Computers and Self-Consciousness

In connection with my previous post on I, Robot, I found this quote by David Gelertner, professor of computer science at Yale in Ravi Zacharias's book Cries of the Heart. This statement was made back when the Russian chess nerd Gary Kasparov lost to a computer Deep Blue. Gelertner writes,

"The idea that Deep Blue has a mind in absurd. How can an object that wants nothing, fears nothing, enjoys nothing, needs nothing and cares about nothing have a mind? It can win at chess, but not because it wants to. It isn't happy when it wins or sad when it loses. What are its apres-match plans if it beats Kasparov? Is it hoping to take Deep Pink out for a night on the town? It doesn't care about chess or anything else. It plays the game for the same reason a calculator adds or a toaster toasts: because it is a machine designed for that purpose....No matter what amazing feats they perform, inside they will always be the same absolute zero....No computer can achieve artificial thougth without achieving artificial emotion too.

"In the long run I doubt if there is any kind of human behavior computers can't fake, any kind of performance they can't put on. It is conceivable that one day computers will be better than humans at nearly everything. I can imagine that a person might someday have a computer for a best friend. That will be sad--like having a dog for your best friend but even sadder...the gap between the human and the surrogate is permanent and will never be closed. Machines will continue to make life easier, healthier, richer, and more puzzling. And human beings will continue to care, ultimately, about the same things they always have: about themselves, about one another and, many of them, about God."

Hmm, makes you think, doesn't it? I don't know how naturalists get around the fact that we have soul.

Video Games

Yeah, I'm an addict. The kids in our youth group just happen to feed my addiction. I have GameCube and two of our favorites are Smash Bros Melee and Madden Football. However, lately I haven't play that much GameCube all by myself since I've kinda felt convicted of wasting so much time in front of the TV. The last game I bought was in February. It was some stupid LOTR rpg that ended up really sucking. I was bored with it in a couple of days. The worse part was that I spent $50 on this game and haven't really played it all. So I've been kinda hesitant about getting any more without doing a little more research on a game first to see if I'll actually like. Multiplayers are good 'cause we can play them after youth group. Here are a couple of the games that I'm considering.

Timesplitters: Future Perfect
This game might rock 'cause the last episode in this series was alot of fun and a great multiplayer.

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory
My brother has this first one in this set and he thought that it rocked.

I don't know. I kinda want a new game, but it could be just a waste of time. If I do get a game, I want one that I can play with some of our high school guys.

Hmm...Romans 13 and Underage Drinking

Today after Sunday school, some high school students and I had a good conversation about alcohol. Not very surprisingly, a couple of them thought that underage drinking wasn't a bit wrong. In fact, they felt that as long as they drink responsibly that it was ok. Apparently they seemed to overlook the fact that most teenagers normally don't know how to drink responsibly. Whose ever heard of a bunch of teenagers getting together to drink in moderation? Isn't the whole point of most parties just to get drunk and wasted?

I tried getting them to look at Romans 13 and God's call for us to obey the authority structures that He's given us. Of course, that argument doesn't work for folks that have grown accustomed to breaking the law by stealing multimedia off the internet. I just don't know. How do you address such an issue when kids don't have respect for God-given authority in the first place?

Walton on Genesis 1

Dr. John H. Walton is a OT professor at Wheaton. He always brings unique insight to the study of the Old Testament. If he's right in his exegesis, this should greatly impacted our discussion of creation and evolution. Here's a link to his interesting lecture on Genesis 1 given at a conference at Wheaton.

I, Robot

When I first saw the previews for I, Robot, I thought that it looked kinda cheesy. However, other day when I watched it with my friend John, I was utterly surprised by how much I enjoyed the movie. The film effectively deals with several difficult metaphysical issues. What is the self? Do we have a soul? Of course, naturalism would like us to think that we are is nothing but lights and clockwork. It's always amazing to see how a narrative can communicate in two hours with ease what dry philosophical exposition takes months to communicate!

Here's a great quote from the movie:

"There have always been ghosts in the machine; ramdon segment of code that have grouped together to form unexpected protocols. Unanticipated, these free radicals engender questions of free will, creativity, and even the nature of what we might call the soul.

"Why is it that when some robots are left in darkness, they will seek out the light? Why is it that when some robots are stored in an empty space, they will group together rather than stand alone?

"How do we explain this behavior? Random segments of code? Or is it something more? When does a perceptual schematic become consciousness? When does a difference engine become the search for truth? When does the personality simulation become the bitter mote of a soul?"

Prevenient Grace

This week's been crazy. We're in the middle of Vacation Bible School and painting the house so I'm altogether pretty busy. I'm teaching memory verses and leading some songs. Shelley's doing crafts and puppets as well as working out at the Fort Rob theater. I can't wait 'til the end of the week for things to slow down. Besides that, Pastor Dan is gone, but fortunately I don't have to preach this week. Well, anyway, here's some of my under-developed thoughts on prevenient grace.

Although John Calvin and Jacob Arminius differed in several important areas in theology, they both firmly believed in total depravity of man. In that sense, Jacob Arminius could have been called a 1-point Calvinist. Arminius held that ever since the original sin, the human will was in bondage to a corrupted nature. Thus, if left in that state, man has no interest in genuinely pleasing God.

One crucial area of where Arminius disagreed with Calvin was over the nature of grace. Arminius believed that the Bible teaches that God's prevenient grace enables the sinner to make a free response to the gospel. Later John Wesley did much to develop further this important, but controversial doctrine. But like Chris pointed out, it's important to examine the Bible to see if there is support for such a view.

Let's start with the question, "What is prevenient grace?" It might be clearer to use the term "pre-regenerating grace." Pre-regenerating grace is undeserved favor that God gives to the sinner as he hears the Word of God and experiences the work of the Holy Spirit in his life. This grace does not actually save the hearer. It only enables him to respond freely in faith or to reject the gospel by further unbelief. This grace is not to be confused with common grace, that is universally received. Prevenient grace could not be experienced by those who have never heard the gospel.

What evidence is there in the Bible that actually teaches such a doctrine? Currently, I don't have time to exposit each of these passages, but I believe that the following texts point toward my definition of my prevenient grace.

John 16:5-11

⁵But now I am going away to the one who sent me, and none of you has asked me where I am going. ⁶Instead, you are very sad. ⁷But it is actually best for you that I go away, because if I don't, the Counselor won't come. If I do go away, he will come because I will send him to you. ⁸And when he comes, he will convince the world of its sin, and of God's righteousness, and of the coming judgment. ⁹The world's sin is unbelief in me. ¹⁰Righteousness is available because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more. ¹¹Judgment will come because the prince of this world has already been judged (NLT).

Romans 10:17

¹⁷Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ (NIV).

Romans 2:4

⁴Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? (NIV)

Titus 2:11-13

¹¹For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. ¹²It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, ¹³while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (NIV)

Acts 7:51

⁵¹"You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! (NIV)


I hope that this will prompt further discussion of these texts. I would be happy to explain to why I think that these passages teach prevenient grace.

Free Will?

So Shelley went to her friend's wedding in Colorado this weekend. Now I'm roughing it without her. I guess that I'll probably end up eating more junk food than normal. Hopefully I'll have more time to finish priming our house...and post about free will. Hehehehe.

In an earlier post, Micah pointed out the importance of defining the term "free will." This term is often used and abused that people can say the same word and be referring to entirely different things. When discussing the possible solutions to the problem of evil, I said that free will should play an important part of any theodicy. Here's where most Calvinists start cringing in agony.

What do I mean when I use this oft-abused term? I understand that fallen man's will is not morally free. I agree here with Calvinism. I completely believe that Scripture teachs the total depravity of fallen man. As I much as I loath prooftexting, it's not very hard to find this concept in the Bible. In Genesis 8:21, after vowing that He would never destroy the earth with water again, God says, "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood." The Apostle Paul concurs with this sendiment by writing, "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God" (Rom. 3:10-11).

Ever since Adam's sin, every human being has a will bent toward rejecting God. Romans 8:7 says, "The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit God's law, nor can it do so. Those in the flesh cannot please God." But notice that I said "Ever since Adam's sin." Did Adam have a morally free will? There's no reason to think that he didn't. If Adam indeed had a free will, then this supplies the philosophical dynamite needed to answer the problem of evil.

Now a second question that I need to address concerns whether Adam had a libertarian free will? I believe so. Why? LFW teaches that in order for moral responsibility, the human agent must have the geniune ability to do otherwise, or to refrain from action. LFW cannot be held consistently with determinism. This is why I hold to the Molinist view of God's providence. Molinism holds that in middle knowledge God knew before His decree to create the world what Adam would freely do in the garden. And yet, He created this world.

Why? Well, part of the reason is to reveal His glory. He wanted to demonstrate all aspects of His character as Micah pointed out with that quote from Jonathan Edwards. Another reason is that geniune love must be uncoerced. Ravi Zacharias writes, "In a world where love is the supreme ethic, freedom must be built in. A love that is programmed or compelled is not love; it is merely a conditioned response or self-serving" (Jesus Among Other Gods 118). Then he quotes Jean Paul Sarte in saying:

"The man who wants to be loved does not desire the enslavement of the beloved. He is not bent on becoming the object of passion, which flows forth mechanically. he does not want to posess an automaton, and if we want to humiliate him, we need try only persuade him that the beloved's passion is the result of a psycho-logical determinism. The lover will then feel that both his love and his being are cheapened....If the beloved is transformed into an automaton, the lover finds himself alone"(Jesus Among Other Gods 118).

Bono on Sunglasses and God

Shelley recently ran across this quote from U2 lead singer Bono: "Coolness might help in your negotiation with people in the world, maybe, but it is impossible to meet God with sunglasses on. It is impossible to meet God without abandon, without exposing yourself."