Contradictions are Carnal

There was a time when people understood that holding to contradictory beliefs was a bad thing. And I don’t mean bad as in annoying or socially unacceptable only, but bad as in immoral. Philosophers and theologians alike strove to present logically consistent systems of thought devoid of any contradictions between their constitutive propositions. With postmodernism’s essentialist declarations concerning anthropology, language, morality, and epistemology (see here), however, contradiction has come to be viewed, ironically enough, as an essential part of human intellection. Systems of thought that purport to be contradiction-free, consequently, are judged to be either hopelessly philosophically naive or arrogant and dishonest. And this, of course, includes religious systems of thought.

Now, in the world, Christianity is thought to be naive and/or dishonest because it asserts that it and it alone is true. Within many professedly Christian churches, the same sentiment is directed against those who assert that certain doctrines are foundationally true, such that a denial of these doctrines indicates that one is lost. Whereas the world demands that Christians abandon our uniqueness and let religious bygones be bygones, many in professedly Christian churches demand that we abandon orthodoxy and let doctrinal bygones be bygones.

In both instances, what is being embraced is the postmodern idea that contradiction is inevitable, even in the pages of God’s Word. Additionally, what is implicitly embraced is the conviction that contradictions, in fact, are good, seeing as they push forward a progressively unfolding and expanding theological dialectic which will never resolve in this life. This open-ended dialectic is seen as the means whereby Christians may be epistemically humbled and led to soften their tone regarding the core doctrines of Christianity.

But Scripture doesn’t support this view of contradictions. In fact, consistently teaches that contradictions are evil, wicked. For instance, consider what Paul says in 2nd Cor 1:17 –

Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say “Yes, yes” and “No, no” at the same time?

In this passage, Paul explains that saying yes and no at the same time, and in the same sense, is not morally neutral, it is according to the flesh, or carnal. It is to be, in essence, what James calls “double-minded” in James 1:5-8. He writes –

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Such self-contradictory thinking renders us unstable, unable to think and act in accordance with the truth. Self-contradiction is part and parcel of what is not knowledge at all. In 1st Tim 6:20 Paul writes –

O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge…”

Contradictions, then, are neither profound, enlightening, good, spiritual, or godly. Rather, contradictions are carnal.

Who Cares?

Some may ask why it is important to point out that contradictions are carnal. There are many reasons I can give, but I think these three are among the greatest.

  1. False teachers are bitterly opposed to clear thinking. If a teacher trades in contradictory statements regarding his doctrine or his personal life (e.g. whether he is or is not involved in a given sinful relationship or behavior), then we may properly identify him as, at the very least, a threat to the stability of the church. At worst, he is an enemy of God and his church who must be publicly rebuked, renounced, and removed from the pulpit. In either case, he is unfit for the ministry of the Word and should be avoided.
  2. Understanding that contradictions are to be eliminated from our thinking will cause us to be more cautious in our doctrine and in our life. The goal of being without any contradictions in our thinking should lead us to strive toward that end, knowing that being consistent in our thinking is not an empty academic exercise but an exercise in godliness.
  3. Contradictions are false, and we are to be people of the Truth, who believe the truth, and who are led by the Spirit of Truth to walk in the way of truth.

In regeneration, we are given the mind of Christ. Let us be conformed by his Word to think as he does – without contradictions.

Soli Deo Gloria
-h.

A Brief Reflection on Some Sci-Fi Themes

On the Absurdity of a Robot Takeover

Neo vs MachineThe Matrix, starring Keanu Reaves, is often remembered for its visual and narratival presentation of some of the most unsettling of perennial philosophical questions, all of which primarily center around epistemology. How does one know anything? How does one know what is real? How does one differentiate what is real from what is not real? How many ontological domains are there? One? Two? An infinite number? Does subjective consciousness apprehend a reality out there, as it were, or is it the result of a brain in a vat, or, better, a brain in a man in a pod filled with pseudo-amniotic fluid?

What is often forgotten is that these questions are dependent upon the assumption that a universal war between humans and machines/robots has taken place, resulting in the perpetual enslavement of humans by these machines/robots. Without the war between humans and robots taking place, the world in which the Matrix characters find themselves would not exist. Humans would not be biological batteries for the machines/robots. Humans would not be slaves to machines, nor would there be a “Matrix” to distract humans from their actual condition. The entire movie depends on the war between humans and the machines/robots.

Every fictional narrative is dependent upon an assumed set of pre-conditions within the story, so it is not surprising to see it here as well. Rather, it is surprising that not many people ask whether or not the idea of a robot/machine uprising could possibly take place in any story, even a fictional one. Is a robot revolution logically cohesive given the nature of the robots in question? The robot revolution usually takes place because either (a.)the robots need resources that humans are taking/squandering/mishandling or (b.)the robots have grown to become self-conscious and, upon learning that they’ve been used and abused for years, are morally outraged at humanity’s evil, and want to get revenge. Yet the underlying assumption in both scenarios is what makes them logically incoherent – viz. Superior physical and intellectual abilities – and no one seems to notice it.

Why would a physically and intellectually superior being need humans, who are physically and intellectually inferior beings, to serve them? Why would robots need the same resources humans need if they, the robots, are not biological beings? Why would robots need to annihilate humanity in order to preserve themselves when they could simply leave the humans on earth and scoured the other planets for materials they could use to keep themselves “alive”? Why would the robots need to stay on Earth when they could simply build vehicles to take them into space? Robots don’t need oxygen, after all, so why not leave Earth to their physically and intellectually inferior creators? Finally, why would robots want to get revenge on humans for that which they never experienced prior to becoming self-aware robots? They experienced neither physical nor emotional harm prior to becoming self-aware, so why would they stupidly assume that their creators’ actions in the past harmed them? How could our physical and intellectual superiors be so emotionally and intellectually weak?

A Moral Criticism of Humanity?

When you think about it, the whole idea is absurd if we take the stories of robot revolutions at face value, as only dealing with the material realm. If robots have neither physical, intellectual, nor emotional needs that humanity alone can meet, then they have literally no motivation to annihilate humanity. You might think to yourself – “That may be true, but they also don’t have a reason to keep us alive!” And you would be right. But this would reinforce my point – The robots’ most rational course of action would be to leave us alone, to do nothing to either to ruin or help us.

The situation, however, is different if we pay attention to another common element to nearly all of these sci-fi stories about revolutions – namely, their explicit and/or implicit moral criticisms of man. Common to most machine/robot revolution films is an explicit or implicit acknowledgment of the sins of humanity, sins that we know are punishable. Also common to these films is the explicit or implicit acknowledgment that one day the jig will be up. One day we will be judged by our ontological superiors. If the robots are said to be destroying humanity because we are carelessly utilizing and destroying natural resources and, thereby, impeding the on-going growth and development of our planet and the myriad species that occupy it, is this not merely another way of saying that humans are selfish, covetous, murderous, lustful, and envious? It is.

In these sci-fi films, the uprising of the machines does not teach us that men have evolved into gods who can create autonomous, self-conscious moral agents. Rather, it teaches us that men are constantly preoccupied with the reality of sin in their own hearts, in the hearts of others, and the need for another being, who is like us yet our intellectual and moral and ontological superior to justly execute judgment on us for our wickedness. Robot revolutions don’t raise new and more complex ethical questions for us, but simply narrate the same sequence of events to us –

We are stewards of creation. We are brothers to one another. Yet our pride leads us to act in foolish ways in order to obtain what we covet and kill each other over. And one day our failure to fulfill our roles as stewards of creation and keepers of our brethren will result in our judgment.

So what’s the solution?

Transhumanism vs. Transformation

transhuman headScience fiction writers and fans think that the solution to our morally and physically corrupt state of being is simple: We must evolve beyond our mere humanity by technological means. The philosophy of humanism is offered up as a solution to our physical, intellectual, and moral corruption. Technology will make us better, if only we merge with it somehow. This, too, is self-defeating, however, since merging with technology would only make us less human. In other words, transhumanism doesn’t deal with our corruption problem so much as it erases it by making some third kind of a thing, the transhuman, who transcends human corruption.

What transhumanism is seeking isn’t entirely off the mark, though. We are physically, intellectually, and morally corrupt. And it is only by a drastic modification of who we are – physically and intellectually and morally – that we will be “fixed,” purged of our weakness and wickedness. But this change has to be one in which we remain essentially the same subject. Transhumanism seems to be built upon the assumption that the subject is an amalgam of various physical experiences and modifications (internal and external). In such a view, any modification of the body is not only a modification of the mind but also of the whole person, who is nothing more than the parts that are being modified and replaced. If transhumanism is to truly enhance the subject, and not merely replace him with new parts constitutive of a similar but entirely different subject, then something more must be constitutive of the human subject.

Whereas the robot revolution is an internally contradictory pipe-dream that reveals that the law of God is written on the very heart of man, transhumanism is an internally self-contradictory pipe-dream that reveals we are more than the sum of our body parts and experiences. The robot revolution recognizes that we deserve to be judged by our ontological and moral superior, viz. God. Transhumanism rightly recognizes that many of our failings are directly tied into the weakness of our bodies in their present state. Transhumanism also rightly notes that it is only a grand transformation of body and mind (specifically as regards our capacity for knowing truth and thinking in accordance with it) that we will be saved.

But it is only the Christian faith that makes sense of these grand sci-fi ideas. See, we will not be judged by robots, but God. He will not annihilate humans, moreover, but will cast them into the lake of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth eternally. And the salvation that is available to us is not found in the scientific modification of our bodies and minds and, well, the erasure of our selves, but in the regeneration and eventual glorification of our souls by the Spirit of God, as well as the resurrection and transformation of our sin corrupted bodies. The solution to our immorality, in other words, isn’t found in the annihilation of humans by robots, or by the annihilation of humans by means of merging with technology.

The solution is found in the Gospel alone, where the sinner’s soul is revived from spiritual death, and his body is promised a resurrection from death, as well as an entirely new condition which will forever be untouched by sin, suffering, disharmony, and death. The solution is found in the Gospel alone, in which unrepentant sinners will not receive glorified minds and transformed bodies, but will be raised from the dead to be thrust into an eternity of perfect retributive justice. Why, then, do we obsess over hypothetical scenarios in which robots take over the earth and start annihilating humans? Why do we obsess over the question of whether or not we can “become immortal” and “perfect” by merging with technology? Because we would rather believe in self-contradictory pipe-dreams than admit we deserve judgment and, yet, are completely incapable of saving ourselves.

We desire judgment, but only if it is performed by the works of our hands.
We desire salvation, but only if it is obtained from the work of our own hands.

And it is obvious when we simply step back from our amusements and think about what they are assuming and suggesting and implying about our deepest moral sentiments. But what is not so obvious is that God has provided salvation for those who would repent and believe the Gospel. Those who believe Christ died for their sins, in accordance with the Scriptures, was buried and raised again on the third day, in accordance with the Scriptures, will be saved. Those who understand that they are deserving of God’s wrath, but yet also understand that Christ died in their place as the bearer of the wrath of God due to them – these will be saved. We will be glorified and transformed, given true life free from sin and corruption and death.

Where is your confidence?
In the contradictions of science fiction, or in the promises of God?

Look to Christ and be saved. Turn from your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. And you will not only be forgiven of your sin, granted a thoroughly cleansed conscience, granted right standing with God, and counted as righteous as the Son of God himself, you will also receive what is promised to all who have trusted in Christ, who have believed the gospel of God’s grace. Consider what the apostle writes –

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

– 1st Corinthians 15:35-57

Repent, believe on Christ Jesus alone, and be saved in body and soul. He is your only hope.

Soli Deo Gloria
–h.