Alternative Culture: Lego The Movie Review

I have to be honest with you-- initially I did not want to watch this film. I thought it would be too whimsical to my liking. Nevertheless, a few of my colleagues dragged me along to watch this, and I was glad I did.

Plot summary
Lego construction worker Emmet had always led an ordinary life. His daily life is filled with routines and instructions, leaving him little room for creativity. However upon finding a special item known as the "Resistance", Emmet learnt though a prophecy that he is no ordinary person. Teaming up with a thief, Batman, a wizard, a space engineer and a pirate, Emmet goes through an adventure of a lifetime to fulfill his true destiny.

Theological issues
Despite its childish presentation, the movie brings up deep theological themes. In this post, I would like to explore a few.

1) Finding the creator
In one of the scenes, Emmet breaks the fourth wall and meets his owner. Whether intentionally or not, this seems to run coherently with Christian theology-- God is involved in the world, although He cannot be found in nature and is outside the world.

As Pastor Tim Keller (2008) mentioned, to look for God in nature is like Hamlet looking at his attic for Shakespeare. While God's work can be physically found in the world, he generally cannot.

2) The importance of purpose
The overall theme of the movie seems to be the idea of purpose. In this postmodern era, it is generally preached that we humans have the ability to craft our own destiny (Wyatt, 2009), like Emmet comments to his fellow Lego.

I would argue that that our purpose is not self-determined, but divinely-determined. The only way for us to fulfill our true purpose in this world is to ask our creator (i.e. God).

Conclusion
Do watch this movie, even if you consider yourself a mature adult! I give this movie 70/100.

Reference
Keller, T. (2008) The Reason for God.

Wyatt, J. (2009) Matters of Life and Death

Alternative Culture: The Last Christian review

[The following post is dedicated to my friend Abigail]

The Last Christian..... in America
The daughter of missionaries, Abigail Caldwell, returns to the United States in 2088 after the tribe she was working with perishes to a pandemic. However, she finds that there are no Christians in the United States due to the advent of brain transplants. Inspired by a message from her late grandfather, she takes it upon herself to bring the gospel to her homeland.

What I liked
I admire the way the author imagines the decline of Christianity in the Western World. He attributes the regression due to the rise of evolutionary theory and lack of counter-culturalness. He also imagines the moral decline of the country with the loss of marriage institutions and lowering of the sexual age.

In reality, despite the hopes of the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, it is unlikely that religious belief will disappear in the near future. If anything, the number of cultural/nominal religious people are decreasing, while the number of practising religious people are increasing (McGrath, 2004).

I also liked the way Abigail innocently describes Christianity to a sceptical audience on live television, and the process in which her understanding of her faith changed. From relying so much on her own efforts, she slowly had a reformation of her heart and trusts God instead.

What could have been improved
I am quite surprised by one factual error, considering that the author did some research in Papua New Guinea. He mentioned that that there was no reputable neurological centre in the country, which would be pretty unlikely, since there is a famed neurological disease, kuru, which is endemic to the country.

Another aspect I thought was not well written was plot device in which the author links the soul to the brain. I wished it was better explained, because it seems to run contrary to the author's theology which he links faith to a relationship, rather than a state of mind.

My theological review
Despite its convenient deus ex machinma, I enjoyed this easy-to-read science fiction novel. I give it a 70/100.


Before I end this reveiw, I would like to do the author a favour by adding his video of Abigail Caldwell in the link below:

abbysmessage

References

McGrath, A. (2004) The Twilight of Atheism

Theology 1.0: What is the importance of miracles in Christianity?

Victoria and Albert Museum, London 2013

I do not know why Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the removed all mention of miracles and the supernatural from his version of the Bible. Maybe like some modern Christians, he was uncomfortable with the idea of God violating of the laws of nature.

I would like to make a bold statement-- unlike other religions and worldviews, miracles are essential to Christianity.

1.) Miracles make Christianity what it is.

Although the Bible contains accounts of many miracles such as the parting of the Red Sea and the prophet Elijah summoning fire, I want to focus on the main miracle of Christianity-- the resurrection of Christ.

As the apostle Paul says in the 1 Corinthians 15:17-19,

17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

The basis of Christianity is based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus-- to deny any of these beliefs is to undo Christianity entirely (Lewis, 1945).

2.) Miracles presupposes reason

Many people seem to think believing miracles requires to people to suspend their intellect. In order to recognise a miracle, one needs to be reasonable.

For instance, in order to recognise the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ as a miracle, one has to understand that sex is needed before birth (Lewis, 1904).

In other words, to recognise a violation of the laws of nature, one has to know the laws of nature.

Conclusion

Miracles are important in Christianity. However, it is not the most important issue. The more pressing issue is this: is it true?

As journalist GK Chesterton (1904) writes,

"What matters about a religion is not whether it can work marvels like any ragged Indian conjurer, but whether it has a true philosophy of the Universe. The Romans were quite willing to admit that Christ was a God. What they denied was the He was the God – the highest truth of the cosmos. And this is the only point worth discussing about Christianity." 

References

Chesterton, GK (1904). The Religious Doubt of Democracy.

Lewis, CS (1942, October). St Jude's Gazette, 73, 4-7.

Lewis, CS (1945, 27 April). The Grand Miracle.  The Guardian, 161-165

Theology 1.0: Who is GK Chesterton?

G K Chesterton

Gilbert Keith Chesterton is one of my favourite authors. Known as the Prince of Paradox, Chesterton is famed for turning popular sayings unto itself. For instance he makes statements like these:

"Silver is sometimes more valuable than gold, that is, in very large quantities."

"To be clever enough to get all that money, you must be stupid enough to want it."

"I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps me clean."

While he was famed for his Father Brown novels, he was also well-known as a Christian apologist, although he claimed to have "never read a line of Christian apologetics" (Chesterton, 1908). Contemporary Christian author Philip Yancey admits that he reads Chesterton when he feels his faith is "dry", and famed apologist CS Lewis is greatly influenced by Chesterton's works.

His unique brand of apologetics
What makes Chesterton so compelling to me was the offensive nature of his apologetics. While Christian apologetics literally means the "defence of the Christian faith", Chesterton goes on a step further to reveal the irrationality of unbelief. For instance, he criticises the agnostics (people who argue that God is unknowable),

"We don't know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable."

His genuineness
Another thing I admire about this author is that he led an extremely joyful life, despite his plumpness and short-term memory. He found Christian theology enriching, rather than restrictive. In fact he led such a joyful life that German writer Franz Kafka commented, "He is so gay (happy), that one might almost believe he had found God."

As he asserted the importance of individuals before God, he often dressed strangely and opposed attempts to enforce conformity.

Conclusion
If you have yet to pick any books by GK Chesterton, you should give it a shot.

For more information

bethinking

Chesterton, G.K. (1908) Orthodoxy

Alternative Culture: Straw Dogs review

[The following post is dedicated to my friend Juliet]

The end of me

John Gray makes a bold claim-- humans are nothing special. He argues that liberal humanism (the philosophy that humans are special) and postmodernism (the idea that truth and purpose is what we humans make of it) are offshoots of the misguided religion called Christianity.

The argument of the book

My friend Juliet has summarised this book in a phrase: "doom in 200 pages". However, I would argue that she does not treat this book fairly. One of my favourite contemporary philosophers, Gray shows off his cutting intellect that would make Nietzsche proud. In this post I would like to explore several of his ideas.

1. Heirs of Christianity

"Humanism is a secular religion drawn from the decaying scraps of Christianity." --pg 31.

According to Gray, the pre-Christian world thought that history was cyclic and not progressive. As Christianity introduced the concept of universal human salvation (and hence progression), Gray argued that humanism borrowed from Christianity in that its adherents (the humanist) support the idea of human emancipation (that humans are special).

The postmodernists go one step further, as they assert that humans themselves can decide their purpose in life.

However, Gray criticises their worldview as the "worst kind of arrogance" (pg 55). Postmodernism states that the limit to humanity is human thought. This unhinges their adherents from the reality but asserting that "man is the measure of all things".

2. The failure of science

"Science has been used to support the conceit that humans are unlike all other animals in their ability to understand the world" -- pg 24

Despite promising the return of Jesus, Christianity has failed to sustain its position as the hope of humanity. The Enlightenment thinkers argued that reason, science and technology will be the saviour of the world.

However if anything, science has made humans better at doing evil things. Gray argues that the Holocaust and Gulags were only made possible with the advancement of technology. There is no evidence that humans are getting morally better.

"As the hope of a better world has grown, so has mass murder." -- pg 98

In fact, Gray makes a chilling prediction towards the end of his book -- "Future wars will be fought over dwindling resources." (pg 180)

3. The myth of progress

"The world will forget mankind. The play of life will go on." --pg 151

Every organism on earth is doomed to extinction-- why should humanity be any different? Since the idea of progression is a myth that comes from the false hope of Christianity, Gray argues that humanity cannot truly move forward.

The purpose of life, Gray concludes, is to simply exist. There is nothing to save humanity, and nothing that humanity needs saving from. According to Gray, this view should be liberating.

Conclusion

You might find it surprising that I largely agree with Professor John Gray. If Christianity is wrong, then there is no such thing as progress.

Unlike Gray, I find this view extremely depressing. Nothing matters in the long run.

But note the conditioner "if". Either Christianity is true and we are all progressing towards a better end. If not, we are all headed towards a dark and gloomy cycle with no way out. You see my friend, theology matters.

The challenge laid down now is whether Christianity is true. How would you the reader attempt to explore this?

For further reading

Gray, J.N. (2002) Straw Dogs

Wetlenses

Alternative Culture: Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher

Socrates Jones (in green), accompanied by his daughter Ari, debates Thomas Hobbes

A game of philosophy
Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher allows you to take the role of an accountant whose lack of interest in analytic thinking frustrates his daughter, a student of philosophy. When an car accident sends the duo to the afterlife, Socrates Jones must argue his way back to the land of the living against the famed moral philosophers.

A Phoenix Wright clone? Nonsense!
Socrates Jones: Pro Philosopher is a thinking game that shares many similarities with the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney series (References to Phoenix Wright are made in the game). Sporting similar features like clarifications, objections and an assistant, Socrates Jones nevertheless has its own unique charm.

Instead of using evidences to support your objections (as in Phoenix Wright), Socrates Jones has to expose the contradictions of his opponents.

While Phoenix Wright is pitted against dishonest witnesses and determined prosecutors, Socrates Jones has to content with Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills.

The good
The game does a fantastic job simplifying difficult philosophical concepts, such as the social contract, Act Utilitarianism and even the categorical imperative.

The philosophers portrayed even subscribed to the stereotypes we have about them. For instance, Immanuel Kant walked away from an argument due to his rigid timetable.

Another fantastic point is that the game forces you to think about morality in a deep way.

The bad
One thing that frustrates me in the game is that despite the developers' best intentions, not all the best arguments were captured. For instance, I wanted to explore the theology of Euthyphro (that all religions assert a common good) further, but was not allowed to.

I also wished that more philosophers were added, such as Confucius, Aquinas, Hagel, Hume and everybody's favourite, Nietzsche.

The game also seems to limit you to the philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre. MacIntyre (1988) argued for the recognition that we will never find a complete answer to the question of morality.

Theological review
I loved this game. It is a fantastic introduction to moral philosophy, and made me as a Christian reconsider my paradigms. Part of me wishes to meet Martin Luther in the game though.

I give this game 89/100

References
MacIntyre, A. (1988) Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

With Due Respect: The Council of Nicaea manipulated Christian Thinking!

What council?
After uniting the Eastern and Western Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine I convened over the Council of Nicaea to settle divisions among the church. He did not want a divided church, especially after claiming that the Christian God had helped him in his military victories.

In 325 AD, he assembled a council of Christians in Nicaea  and they finally decided on one view of Christianity, while throwing out different views. Thus, many non-Christians, such as Mormons often cite this historical event on how Christianity has been manipulated down the ages. Popular books, such as Dan Brown's  The Da Vinci Code and Raymond Khoury's The Templar Salvation, portray the Council as a political tool for Constantine I to rule his empire.

But this is oversimplifying the issue, as I shall explain in awhile.

What are the common misunderstandings of the Council of Nicea?

1. The council decided on Biblical canon
Even a  cursory look at wikipedia reveals that the agenda of the Council. The Council examined mainly the views of Arius (a heretic Christian), the dates to observe religious festivals like Easter and the status of apostates (people who have renounced Christianity).

2. There were many competing views of Christianity
At the time of the council, there were not many competing views of Christianity. There were no Gnostics, Ebomites or even Donatists. There were two views-- the view that the Father (God) and the Son (Jesus) were of the same substance (which eventually became the orthodox view) or that the Father and Son were of different substances (the view of Arius). Contrary to what was portrayed in The Da Vinci Code or The Templar Salvation, the discussion was unambiguous. Out of the 300-odd bishops present, only three (including Arius himself) voted for Arius.

The view on Jesus's status was not decided by a few votes.

3. Emperor Constantine I manipulated the views of the Council
All Emperor Constantine I was concerned about was the stability of the empire. He wanted the unified Christianity, so he could avoid religious unrest among the Christians.

However, he was unhappy with the results of the council. The council condemned the Arian Christians, even though Constantine I wanted the views of Arius to be tolerated. Furthermore, his closest Christian advisers were Arian. (His baptiser was an Arian Christian.)

So if Constantine I manipulated the council, there are at least two issues we must consider--
(a) Why were the views of Arius condemned by the council?
(b) These bishops had undergone a severe persecution by the previous Emperor. Why would they be willingly to renounce their ideals just because Constantine I held a council?

Conclusion
Even though the Council of Nicaea has a bad reputation in recent years, it was not as controversial as it was portrayed to be. The question whether Jesus was divine was never an issue.

For further details:
Inspiring philosophy