Godless Thoughts On "The Social Dilemma"

Like a previous post, I did on another social shockwave found here, I sat down to watch The Social Dilemma this weekend. This time with my teenager in tow. Determined to make a decent review of the film. If, for nothing else, than it being a decent film that is in need of one.

This won't be just a paragraph or two of high praise for the hard-hitting investigative journalism in the piece. As much as the film is worth-while like all works of art, even this one has some problems with it. And those problems in this case especially are godless.

As the film started with the awkward first takes of the tech experts that noticed the social dilemma, I started to notice a common theme among their joint worries. They all could see the problems facing them, because of them, even in the recognition of the power and magnitude of the good some of them had created. Still, they all seemed blissfully unaware of the origin of the problems they were seeing in the rise of The Social Dilemma. That problem is a complete lack of sin forward theology. 

I have no doubt that each of the people interviewed has some concept of good and evil. All humans do, skewed or not. But the way in which these tech geniuses and investors stumbled at the question of "Who is responsible for this problem" was telling. Maybe the director was doing this on purpose, if he was, it was brilliant. But when asked about the issue they all drew confused and complicated stares, like children caught by their father in the garden asking "Who told you, you were naked?", with the answer being themselves. A knowledge of sin and the savior from it, changes your use of the internet. It shows when you ask people about it and the thought of that dichotomy doesn't cross their minds or lips. The answer to who is responsible for, not just these problems but all problems online, is us. Or rather, us sinners.

The second problem is that this wasn't a fact by fact, idea by idea exposition on the problem itself. It was a narrative, in fact, three of them if you were looking closely. You had the story of the problem itself from Tristan Harris's perspective, for the most part. The story of the family trying to break their phone addictions at the request of the matriarch. Finally the story of Ben's avatar self and the three faces of A.I ( Advertising A.I. / Engagement A.I. / Growth A.I.)

This isn't a problem when addressing this issue. Most sermons do this these days. Weaving narratives to support a fact exposition or a truth in a long-form of media isn't a horrible thing or even a dishonest thing. However, it can be if it's not explicit. When we watch an episode of the Trials of Nature, David Attenborough skillfully overlays his narrative over the scenes of majestic wildlife being displayed for us. We get a hint of David's opinion of what a Lion might be thinking as he hunts and kills the gazelle, what the lion's motivations are, and aren't in contrast. But these are overlaid with the lion actually hunting and eating said gazelle in the video. 

We don't get the gazelle or the lion with the Social Dilemma. What we get is a simplification of every fact and facet of these narrative's lives. This is understandable for Harris's perspective. Trying to wrap our head around something like this would be hard so to achieve that he simplifies his years of experience and first-hand knowledge for us to understand. But the other two narratives are telling in a way that finds a new corner of godlessness to roost in. The perfect, multicultural, nuclear, family and their teenage and pre-teen woes is a tired trope, so when it's adjusted to make the son so susceptible to online influence that he joins an extreme centrist protest rally because of failing boy-girl social skills. This alone should be something to make you think.

Not only because the concept of an extreme center political movement would be hard to find in real life, but rather that it depends on the other side of the screen to happen. A screen populated by a three-man team of evil and heartless characters. The A.I.'s were a brilliant piece of work but made decisions and calls based on Ben's activity or lack thereof online that only a human would. Moral judgments and decisions that only a person with a theology of sin would make. They were the cartoon angel and devil on bens shoulders. His electronic conscience if you will. And make no mistake their black clothing and then contrast beige and soft-voiced singular replacement at the end of the movie was intentional. 

Algorithms can be made to make those decisions but again we come to the godlessness of the presumptions of this film. Those algorithms aren't actually doing that. Their programmers are. Sinners cause the evil we find online because sin is where evil comes from. it's not a single-minded trio of programming eccentricities doing this evil it's a coder in silicon valley who did. And who is that coder getting his virtues and vices from? When God is absent from the story, it usually means the Devil is writing it. 

By this point in the film when Ben is getting arrested at a rally and we are finally seeing the truly dark side of the vanilla Web. A light sprinkling of bitter chocolate on a quickly melting sundae. Some really dark sweetness is avoided like the silent killers they are. And for the life of me, I can't tell why. 

This movie didn't come close to the issue of online porn, not once! In all the narrative back and forth the teenage boy somehow finds an extreme political movement to join post friendzone before he finds Pornhub. Not only is this not realistic, by its selective avoidance, but the film also skirts an actual problem that is being faced on these social networks. 

The amount of teenage porn that transfers on these networks and on their devices, teens sending pictures of themselves and others if they get a hold of them is staggering. This hot button topic isn't even grazed, neither is the real-time abuse of these connections for even worse crimes like human trafficking and child sex exploitation. Entire swaths of "wrong" exchange for a fake "right" narrative or two, that can't be compared and hence aren't scrutinized for truth. 

Which brings me to my final problem. That is the wholesale avoidance of the partiality found on these social networks. To show that these social networks somehow exist with such control and algorithmic manipulation as only an after effect of the humanized algorithms is blatantly ignorant (or knowing of, if I'm right) about the controversial topic of online censorship. Everyone from the ground floor workers to CEO's of these social networks has been called out for this. From online comments to U.S. Senate hearings. All about the topic of Online censorship. Ideological bias runs deep on these platforms and to have a documentary not mention this topic once, but insist through a series of narratives that the algorithm is the biggest problem, is not just wrong, it's godless. A kind of partiality that doesn't recognize it's own trappings. 

By the end of the film, I realized what I was looking at, not a single-sided view of the issues, but a half blind stumbling into the real moral issues of the dilemma. One we face as a socially connected race of humans. We're slowly becoming and chasing the dream of heaven but doing so with human means. In heaven, we will be truly known as we will truly know. Online we are known by that which we edit and filter and exposed for what we actually are in our actions and deeds (all it takes is the latest data breach or hack.) In heaven, there will be no sin only virtue. Online we can be any kind of sinful we want, so long as we can find our community to call it a virtue with. 

The social dilemma isn't a problem of man and machine interacting in sub-optimal ways. It's an ever more accurate vision of Heaven, just without Jesus involved. Which is no heaven at all.

What every social network needs is more Christians being Christians. Acting as if God's will would be done online as it is in heaven. (Shameless book plug I know.) Ben's political leanings could have been challenged by weekly attendance at a church. His family's struggle to limit phone use blessed by a prayer shared around the table instead of politics and rules for the sake of rules. Unashamed and unafraid Christian friends to challenge Ben's involvement and posting online extreme centrist groups and posts. And Christian communities to be involved with where is teenage romantic affections could exist and be directed to godly partners of the opposite sex. Both online and offline.

The social dilemma isn't just a problem of humans interacting online. It's a problem of Christians not interacting with humans online. 

“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet. “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. 

Matthew 5:13-16 ESV

 

The Need Of Theology In The Fog

 

One of my favourite writers often says that for most writers themselves, it's not a matter of being able to write but rather having something to say. 

As a Christian author, I've struggled around this problem for a couple years now. Not in the way you would struggle against an opponent or a physical circumstance. Like a mountain or dense forest. But like one struggles in a fog. Able to run full tilt in any direction, but foolish to do so. 

That same author is doing something profound through his platform these days, he's bringing an ancient philosophy school to the modern light and really hitting it out of the park with it too. Peoples lives are being changed and for the better. All from him having a thing to write about. And what I have noticed is that I too have an ancient way of thinking that verifiably could help people like the other author does, but seems to flounder in the marketplaces and popular discourse. There is something odd about Christian books and how we have segregated them away to places only Christians would find them. 

With rare exception, the world of Christian books seems to be few and far between unless surrounded by Christians or directed to Christians. We do not have an apologetic voice loud enough for the market that isn't already coloured with the assumptions of a Christian audience after the book release.

What would a Christian book about sex look like if not meant for the saint but rather the sinner? Not just an extra thick copy of the KJV lobbed at our view of their perversion, but a book that starts with gospel aimed at truth with "compromise" being it's the only victim. Christians seem to be really good at writing book for Christians by Christians but I'm not so sure about writing books about Christianity for Non-Christians. Gospel centred prose and research on everything from the bedroom to the boardroom.  

We believe we have the distilled truth of an almighty God when it comes to everything that claims the New York Times bestsellers title every day the list is refreshed. Business, sex, management, and money all owned by the same God who gave us the gospel. In the fog of Literature, where opinions are as dense as anything we might find in the wild, there is a light that has existed for centuries. Ancient wisdom, hope, and joy to break like the dawn over a misty valley where everything is cool and in need of said warmth. As we watch the world change and struggle in its own fog, of political turmoil and cultural decay, we have that same light to shed on others. perhaps we just need saints to start turning that light on when and where it's needed. 

What would it look like to write books for the world, from our response to the gospel, with the truth of the scriptures, for the world? In but not of as the gospel of John reads. 

John 17:14-19

English Standard Version

14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

I for one plan to find out.

A Lion From 50,000 ft, Is Serious Business

The accuracy and debatability of biblical languages often give me pause to think and, as it were, those thoughts ended up here where I often rant and ramble. This blog.

Much of the problems we face in the divisions between our denominations could be settled in one fell swoop of biblical literacy.

Or put another way, If all Christians had to learn Hebrew and Greek before they could confess their saving faith in Yeshua and a thorough understanding of every iota. But even biblically we see that this is far from required as no reading is required. The thief that thieved and hung beside the lamb that was slain should show us the lowest if not the most hopeful bar of entry into the kingdom Christ left to prepare for us.

Still, I wonder if alongside the barrier these languages present in the following God in a simple way, is there a recognition that God knows about southern drawls and received pronunciation all the same.

For the highest of overviews like a plane at cruising altitude, we have to come to a comfy business class enjoyment of assumptions when it comes to language. There are compounding variables that will continue to compound in the nuance of language and the translation of God's word to what we speak and listen to.

The debate eventually boils down to this. Do we take the text literally or do we take it figuratively and how much of a swing does the pendulum have. Because secretly we want it both ways.

We want the parts on fun stuff like sex and sin to be literal so we can know what's up where to get down. And we want the un-fun parts we want to be about sex and sin to be figurative. We want control, like any man with a leash, wants control.

But as Chuck Spurgeon famously said.

"The Word of God is like a lion. You don't have to defend a lion. All you have to do is let the lion loose, and the lion will defend itself."

Perhaps we instead could find a third method. Not a leash for control, with an end we want to be on and an end we don't. Perhaps there is a way to see the scriptures as something to behold not own, to learn from not understand. To be wary of and depend on, A dichotomy of faith and promise, of justice and grace.

What if we took the bible seriously first and delved into the minutia of detail like the hairs in the lion's mane as the situation demanded. We have no need to debate the sharpness of its claws or teeth but a great deal could be spent on the sharpness of its stare. or its tenderness and affection towards those it loves.

Similarly, the word of God has plenty of black shall not's and white shall's that need no debate or cultural analysis. But has plenty of grey areas where we shouldn't assume one or the other and need a thorough understanding of both to make an informed decision on what the text says.

A lion trainer would not gleefully and without regard, approach a wild lion he did not know. A lion enthusiast would not just approach a perfectly trained lion because he liked their aesthetic and powerful appearance. A man afraid of lions would flee from the most cowardly of big cats with friends named Dorothy that fit his fears description. The angles from which we approach this cat can be as varied and nuanced as the languages we translate its features into from an original encounter.

But like the big cat we're comparing it to we have to know that the bible is not simply trustworthy, it's entirely trustworthy. We can not trust it like we could our own truths that we can craft and mould as we see fit and thus simply understand. Those truths are weak and we can trust them about as far as we can throw them. But we can trust a lion to be a lion. To be wild and majestic, powerful and cunning, warlike and tender, a king in its realm and a thing above all else to be taken seriously when we encounter it.

Whether by the trusted roads laid down by the Greeks and Romans, or the paths wandered in the desert by the Hebrews. How ever we find the word of God it must be taken seriously. Because it is by our relationship to it that others will learn of how to interact with God's word. If we take it only literally we will give people the impression that they could never approach such a dangerous and unpredictable text. People will seek ivory towers of theological degrees and pastoral interpretation to interact with the cat and never get close enough to experience it themselves. Always having an experience with God's word that is watered down by a middleman, no matter how well-intentioned and well-educated.

If we take it too figurately we can lend a lassie fair nature to the dangers the lion, like the law projects. People can get too close to the dangerous parts of the text because they assume an air of comparative ignorance. That like a small cat this big one can be domesticated and compliant with their whims and sins.

But if we take it seriously, approach the sensitive and dangerous parts with a willingness to be cautious. With a recognition that we are not the best source of understanding lions, lions are the best understanders of lions. Then we can learn to live with them, befriend them even be taught by them. because we no longer let our ignorance keep us away or let it warrant us getting too close too fast.

We can see how it prowl's, how it growl's and how it roars, and slowly get closer as we learn to trust it and learn what it's all about.