Chronicle (the Movie)

I think there is much more to this movie than meets the eye.

Spoiler Alert: Don’t read if you want to see the movie.

Storyline: Three high school friends gain telekinetic powers after making an incredible discovery of a strange object in a cave. Soon, though, they find their lives spinning out of control and their bond tested as one of them embraces his darker side.

What would happen if you gave a group of teenagers extremely strong telekinetic powers?

It depends on the teenagers. In this movie you have three very different teenagers brought together by accidently gaining telekinetic powers from an unknown source. They bond together as they learn what they can do with their powers. Steve is running for class president and is the most popular kid in school. Andrew is an unpopular misfit with a dying mother and alcoholic abusive father. Matt fits in somewhere between the two.

Andrew uses his powers and accidentally hurts someone. Matthew, his cousin, says they need to come up with rules on when and how to use the powers. I can see him quoting Uncle Ben from Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.” In this situation, Matt was pleading for an moral standard.

Together they continue to learn and grow their powers. However, giving people powers that are not prepared for it can be devastating. Andrew and Steve do a magic show during the schools talent show. Andrew’s reputation changes instantly; finally, he is popular. However, Teenagers’ feelings are fickle, so when Andrew pukes on a girl at the after party, the taunting becomes worse that it was before. In addition, his father becomes more abusive as he thinks his son is up to no good. Andrew starts to feel the walls closing in.

Out of anger, Andrew accidentally kills Steve, who was trying to tell him he was still his friend. He then confronts his father and beats him up for a change. This becomes the beginning of the end, as if Andrew had tasted blood for the first time.

In a key scene to the story Andrew sits in a junk yard and crushes a car with his mind. In his internal monologue Andrew uses naturalistic evolutionary bases to explain his justification for his coming actions. His first premise is the idea that an apex predator does not feel guilt in killing inferior animals. His next premise is that he is now a superior being. His conclusion is that he then should not feel guilty if he harms others.

The final straw comes when he cannot buy medicine to ease his mother’s pain. He then rationalizes robbing people. When a robbery at a gas station goes wrong and the station explodes, Andrew ends up unconscious in the hospital. His dad comes in and tells him his mother has died and blames him because he had to go look for him that night.

Andrew snaps and the mayhem begins. Matt goes to talk to him and reason with him, but he won’t listen. The talk deteriorates to an all-out brawl. They tear the city up with their fight. In the end his anger gets the best of him, and Matt has to kill him.

You can see the materialistic naturalism based morality play out with the Judeo-Christian based objective morality being contrasted as the story progresses.[1] The self-destructive materialistic naturalism played out to it’s natural conclusion. The moral of the story: with great power comes great responsibility, and if you don’t believe you have a responsibility, you will follow self-gratification to your own destruction, leaving behind untold carnage. This is a powerful story with a powerful message.

Movie Information: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706593/

Footnote:

[1] Both materialistic naturalism and Judeo-Christian moralities are objective. I just want to point out they are both based on something rather than the relativist position where morality depends on any number of factors. Materialistic naturalism is very much like social Darwinism (social evolution). Naturalism holds that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe and not supernatural ones, i.e. God. Materialism holds that the only things that exist in the Universe are matter and energy. Morality is thus derived as a result of material interactions i.e. genetics. It follows from this that if there is no higher power, why do we have constraints on behavior? Why not live out survival of the fittest? Morality is thus objective because you are hardwired for it. Does a lion feel guilty for killing a gazelle?

On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian view is that morality comes from the Creator. Especially in Christian doctrine, every person was created in the image of God (Imago Dei) and thus has value. It follows then that killing of people is wrong because there is a command not to from God and because people are of value to God.

One could argue that the movie does not specifically show Matt’s position as Judeo-Christian. I guess that is true, it could be based on Jainism where all life and non-violence is considered sacred. Some Native American tribes would have a similar quasi-pantheistic or animistic view. In any case Matt’s view of morality is transcendent (being entirely beyond the universe) while Andrews is materialistic (being entirely in the universe).

I have recently noticed that some people, myself included, often have contradictory aspects to their worldviews. That is to say that when you look at their worldview as a whole, you will notice what may not be obvious close up, that aspects of their worldview contradict other aspects of their worldview. I guess some people have not taken the time to reflect on their worldview and how they apply it to various aspects of their life.

If they are aware of the contradictions, perhaps they balance these contradictory aspects in some sort of creative tension. Or, perhaps, they balance them by compartmentalizing different aspects of their life by creating artificial boundaries of reality. They may have one way of viewing the world at work, another at home, and still another with friends.

They have to do something or else suffer psychological discomfort form the ensuing cognitive dissonance.

For example, you will find some Christians who speak of hating the sin and loving the sinner. In practice, they shun people they feel are living in sin. I fail to see the love. Other times, you will find Liberal Christians complaining that the Conservative Christians are being intolerant. Not realizing they are being intolerant of the Conservative Christians.

By no means, is this limited to the halls of the cathedral. Secular humanists want their morality to be relative and their science to be objective. Often, they cling to untenable scientism. For the true relativist, scientific theories are neither true nor false. They see scientific theories as useful – agreed upon – stories or, at best, a description that helps. For the true naturalist, morals are objective. They are defined by genetic code and there is nothing relative about them.

It seems to me that people don’t think about how what they believe in one area of their life flows into all the other areas of their life. Instead, they go through the smorgasbord buffet of competing ideas, selecting what looks appetizing to them at the time. They assume their life is like a divided Chinet plate and that they can separate different aspects of their lives. They use this artificial compartmentalization to avoid the obvious and painful realization that they are living a contradiction. The reality is the gravy is going to get on your vegetables. In that case, pick the gravy that works with everything on the plate.

This is first in a series of posts about miracles. I have wanted to explore miracles for some time now. Lately, I have had some time to think about miracles while reading some materials preparing a class. This is a very interesting subject and there are a number of theories out there. People tend to hold to their theories very strongly. I am not sure why people hold their theories so strongly, given proving one way or another may be impossible. Proving any theory on miracles is out of reach at the moment. The best we can do is, objectively, explore the possibilities and see which one fits best with what we know.

This will be a series of posts, as I don’t think I can contain all of my thoughts in one short post. Difficult topics are never easy or straightforward. As I explore this topic, I welcome your comments. I welcome them because that is how we learn and there is nothing an amateur philosopher likes more than to be challenged. ;-)

In order to have a meaningful conversation about miracles, we are going to have to nail down the theories of causation first. We have to start with causation because a miracle, by definition, is something unnatural, unwarranted and unexplained. In other words, the only explanation, or cause, is something beyond our normal natural experience. Since we don’t see an obvious cause, we then theorize about what the cause might have been. God is generally seen as the cause, however others may see the cause as something spiritual or even some type of non-cognizant power or energy. For this first post, I will limit my comments to God as the cause and simply note that I understand there are other points of view. I hope to address these other theories in future posts.

In western cultures, there are two opposing theories about causation, Supernaturalism and Naturalism.

Supernaturalism posits a Universe where God is the cause of all things. Supernaturalism holds that God is the immediate cause of all effect. In other words, if you place water on a gas stove it would not be the flames or heat that boils the water, it is God who boils the water. Supernaturalism in this sense is not necessarily the action of spirits, ghost or the paranormal. Supernaturalism requires one cause; multiple causes (various spirits etc…) would be causing different things in different ways and nothing would be predictable. However, our experience is predictable.

I can see three problems with Supernaturalism. First, scientific inquiry seems like it would be impossible. Science requires predictability. If God intervenes unpredictably or does not cause water to boil just once, science is rendered useless. Second, supernaturalism leaves us with a deceptive God because the universe appears to follow natural laws. Finally, if God causes all things, it is not the ax murderer who kills people, it would be God. In addition, there would be no such thing is free will. Again, we seem to have a free will and if we seem to and we don’t, we end up with a deceptive God again.

A key thing to remember about supernaturalism is that science does not disprove this position. Science and predictability would only prove that God, “the cause of all things” is consistent, as consistent as the laws of nature.

Naturalism, in the classic sense, posits a God who created the Universe, the laws that govern it and was the primal cause by starting all things. Think of a line of dominoes, you hit the first one and then the one you hit, hits the next one and so on. If we look at the last domino to fall we can determine that the cause was the previous domino falling on it. We can look at all the dominos and see that this cause and reaction are predictable. We call the predictability natural laws and they are and we can determine their immediate cause. You can make the case that you dropped the last domino though secondary causes or a type of causal change. God is the primal cause and thus the source through inheritance for all other causes. In creation, we call this causal chain the cursus communis naturae or the common course of nature.

One problem with naturalism is it seems to support either a deist or atheist position. In its extreme form, naturalism is a deist position. God, like a watch maker, winds up the universe and lets it run without intervention. Naturalism denies miracles and requires an, as of yet anunknown, cause for anything that is labeled as a miracle. This position militates against many religions and theologies that see God as intervening in the world.

These two theories are seen as extreme ends of a large continuum of intermediate positions. Through most of Church History the majority position has been that God created the Universe with natural laws to govern them and that, on rare occasions, God intervenes. These rear incidents are considered miracles because they don’t fit in the normal course of nature. This position squares better with what we know from our experience and revelation.

In a later post I will explore some different questions about miracles:

• What if a miracle has a natural cause? Is it still a miracle? 
• Can science explain all miracles? If we can show a scientific explanation or natural causes for miracle, does that disprove God?
• What about the objection that eventually our science will catch up to the point that we will be able to explain miracles. Just because it can’t now, doesn’t mean that will always be the case.
• What about some of the extreme positions on miracles?
• Do you have a question about miracles?

Bibliography
Principe, Lawrence M. "Science and Religion." Chantilly,VA: The Teaching Company Limited Partnership, 2006.
Williams, Thomas. "Reason and Faith: Philosophy in the Middle Ages." Chantilly,VA: The Teaching Company, 2007.

By nature, I tend to think very logically. I don't mean like Spock from the original Star Trek. Emotion can sway me. I mean, I am a person who has difficulty if things don't fit or they contradict other known facts. I work in Information Technology so I understand causation. Add to that, I am an IT auditor so like to analyze things. I have been accused of being obsessive and a little anal about certain things. For example, I have a library and I will go though and make sure all the bindings are aligned on the shelf and the books are properly cataloged and categorized. Yes, I have a data base of all my books, too.

I really can't watch a movie without analyzing it. I don't accept the face value of claims of the paranormal. I always look for alternate explanations. I try to see things as systems; like how things connect and their interrelationships. I am even willing to change my opinion or beliefs if I have new insights, information or understandings. In fact, I have done so many times in my life. I guess, in a way, that makes me a bit of a philosopher.

On the other hand, I also realize that logic isn't the end all, be all, for truth. I am a very logical person, but, sometimes I have to suspend my analytical tendencies. That is not to say that I follow illogical paths of thinking; it simply means I recognize our human limitations. It would be the height of arrogance to presuppose my logic is perfect, that I have all the facts, that I have considered every potential, or that bias does not influence my thought patterns, whether consciously or unconsciously.

I see more and more, as I get older, that it is important to recognize our limitations. I grant the human race has accomplished many great things like putting a man on the moon and harnessing the power of the atom. I even think we will do things we cannot even imagine. Granting that, we will never cross the chasm to an all-knowing state. There will always be something we do not know.

What a downer. How can we know anything at all then? How do we operate with less than 100% certainty? What level of certainty can we obtain and still operate effectively? How much skepticism should we have?

In light of this, I think it is logical, prudent and perfectly appropriate to proceed with caution, charity and with as little dogmatism as possible. I do this, typically by viewing things as a probability of being correct or true and not black or white. For example, for all I know we can all be in the Matrix, however, I do find that while it is possible, it is not probable. If I had to give it a number, I would give it less than one percent, maybe like 0.01%.

I am not holding two contradictory beliefs, I am recognizing my limitations. After all, isn't that the most logical thing to do?

Update: Facebook Comments

DT: You write very, very Don! I enjoyed this piece on logic. Yes, you are logical, which I find to be a great quality, as well as organized and highly articulate. You are also a systems thinker like I am, seeing patterns, commonalities, and the whole as well its parts. You ask good, thoughtful questions. I like what you say about probability and caution and that is important to realize our limitations and not be dogmatic. Very, very well said, Don! Thanks for sharing!

RR: Lately, I've been reading about confirmation bias; that phenomenon where rational people subconsciously filter out data that does not fit with their bias. Or, rather, give higher priority to data that does.

RR: I've also been reading about cognitive dissonance where people, step by step, rationalize their way past the discomfort of having two conflicting opinions in their minds. This, it is opined, is one way people work their way into cults and what we call wingnut beliefs like the notion that judgement day will arrive on May 21, 2011. Or that Christ will return at any day, for that matter. We work our way around the tough, chewy bits, one rationalization at a time. We are logical, reasonable and rational and yet lacking. At the end of the day, life is full of scary shit. We need to believe there's a plan, even if we don't like the plan (see Joker with Harvey Dent, Dark Knight); we need to put order to what is, essentially, an often senseless and meaningless experience. That's not to say we shouldn't try. But, at some point, it makes sense to give in to the senselessness. Sometimes the effort to make sense out of the chaos only produces a different form of chaos.

DT: @RR, in response to your first posting: that's easy to do! We all see things through our own paradigm. Anais Nin wrote that "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." So true! I think we seek out that which we agree with as a way of validating ourselves, which is much simper and easier than being open to new, opposing information which we may need to think through, analyze and come to terms with from a new paradigm.

DT: @RR, to your second posting: Buddhists call what you talk about as 'giving in to the senseless' as "non-attachment" and yes, it does make sense at some point to embrace things as they are, to un-attach, if you will, from giving some things meaning and our time, rather than cause ourselves suffering (from the Buddhist perspective, samsara), or what you cause 'chaos.' (See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/samsara.html)

Me: I didn't think I would have inspired such a stimulating discussion, great thoughts.

SC: Finally had time to read this. Thank you. For a long time I pursued conviction as a way of understanding the world/existence, meaning I sought intricate logical constructions that I would convince myself explained reality. As I got older though, I realized each time I achieved a mental equation that explained everything ... events the next day refuted my equation, however carefully constructed. This disillusion is somehow amplified by parenthood. With time I have come to understand that explaining everything is impossible and the burden of attempting logical explanation of everything is quixotic at best, and distracting at least. With time I began to understand that the world unfolds around me, largely as a mystery, whether I impose logic on it or not. And looking at it from that angle, I began to more and more appreciate the mystery rather than to ruthlessly impose logic on it. Certainly there are core convictions and truisms that we must live by, but those tend to be simple and deep, requiring little logic. Beyond that lies a world filled with mystery that in time I have become convinced that I can never fully understand. The mystery that surrounds me is the purview of God. And I am comforted by that. **Thanks for helping me think like this on a Thursday night a midnight ... really.

DT: I appreciate and enjoy the deep thinking that has happened in these postings! Thanks everyone!

Me: ‎DT, Me too. SC, Sorry for keeping you up at night. I hate trying to fall asleep and then get into some deep thinking because I never get sleep them.

One of the problems I have found with some Christian apologists is the propensity of some of them to be disingenuous, at best, when characterizing Satanists. Many of them fall into the trap of the informal fallacy of composition. In logic and reasoning, a fallacy of composition is when someone makes the assumption that what is true of a small portion of a population is true of the whole population. A composition fallacy is like asking one student in a classroom what their favorite color is and then making the assumption that it is the favorite color of all of the students in the classroom.

When someone hears the term Satanist, they cannot help but imagine blood sacrifices, ritualistic murder, demon summoning and all sorts of other wild magical things. This perception of Satanism is actually taken from a very small minority of Satanists that have been popularized by the media and disingenuous apologists. The truth about most Satanists is much less exciting than the perception and, as it is in the newspaper business, not worthy of print. Most people don't know what a true Satanist is or even have a true perception on one.

John Smulo demonstrates this point in his article in the Sacred Tribes Journal called "Spiritual Warfare Profiles of Satanism: Are They Misleading?” John asks the question, are Satanists fairly portrayed in work by popular Christian authors? John then demonstrates that the truth is, most Satanists are actually atheists, and they don't even believe in an evil entity named Satan or Lucifer. A vast majority of them do not engage in animal sacrifice or conjure up demons.

We may wonder then, why do they choose to call themselves Satanist if they don't believe in Satan? When Saul D. Alinsky dedicates his book, Rules for Radicals; to Lucifer what does he really mean? Does he believe in the devil and sacrifice goats? Doubtful. Satan is an icon for Satanists and other people. Satan is an icon that, in their minds, stands in drastic opposition to the western culture and the Judeo-Christian ethic we call the “golden rule;” do unto others as you would have them do to you or love your neighbor as yourself. Satan stands as an icon of selfishness, self-fulfillment and do unto others before they do unto you.

Satan becomes an icon of their worldview and philosophy. He is viewed as a nonexistent representation of their philosophy. Notice how he is characterized in the Satanic Bible:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!
5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical; from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer." Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

Why do Christian apologists tend to paint with a broad brush when characterizing Satanists? If I was only to read their books and then I ran in to a real live Satanist and started asking them about conjuring demons and animal sacrifices, they would look at me as if I was crazy. I would have lost all credibility I had up until that point. They won’t care what I have to say after that. I don’t know why some popular Christian apologists make such generalizations, but, if I am not careful to check their facts, I could end up looking like a fool.

We characterize people and make the assumption that the real difference between us is they worship a spiritual being called Satan, Lucifer or the Devil. In reality, the difference is one of philosophy. It is important to make sure we know where they are coming from if we want to engage in any type of meaningful dialog.

One of my Christian friends commented that my issue is just one of semantics, because Satan is still behind the philosophy. I don’t disagree that Satan is behind it because, technically, from a Christian point of view, Satan would be behind all the world’s false religions and teachings to one extent or another. However, the issue is how Satanists view themselves and their beliefs. We have to addresses them from where they are.

Check out my past blog on the Domains of Spiritual Warfare

Osama bin Laden is Dead
Now what? He is dead but al Qaeda is still alive and well. The question is, does his death change anything? Will it make him a martyr? Will that increase anger at the US? These are definitely some really tough questions. Should we all be happy that he is dead? I am given pause when I remember Proverbs 24:17.

“Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice” (NIV)

A question that always pops into my mind when people judge people is, “How does Jesus view that person?” I am reminded of that question in this situation as well. How does Jesus view Osama bin Laden? Jesus sees him as a man in need of a savior. He sees him as someone He died for. He sees him as someone He loved. The obvious question then is, how should I see Osama bin Laden? I can’t help but think that had bin Laden experienced true Christian love, his life would have been radically different and that even the events of 9-11-01 may have been avoided.

I think we forget that our enemy is not ourselves (the human race). In this instance, our enemy is a philosophy; a philosophy of hate and revenge and selfishness on both sides. The only weapon against such an enemy is love. I know it sounds like a 1960s’ clich, but it is, logically, the only answer.

So, who is our real enemy?

I have been listening to some debates recently and realized that winning a debate does not make the premise true. The Truth of a statement is independent of how well defenders argue it. I have seen some website comments on some of the debates I have listened to and everyone thinks that their 'guy' won the debate. Truth is truth independent of someone ability to convince you otherwise.

I listened to a series of lectures titled "Plato, Socrates, and the Dialogues" which was given by Professor Michael Surgrue of Princeton University.   There are 16 lectures, each lasting 45 minutes. 

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=463&pc=Philosophy%20and%20Intellectual%20History