed for me (but then, this could just be personal taste).  Having just read State of Fear last year, I would say that Next has a much better plot (in both cases, I agreed with his scientific points).  While this doesn’t have the impact that Jurassic Park did, it’s still a great novel.

Naturally, this book does leave you feeling slightly paranoid–but in a good way.  It is troubling to find out that over 30% of our genes have been patented.  Even more troubling is the way that Crichton is able to weave recent legal decisions into a possible present plot to demonstrate that the logic of the court’s decisions would actually enable genetic researchers to hunt down individuals who had specific genes so they could legally take cells from them.  It is troubling precisely because this is where the logic of our legal system will lead.

Unfortunately, Crichton does not really get into the true philosophical heart of the matter (although, to be fair to him, that was not his intention).  Ultimately, the stakes boil down to questions of naturalism.  Are people merely products of their genes?  Is there something “more” to being human than mere chemical reactions?  If not, then what difference does it make if we mine a human being for cells than if we mine a hillside for gold?

Crichton doesn’t deal with this particular aspect, instead leaving it in the realm of social justice, politics, and our legal system.  However, I do believe that the true answer to the problems Crichton addresses will not be found until we are prepared to look at the metaphysical issues.

For those who enjoy reading thrillers, I give this book a solid A (if the ending were just a tad bit better, it would have definitely garnered an A+).  For those who enjoy science, especially genetics, I give this book a solid A. On the literary scale, I would put him between a B+ and an A-.  So, altogether, I would definitely recommend the book.

When I left work this evening, I knew I was going to be writing a blog entry when I got home. What I didn’t know was that it would be this blog entry.Funny how something that took about 2 minutes could change so much.

But first I’ll need to give a little background. What you will need to understand is that I am a cessationist who does not want to be a cessationist. In other words, I wish that God communicated via signs and wonders to people today, but I just can’t believe He ever does.

Especially given my life. Every time that I’ve thought I saw a sign from God and then acted upon it, my action was exactly what I shouldn’t have done. If I interpreted something as meaning X, it really meant ~X. Obviously, it didn’t take long for me to decide that I was no good at figuring out what “signs” meant. And it wasn’t much of a step beyond that to the conclusion that if God really wanted me to do something, He’d make it crystal clear so that I couldn’t misunderstand it. Ergo, it wouldn’t be in a “sign” format—it’d be plain as day.

Still, events happen in my life that just seem like they were planned out by God in intricate detail, such that they just “ought” to have some kind of significance above and beyond what they are! And indeed I can sometimes see events like these when I look back on my life. Unfortunately, I can never see them looking forward. That is, I am great at causality in interpreting the past; I’m horrible at prediction.

Which brings me to today. This afternoon I saw a couple of humorous videos on YouTube during me break. One of my co-workers, Travis, enjoys similar humor to what I enjoy. He also happened to be running the front desk this evening. So, at closing time, I got to the lobby where I work and I talked with Travis.

Travis knew of another video similar to one of the videos I described. So he turned his computer back on and went to the site to show it to me. We watched it, and then we talked.

When it was all said and done, it was over 30 minutes later than normal that I left work. And at that time, I knew I was going to jump online and try to find SpideyGeek to send her some of the links to the YouTube videos too.

Needless to say, I wasn’t thinking about much of anything beyond that as I walked toward the bus terminal to begin my commute home. Then, as I crossed the street, I realized that I recognized the woman coming toward me on the sidewalk in front of me! She was one of my old friends from Starbucks who had left to become a teacher.

It’s hard to explain how I feel about Kelly. She is the kind of woman whom I wish I would ask out, but who I know I never will. Not because I’m afraid she’d say no, but because I only think I should ask her out when I’m not talking with her. When we’re talking, thoughts like that just sorta vanish. We’re just chilling in the moment as good friends.

I hadn’t really thought about Kelly in months. Life just sorta moved on and everything continued to change in the world, etc. And then suddenly there she was and my first thought was, “Why are you torturing me like this, God? I was perfectly fine in my own little universe, had a good grasp on reality and all that, without You having to bring up these stupid questions of signs!”

You see, when you’re approaching thirty and you don’t have a ring on that finger in today’s culture, there’s a lot of stress. And I really like Kelly. So even if I don’t necessarily have conscious feelings that I am “falling” for her, I immediately go there anyway: Is she the one? Is this a sign from God? What are the odds?

The odds question is one that really irks me too. If I hadn’t seen those funny videos on YouTube earlier this afternoon, none of this would have happened. I wouldn’t have stopped by the front desk for so long and talked with Travis—or if I did, he wouldn’t have spent the time it took to reboot his computer to show me the video he knew of that lasted 6 minutes. We wouldn’t have been talking about the same subjects, and thus it’s virtually impossible that our conversation would have lasted the exact same amount of time as it did this evening. And that would mean that Kelly and I would have missed each other because I would have been at the bus station a different time than when we met on the sidewalk.

But I also know that this doesn’t quantify as a sign! A) If it was a sign, I’ve already misread it (judging from past experience). B) If it’s a sign, God needs to bash me over the head with it instead of just making me blog about it.

So, instead of coming home in a comedic mindset, eager to share something funny with the world, I come home conflicted. All my logic has been run through the meat grinder so that nothing makes sense (and nothing will until I sleep on it, wake up, and can pretend that life is “normal” again). See, that’s just it: even though I tell myself this wasn’t a sign, there’s a part of me that thinks it is. Even though I never interpret them right, there’s a part of me that think this time I will.

And it bugs the snot out of the cynical, skeptical part of me that is my usual self. I like my world to be in its nice, neat little box that “makes sense to me.” And when things like this happen, it doesn’t fit that box. And it is so, so irritating to me!

Reading Redeeming Science by Vern Poythress is a wonderful thing.  He’s a great author and a great thinker.  Thus, he is able to introduce manners of looking at things that one wouldn’t necessarily think of by oneself.

In chapters 17 and 18, Poythress goes into details about creation and life.  One of the things he mentions is the patterns of things–the imaging of one thing to be analogous to another.  In the process he speaks a great deal about reproduction.

Poythress’s writing on this topic has spurred my thinking somewhat.  It’s got me thinking on a slightly different tangent, one that Poythress himself does not engage, but one that is, I think, extremely relevant to discussions with atheists.  And that is the question of reproduction.

Obviously, reproduction has been a problem for atheists for some time.  There’s a reason the question “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” has such power.  But this is not specifically the area I’m going to look at.

Instead, I’m going to look at the universality of reproduction.  By this I don’t just mean the obvious: human, animal, and plant generations.  Instead, I want to look deeper, beyond just that.

Humans reproduce not just at the individual level.  They reproduce at the sub-individual level.  Skin cells reproduce more skin cells.  Blood cells reproduce more blood cells.  Etc.

But those cells–the skin cells and the blood cells, for instance–are likewise dividing at sub-cellular levels too.  The very DNA inside the nucleous is likewise reproducing.  Amino acides are duplicated.  Internal cellular processes are reproduced.

This is true for every human being.  It’s true for every animal and plant too.  It’s true for bacteria and even viruses (although viruses cannot reproduce without other already functioning cells to latch onto).

Thus, individuals are formed out of many different systems, all of which are reproducing themselves within the individuals.  Yet these individuals are then able to reproduce themselves–including the internal systems–to form new generations.  And they do this in a manner so astoundingly simple….

When Adam begets Bob, Adam does not create the subsystems Bob will need.  Adam, instead, creates a single cell (billions of times, of course; but only one type).  His spouse (in a moral world) likewise does not create all the subsystems.  She creates a single cell herself.  These two cells meet, combine, and reproduce Bob, complete with all the subsystems Bob needs.

In short, we have Adam, who contains thousands of intricately working subsystems that are reproducing on their own to ensure his organs, etc, are working; Adam gives one cell that contains all the information necessary so that, when combined with another single cell, all these subsystems can be duplicated in order to duplicate the entire individual.

Such a process must be explained somehow.  Unfortunately for the atheist, the end result of the reproduction of indivuals presupposes a goal for all the subsystems.  But this is the sort of thing that an unintelligent, unguided universe cannot account for.

I will have more on this later, as time permits, but hopefuly it is at least something to think on for ya…

“If you look at it at face value and think about what she did, it might seem wrong, but I think you really have to, like, look beyond the whole thing with the cops to really understand, like, where she’s coming from,” said Orlando Ayala, a 24-year-old senior.

“SHE” mentioned in the quote is convicted cop-killer ”Assata Shakur.”  Comforting that the “face value” look at murder “might seem wrong” to someone graduating from college, ain’t it?

Even more comforting:

“You have to think why she did it, cause cops are known to mess with some people, you know. If she had a reason to do it then I have no problem with it.” — Sophomore Carlos Badilla, 20, of the Bronx.

Let’s see.  Hitler had a reason to kill Jews….  It wasn’t a moral reason, but hey he had one!  So what’s the prob?

After reading the passage in Redeeming Science (quoted in my previous blog entry), I got to thinking about truth.  Poythress’s arguments are amazingly profound for being so easily stated!

What is truth?  It is, as Poythress argued, fundamentally rational.  Truth is also linguistic.  Therefore, a simple definition of truth might be “Propostions (ie: statments) about some object that are consonant with reality.”

This is important because truth cannot exist without language or mind.  Note: reality could exist apart from these things; but truth–propositions about reality–could not. 

If we assume, therefore, that there is no God then before the human mind sufficiently “evolved” to formulate truth concepts, there was no truth.

If this is the case, though, then we cannot argue about whether something is true before man’s thoughts.  There was no truth before man invented truth through the evolution of language.

But this itself cannot be true.  That’s right.  It is a propostion about reality before the existence of truth.  In other words, five seconds before truth was created in the form of language, it was not true (nor false) that “there is no truth.”  The only way for it to be true is if there was some other mind with language that existed in order to formulate truth.  But if such a mind existed, then the statement would be catagorically false to say that there was no truth at the time!

In short, the propostion “There was no truth at X” (where X can be any time, past, present, or future) can never be true.  The only way it can avoid being false is if it become meaningless (ie: neither “truth” nor “falsehood” are relevant at the point).

Thus, if we argue as previously stated–”before the human mind sufficiently ‘evolved’ to formulate truth concepts, there was no truth”–we are forced to recognize that that argument is either false or meaningless.

This is the case for all historical “truths” that precede the human mind (again, assuming there is no God).  It is not true that the Big Bang happened, for instance.  When the Big Bang happened there was no truth, and thus there was no truth-value for the Big Bang.

But naturally we do not talk this way.  Instead, we presuppose that there was truth before man came on the scene.  We presuppose that it is actually true that the Big Bang happened, for instance.  But in presupposing this, we must also presuppose the existence of some kind of mind and language in order to make the proposition true.

Now some may argue that this is semantics.  Some may even argue that we can change it to “reality” instead.  It was “reality” that the Big Bang happened, even if it wasn’t “true” per se.

But this statement about reality is itself a truth-statement, and thus this statement falls back into the same problem.

Therefore, even in speaking of “reality” before human thought, the atheist must presuppose the existence of another mind with language.

In short, the atheist is left with a problem.  Either he must assert that everything pre-human intelligence is meaningless (and thus embrace radical skepticism and relativism), or he must assert that there was another mind (or minds) that existed pre-human intelligence.

This isn’t a problem for the Christian, however, as we do assert the existence of a Mind that pre-existed human consciousness.

I have some specific comments in my next post, but wanted to give you this quote in context first:

We may travel through the divine attributes one by one, to check whether they extend to include not only law, but truth.

First, consider omnipresence.  Laws are the same in all places, by the very nature of the law.  The same is not so obvious for particular, as opposed to general, truth.  each distinct situation has its own facuality and its own truths that pertain to it.  At the moment it is true that I am seatined in a chair in my office; my wife, by contrast, may be standing up at home.  But if it is true that I am seated in a chair, it is also true for my wife who is at home that I am seated.  The truth describes a situation at a particular location in time and space.  But the truth so stated is true in whatever location from which we choose to state it.

…

And the truth is present in all times in the future.  The past might seem to be more questionable, if this world allows genuine contingency.  A human being situationed in the past cannot predict beforehand whether I am seated just now or not.  But if tomorrow at 4:00 PM I will be seated, it is true today that tomorrow at 4:00 PM I will be seated.  We do not seem to be able to escape the impression that if something is true, it is true!  And, at least to an ordinary way of thinking, this sameness does not make impossible the existence of contingent human decisions.

The truth, then, is everlasting. …

Next, truth is immaterial and invisible.  We see that the apple is red.  We do not with our physical eyes see the truth that the apple is red.  We know it.  This conclusion is also apparent from the fact that I know the truth that the apple is red even when I cease looking at the apple.  Truth is ideational in character, not physical.

Next, consider the attribute of power.  Does the truth have power over the world?  I observe a red apple, and I say, “That’s a ripe, red apple.”  If what I say is really true, it matches the state of affairs in the world.  In fact, it matches perfectly, not in the sense that it says everything in exhaustive detail, but in the sense that it is not deficient or incorrect in what it does say.  The match between truth and the world is perfect, suggesting that one determines the other prefectly.  Perfect determination means perfect control, perfect power.  But which determines the other?  Does truth determine the world, or does the world determine the truth?

At first glance, many people might think that the world determines the truth.  In human experience, we observe the world and from observations find out what is true about the world.  The order in our experience moves from the world to truth.  But someone else might have observed the apple before I did.  And still a third person might have predicted the ripening of the apple from still earlier observations, which precede the appearance of redness.

Human prediction, of course, is fallible.  But it relies on regularities in the world.  We thus come back to the issue of regularities, or general truths, and these seem to precede any particular instance, rather than vice versa.

Moreover, we always know truths in a context of other truths, which give meaning to any particular truth.  We know what “red” is partly from earlier experiences of red, and we know what an “apple” is from earlier experiences with apples.  The truth that “this apple is red” has meaning not in isolation but in relation to the familiarity of apples and of red colors.  This familiarity itself presupposes regularities of very basic kinds, regularities that mean that there are apples and that certain familiar characteritics allow us (perhaps with occasional mistakes) to recognize an apple when we see one, and to group it together with other instances of the same kind.  The relation between a universal (”apple”) and a particular case (”this apple”) presupposes both general regularities and particulars that manifest those regularities.  Thus the particular truth “this apple is red” can be grasped only as it coheres with other truths, about other apples and other instances of red color.  This truth enjoys harmony with other truths.

The harmony is prior to any particular instance within the harmony, inasmuch as the instances cannot of themselves create harmony.  And this implies that, at least at some level, truth is prior to the particular case.  The particular case conforms to truth, rather than vise versa.  So the truth has power over the world.  And the power is perfect, that is to say, omnipotent.  Because God is truth, all that he creates conforms to truth.

…

The truth is both transcendent and immanent.  Particularly when we think of the harmony of many truths, the harmony transcends any one situation.  At the same time, it applies to the situation, so that it is immanent in its application.

…

…[T]ruth is rational.  We demonstrate that it is rational when we grasp truth with our minds; and we presuppose that it is rational when we search for truth and expect beforehand that it will fit our minds.  Truth is also language-like, in that it can be expressed in human languages.  These two characteristics, rationality and expression in language, belong to human beings as persons.  Even though some may deny it in theory, our practical treatment of truth as rational and as linguistically graspable affirms its personal character.

Poythress, Vern S. (2006).  Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach, Wheaton: Good News Publishers (pp. 188-191).

 

I just saw the latest US Snooze and Whirrled Report.  Its cover story was the annual Christian-bashing Gnostic rehash.  They say that new finds are shedding new light on the issue of whether Christ was more teacher than savior…

Frankly, I’m amazed they still try to pretend these Gnostic “gospels” have been “newly” found.  Hey, breaking news!  JFK was shot!  WE LANDED ON THE MOON!  There was a little “conflict” in Vietnam that finally ended.  Oh yeah, and can’t forget the Hungarian revolution that just happened.

All these things happened…what’s the word?  Oh yes…AFTER the Dead Sea Scrolls containing these Gnostic heresies were “newly” found.

The rate the US Snooze and Whirrled Report is going, I expect next week’s cover to read: “CIVIL WAR OVER!  CONFEDERACY SURRENDERS!”

This is what I do when I’m bored.

Last night, I watched Apocalypto again, this time with my brother.  Knowing the story now, I watched the film differently.  While the first time through seeing some of the violent acts were primarily shocking to some extent (and thus didn’t necessarily register fully), the second time through I was left with the impression: Aztecs were evil.

Now obviously people don’t read very well these days (as evidenced by Touchstone, for instance), so let me make this following point as clearly as I can.  The following argument is extremely nuanced, refers only to the Aztecs (not any other group), and is not to be taken in an overly generalized manner!

With that out of the way, the Aztecs were extremely evil.  Again, the movie does not depict them as bad as they actually historically were (which is saying something because they’re really bad in the movie).  So the question obvious arrises: Isn’t it a GOOD THING that the Aztecs were wiped out?

I think so.  I know this isn’t politically correct to say, but in this case it is true.  The Aztecs killed thousands of people in human sacrifices.  They glorified in this, much like ancient Rome with her gladiators.  The Aztecs brutalized everyone around them.  They did not understand the concept of “mercy” in the slightest.  They would go on raids against villagers for the sole purpose of getting more slaves and more sacrificial victims–not even for the sake of new lands or money, which while still evil is less depraved.

These people were utterly depraved in their civilization.  When the Spaniards showed up on the scene, the Aztecs got exactly what they deserved in the sense of resipricosity.  What they did to others was done unto them.

Now obviously I am not going to excuse the Spaniards here.  They did not do this out of a sense of righteousness.  Instead, we see what was already spoken of by Isaiah thousands of years ago, when he spoke of the Assyrians coming to destroy pagan Israel (Isaiah 10:5-11):

Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger;
the staff in their hands is my fury!
Against a godless nation I send him,
and against the people of my wrath I command him,
to take spoil and seize plunder,
and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
But he does not so intend,
and his heart does not so think;
but it is in his heart to destroy,
and to cut off nations not a few;
for he says:
“Are not my commanders all kings?
Is not Calno like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad?
Is not Samaria like Damascus?
As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols,
whose carved images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria,
shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols
as I have done to Samaria and her images?”

God used Assyria to punish Israel, but this did not make Assyria righteous.  Instead, Assyria acted out of evil intent, and thus God likewise punished Assyria (vs. 15-17):

Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it,
or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it?
As if a rod should wield him who lifts it,
or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood!
Therefore the Lord GOD of hosts
will send wasting sickness among his stout warriors,
and under his glory a burning will be kindled,
like the burning of fire.
The light of Israel will become a fire,
and his Holy One a flame,
and it will burn and devour
his thorns and briers in one day.

In the same way, I see God using the Spaniards to punish the wicked Aztecs.  This does not excuse the behavior of the Spaniards, and indeed God has dealt with them for that as well. 

The bottom line, however, is that despite their portrayal in publik skrewl, the Aztecs were not peace-loving, innocent Native Americans who were raped and killed by the vicious white men.  The Aztecs were brutal, evil people who were destroyed in a like manner.  From the perspective of the captives slaughtered on the pyramids, the Aztecs got what they deserved.

How does fear affect a man?  And what drives men to act on anything?

These two questions are at the heart of the philosophy found in Apocalypto.  And they are inherently linked in the story too.

Obviously, I don’t want to give away too many spoilers and so I’ll have to be a little vague in spots.  When the fleeing Mayans first interact with Jaguar Paw, JP’s father (Flint Sky) tells him that those Mayans are infected with fear.  And fear spreads like a disease to others.  Flink Sky warns JP not to let fear into the village.

Once the Aztecs show up and invade the village, JP is forced to confront his fear at numerous times and in many different ways.  If he cannot master his fear, he knows he’ll be killed.  Even worse, if he dies the rest of his family dies (for reasons I won’t get into since I don’t want to ruin the movie for you).

This actually brings up an interesting sort of a paradox (one not explicitly in the movie itself, but one I’ve thought about).  Fear for one’s own safety can be overwhelmed by fear for another’s (e.g. your family) safety.  Fearing for their safety can give you courage to face your own fears.  Ironically, the “couragous” action is still based on fear in such a circumstance.

In any case, fear is obviously a powerful motivator (or de-motivator, depending on the circumstances).  What else drives people to act?

The village storyteller gives us insight into that.  He explains how man became so powerful in the first place.  All the animals gathered together with him.  Man said, “I want to see perfectly” so the vulture gave man his sight.  Man said, “I want to be strong” so the jaguar gave man his strength.  Etc.  At the end, man left with the strengths of all the animals and he left on his way.  Then the owl warned the other animals that man would not be satisfied because there was still a hole inside of him.  He would keep taking and taking to try to fill that hole, until finally the world would have to say, “I have nothing more to give.  You have taken it all.”

This, in a nutshell, provides the overarching philosophical standpoint in the movie.  Man continues to seek to fill some void inside of himself by taking from nature.  But nature cannot provide the answer to that problem.  Indeed, by seeking the cure in nature man can only destroy nature by continually taking from it.

This provides the greatest source of fear in the movie too.  The Aztecs were afraid because they couldn’t fill that hole inside each of them.  They lived in a world of debauchery and untold wealth (for the region and time), yet they were empty people.  So they went out and captured Mayans for human sacrifices in an attempt to appease the gods and give themselves a purpose.  But when it did not appear the gods were appeased, the Aztecs became even more frightened and sought even more sacrificial victims.

The movie ultimately gives no resolution to this problem on the screen.  Indeed, Gibson doesn’t really want a resolution in it because this movie is his warning to America that we are becoming the Aztecs: full of debauchery, untold wealth, and empty meaninglessness.

Of course, the above scenario does have a cure: Jesus Christ.  And given Gibson’s Catholicism, that’s obviously an unspoken assumption going into the movie.

Ultimatley, this movie works great at showing the “bad news” portion of the Gospel.  This movie demonstrates human depravity in a myriad of ways.  It shows the emptiness of seeking to fulfill one’s life from nature by taking everything you can get.  It demonstrates the need for something other than yourself.  So in that regard, this movie is a great door opener for later evangelism.  One sees the dark side of humanity explicitly for what it is in the movie, and without confronting that no one will ever see the need for the “good news” of the Gospel.