Wednesday, August 22, 2012

The Problem of Pain

By C. S. Lewis

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5




Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5





In the past, I've said that in some of his works, C.S. Lewis almost seems like a professional philosopher, while in others, he clearly comes across as more of a popularizer.  This book, I'm afraid, is of the latter type.  I say this, not because it's a bad book (it deals quite well with all the major problems people have concerning pain,) but because it's non-technical and contains some errors.

There's nothing wrong with using a book to popularize very basic responses to very basic arguments (rest assured, this kind of content is as much as [perhaps more than] most internet atheists will be able to grasp on these issues,) but if you're a really educated seeker, really looking for answers to life's tough questions, or a theology student who wants to know the truth, or even just a philosophically-minded person who's not entirely on board with Christianity yet, put this book down.  In fact, even if you -are- entirely on board with Christianity, there's a chance this book might damage your faith.

Now, as I said, this book is a good book.  Rest assured, I got just as many really good quotes from it as I did bad ones.  That said, there -were- bad ones, and they came in two varieties.  The first variety was weak and illogical arguments in favor of true positions.  The second was defending very questionable, or even clearly-false positions.

At this point, I feel the need to remind you that I am not an atheist.  I'm an orthodox Roman Catholic, so when I say a position is questionable, I mean either that it has been denounced by the church, or else not affirmed by them in any way (not respected in doctrine, discipline, practice, creed or prayers.)  However, my objections to some of Lewis' conclusions will not exist in a vacuum.  I will back up my position with evidence, and a noteworthy, talented apologist like C.S. Lewis deserves, I feel, no less.

First, however, let me cover the weak defenses of true positions.  Fortunately, I only spotted two of these.

Firstly, in chapter 6, paragraph 12, he responds to the well-known Euthyphro dilemma.  The dilemma is "does God command things because they're right, or are they right because he commands them?  If he commands them because they're right, then that 'rightness' must have a source other than God.  If they're right because he commands them, then 'right' and 'wrong' are arbitrarily dependant on the will of God."

Lewis' response to this dilemma is correct.  He says that God commands things -because- they're right.  What he does not do is explain how this can happen without "rightness" originating outside of God; namely, that it is God's nature, not his will, where right and wrong originate, and his will obeys his nature in commanding right things.

Chapter 6, paragraph 18; Lewis wants to prove that pain can be good for people, and cites the claim that old people generally, in his experience, grow better with age, not worse.  However, age is not pain, and it brings many things with it other than pain.  Sometimes, for example, it brings wisdom, which is much more likely than pain alone to improve a person's character.  I think his claim that pain can be good for people is spot-on, but this argument is horribly wanting.

More importantly, however, he makes a number of claims which I think are simply wrong, and which certainly aren't required for Catholics (or indeed, Christians of any sort) to believe.  He keeps going back to these too, so I'll describe these faulty teachings first, then point out where I saw them surfacing.

1.  Competition is a form of evil.

This may not be intentional, but in Ch2Par14, he says that "hostility and competition" are a "grave evil."  Gee.  Should I have confessed my last game of chess to a priest?

I'm sorry.  I don't mean to be snide about this, but only one kind of competition is evil; the hostile kind.  If C.S. Lewis believes this (and I have no reason to think he does not,) the word "hostility" need not have been followed by anything.

2. The self-depreciation of the saints is "scientifically" accurate.

Ch4Par15.  No, it's not.  Science is about measurements, and how rotten you are is not measurable by any method of which we are aware.

3. God -causes- evil and suffering efficiently.

He doesn't use these precise words, but he does seem to imply that God is the cause of evil in Ch6Par8.  He also, in the same place, implies that the human will is evil, but that's a separate problem.

4. The human will is evil, just by being a will.

I really don't know why he would say this, since he elsewhere rejects Total Depravity (which I also reject.)  However, he seems to repeatedly confuse -evil- will with any kind of human will considered as a whole.  In Ch6Par3, he rails at the very idea of desiring anything for the self, and advocates ruthlessly shattering such desires by force.  However, the problem is that a person who -really- desired nothing for the self would also have no reason to associate with other human beings, since they wouldn't desire to be noble or virtuous, which is absurd.  Of course these desires are valid.  So are many other desires, provided they're kept in the proper order.

In Ch7Par3, he again demonstrates a fundamental confusion between the will, considered absolutely, and the will to do diabolical things.

This Error seems to feed into another one; his incorrect understanding of Heaven, which I will deal with in a moment.

5. Free will and its associated dangers are needed in order for people to live.

Ch2Par15.  I agree that free will is needed in order for people to live, but its dangers are not required, or else, it would be impossible for Heaven to exist, since people clearly live there, yet, without danger.

6. Even if there were pains in Heaven, those in the know would desire them.

Ch8Par9.  I don't think he quite understands the purpose of Heaven in saying this.  The purpose of Heaven is to be in the closest possible proximity to God.  To be in the closest possible proximity to God is to have all good things, and no evil things.  However, pain is an evil thing, in and of itself (which I think may be another point of confusion for him.)  Therefore, merely having pain proves that one is not in the closest possible proximity to God, and therefore, not in Heaven.

Believe me, after all we humans have suffered (self-inflicted or no,) a partial victory on an -eternal- scale would never be sufficient, and God knows this.  That's why Purgatory doesn't last forever.

7. In Heaven, there is no beer.

More or less.  He claims that no one can possess anything in Heaven.  Then what, may I ask, is the point of giving up the things that we clearly -do- possess?  This is a poor substitute, if true, and I'm fully convinced that it's false on that basis alone.

Still, I want to fully examine the points he makes on the subject.

Ch10Par5; he seems to recognize that this claim imperils the parable of the pearl of great price (the first objection I would have brought up,) but doesn't really deal with the issue, except to assert that what he's speaking of is "not an experience."

This requires an analysis of what the word "experience" means.  An experience, in a broad sense, is anything which is perceptible, but is still a particular instance, and is therefore not obtainable, since it ceases to occur once the experience is past.  However, a "particular instance" could, in theory, be stretched out into eternity, and therefore remain an experience, while still being imperishable.  However, it would not be obtainable.  This seems to be the common thread.  Experiences are not obtainable things, and obtainable things are more than mere experiences.

Now, rewards come in two types; either obtainable rewards, such as money or candy, or else experiences, such as a vacation, or a trip to the fair.  By merely saying that something is "not an experience," we imply that it is more than a mere perceptible, or even participative occurrance, whether or not it is experienced.  We therefore imply that it is something which can be possessed.  In other words, this paragraph contains a self-contradiction which disproves his claim.

Ch10Pars7, 9 and 10.  Lewis quotes the theologia germanica, which is not doctrine, and heavily inspired Martin Luther, to try to support his claim that not only is there no ownership in Heaven, but no human will either.  This, I think, ties into error #4.  The theologia germanica contained several questionable claims, and this; the denial of the will of the saints, was one of the big ones.  It said outright that the saints in Heaven have no will except for the will of God, but I reject this claim for one simple reason.

If this were true, asking the saints to intercede for us at the throne of God would be a wasted effort, since they would have no will to respond with.  Now, you could say that the will of the saints does not -conflict- with the will of God, but that's not the claim that C.S. Lewis makes.  He seems to have something of a mad-on for human wills and human selves, since he apparently wants both to be annihilated (the will being the highest function of the soul.)  He even claims that human beings can only fulfill themselves completely by repeatedly giving up everything they are.  I assume I don't need to point out that this is a self-contradiction, and therefore, necessarily false.

But the real question is why?  Why hold onto this notion of the self and the will being evil in and of themselves?  Why claim that anything which God made is evil?  Why not claim, with the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas, myself, and others, that everything which God made is essentially good, but tainted by sin?  Well, it seems to me that Lewis' reason is somewhat evident...

Ch10Par1: "Heaven offers nothing that a mercenary soul can desire."

C.S. Lewis, it seems, either does not believe, or does not want people in Heaven who are only -imperfectly- penitent for their sins.

Let me explain what this means.  In Catholic doctrine, we define two types of penitence.  -Perfect- penitence, in which you're sorry for your sins because you know you've offended God, and don't wish to, and -imperfect- penitence, in which you're sorry for your sins because you're afraid of being punished (like, with the loss of goods or rewards.)

It seems that Mr. Lewis wants to make the point that the Christian God is not morally-inferior to anyone, because he rejects those who do his will out of ulterior motives, but this is problematic for four main reasons.
1. It's contrary to Church teaching, and therefore false.
2. It's contrary to the words of the apostle Paul, who said, in his letter to the Romans, that God will give to each person according to what he has -done.-  Not according to his motives for doing it.
3. It does not, in fact, make God seem morally-superior, but rather, morally-inferior for not showing mercy on those who tried to please him, without really understanding the best reasons why they should.
4. I can only imagine how many modern men may have read these words and said to themselves "forget this.  If this is the best deal I can get out of Christianity, I'm better off being an atheist."  A mere two years ago, I'd have said the same.

The fact is that no matter how much certain Christians may want to thumb their noses at regular Joe Christian for following God, not out of selflessness, but because he wants a happy ending, you're much, much, -much,- better off not doing so.  Jesus didn't say that people needed perfect contrition in order to enter Heaven.  He said people needed faith and humility, and that they needed to be baptised, eat his body, drink his blood, take up their cross... You know...  Catholic stuff.

Just living this way involves a massive degree of sacrifice, to the point where there are days that only the promise of that happy ending gets us through.  This is the kind of understanding of the relationship between this life and the next that Jesus preached.  He didn't claim that God would force people out for not having a perfect motive, or that dangers and life were one and the same, or that God would lobotomize the saints of their human will.  Our Lord wasn't nearly so grim as all that.

He said that any man who has given up lands/cattle/wife/mother/father/etc... for his sake would receive (implying ownership) much more in the age to come.

When you think about it, that's a darn good deal, and I wonder why so many otherwise-holy people want to spoil that.

Again, this review may have come across as just a load of griping.  I'm sorry if it seemed that way.  It's only because these are complex issues, and they take a while to explain.  As I said at the beginning, this book is more than half right.  Its missteps are few and far between, but they do exist.  Just keep your eyes open and proceed with caution, and you'll do just fine.  You might even learn a thing or two about the problem of evil and how to approach it.  Just don't take all of it at face value.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

The Green Lantern

Rated PG-13


Catholic-ometer: 3 of 5




Enjoyability: 3 of 5





I've read some other Catholic reviews of this film, but after having seen it myself, I have to say, I only half agree with what they had to say.

I've heard the claim that the lantern ring creates matter from nothing; a power that only God possesses.  No, it doesn't.  They make it quite clear in the film that the ring creates constructs out of energy, not nothing.

The movie claims that "will" is "the greatest force in the universe."  Not only do I believe this to be false, but the comics, to my knowledge, didn't make this claim.  They insisted that the Lantern Ring was "the most powerful weapon in the universe," but all that stuff about the green power being greater than anything else is clearly incorrect.  I can think of several characters in DC Comics who could make it tap-dance with a snap of their fingers.

Issue has been taken with the philandering behavior of the main character at the start of the film, and I'm very glad to hear that I'm not the only one who saw the problem with this.  The movie tries to imply that fearlessness is the only important thing about being a Green Lantern.  That's false.  You also need to be utterly honest, and of course, guess which of those qualifications the main character lacks in this film?

Hal Jordan himself (the title character) is easily the most irritating thing about the movie.  For some reason, they decided to make him not only energetic, wisecracking and extroverted (traits the character had in the comics as well,) but also dishonest, self-centered, childish and rock stupid (traits he did -not- have in the comics.)  Because of this, Hal, and every relationship scene containing him, got on my nerves severely.

The villain, sure enough, is a growing, planet-consuming lovecraftian abomination named Parallax, which mutates one Earthman into a psychic elephant-man-looking character who apparently runs on fear, and consumes several others like the blob before he's eventually defeated.  I didn't find anything terribly interesting or fun about this villain, and the "innocent people body count" he gets doesn't help matters any.

I do have to admit that the scenes on Oa were pretty good, and the film's rendition of the Green Lantern Corps and the Guardians was very good.  I also liked the visual effects used for the power ring, and wished we could have seen more of that, and less of Hal trying to get back together with his former girlfriend Carol.

On the whole, I wasn't pleased with this movie, although it did have some moments I found visually-impressive, which gave me a nice thrill in exchange for my time.  If I were to rate it, with movies like Superman, Spider-man 2 and The Avengers at the top of the scale, and movies like Daredevil, The Fantastic Four and Catwoman at the bottom, Green Lantern would be right in the center.  It's the closest thing to a "meh" superhero movie I've ever seen.

Final Notes: There's one last thing I forgot to mention; Amanda Waller.  This annoyed me severely.  The actress who they got to play Amanda Waller is a good 200 pounds too light to play her.  What really makes this bad, though, is that there's another woman in the film who would have been perfect for her, if only she hadn't been busy playing "woman in distress" during the Parallax attack on the city.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

The Dark Knight Rises


Rated PG-13

Catholic-ometer: 2.5 of 5




Enjoyability: 3.5 of 5





I've seen good and bad reviews of this film, but now that I've seen the film itself, I feel I should give my two cents.

In this film, Bruce is badly injured from his days as Batman.  His bones, brain and body are basically turning to mush, and he hasn't put the mask on in seven years.  Suddenly, a bad guy named Bane shows up; a terrorist who threatens Gotham city with a nuclear bomb, and breaks Batman over his knee, trapping him in a deep, dark prison.  Batman must find a way to escape and stop Bane's plan before it's too late.  However, even if he succeeds, he'll need to face the fact that he just can't be Batman anymore.

There's also a subplot about Catwoman, and about the child of Ra's Al Ghoul, who returns to fulfill his original mission of annihilating Gotham City.  Catwoman is an infamous thief, who seems to be trying to get herself a clean legal record and go straight, although whether she's on Batman's side or not is a key question in this film.

The character of Bane is clever and determined, and he does basically all the things that real anarchist terrorist psychopaths do; like claiming to be a "liberator of the people," and marching on the stock exchange to try to steal money from rich employers, thus preventing them from employing anyone anymore.  I found this imagery to be a very true-to-life, and surprisingly-sensible one for a Hollywood film.

However, just because the film has some sense doesn't make it a great film for Christians.  The 2.5 on the Catholic-ometer is there partly because Bruce ultimately needs to find the strength to escape his prison by learning to fear death.  No.  Just no.  Death is our route home.  There's nothing to be afraid of there.

Catwoman is a bit of an odd character.  She's definitely a self-serving backstabber, and yet, Batman seems more concerned with what kind of person she could be; a hero of sorts.  Even when she joins his side, so to speak, I still don't think she ever becomes much of a hero herself, and I didn't find her as endearing as some people seem to have, but I didn't find her grating either.

Miranda Tate is one character I was absolutely disgusted with; primarily because there's an implied sex scene between her and Bruce about midway through the film, even though there's been no relationship to speak of between them up to that point, and she has no intention of there being one.  So why does she want to have sex with (and presumably, a child by, since that's what happens when you have sex,) this person who she barely knows and doesn't care about.  Worse yet, why does -Batman- agree to this most intimate of all relationships, given that he himself comes from a broken family, which, in fact, made him who he is?  Batman has never shown disdain for marraige or the family like this, nor for that matter, a desire for -friendship,- much less intimacy with any other human being.  It was a brief scene, but in my mind, it should have been cut.

From here, let me segue into the character of Batman, or rather, of Bruce Wayne, because I just don't think this character is Batman.

You see, the distinctive thing about the character of Batman is that while most other superheroes are ordinary people who put on disguises in order to fight crime, Batman puts on his disguise when the mask comes -off.-  In fact, they even say something like this in the early parts of the movie.  Yet, I'm supposed to believe that Batman not only -can- have a normal life, but actually -wants- it.  In other words, that he wants to spend the rest of his life wearing a mask; that he could enjoy it.

Frankly, I just can't picture that.  Wayne is not happy unless he's doing something to stop evil.  He could never be happy living a life in which he sees evil every day, and does nothing to prevent it, and every man, woman and child sees evil every day in this world of ours.

I was never terribly happy with this version of Batman.  I enjoyed the first film as much as anyone, but the second didn't do much with the character, in my eyes, and his dependance on the various female characters he meets seemed, to me, like an unnecessary weakness to introduce to the character.  He was too needy in human relationships, too vulnerable to base temptations, too angry when fighting evil, too worried when contemplating his life...  In short, he was just too emotional.  He was a human being, but he was not a batman.

Some will say "but that's the point of these movies; to do the character in a more realistic way."  I don't think, however, that the modern obsession with realism (which I have many reasons to detest in itself,) covers any of the complaints I've just made, for one simple reason.

You don't need to be weak and emotional in order to be a realistic person.

I will give these films the credit that is due to them.  They have good writing, and strongly-developed characters, but to alter characters as timeless as these in this kind of way is still like plopping Robin Hood down in the middle of modern New York City and having him say "please" and "thank you" all the time.  Just because it's more like what we're used to doesn't make it "realistic."  It makes it normal, and this is precisely the opposite of why I watch movies about superheroes.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Gladiator

Rated R

Catholic-ometer: 4 of 5




Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5





Someone I trust recommended this film to me, and someone I distrust said it was bad, so I decided to check it out, and was pleasantly surprised.

Admittedly, the thought of ancient Rome brings back images of ferocious lions and burning corpses to a Christian like myself, but I enjoy a good historical fiction as much as the next guy, and this film is certainly that.

A trustworthy, courageous roman general named Maximus is rewarded by Caesar for his latest successful campaign, with the promise that when he dies, Maximus must take his place, returning Rome back from the brink of corruption and totalitarian rule.  However, neither Maximus nor Commodus; the son of Caesar, are pleased to hear this.  Commodus assassinates Caesar before he can make his plans known, rising to become the emperor and betraying Maximus, killing his family and trying to have him executed.

Maximus is soon captured by slave traders, who sell him as a gladiator.  His military experience and great strength and skill make him a natural in his new profession, but his heart still longs for one thing; the death of Commodus, and the fulfillment of Caesar's last wishes.  The rest of the movie is about the chances that Maximus gets to confront Commodus again, and his quest for revenge and the restoration of the glory of Rome.

Though the story itself never really happened, it rang with something rarely seen in movies these days; the message that virtue matters much more than cunning or authority.  At every turn, Maximus is shown to be brave, determined, protective of his friends and faithful to the Caesar who once commanded him in battle, while his enemy Commodus is shown to have every form of vice; greed, selfishness, laziness, cowardice and sloth.

The one black spot on this movie's record in this regard is that ultimately, it is still a story about revenge.  Oh, sure, they include a lot of stuff about "fighting for the glory of Rome," and struggling for the good of the people, but in the end, you know the real reason why Maximus is fighting so hard is that he wants to avenge the deaths of his family.

I say this is the only black spot because any traditional kind of story, like this one, is going to have conflict and bloodshed.  It's inevitable.  There's a reason why this film is rated R.  However, even this is not taken to the extreme it could have been.  Most of the time, Maximus is essentially forced to fight and kill, and in one noteworthy instance, he actually shows mercy in a fight against a strong opponent; a rare thing in the roman games.

Ultimately, though, what I liked most about this film was the noble sacrifices made by the hero and his friends in the later parts of the film, and the movie's very clear message that there is an afterlife, and what you do in this life matters for that very reason.  It's a truth too often ignored; too infrequently discussed.  By no means would I consider this film perfect, but I definitely enjoyed it.  Just don't try showing it to the kids.

Toy Story 3

Rated G

Catholic-ometer: 3.5 of 5




Enjoyability: 4.5 of 5





The final film in a trilogy of movies about a group of beloved toys, who come to life when no people are around, and find their fulfillment in being played with.  The main characters are the cowboy Woody, the cowgirl Jesse and the space ranger action figure Buzz Lightyear, and when their owner, Andy, has grown old enough to go to college, he's forced to make a choice; throw his old toys away, put them in the attic, give them away, or take them with him.

Through a series of misunderstandings and tragic occurrances, the toys all end up being donated to a day care center, where toys can just keep being played with by new kids every year.  However, the toy bear who runs the place; Lots-o, tricks the main characters and tries to force them into the toddler room; where the children have no understanding of how to treat toys, and no respect for their playthings.

When Woody realizes that his friends are in trouble, he finds himself having to perform a daring secret mission to rescue them from the mafia-boss-like teddy bear, and fix his friend Buzz; who's been severely brainwashed by them.

Part of the reason for the grade I give this movie is that it has little or no philosophy to teach; no real lessons to learn, or morals to the story, exactly; at least none that are clear.  Another reason is that really, this is a kids' movie.  Not all pixar movies are that, but this has been consistent, anyway, throughout the Toy Story series.

The movie uses a lot of cliches about mobs, gangsters and prison breaks, and applies them to toys, which is certainly odd, but workable.  The characters, for the most part, are predictable, and there are no real curve balls in the story.  Everything plays out pretty much exactly as you expect it to.

There's a Ken doll in this film, who falls for a Barbie doll, and is torn between his love for her and his loyalty to the gang.  There's a running joke about this character being somewhat effeminate, which almost threatens to become tasteless, but never quite gets there.  On the whole, I'm somewhat up in the air about him.  I didn't find him particularly funny, but neither did I find him offensive, nor problematic for young children.

I did feel that the whole mafia motif only worked marginally well.  Frankly, I think including it in a kid's film at all was a bit much, but it doesn't ruin the movie or anything.  It's still fun.  I just felt a little uncomfortable with it.

On the whole, however, this is another movie about the toy story characters having fun and going on adventures, and it does that reasonably well.  It builds tension where tension is needed, has good humor where good humor is needed, and is just entertaining and exciting overall.

I don't think this movie has any major shortcomings to speak of, but one thing I did notice was that where the first two films focused on developing the characters of Woody, Buzz and Jesse, this one has almost no development on the part of any of them.  They go through tough times and harrowing adventures, but as people, they don't really change.

The one character who seems to get the most focus in the villain; Lots-o, and he's where the film makes its story happen; comparing the villain's own development to that of healthier-minded toys.  What follows from this is...  Well, I won't give it away, but to sum it up, the last two films wrapped character development in adventure.  This one is more of a character -study- wrapped in adventure.  There's no real development to speak of.

And it's not as though they couldn't have included some.  Woody, in this film, faces the hard reality of his owner having grown up, and no longer needing him; the very same reality that Jesse faced in the last film; yet not a word is shared between them about it.  As I said, it was still a good film, but if this kind of opportunity had been taken advantage of, it would have been the icing on the cake.