Transformers 3: A Philosophical Mashup

I just had the opportunity to watch Transformers 3 with a couple of good friends. In keeping with the previous two movies, I could not recommend this movie on account of language, some suggestive humor, and some unnecessary immodesty. That brings me to the story itself which is . . . intriguing to say the least. I would like to note that I will sound like a complete nerd talking about all of the characters and elements of this story. I am, however, writing this not out of some obsession with science fiction; I am writing this with the hope of causing us (believers) to think about the way that the world programs our thinking even in what many of us might consider to be “neutral” ground. After all, how much of a worldview does an action-packed science fiction movie really have? That is a question that I will now try to answer.

As a preliminary note, this post contains a number of spoilers. You certainly do not need to see the movie to understand my perspective, but if you choose to watch the movie and want to enjoy the story as it unfolds, you might wait until after you see the movie to read this post.

That being said, I could not help but notice a number of glaring worldview conflicts. To give a brief but necessary synopsis of the story, the Autobots remain in their alliance with the humans helping them to deal with various national security threats, Deceptacon or otherwise. As the story progresses, it becomes apparent that the Decepatcons are far from defeated and now pose a greater threat than ever before. Through a series of intricately planned events, the Decepatcons successfully turn the humans against the Autobots resulting in the Autobots being exiled from earth. In keeping with their normal conduct, the Autobots warn the humans that the Deceptacons will not keep their bargain but peacefully accept the humans’ request and leave. The space vehicle carrying the Autobots is then destroyed by the Deceptacons as it is beginning to break Earth’s atmoshphere. After being rid of the Autobots, the Deceptacons unveil their real plan, just as the Autobots had warned, and begin their destructive takeover of Earth. It is only after the Deceptacons inflict incredible destruction that the Autobots return after narrowly escaping the shuttle. It is here that the Autobots make the key point that I would like us to focus on: humans will only see their plight after they have been ripped from their comfortable, self-indulgent lives. Though my synopsis is does not do the story justice, I believe that the point is sufficiently clear.

As I was watching, I could not help but think of our own country and how we are rushing toward our own destruction but refuse to see it due to our own hedonistic and pragmatic concerns. While our country marches down the path to international impotence, moral inversion, and economic death, its people willingly sit by in a haze of self-absorption. Such a degradation in society makes me wonder if Transformers 3 accurately depicts what a wakeup call really will entail. In many ways, such a depiction might make us think that a return to good ol’ fashion American values is what we really need but here is where the story really gets interesting.

The heroes of the story certainly do “the right thing” and stand up for freedom, stand up against the imminent tyranny and slavery. The flaw is that most of the heroes in this story are motivated by self-interest. The main character and hero, played by Shia LaBeouf, continually demonstrates an attitude of entitlement and self-exalting arrogance. Such an attitude from someone who is supposed to be a hero gives us quite the mashup of worldviews in that he makes some of the right choices for completely wrong reasons. Good heroes are supposed to be willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others, not so they can gain some skewed sense of self-worth.

Bringing those thoughts into the context of our own nation,the question that I find to be so thought-provoking is this: how many of us, in our patriotic attitudes, are motivated by similarly wrong motivations? Do we seek our freedom because we think that we have certain inalienable rights or entitlements (which are in reality merely privileges given by God)? Do we seek our freedom so that we may continue to heap to ourselves? Do we seek our freedom because losing that freedom would be ripping away the security blanket of affluence? That is not meant to come of as judgmental in any way but rather to provoke self-examination and make us think about why we so desperately desire the freedom that our Constitution has afforded to us. These are issues that I personally struggle with myself. I do not want to lose any of my freedoms but I have to ask why. Is it because I think that such a loss will inhibit my ministry or because it will just cause me some discomfort?

In the end, both types of people portrayed in Transformers 3 are self-absorbed and neither one reflects what a Christian should aspire to. In our Christian lives, everything that we pursue should be driven by a concern for others and the glory Christ alone. In that, we must always be conscious of the dangers that can happen by going to either extreme; we know that apathy and lethargy are wrong but we should also consider that zeal for the wrong reasons can be just as wrong even if the action itself is right. We do not want end up as the Pharisees who “cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence” (Matt. 23:25).

Cheapening the Name of Jesus

Over my spring break, I have had the opportunity to read Francis Schaeffer’s Escape from Reason for my Introduction to Philosophy class. I had already had the chance to read How Should We Then Live and thoroughly enjoyed it. I can once again say the same for Escape from Reason. Since I do not have time to post a full review of the book, I would like to share what I believe to be one of the most eye-opening points in the book.

To give a little bit of context, Schaeffer traces the historical progression of Western philosophical thought. His goal is to show why the modern man thinks in the manner he does. Though most people are unaware of their own philosophical views, the general consensus among the modern man amounts to relativism. Thus Schaeffer says,

I have come to the point where, when I hear the word "Jesus"—which means so much to me because of the Person of the historic Jesus and his work—I listen carefully because I have with sorrow become more afraid of the word "Jesus" than almost any other word in the modern world. The word is used as a contentless banner, and our generation is invited to follow it. But there is no rational, scriptural content by which to test it, and thus the word is being used to teach the very opposite things from those which Jesus taught. Men are called to follow the word with highly motivated fervency, and nowhere more than in the new morality which follows the New Theology. It is now Jesus-like to sleep with a girl or a man if she or he needs you. As long as you are trying to be human you are being Jesus-like to sleep with the other person, at the cost, be it noted, of breaking the specific morality which Jesus taught. But to these men this does not matter because that is down-stairs in the area of rational scriptural content.¹

It is a scary thing to think about how many people have fashioned a Jesus according to their own liking. It is worse yet to think that Christians are guilty of the same thing by softening the message of the Gospel, feminizing Christ, or simply failing to declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). It seems as if we are able to slap Jesus’ name on something, it becomes okay. Though I have heard it joked about, there seems to be a “Christianized” version of everything the world comes out with. As a result, Christianity no longer stands for anything; affirming the name of Jesus is cool as long as you have do not have truth to back it. Those are just some thoughts that really hit me as I was reading. I hope that they can remind us all to make sure that our affirmation of Christ really does mean something.

“Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”
Jude 24–25

---

¹ Schaeffer, Francis. Escape from Reason. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books), 
Pgs. 100–101.

Greek Humanism: Continued in the Teachings of Thomas Aquinas

This article is actually a sequel to my first article entitled, “A Brief History of Greek Humanism.” Its subject matter was suggested by a close friend of mine and has proven to be a very interesting study. I hope those of you who are able to read this agree.

In the past months I have become increasingly aware of the fact that philosophy is an inescapable reality. Though many of us might tend to shy away from philosophy as being only for the academic “eggheads,” it affects every one of us equally. That being true, we might ask the question, “What exactly is philosophy?” Dr. Michael Vlach, on his website, offers this definition of philosophy: “Philosophy is the attempt to think rationally and critically about the most important matters” (Vlach). Also, despite his innumerable problems, Immanuel Kant well summarizes philosophy as the attempt to answer three questions: “(1) what can I know? (2) what should I know? and (3) what may I hope?” (Vlach) By those two definitions of philosophy, it is without question that every single human being, regardless of academic or intellectual background, has contemplated philosophy. To maintain relevance, it is that backdrop we must keep in mind as we begin to examine Thomas Aquinas and his relation to Christian philosophy.

Thomas Aquinas has often been lauded as one of the greatest contributors to modern philosophy and theology, and that fact is undeniable. There is, however, room for debate when it comes to the value of such contributions.

Aquinas was brought up in a quite well-to-do family and was sent to school in preparation for service in the Roman Catholic Church. While at school, Aquinas decided to join the Dominican Order and despite several hurtles he eventually graduated with his master’s degree. During his education he became increasingly intrigued by Aristotle and ultimately became Aristotelian in his philosophy. It was Aquinas’ adherence to Aristotelian thought that changed his theology forever (Atkinson; McKinery).

As Aquinas developed his own positions on philosophy and theology he came to believe that the two could be viewed separately. Aquinas did, however, clarify his claim by observing that a study of theology was necessary at a certain point. Even at that, Aquinas’ idea was revolutionary for his day because most viewed philosophy and theology as contradictory, not complimentary. Edward Younkins, a professor at the Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia, stated,  “For Aquinas, the whole of human knowledge forms one all-encompassing, orderly, hierarchical system with sciences at the base, philosophy above them, and theology at the top . . . [and] that divine revelation in no way contradicts that which men discover by the use of natural reason” (Younkins).

It seems the core of the issue boils down to Aquinas’ basic view of general and special revelation. In his work, Summa Theologica, Aquinas gives us a view of what he believed about the human knowledge of God. In answer to the question of whether God is self-evident, Aquinas answered “that God exists is not self-evident” based upon the philosophical supposition that “no one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident” (Aquinas). In other words, man should not have the ability to claim the opposite of what is obviously true. Aquinas then went on to answer the question of whether it can be demonstrated that God exists. He stated “‘The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made’ (Romans 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists” (Aquinas). Therefore, Aquinas was making the point that nature is the key to demonstrating the existence of God. From that point, he then proceeded to propose five specific proofs for the existence of God, which have since become exceedingly well-known.

To summarize, Aquinas denied that the existence of God is self-evident while holding to the belief that the existence of God could be proven through the observation of nature. It is that philosophy that survives today in the form of classical apologetics and, to some degree, evidentialism. The fact is that the philosophy of Aquinas, the classical apologist, and the evidentialist have in common a basic reliance upon the rationality of the human being.

Now that we have established a very basic sketch of Aquinas’ perspective and driving principles, we can take a discerning look at how we should view those principles. Going back to Aquinas’ belief of being able to separate philosophy and theology, we must ask the question: Can this be so? According to the definitions of philosophy as stated by Dr. Vlach and Immanuel Kant, I submit that the two disciplines cannot be separated. Aquinas’ belief regarding the hierarchal structure of knowledge may well be correct; however, placing philosophy in an entirely different plane than theology is quite dangerous. This is true because, as we have already examined, “philosophy is the attempt to think rationally and critically about the most important matters” and answer the questions “(1) what can I know? (2) what should I know? and (3) what may I hope?” (Vlach) As one begins to answer those questions, he must deal with such things as the purpose of the universe, the reason for the existence of man, and even the determination of why things function the way they do. To answer such important questions rationally and critically, the possibility and place of God must be considered by the true philosopher. When the philosopher considers the possibility of God he has just crossed into the theological.

At this point it is important to clarify what is meant by the term “theological.” Aquinas viewed the term “theological” only in the context of divine revelation, which he deemed to be Scripture or what we term as special revelation (McKinery). Because of Thomas’ narrow definition of theological truth, he did not properly recognize the natural world as being God’s revelation or what we call general revelation. In his mind, the natural world only indicated God but was not actually a form of God’s revelation. According to Romans 1:19, such an assumption would be incorrect. The verse states, “That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.” The idea behind the word “manifest” clearly carries the idea of making something known or to show openly or plainly. We see then that God reveals Himself to all men aside from any special revelation. In other words, all men have an innate knowledge or general revelation of God apart from any particular observational studies. As Paul moves to verse 20, he joins the verses with a word that shows an assigned reason. In this case, that reason is nature; God has revealed Himself through nature and the complexities of what He has created. Paul’s intention goes much deeper than what Aquinas observed. God’s creation does not simply point to Him but it truly manifests Him and His power. In short, even nature itself is a revelation of God.

In conclusion, we must not make the mistake of separating our philosophy and our theology. Philosophy, even in its attempts to find common ground between the religious and irreligious will fail. That is due to the fact that God’s revelation is clearly seen even outside the bounds of Scripture. Even before the most cautious philosopher begins his study, he is accountable to the revelation of God in nature and as a result he is biased for or against belief in God. As Romans 1 demonstrates, the claim to be able to form a neutral philosophy is a sadly naïve attempt to escape the reality of the absolutely supreme and Holy God. If we do not make this separation we will open the door to allowing humanistic paradigms into our philosophical and theological framework.

Sources:

Atkinson, Melissa S. “Aristotle and Aquinas: Intrinsic Morality versus God’s Morality.” http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/atkinson/Aristotle_and_Aquinas_Intrinsic_Morality_versus_Gods_Morality.shtml

McKinery, Ralph. “Saint Thomas Aquinas.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 12 Jul. 1999. Rev. 30 Sept. 2009. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

Vlach, Michael J. “What is Philosophy?” http://www.theologicalstudies.org/articles/article/1527417/17131.htm

Younkins, Edward W. “Thomas Aquinas’ Christian Aristotelianism.” http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060122-5.htm

 

A Brief History of Greek Humanism

It is said that the humanistic philosopher Protagoras summed up the Grecian philosophy when he said, “man is the measure of all things.” Protagoras lived in the 400's B.C. and it was his idea of a humanistically centered philosophy that really controlled Greek thinking from then on. It should be noted, however, that humanism was no new idea. Though it might not have been so clearly stated up to that point, humanism began in the Garden of Eden when man tried to become like God by partaking of the forbidden fruit. The events that led to the Great Flood, were brought about because man's “every imagination . . . was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). During the time of the judges “there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Jgs. 17:6). The list of man's placing himself and his own desires above God's commandments of righteousness is virtually endless. That being true, Protagoras did not come up with anything new; he was just the one who is known for stating it so succinctly. 

Socrates, though younger than Protagoras, was on of his contemporaries and seems to have been strongly affected by his philosophical ideas. During the days of Socrates, Sophism was the dominating philosophical idea. The sophists believed that since there were no real gods to punish men, men should live however they felt they should live. In essence, it was the first introduction of outright relativism. When men abandon the one true God, they abandon the only source of absolute truth. From that point, morals become totally relative to each person. When Socrates began his own quest to deal with the issue of morals, he was extremely dissatisfied with the sophist conclusion. For that reason, Socrates set out to answer the question, “what is the best way to live?” Basically, Socrates was on a quest for absolutes. Sadly, however, Socrates concluded that there was no God or gods. Because of his denial of the deities, Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian government. By his life of study and final conclusion, Socrates proved that when one does not reason from an immutable God, there can be no foundation upon which to build a system of absolutes. If the human being does not reason from the belief in God, he will end in a denial of God. 

Plato followed in Socrates' footsteps attempting to answer the question of how men should live. Aristotle then followed in Plato's footsteps as a most brilliant student of his. The primary objective of both Plato and Aristotle was to show how men could see order and purpose in the surrounding world. Aristotle even came to the final conclusion about the existence of a the creator God. In the final analysis Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all had significantly differing world views but they all had the commonality of a humanistic base of reasoning. Whether the philosopher denies the existence of God or holds to the existence of God, until that philosopher has recognized man's responsibility to God he has discovered nothing. That is truly the difference between Christianity and humanism.

In Acts 17:18, we see one of the most vivid clashes of humanism and Christianity as Paul went toe to toe with the most respected philosophers of the day. The verse tells us that Paul was confronted by Epicureans and Stoics. The Epicureans were basically hedonists because they believed that there was no creator god and the gods that did exist were totally disconnected from the lives of human beings. As a result, they believed that life was to be governed by pleasure and though their intentions were for properly regulated, governed pleasure it turned into total hedonism as the philosophy was practiced by the younger generations. Stoicism on the other hand adhered to the belief in God but that all things, including God, were bound by fate. They viewed happiness as being achieved only by one's insensibility to pain. Though their ultimate view of the future state differed greatly, they were basically pantheists and believed that they would eventually be absorbed into god.

When Paul went before those philosophers he was mocked by both because he was seemingly ignorant to both. To the Epicureans he was naïve to believe that there was such a creator God as he detailed in the following verses. To the Stoics Paul was foolish to believe that God was personal rather than being in part of all creation. It was for that reason that they called Paul a “babbler,” which literally meant “seed picker.” In essence, the philosophers were accusing Paul of being an ignorant fool who was making a sad attempt at gleaning truth from their great wisdom or worse yet distorting the Grecian gods. Instead of allowing himself to be challenged to a philosophical debate, Paul simply declared the truth of God and made appeal to their innate knowledge of God.

The fact that the philosophers had an inborn knowledge of God brings us to Romans chapter 1. In Romans 1, Paul clearly shows that man has an ingrained knowledge of God simply from seeing the creation around him (vs. 18-20). There can be no clearer statement that men are accountable to God simply by the declaration of His magnificent creation. It was that truth that Paul leveraged in Acts 17 as he pointed out their own ignorant worship of the “UNKOWN GOD.” They knew there was a God but they would only worship Him in their own ignorance. As the Athenian philosophers “knew God” and “glorified him not as God” they became “vain in their imaginations . . . professing themselves wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:21, 22) In the darkness of the Greek philosophy, there was a hint of truth but instead of seeking out that truth they became immersed in their vain imaginations. 

It is those Greek philosophies that have rippled through history manifesting themselves in every aspect of culture even to the present. In recent years especially, there has been a resurgence in the blatant denial of absolutes. Men are seeking for a God but they do not want the God of the Bible because He demands accountability; He demands obedience; He demands a life of righteousness. Instead of embracing the one true and righteous God, they embrace the God of their “imaginations . . . professing themselves to be wise, they became [or are becoming] fools” (Rom. 1:22). This just illustrates the truth of Ecclesiastes 1:9 which tells us that “there is no new thing under the sun.”

For the believer, this should make us stop and think about what our driving principle really is. It is so easy to allow a man-centered thought process to taint our thinking. We must always reason from God to man, not the other way around. The entire purpose of history, creation, and mankind has been to give glory to God.

To GOD ALONE "be Glory forever. Amen" (Rom. 11:36).