Lileks has a lengthy Matrix 3 review up (in which he blasts Harry Knowles, of AICN fame), and he describes something many people noted about the series: it tries very hard to build a secular spirituality, but falls amazingly flat without any concept of God.
I took away something else from the Matrix trilogy: it is a product of deeply confused people. They want it all. They want individualism and community; they want secularism and transcendence; they want the purity of committed love and the licentious fun of an S&M club; they want peace and the thrill of violence; they want God, but they want to design him on their own screens with their own programs by their own terms for their own needs, and having defined the divine on their own terms, they bristle when anyone suggests they have simply built a room with a mirror and flattering lighting. All three Matrix movies, seen in total, ache for a God. But they can’t quite go all the way. They’re like three movies about circular flat meat patties that can never quite bring themselves to say the word “hamburger.”One of the best ways to view the Matrix trilogy is to deconstruct it (argh) and examine what it really says about our culture. As Lileks describes, every note it strikes is philisophically discordant, and every morale pontification is conflicted and contradictory.
I haven't seen number 3, but the orgy scene in number 2 stands out particularly. Zion is the philisophical culmination of secular culture, with free, crazy sex, but Neo and Trinity don't partake -- instead they go off on their own and ick up the screen for 5 minutes. It's as if the writers really wanted an orgy, but then decided that a bilateral love scene would be more fulfilling... for some reason. Why?
As Lileks asks, why did the humans bother fighting the robots, rather than submit to the Matrix? What could they hope to accomplish, other than to eventually, after hundreds of years, raise their civilization back up to the level they could instantly experience in the machines' simulated world? There's an innate understanding that humans shouldn't be the slaves of robots, but within the mythos of the movie, why not? If there's some fundamental human dignity at stake, what's the source? Why struggle, fight, and die, just so your kids can be more miserable? What's wrong with living in a pleasant illusion?
The movies don't answer that question other than with some hand-waving, because they simply can't -- and modern secularism don't have an answer either. Survival of the fittest and evolution are praised academically, but no one wants to carry them to their logical extremes. Why bother helping the Iraqis, rather than just nuking them and taking their oil? They're obviously less fit than we are, and eliminating them would be good for the species. Doubly true for Afghanistan, since they don't even have oil. Nukes are cleap, compared to soldiers.
Why worry about healthcare for the poor? If they can't compete, let 'em die. Instead of an expensive medical system, we could form a Corpse Patrol to keep the dead bodies off the street. Abortion? Who cares! If a fetus can't fend for itself, too bad. Same for the handicapped, the insane, and so forth. Why try rehabilitating criminals? Just shoot them. Sure, some might be innocent, but on average we'll improve the population by weeding out as many deviants as possible.
All of these ideas are ludicrous, of course, but try to explain why from a secular standpoint. Social contract? Do you think society would fall apart if we let all the poor die? Nonsense, that was the policy of civilization for thousands of years. Besides, as long as it would be economically valuable to have a supply of poor people, capitalism would work to preserve them without the need for government intervention. (If you comment, please make sure your secular argument isn't simply a variation on the "social contract" idea.)
The point is that without God -- without some supernatural imposition of value from the outside -- a human is instrinsically worth nothing beyond his usefulness. And useless humans are therefore worth nothing. Most people (except extreme environmentalists) reject these conclusions, but with little rational basis. As Lileks said, we want the benefits of God, but we want to create him ourselves, to suit our purposes. We want to "discover" what "'God' means to me" and such. But a human-created God cannot reciprocally give value to his creator, and any philosophy built on such a construct will ring entirely hollow.
The point is that without God -- without some supernatural imposition of value from the outside -- a human is instrinsically worth nothing beyond our usefulness. And useless humans are therefore worth nothing.
Exactly right. Knowing this makes the Lileks quote make perfect sense. Keep writing, my useful friend!
"The point is that without God -- without some supernatural imposition of value from the outside -- a human is instrinsically worth nothing beyond our usefulness."
"Usefulness" is not an absolute measurement. A thing, or a person, may be useless to one person, and extremely useful to another. As Lazarus Long pointed out, a smelly nuisance in the barn is valuable fertilizer in the back 40. Pebbles on one planet may be priceless gems on another. A syringe full of insulin is useless to me, but quite valuable to millions of others. And so on.
And each of us is quite useful and worth quite a lot - to ourselves. If we own ourselves, that's all that should count - no one else should get to shoot us because we're worthless to them. (But that doesn't prove that they have to feed us either...)
"As Lileks said, we want the benefits of God, but we want to create him ourselves, to suit our purposes. We want to "discover" what "'God' means to me" and such. But a self-created God cannot reciprocally give value to his creator, and any philosophy built on such a construct will ring entirely hollow."
But that's the problem we're faced with right now. We're being asked to accept a God on the unsubstantiated word of human beings (some of whom are long dead, but still very much human when they wrote what they alleged to be the Word of God), and we're left to choose which human beings we're going to believe; God is not giving us much guidance on the matter.
Not only that, but are you saying that what God says is the very definition of morality, and morality cannot exist without God? That sounds an awful lot like the early explanations of physical events, and early insistance that such-and-such (rain, sunshine, rainbows, animals, etc.)couldn't happen without God making it happen. Maybe God created the Universe in such a way that the world we know would inevitably appear somewhere in it, but we can explain and predict events after the creation of the Universe without waving our hands and saying stuff like "God formed the animals and planted the trees, and stretched out his hand and separated the land from the water, and made a statue of a man out of dirt and then breathed life into it", etc., etc., and I don't see any reason why we can't have moral laws the same way we have physical laws, i.e., ones that don't depend on God personally intervening every step of the way.
Besides that, there's no logical reason why God has to be a moral god. He says He is (or at least His human spokemen say He is), but there's no way we can logically conclude that He definitely isn't lying about it. His habit of inflicting everlasting torture on human beings capable only of limited crimes casts doubt on that proposition, at least for me. In fact, according to the descriptions I can find, He seems to act suspiciously like human tyrants that have littered human history (extensive use of torture, demand that we venerate and worship him personally, etc.), and not so much like the logical source of all proper human morality.
Since, assuming this God is the real deal, I'm doomed to Hell myself for thinking all this, I'd love to be shown that I'm completely full of it :)
Ken:
Of course utility is relative, but you're saying that my actions should be restricted because of your estimation of utility. You think you're valuable, therefore I shouldn't kill you. That doesn't follow, and is basically a restatement of the social contract idea: I should respect your valuation of yourself, so that you respect my valuation of myself.
Furthermore, moral laws don't need immediate, direct involvement from God any more than physical laws you. As you say, maybe God set them both in motion and then stepped away. So what? God doesn't have to do anything for me to condemn murder, anymore than he has to do anything for me to throw a ball in a parabola.
Is God a "moral" God? Of course, de facto. If God defines morality, then he is himself moral, by definition. If he lies to us about it, then it's our conception of morality that's flawed, not his.
Healthcare for the poor, because otherwise the poor serve as a disease vector to everyone, through all sorts of everyday contact.
Taking care of Iraq may be in part a spiritual decision for GWB, but it also makes military sense to reduce the weapons at an enemies disposal, and to fight them someplace other than your backyard. Ditto Afghanistan.
Indirect benifits, but still benifits.
Henry Ford paid a good wage not out of concern for his employee's well being, but so that his employees' could afford cars. But it certainly made his employees' lives easier.
Teach children to do math, so they are less likely to be cheated. Teach children to read, and think so they are less likely to fall prey to rumor, and more willing to wait for full information.
There are good, secular, reasons for all those things, not just nonsense like the "social contract".
--
Now onto a long rant...
--
With in the mythos of the movie people fight for freedom, that's the fundamental human dignity. The movie does not answer "what is the source?" because the movie doesn't ask that question. Like any story it is based on certain assumptions, including an assumed history (at some point, some how, computers gained physical control over people) and and assumed moral guide (freedom is good). It gives no more reason for the first than for the second, but you (and lileks) attack the second because that way you can write a screed about godless secular society. Which is ironic, because the entire thing is a version of the Jewish Messiah legend (at the hour of our greatest need, a new one will come to lead us to the promised land.)
The first two movies (I haven't seen the third) speak to human dignity in freedom, and say that it is not just okay, but good to fight for it. They speak to human dignity in love, and say that it is okay to turn your back on wild raucous physical pleasure to enjoy that love. They tell a beautiful story, and you get in a huff because the story doesn't expliciately refer to God as the root of all wonder.
"I haven't seen number 3, but the orgy scene in number 2 stands out particularly. Zion is the philisophical culmination of secular culture, with free, crazy sex, but Neo and Trinity don't partake -- instead they go off on their own and ick up the screen for 5 minutes. It's as if the writers really wanted an orgy, but then decided that a bilateral love scene would be more fulfilling... for some reason. Why?"
Lets contrast the ongoing love interest between Neo and Trinity (oh the symbolism in those names) theres the family setting for whatever that guy's name is in 2 (which rated at least 3 scenes about the angst of a wife waiting at home for her soldier husband) and there's one celebration where there happens to be casual sex... A celebration which is basically a big flipping bird in the direction of the machines, litterally an 'end of the world' party... And a celebration in which neither the two leads, nor other named characters were featured in. Yet, you for some reason pick out that 1 scene as what the directors wanted to be their vision... Now it is my turn to ask, "Why?" On what possible basis did you decide that? Oh, that's right... they didn't give a real God a named roll. So on that basis you decided that these people who wove a wonderful love story into their entire epic really didn't like it, and wished they didn't have to put it to make the story "seem" more fulfilling.
I'm sorry, my disbelief could handle the absolutely ridiculous history of that world, but that is so at odds with everything else in the two movies I've seen that I just can't believe it.
"The point is that without God -- without some supernatural imposition of value from the outside -- a human is instrinsically worth nothing beyond his usefulness. And useless humans are therefore worth nothing. "
I'm sorry you feel that way, and very very glad you believe in God. I hope you keep that belief, this world has more than enough psycopaths.
"We want to "discover" what "'God' means to me" and such. But a self-created God cannot reciprocally give value to his creator, and any philosophy built on such a construct will ring entirely hollow."
Ken above has said most of what I want to on this point, God may be eternal, but Religion is an invention of man. I would guess that most people who seek to "discover" God don't seek to invent him, but actually do seek to discover Him, after he has been burried in symbolism and trash by centuries of people who feel that Having Religion is more important than Knowing God.
It is enough for me to see those movies are about love and freedom, loyalty and truth. About the essences of what is Good and great in humans, and therefore about the essense of God. I will take not seeing his name.
I have my entire life to spend learning about God, I don't expect to see him clearly while watching 33mm film go by for a few hours.
Ken,
Michael Williams has addressed your idea of usefulness, and I would just add that only an external point of view, any external point of view, can make my value to me mean anything to you. Some would argue that, in the huge interminglings of points of view, we've created a morality by each acting as external judges in some capacity for others. We've gone a ways down the relativism to which that model leads, and I'd suggest that it'll be a fatal test to prove wrong.
But speaking to your second point, the moral God one, you've run straight to third base, having bunted. That some or all religions have or might have gotten morality wrong (i.e., defined morality according to God incorrectly) doesn't disprove God's necessity for morality. The logic goes in the other direction: you have to admit God's contribution to morality before you can peel apart the layers of implication to discern who's got it most correct.
+-----------------+
Michael,
I don't think you've given adequate consideration to Michael W.'s points vis-a-vis Iraq et al. We could incinerate the poor or level Iraq. It would take care of the problems that you list much more efficiently than the paths that we've chosen. Ultimately, we won't allow ourselves to do so (at this point in history), so we expend the energy with healthcare and reconstruction to minimize the "damage" done by our squeamishness. Eventually, I'd say, it's likely that we'll overcome those "hang-ups," if we don't slip into some cold-water of reality first.
But the point is that, as with Ken, you're taking too many steps. You've told us why it's better to take care of the poor than to let them wander the streets rotting, but you haven't explained why they would have to be allowed to wander the streets rotting in the first place.
Thanks Justin, those are exactly the points I would have made. I proposed more efficient solutions (nukes and Corpse Patrols) to the problems, and asked why we didn't use those solutions.
Michael (#2) says: "The first two movies (I haven't seen the third) speak to human dignity in freedom, and say that it is not just okay, but good to fight for it. They speak to human dignity in love, and say that it is okay to turn your back on wild raucous physical pleasure to enjoy that love. They tell a beautiful story, and you get in a huff because the story doesn't expliciately refer to God as the root of all wonder."
But why do you think humans have dignity? Because you're a human? You rephrase and wave your hands, but you don't address the main issue. You say that you're glad I believe in God, because otherwise I'd be a psychopath, but my question to you is: if you don't believe in God, why aren't you a psychopath?
I'm not "in a huff" because the movie doesn't mention God. I couldn't care less; no movie is in any way obligated to pander to or affirm my beliefs. Rather, I'm fascinated by the philisophical smoke and mirrors that assume the existence of human dignity and then anchor it on itself.
A few quick comments - the entirety of the piece is not worth commenting on, other than as being exemplary of why I am often embarrassed to post to this site.
- There is no "orgy" scene in reloaded, they're *dancing*. I'm sure plenty of other people are rutting in a cave like neo and trinity, and there are at least three strong monogomous relationships in the movies.
- Using the Matrix as any sort of indicator of anyones spiritual beliefs other than the directors is ridiculous.
- Using logic on the plot of the Matrix is also ridiculous. Why free the humans? Why didn't the machines just enslave cows, they're probably better batteries and it has to be easier to render pastures. In Revolutions, at one point some characters see the sky, and they get to it reasonably easily. Why don't the machines just build some solar panels above the clouds?
- To say that historically poor people were allowed to die ignores the fact that this was practice in a lot of strongly christian countries as well. God has nothing to do with how people treat each other, people do what they want and interpret the word of god to suit them, no matter what - almost every day you make a post doing the same thing. This, if anything, is an argument both for the social contract, and for its fragility.
- The usefulness of a person is not measured in their economic benefit. Economists use "utility", but if you have a crippled brother who is nothing but a sink on your finances, you'll still keep him around if you love him. And love or familial bonds are not soley part of the realm of the religious.
- No one thinks society would fall apart if we let the poor die, but a large portion of society feels it is wrong, for whatever reason, and another portion feels fear that they will one day become poor themselves. Do onto others as you would have them do onto you is also not monopolized by the religious.
- Social darwinisim, which you seem to equate with "survival of the fittest and evolution" has nothing to do with either. Defeating the iraqis in a war has nothing to do with being less or more fit, and eliminating them would in no way guarantee the improvement of the species. The thing that bothers me the most here is I know you understand this distinction.
- In the second and third movie, the Merovingian and his cronies seem to represent what you and Lileks accuse Zion of being, some kind of S&M club of secularisim and transcendence. No one wants the thrill of violence.
- As for the matrix aching for a god, again, its a friggan movie. The theology of the matrix is based loosely on christian gnosticisim, the idea that the god of the bible is not the true god, but instead a mindless creative force, a demiurge, and that there is a god above that. In the matrix, the Demiurge is the Architect, and the assumption is of a power above that.
- To say that "god" is a "rational" basis for applying value to humans on earth is no less absurd than any social contract. Human beings need each other to survive; This is self evident. How people choose, in each society, to best ensure this survival differs, but it has culminated in the world of social contract in which we live today. Your other examples have all failed, and to say they were once true shows only that they are no longer the way, as a better one has been found.
- Of course, this is not true in North Korea, where they ship the cripples or homeless from Pyongyang and then boast about how pristine their people and their city is.
1. Everyone I've talked to knows it's an orgy scene.
2. I don't see why it's any more ridiculous than extrapolating cultural trends from any other medium. Naturally no generalization applies perfectly across all people, but so what?
3. Who knows.
4a. I didn't say it wasn't. Plus, until recently, everyone who got sick died, no matter how rich or poor they were. My point was just that society wouldn't collapse.
4b. "God has nothing to do with how people treat each other, people do what they want and interpret the word of god to suit them, no matter what - almost every day you make a post doing the same thing." That's not true; my interpretations of God's Word are hardly construed for my own benefit. Generally they're quite difficult.
5. This is exactly at the heart of my question. Where does this love and bond come from, when it's so clearly non-advantageous?
6. Again, yes, the heart of my question. You're claiming that people are nice to each other so that they'll be the recipients of kindness in return -- social contract. The problem is that mathematically it isn't possible. No one has yet devised an altruistic system that doesn't collapse into free-ridership (largely due to transaction costs for enforcement).
7. I disagree. The benefits of social darwinism is that it can weed out bad ideas, as well as bad genes. It's the sociobiological equivalent of evolution, although most ethicists reject it out of distaste for its consequences. But, again, why?
8. Haven't seen #3.
9. Yes, it certainly is a movie -- that's what we're talking about. And yes, it does seem related to gnosticism.
10. Discussing God only seems axiomatically absurd to you because you don't believe in him. I'm not sure what you mean by "other examples".
11. Yes, North Korea does sound like a rather terrible place, and I wouldn't want to live there. I'm glad that civilization doesn't follow the course that looks most efficient on paper, and I wonder why not? And I wonder why it doesn't appear to work?
Dave Chalmers writes well about the pros and cons of the "brain in the vat" question, which is what you're describing. (For the uninitiated, 'brain in the vat' is basically 'the Matrix'.) It seems that you're saying that without a God there is little incentive to not choose to be a brain in the vat. I agree that there's little reason to not choose the Matrix, but not because of God's playing into it. Really I guess you could make a whole complicated proof about how the question of God is more central here than God itself: How much God actually affects our daily lives vs how curious we are about that answer, and how that curiosity drives us toward art and philosophy and other worthwhile things.
Since we fundamentally disagree about the nature of being, it probably doesn't get us anywhere to debate the affluence of God in human life. But it seems to me that even a deus ex machina could be replicated by the Matrix, so if divine will feels eminent in the Matrix, why or how could you choose otherwise?
I completely agree with Michael Williams' thesis that basic values cannot be derived logically, but can only come from some "supernatural imposition of value from the outside", such as God. But it seems to me that we have little choice but to try to discover what "God means to me"... whether that means a personal, subjective choice about what to believe, or surrendering our beliefs to a certain text or organization, as in the case of religion. Neither option is 'logical', but they're the best we can do - the alternative is a lack of value altogether, which is inevitably sociopathic.
Well we have to decide, but some decisions are wrong.
If there's an objective truth about values, then either some people are wrong, or everyone's got it wrong... but is there any way to use logic to determine who's right and who isn't?
The only other possibilty is that there's no right or wrong values, any more than there is a right or wrong favorite color.
Mr. Ferrier: yes, either some or all of us are wrong.
Since I believe that truth is revealed, rather than discerned, there is no logical way to prove who is correct and who isn't.
I stumbled into this amazing discussion while looking around the Net for other pieces on the theology of the Matrix. I was much edified by many of the observations here about the structure of human culture in the world of the movie, and am sorry I overlooked so much. Still, there is an element of the film that I noticed (because of my fixation on peace) that y'all didn't get around to.
Revolutions manages to deconstruct our card-houses of violence like no other movie I've ever seen. In it,
1) the "enemy" is demonstrated to be capable of "love," and is "un-dehumanized".
2) Peace with the enemy becomes the source of salvation, rather than destruction of the enemy.
3) Submission/sacrifice is shown to be the only way out of the cycle of violence.
4) Conversion, rather than destruction, is the result of victory over violence.
I've written more extensively on it at our website, preachingpeace.org. The link (if I can get this right) to the page is
"http://www.preachingpeace.org/hollywood.htm"
Wishing you all peace,
Jeff K.
I just stumbled upon this today. I see nothing wrong with what Michael has stated here.
If you want to find God. Really find Him. I think it can be done. I've done it. I think that's what this discussion is really about. There's evidence:
"www.yfiles.com/shroud"
"http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bibsuper.html"
That's a small sampling but I think it will do. Good article Michael keep up the good work.