Knowledge starts with the internal awareness of the self.
A highly influential philosopher named Descartes realized that one of the most foundational proofs he could ascertain was proof of his own existence. Along with other a priori or logical truths, knowledge of the existence of one's own self forms the epistemological cornerstone of philosophy. Descartes wondered if an extremely-powerful malevolent demon was deceiving him, manipulating his senses to perceive a misrepresentation of the actual external world. He could at least reach 100% certainty of his own existence, but could he ever know if his sensory perceptions were correct? At least he had discovered one of the most obvious facts about reality.
If I question my own existence I have already proven to myself that I exist, for I could not doubt my own existence unless I exist in order to doubt it. Even the proposition "I am doubting my existence" acknowledges that there is an "I" which is doubting. However, this proves only that my mind exists. This proof cannot demonstrate even that the physical body I seem to have is actually my real body, for that too could be part of the illusion. But since I have no reason to believe I have a different body than the one I perceive, I will move on to other unknown dimensions of my being.
While I can use my sense of sight to survey portions of my body like my limbs and torso, I cannot know what my face appears like. But haven't I seen my face in a mirror, I anticipate you asking? Actually, I only have glimpsed my perception of my reflection. I could compare an object like a vase on a stand in front of the mirror to its reflection in the mirror and see that the reflection is accurate, but I have nothing to compare my own reflection to. The fallacy of composition prevents me from declaring that because the mirror was accurate when portraying the vase and other surrounding items then my own reflection must be correct--what is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole.
Knowledge of the self is one of the few areas where I can have full, unhindered knowledge. However, this only applies to some truths about myself, excluding not only knowledge of what the actual body housing my senses looks like but awareness of some internal aspects. I still do not know much about my own motivations, desires, and nature. There are times where I am not fully aware of what drives me or what I truly want from an experience on a personal level. At times I have longings I cannot fully identify. If someone asked me to distinguish what about myself I can change from what I cannot, I wouldn't be able to provide an immediate answer. In short, knowing I exist does not reveal every truth about myself. And even when introspection does reveal facets or layers of my inner being to my own mind, there is no guarantee I could ever be able to articulate certain details learned through this self-reflection to others. Sometimes I am unable to fully communicate this self-knowledge to other people or to even translate it into any words to begin with. People seem to encounter this inability to convey an inner awareness when they have certain emotional or spiritual experiences, for example.
Despite my inability to know exactly what my face looks like or the full depths of my psyche, there are distinct things I know about myself with absolute certainty beyond my mere existence:
I am a conscious being that possesses both sentience and self-awareness [1].
I can reason, and thus I do not merely react, and thus I have free will [2].
I have memories of past events [3].
I have senses that perceive a variety of sensations from external stimuli [4].
Christianity, of course, posits that I am made in the image of my transcendent creator and that thus my nature is somewhat similar to God's own. Therefore, in studying myself, I can learn to some degree about the nature God. If I am designed in his image, understanding myself helps me understand God, and vice versa. After all, I share characteristics like consciousness and free will with the Christian concept of God.
I want to know myself better than I do, but sometimes my unfortunate epistemic limitations prevent me from doing even that. Often I find myself frustrated with the inescapable boundaries on my awareness of myself and everything external to me. The most productive way to use this is to channel my frustration into energy that I can redirect into seeking to discover what I can know about myself, and this is the only rational way to handle the situation--for to know myself is to know a significant part of the foundation of epistemology.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/aspects-of-consciousness.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/reason-refutes-determinism.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-reliability-of-memory.html
[4]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-reliability-of-senses.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/more-than-five-senses.html
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Saturday, November 19, 2016
The Illusionary Guidance Of "Natural Law"
I often hear Christians, especially those who do not want to derive their morality exclusively from the Bible, appeal to some broad moral standard they refer to as "natural law", proponents of this idea arguing that this law reveals at least foundational moral facts and that it is accessible to all people through reason or experience.
As personally painful as it is to do so, I am going to refute the conception that natural law represents some clear and knowable standard.
Now what do people mean when they use the phrase "natural law"? Do they speak of moral principles evident in nature? If so, they speak of an unverifiable and obscure standard. No one can discern moral principles from observing nature. To claim one can decipher moral duties from the natural world is an astonishingly stupid claim which commits the naturalistic fallacy, making a logical leap from what is observable to what is not while seeking for immaterial ethical truths in the material world. Nature teems with decay, death, and darkness. Animals attack, kill, terrorize, and forcibly copulate with each other, yet we do not refer to these acts as battery, murder, or rape. What moral duties could we possibly ascertain from watching the cacophonous disarray of animal behavior many people would find unacceptable? And if people instead mean by natural law that some actions can be empirically proven to lead to human flourishing, they still have not found a way to escape committing the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is beneficial to societal or individual flourishing does not mean it is morally good; to say so would be to make a claim that does not necessarily follow logically.
Besides, people will always disagree widely about what specific moral obligations "natural law" reveals. Of course, this does not prove that natural law doesn't exist, for to conclude that it does not exist because of disputes is to embrace a complete non sequitur fallacy, but it does demonstrate that it is either inaccessible or highly obscure if people can reach such opposing conclusions.
What then shall we appeal to for "natural law"? Conscience? Conscience is certainly better than no moral guidance at all, but it is at best a subjective impulse that can be conditioned by society, easily misinterpreted, or even deadened, perhaps even permanently. The power of conscience is great and penetrating enough to make people feel deeply unsettled by actions or inward dispositions even if no one else could possibly discover these things. Yet, conscience remains malleable enough to be shifted or to be subconsciously conditioned by an outside source.
I write this post with sadness and loathing, with the loathing directed towards the fact that reason alone leads to moral skepticism and that observing nature leads to despair and not moral illumination. One can prove using reason, accessible a priori, that there is no such thing as morality if there is no deity, that apart from his/her existence moral intuitions are just random emotive or personal impulses which do not correspond to any existing moral law but merely correspond to the subjective psyche of the individual and nothing more. But people can never prove using reason alone that they can know for sure if their conscience is accurate and functioning properly or if it has become disoriented or desensitized. For an example, consider color. I know for sure that I see differences in what in my language I call color and there is no way I could be wrong about this [1]. But I can never know entirely if I am seeing colors as they are objectively or if my senses have subjectively deviated from perceiving colors properly. In the same way, the conscience proves to us individually that there are things which innately seem to us to be good or evil, but the conscience, on its own, can never prove the existence of any external moral obligations which impose themselves on us. It is also important to note that just as colorblind people do not disprove the existence of color, psychopaths or morally blind people can never prove that there is no such thing as right and wrong. The awareness someone has of morality or natural law--or indeed of anything else--is totally irrelevant to whether or not it exists.
I once believed that my conscience, which was always so deeply active and strong and sensitive, could inform me about ultimate moral truths even apart from the Bible. While in the past, especially after I began systematically educating myself about philosophy and theology, I always appreciated the finality of moral commands in the Bible and the ease of ability to simply show others the Bible to prove what it actually said, something majorly bothered me about people who didn't already view certain acts or attitudes as intrinsically wrong even if they had no concern for or knowledge of what the Bible teaches. I would have fully agreed with the concept of natural law, and I even once concurred with an atheist (or agnostic; it was difficult to tell which she was) that some sort of moral system could be constructed or discovered even if one did not actually believe in God. When people acted contrary to my internal moral compass, I experienced rage, sadness, and deep moral passion that was so intense that I seriously considered becoming at some point a type of vigilante to enforce these moral ideas. At this time I recognized at least some of these moral ideas as innate because I had yet to directly find some of them in the Bible, ruling that out as the origin of those ideas, and also because many of them contradicted what my society and planet taught and behaved like. But when I finally realized that moral intuitions in and of themselves are merely subjective perceptions of morality and that people disregard them frequently or truly seem to hold to different moral beliefs than I did, I was confronted with a piercing despair. In a desperate effort to use my reason to prove at least the most important moral principles, I quickly found that almost every argument for a moral claim commits one or more logical fallacies. Though I had been intellectually aware that if God does not exist there is no moral dimension to existence, I finally understood personally and experientially that attempting to justify ethics apart from theism is asinine and that trying to truly know or carry out morality without the help of God is futile.
I do not want others to miscalculate the reliability of their consciences and end up like I did at that point in my life. An ethical philosopher who overestimates the accuracy and verifiability of his or her conscience is setting himself or herself up for grave disappointment and despair. Natural law may be real, but it is futile to think we can identify it alone.
Flaring up and causing refreshing contentment or inner anguish, in a moral universe the conscience is better than no ethical guide at all, but it is not enough to grant us true moral knowledge in the sense of absolute certainty. There is no obvious a priori or a posteriori way to learn from some alleged "natural law" or to even verify that it exists at all. For that we would need the deity who grounds morality to reveal to us what the specifics and generalities of that morality are--and for this reason Christians can have no other authority to appeal to in ethical matters than the text they claim was created and assembled with the assistance of that God.
[1]. I mean that I cannot be objectively wrong in knowing that I perceive what I call color. It is hypothetically possible that I am a brain in a vat amidst a colorless external world and that an outside force is deceiving me by causing me to experience color when it is not a real thing in the physical world. And so it is with morality: my conscience proves only that I have a conscience and not that morality itself is not an illusion. In order to know if morality exists, one must search to find if God exists, for a deity is the only legitimate explanation for a universe with a moral dimension.
As personally painful as it is to do so, I am going to refute the conception that natural law represents some clear and knowable standard.
Now what do people mean when they use the phrase "natural law"? Do they speak of moral principles evident in nature? If so, they speak of an unverifiable and obscure standard. No one can discern moral principles from observing nature. To claim one can decipher moral duties from the natural world is an astonishingly stupid claim which commits the naturalistic fallacy, making a logical leap from what is observable to what is not while seeking for immaterial ethical truths in the material world. Nature teems with decay, death, and darkness. Animals attack, kill, terrorize, and forcibly copulate with each other, yet we do not refer to these acts as battery, murder, or rape. What moral duties could we possibly ascertain from watching the cacophonous disarray of animal behavior many people would find unacceptable? And if people instead mean by natural law that some actions can be empirically proven to lead to human flourishing, they still have not found a way to escape committing the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is beneficial to societal or individual flourishing does not mean it is morally good; to say so would be to make a claim that does not necessarily follow logically.
Besides, people will always disagree widely about what specific moral obligations "natural law" reveals. Of course, this does not prove that natural law doesn't exist, for to conclude that it does not exist because of disputes is to embrace a complete non sequitur fallacy, but it does demonstrate that it is either inaccessible or highly obscure if people can reach such opposing conclusions.
What then shall we appeal to for "natural law"? Conscience? Conscience is certainly better than no moral guidance at all, but it is at best a subjective impulse that can be conditioned by society, easily misinterpreted, or even deadened, perhaps even permanently. The power of conscience is great and penetrating enough to make people feel deeply unsettled by actions or inward dispositions even if no one else could possibly discover these things. Yet, conscience remains malleable enough to be shifted or to be subconsciously conditioned by an outside source.
I write this post with sadness and loathing, with the loathing directed towards the fact that reason alone leads to moral skepticism and that observing nature leads to despair and not moral illumination. One can prove using reason, accessible a priori, that there is no such thing as morality if there is no deity, that apart from his/her existence moral intuitions are just random emotive or personal impulses which do not correspond to any existing moral law but merely correspond to the subjective psyche of the individual and nothing more. But people can never prove using reason alone that they can know for sure if their conscience is accurate and functioning properly or if it has become disoriented or desensitized. For an example, consider color. I know for sure that I see differences in what in my language I call color and there is no way I could be wrong about this [1]. But I can never know entirely if I am seeing colors as they are objectively or if my senses have subjectively deviated from perceiving colors properly. In the same way, the conscience proves to us individually that there are things which innately seem to us to be good or evil, but the conscience, on its own, can never prove the existence of any external moral obligations which impose themselves on us. It is also important to note that just as colorblind people do not disprove the existence of color, psychopaths or morally blind people can never prove that there is no such thing as right and wrong. The awareness someone has of morality or natural law--or indeed of anything else--is totally irrelevant to whether or not it exists.
I once believed that my conscience, which was always so deeply active and strong and sensitive, could inform me about ultimate moral truths even apart from the Bible. While in the past, especially after I began systematically educating myself about philosophy and theology, I always appreciated the finality of moral commands in the Bible and the ease of ability to simply show others the Bible to prove what it actually said, something majorly bothered me about people who didn't already view certain acts or attitudes as intrinsically wrong even if they had no concern for or knowledge of what the Bible teaches. I would have fully agreed with the concept of natural law, and I even once concurred with an atheist (or agnostic; it was difficult to tell which she was) that some sort of moral system could be constructed or discovered even if one did not actually believe in God. When people acted contrary to my internal moral compass, I experienced rage, sadness, and deep moral passion that was so intense that I seriously considered becoming at some point a type of vigilante to enforce these moral ideas. At this time I recognized at least some of these moral ideas as innate because I had yet to directly find some of them in the Bible, ruling that out as the origin of those ideas, and also because many of them contradicted what my society and planet taught and behaved like. But when I finally realized that moral intuitions in and of themselves are merely subjective perceptions of morality and that people disregard them frequently or truly seem to hold to different moral beliefs than I did, I was confronted with a piercing despair. In a desperate effort to use my reason to prove at least the most important moral principles, I quickly found that almost every argument for a moral claim commits one or more logical fallacies. Though I had been intellectually aware that if God does not exist there is no moral dimension to existence, I finally understood personally and experientially that attempting to justify ethics apart from theism is asinine and that trying to truly know or carry out morality without the help of God is futile.
I do not want others to miscalculate the reliability of their consciences and end up like I did at that point in my life. An ethical philosopher who overestimates the accuracy and verifiability of his or her conscience is setting himself or herself up for grave disappointment and despair. Natural law may be real, but it is futile to think we can identify it alone.
Flaring up and causing refreshing contentment or inner anguish, in a moral universe the conscience is better than no ethical guide at all, but it is not enough to grant us true moral knowledge in the sense of absolute certainty. There is no obvious a priori or a posteriori way to learn from some alleged "natural law" or to even verify that it exists at all. For that we would need the deity who grounds morality to reveal to us what the specifics and generalities of that morality are--and for this reason Christians can have no other authority to appeal to in ethical matters than the text they claim was created and assembled with the assistance of that God.
[1]. I mean that I cannot be objectively wrong in knowing that I perceive what I call color. It is hypothetically possible that I am a brain in a vat amidst a colorless external world and that an outside force is deceiving me by causing me to experience color when it is not a real thing in the physical world. And so it is with morality: my conscience proves only that I have a conscience and not that morality itself is not an illusion. In order to know if morality exists, one must search to find if God exists, for a deity is the only legitimate explanation for a universe with a moral dimension.
Definitions (Part 5)
Mosaic Law
Mosaic Law--moral revelation unveiled to Israel by God; found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy
Theonomy--belief that God's moral [1] laws, including the moral revelation in Mosaic Law, are objectively authoritative and good and that there is no other way to judge or know right and wrong
Reconstructionism--belief that aspects of Mosaic Law should be reintroduced into modern societies
Shema--declaration to Israel that God is one being and that humans should love God with the totality of their being [2]
Lex talionis--"law of retaliation" which allows for either proportionate financial compensation or permanent injury to be inflicted on one who has permanently injured another
Levirate marriage--practice where the brother of a husband who has died marries the wife of the deceased if the couple had no heirs
Decalogue--the Ten Commandments
Covenant Code--refers to the book of Exodus, chapters 20-23
Holiness Code--refers to the book of Leviticus, chapters 17-26 (or 27 in some estimates)
Deuteronomic Code--refers to the book of Deuteronomy, chapters 12-26
Covenant curses--list of divine curses attached to Mosaic Law which Jews were prophesied to incur if they disobeyed the Law
Mathematics [3]
Mathematics--study and use of abstract numbers
Applied mathematics--application of mathematics to disciplines outside of the purely abstract realm, like science
Number--symbol used to signify a particular amount or quantity (2, 366)
Geometry--mathematics dealing with lines, shapes, and figures
Addend--any of the two or more numbers added together to reach a sum [example (addends in bold): 2 + 5 = 7]
Sum--number reached by adding two or more addends [example (sum in bold): 2 + 5 = 7]
Minuend--number from which a separate number (subtrahend) will be subtracted to reach a difference [example (minuend in bold): 5 - 2 = 3]
Subtrahend--number subtracted from a minuend to reach a difference [example (subtrahend in bold): 5 - 2 = 3]
Difference--number reached by subtracting a subtrahend from a minuend [example (difference in bold): 5 - 2 = 3]
Factor--number multiplied with another number or numbers to reach a product [example (factor in bold): 7 x 4 = 28]
Product--number reached by multiplying two or more numbers (factors) [example (product in bold): 7 x 4 = 28]
Dividend--number which is being divided by another number (divisor) [example (dividend in bold): 6 / 3 = 2]
Divisor--number which a dividend is divided by [example (divisor in bold): 6 / 3 = 2]
Quotient--number reached by dividing a dividend by a divisor [example (quotient in bold): 6 / 3 = 2]
Addend--any of the two or more numbers added together to reach a sum [example (addends in bold): 2 + 5 = 7]
Sum--number reached by adding two or more addends [example (sum in bold): 2 + 5 = 7]
Minuend--number from which a separate number (subtrahend) will be subtracted to reach a difference [example (minuend in bold): 5 - 2 = 3]
Subtrahend--number subtracted from a minuend to reach a difference [example (subtrahend in bold): 5 - 2 = 3]
Difference--number reached by subtracting a subtrahend from a minuend [example (difference in bold): 5 - 2 = 3]
Factor--number multiplied with another number or numbers to reach a product [example (factor in bold): 7 x 4 = 28]
Product--number reached by multiplying two or more numbers (factors) [example (product in bold): 7 x 4 = 28]
Dividend--number which is being divided by another number (divisor) [example (dividend in bold): 6 / 3 = 2]
Divisor--number which a dividend is divided by [example (divisor in bold): 6 / 3 = 2]
Quotient--number reached by dividing a dividend by a divisor [example (quotient in bold): 6 / 3 = 2]
Variable--letter representing a known or unknown numeric value [example (variable in bold): 7 + x = 39]
Coefficient--number next to a variable by which it is multiplied [example (coefficient in bold): 9x -3 = 24]
Coefficient--number next to a variable by which it is multiplied [example (coefficient in bold): 9x -3 = 24]
Formula--a fixed equation used to calculate certain values [example (slope-intercept formula): y = m(x) + b]
Equation--arrangement of numbers and variables on both sides of an equal sign ( "=" ), with each side representing the same numerical value (example: x = 66)
Cartesian coordinate system--two-dimensional graph with two intersecting lines, one perpendicular and one horizontal, upon which one can place ordered pairs and numeric values
Linear equation--equation that, when graphed on a Cartesian coordinate system, forms a straight line
Nonlinear equation--equation that, when graphed on a Cartesian coordinate system, does not form a straight line
Ordered pair--two corresponding numbers or variables within parentheses or on a graph [example: (16, 9)]
Function--equation where numerical values entered on one side help calculate a single specific value on the other side; an input value leads to a single output value [example: f(x) = 3x - 6 + x --> f(4) = 3(4) - 6+ (4) --> f(4) = 10]
http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/definitions-part-2.html
http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/definitions-part-3.html
http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/10/definitions-part-4.html
http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/definitions-part-3.html
http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/10/definitions-part-4.html
[1]. I italicized "moral" to emphasize the fact that theonomists/reconstructionists do not believe that aspects of Mosaic Law like regulations of the priesthood still apply to life today, because such laws do not contain the moral status of revealed ethical principles. Christ's advent, death, and resurrection have suspended the need for an organized priesthood and system of animal sacrifices, but the ethical teachings of the Old Testament--including the punishments--are grounded in God's nature and thus are still binding. No amount of time can nullify moral obligation, but certain other laws within Mosaic Law were purely temporary and were superseded when Christ appeared.
[2]. Deuteronomy 6:4-5.
[3]. Some readers may wonder why a section devoted to math appears here. This isn't a math blog, right? Well, recently I have developed a desire to educate myself more about mathematics on a general and specific level because math is the only thing besides logic which is accessible on an a priori basis. I realize that some people dispute the placement of math in the same a priori territory as the axiomatic and self-verifying principles of logic, but math overlaps with logic in many ways. Science relies on empirical testing, repetition, and sensory perception and thus does not arrive at the kind of certainty that someone like me wants. Precise theologies generally rely on special divine revelation and also do not usually grant the certainty I seek. History is just one person's estimate of probability over that of another person and thus does not give me absolute certainty. To find perfect certainty one must venture into the realm of abstract logic and mathematics.
Friday, November 18, 2016
Sexual Desire--Sacred Or Sinful?
I am an asexual. Yes, someone who is asexual experiences little to no sexual desire. Still, I understand that sexual ethics and longings are a significant part of human life and that people need a rational ontology and epistemology of sexual morality, for there are many baseless ideas about sexuality and sexual desire which are exchanged in churches and Christian conversations without rebuttal and refutation.
One of these ideas is the belief that sexual desire is largely depraved or disgusting in and of itself. People may even appeal to the Bible in an effort to "prove" their perceptions from the text, but a legitimate examination of the Bible reveals a different understanding. Sexual desire is not a negative thing that can have positive contexts; it is a positive thing that can have negative contexts.
A syllogism will demonstrate this.
1. God created his handiwork good (Genesis 1:31).
2. God created people with sexual desire.
3. Therefore sexual desire is good.
This deductive reasoning is very simple, yet Christians seem to relentlessly draw the wrong conclusions from the first two premises. From demonizing all sexual feelings or impulses as "unholy" or "animal-like" to placing absurd man-made limitations on interaction between the sexes in order to prevent any possibility of sexual sin, Christians do not seem to understand the perspectives on sexuality proposed in their own holy text. People in American society, especially Christians, can find discussing sexual issues "awkward" or may even brand such talks "inappropriate", and this may lead to an absence of conversations about the topic. This is dangerous, because when people do not acknowledge sexuality openly or discuss their questions about it they may not ever arrive at truths about the matter. When Christians refrain from verbally addressing sexuality openly there is a higher risk of people assuming false foundational beliefs about it. Silence on some issues only protects false ideas about them because no one is willing to share their perceptions about them (such as the sometimes unspoken feeling that sexual desire is inherently shameful) and thus they go unmentioned and unchallenged.
The Bible explicitly clarifies which specific sexual activities the Christian religion opposes and it also explains the morality of sexual desire itself. The only three manifestations of sinful sexual desire condemned by the Bible are described below. Yes, there's only three.
1). Do not desire to commit sexual sins. When Jesus labeled lust "like adultery" it was because there is a difference between natural attraction and having the desire to commit a sexually immoral act like adultery. In Matthew 5:28 Jesus reminds people that to internally seek to commit a sin is not amoral just because no action necessarily results. To mentally or emotionally long to engage in rape, adultery, pedophilia, and other sexual wrongs is to succumb to sinful desires.
2). Do not wish to take someone's spouse from them--do not covet. In a stricter sense, this is all the word "lust" in the New Testament means (see words of Jesus in Matthew 5:28). The Greek word for "lust" is just the Greek version of the Hebrew word for "covet" (Exodus 20:17) that appears in the Decalogue. Obviously, you can look at an object like a car or at someone's husband or wife and admire them but not desire to take them for yourself.
3). Do not sexually objectify someone. According to the definitions of the words "lust"/"covet" in the Bible, sexual objectification is technically a different sin than the one condemned in Exodus 20:17 and Matthew 5:28. Why? Sexual objectification is viewing someone as only their sexual dimension without acknowledging or appreciating the other components to their personhood. People were designed in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) and their nature contains a distinct sexual dimension but also many other aspects, none of which should be ignored or suppressed. According to the Biblical definition of lust/coveting, people cannot covet what already belongs to them--their spouse. However, one can still sexually objectify his or her spouse by reducing them to an object of sexual desire while ignoring other aspects of their humanity. See the difference?
This is all that the Bible labels evil with regards to sexual desire. These three principles make rational sense and actually can be defended as promoting human wellbeing and dignity, whereas the ideas of some Christians on the matter come across as irrational, unbiblical, inconsistent, and lacking true ethical or theological justification. That's because they often are irrational and without justification. Thankfully, the Bible contradicts the words of misguided preachers and laypeople. Sexual desire or attraction is not sinful, nor is finding other people attractive or sexy, regardless of their marital status. Incorrect motivations behind sexual desire and evil manifestations of those desires into sinful actions are depraved, not the presence of sexual attraction.
Now, I am definitely asexual. By that I mean that I have no active desire to have sex with anyone. But I still have an interest in learning about sexuality and sexual morality because they are part of God's creation and revelation respectively. Christians need to stop opposing natural and innate sexual desire, a good thing--a sacred thing that originated from God--and to stop inventing false morality that contradicts what God has clearly defined. In the Old Testament we can find Deuteronomy 4:2 at the beginning of a recitation of Mosaic Law, which commands us as follows: "Do not add to what I command you or subtract from them, but keep the commands of the Lord your God I give you." In the New Testament, Jesus himself harshly confronted certain religious leaders of his generation for adding to the Law as if they could improve on the objective morality revealed by God. It infuriates me when I see Christians commit these very fallacies God so strongly warned against, and sexuality is an aspect of human life which numerous well-meaning Christians have illicitly opposed. The misconceptions and legalism need to be abolished.
One of these ideas is the belief that sexual desire is largely depraved or disgusting in and of itself. People may even appeal to the Bible in an effort to "prove" their perceptions from the text, but a legitimate examination of the Bible reveals a different understanding. Sexual desire is not a negative thing that can have positive contexts; it is a positive thing that can have negative contexts.
A syllogism will demonstrate this.
1. God created his handiwork good (Genesis 1:31).
2. God created people with sexual desire.
3. Therefore sexual desire is good.
This deductive reasoning is very simple, yet Christians seem to relentlessly draw the wrong conclusions from the first two premises. From demonizing all sexual feelings or impulses as "unholy" or "animal-like" to placing absurd man-made limitations on interaction between the sexes in order to prevent any possibility of sexual sin, Christians do not seem to understand the perspectives on sexuality proposed in their own holy text. People in American society, especially Christians, can find discussing sexual issues "awkward" or may even brand such talks "inappropriate", and this may lead to an absence of conversations about the topic. This is dangerous, because when people do not acknowledge sexuality openly or discuss their questions about it they may not ever arrive at truths about the matter. When Christians refrain from verbally addressing sexuality openly there is a higher risk of people assuming false foundational beliefs about it. Silence on some issues only protects false ideas about them because no one is willing to share their perceptions about them (such as the sometimes unspoken feeling that sexual desire is inherently shameful) and thus they go unmentioned and unchallenged.
The Bible explicitly clarifies which specific sexual activities the Christian religion opposes and it also explains the morality of sexual desire itself. The only three manifestations of sinful sexual desire condemned by the Bible are described below. Yes, there's only three.
1). Do not desire to commit sexual sins. When Jesus labeled lust "like adultery" it was because there is a difference between natural attraction and having the desire to commit a sexually immoral act like adultery. In Matthew 5:28 Jesus reminds people that to internally seek to commit a sin is not amoral just because no action necessarily results. To mentally or emotionally long to engage in rape, adultery, pedophilia, and other sexual wrongs is to succumb to sinful desires.
2). Do not wish to take someone's spouse from them--do not covet. In a stricter sense, this is all the word "lust" in the New Testament means (see words of Jesus in Matthew 5:28). The Greek word for "lust" is just the Greek version of the Hebrew word for "covet" (Exodus 20:17) that appears in the Decalogue. Obviously, you can look at an object like a car or at someone's husband or wife and admire them but not desire to take them for yourself.
3). Do not sexually objectify someone. According to the definitions of the words "lust"/"covet" in the Bible, sexual objectification is technically a different sin than the one condemned in Exodus 20:17 and Matthew 5:28. Why? Sexual objectification is viewing someone as only their sexual dimension without acknowledging or appreciating the other components to their personhood. People were designed in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) and their nature contains a distinct sexual dimension but also many other aspects, none of which should be ignored or suppressed. According to the Biblical definition of lust/coveting, people cannot covet what already belongs to them--their spouse. However, one can still sexually objectify his or her spouse by reducing them to an object of sexual desire while ignoring other aspects of their humanity. See the difference?
This is all that the Bible labels evil with regards to sexual desire. These three principles make rational sense and actually can be defended as promoting human wellbeing and dignity, whereas the ideas of some Christians on the matter come across as irrational, unbiblical, inconsistent, and lacking true ethical or theological justification. That's because they often are irrational and without justification. Thankfully, the Bible contradicts the words of misguided preachers and laypeople. Sexual desire or attraction is not sinful, nor is finding other people attractive or sexy, regardless of their marital status. Incorrect motivations behind sexual desire and evil manifestations of those desires into sinful actions are depraved, not the presence of sexual attraction.
Now, I am definitely asexual. By that I mean that I have no active desire to have sex with anyone. But I still have an interest in learning about sexuality and sexual morality because they are part of God's creation and revelation respectively. Christians need to stop opposing natural and innate sexual desire, a good thing--a sacred thing that originated from God--and to stop inventing false morality that contradicts what God has clearly defined. In the Old Testament we can find Deuteronomy 4:2 at the beginning of a recitation of Mosaic Law, which commands us as follows: "Do not add to what I command you or subtract from them, but keep the commands of the Lord your God I give you." In the New Testament, Jesus himself harshly confronted certain religious leaders of his generation for adding to the Law as if they could improve on the objective morality revealed by God. It infuriates me when I see Christians commit these very fallacies God so strongly warned against, and sexuality is an aspect of human life which numerous well-meaning Christians have illicitly opposed. The misconceptions and legalism need to be abolished.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Movie Review--Doctor Strange
"No, I reject it because I do not believe in fairy tales about chakras or energy or the power of belief. There is no such thing as spirit! We are made of matter and nothing more. We're just another tiny, momentary speck within an indifferent universe."
--Stephen Strange, Doctor Strange
"You think you know how the world works? You think that this material universe is all there is? What is real? What mysteries lie beyond the reach of your senses? At the root of existence, mind and matter meet. Thoughts form reality. This universe is only one of an infinite number. Worlds without end; some benevolent and life-giving, others filled with malice and hunger. Dark places where powers older than time lie, ravenous and waiting. Who are you in this vast multiverse, Mr. Strange?"
--The Ancient One, Doctor Strange
Director Scott Derrickson did it. He designed a Marvel movie that defied many of the cliches which are expected at this point, and one that is genuinely intellectual and mind-bending in a non-forced way. What was successful about the movie and what did I enjoy? Continue reading to learn.
Production Values
Wow. To say this movie has fine production values would be a massive understatement. Excellent would be a more fitting word. Benedict Cumberbatch absolutely nails the role of Stephen Strange, perfectly embodying the arrogant doctor who develops drastically different priorities and a very different worldview as the film progresses. His performance exudes humor, authenticity, and, when necessary, great amounts of arrogance. Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One is another acting highlight; she is perfect for the role! I understand that The Ancient One in the comics was not even a female, but now I will always imagine Tilda's character when I think of The Ancient One. Her performance is very convincing and appropriately enigmatic. Mads Mikkelsen, whom I eagerly want to see in Rogue One this December, did not have much screen time and played a villain who could have been much more developed (as usual with many MCU villains), but the few scenes where he speaks revealed a far more sophisticated motivation for his character than I expected. Were Kaecilius played by anyone other than Mikkelsen, I may have thought less of the character.
The CGI environments sometimes resemble those in Inception, but they are certainly trippy and mind-bending, showcasing fantastic effects work that clearly distinguishes the visuals of Doctor Strange from anything else in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) so far. A great script also benefits the story immensely, complementing the great casting and unique special effects. The production values are of a very high quality.
Story
"Hypocrite!"
This is what Kaecilius, the movie's primary villain, accuses a robed woman of being in the opening scenes. Within the first few minutes viewers learn two things: 1) in this world people wield what appears to be sophisticated magic and 2) the successful and talented Dr. Stephen Strange is an arrogant a--hole, but an intelligent one. Able to engage in medical procedures with skill and precision, Stephen demonstrates that he is a knowledgable and experienced doctor, though his relationships with others suffer because of his pride.
Despite all of his ability, his own carelessness quickly leads to a vehicle accident that realistically seems like it should have killed Stephen yet merely robs him of stable hands instead. Searching for a miraculous route to recovery so he can resume his occupation as a doctor with a perfect medical operation record, he pursues a source of potential help he otherwise would have scoffed at: a hope of spiritual guidance found in an area where more spiritual people may be able to assist him in mending his body. Actually, when he finds the location he is searching for, he still scoffs as a bald Celtic woman called The Ancient One informs him that his philosophical assumptions about the universe and himself are incorrect. She wants to heal him through a seemingly New Age approach instead of by using science, and Strange objects and disputes with her naive views until she reaches out, strikes him, and catapults his spirit from his body, allowing him several moments to marvel (get it? MARVEL?) at his empty physical shell and the disembodied inner soul he never believed he had.
Fortunately for The Ancient One, she has a new apprentice, which is quite useful because she and a group of sorcerer students plan to fight a rogue sorcerer named Kaecilius, the man who challenged The Ancient One in the film's first scene.
And I'll conclude this section without spoilers but by still stating that the story was engaging and exciting and that the climactic end fight was much more unique than the generic scenes found in many other superhero movies where the superheroes confront villains who are opening or have opened portals to the sky. Bravos, Derrickson.
Intellectual Content
I want to mention at the beginning of this section that the director of this movie is an open Christian who has directed several Christian horror projects (no, that's not an oxymoron) and who had interesting thoughts about directing Doctor Strange as a Christian [1] when the source material revolves around the more fantastical elements of Marvel.
One of those elements is the existence of the multiverse, a hypothetical model of the cosmos featuring multiple or an infinite number of universes. Ironically, I had just written about the concept of the multiverse around the same time I first watched Doctor Strange [2]. I enjoyed not only that the idea of the multiverse was in the movie but that the multiverse was used to promote an anti-naturalism message, whereas most scientists who believe in the multiverse use it as a far-fetched defense for naturalism. The Ancient One launched Stephen into the multiverse (how is uncertain) to reveal to him that it does not logically follow that something is not false or imaginary just because his senses do not perceive it, because his intellect is unaware of it, or because he is personally incredulous about it. After having his astral form released by The Ancient One and being thrown into visions of the infinite multiverse, Stephen decided to adapt his worldview to what he now knew to be true.
Of course, his first dramatic experience with his astral/spirit form ends with The Ancient One recalling him to his body. Upon regaining his body after floating around for several moments, Stephen asks if LSD was in the tea he drank before experiencing involuntary astral projection. Obviously, he had assumed that he was drugged instead of even acknowledging the possibility that he had felt his consciousness leave his physical body. Assumptions interfere with the pursuit of true knowledge, and Stephen eventually learns of his error. This highlights the importance of making no assumptions when attempting to verify a worldview. Do not beg the question for or against a claim. By the way, I found it hilarious that someone as allegedly intelligent as Stephen would ever make a laughably unscientific claim like "We are made of matter and nothing more." It is a claim that reason refutes in full. Rationalism can never lead to naturalism; it reveals it to be objectively false. Logic and consciousness--which cannot be illusory--are strictly immaterial things.
The Ancient One tells Strange that "Your intellect has taken you far in life, but it will take you no further." The movie does not have an anti-intellect theme but it does imply that there are truths, and significant truths at that, which are inaccessible to most people and which they will likely only accept when shown them instead of merely being verbally told about them.
Now it's time to address a point I know has surfaced in Christian circles.
While Christian film "critic" Ted Baehr has attacked Doctor Strange for the prominence of sorcery in the movie, I dispute the position that it is a movie Christians should avoid. First of all, as readers of this blog will know, there is no obvious reason why cinematic depictions of sin are sinful to watch. The Bible contains narratives which tell of graphic violence, kidnapping, brutal rape, and torture, yet Christians are sometimes opposed to simple appearances of minor profanity in movies. Not only is the depiction of things like violence or sorcery not immoral at all in and of itself [3], but I can make a very reasonable case that the "sorcery" in Doctor Strange is not the kind condemned in Mosaic Law (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:9-11). Sorcery in the Bible is an act of idolatry, and perhaps of malice as well, that occurs when one taps into dark spiritual powers derived from demonic origins. The sorcery prohibited in Mosaic Law has undeniable ties to the supernatural (see the verses I mentioned above). But this is very different than the type of spells used and referenced in Doctor Strange. Whereas the kind in the Bible is a result of communicating or aligning with supernatural entities, the type of "magic" in the newest MCU entry has nothing to do with the supernatural--in the sense that it is not derived from a spiritual source, but a natural one. The Ancient One speaks about how the spells that she and her companions cast simply are manifestations of energy from other areas within the multiverse, meaning the "magic" is derived from the natural, material world and has nothing to do with any malevolent or demonic spiritual forces. In other words, the characters are not wielding magic that is necessarily related to the kind described as evil in the Bible; it is a completely different form of "sorcery." Also, I don't want to hear any Christian that loves The Lord of the Rings and the character Gandalf condemn Doctor Strange. That's called hypocrisy, and Christians that I know generally excel at displaying it.
(SPOILER)
Dormammu's timeless realm in the "dark dimension" seems to make no scientific or theological sense. Time did not exist before the creation of the material world--modern cosmology and the Bible agree on this--yet in the Doctor Strange universe somehow there is an area in the freaking material world where time does not exist. How could the Big Bang produce a universe/multiverse in time and then somehow create an area without time within that multiverse when time and space are connected and were created together? I mean, the only being that is timeless in the strictest sense of the word is what we call God, since he existed prior to the Big Bang (though other spiritual beings would be outside of time as well but they were still created). Now, when Stephen enters the dark dimension to "bargain" with Dormammu you could clearly see that things move as if time is elapsing, which indicates that the dark dimension still acts like it is in time. Marvel movie apologists might suggest that Strange had introduced time to Dormammu and thus because of the presence of time during the "bargaining" time loop scene particles and objects moved as they only can in time. However, the movie never clarified so I'm still calling scientific and theological BS. But . . . that was still a funny scene.
Conclusion
Scott Derrickson has crafted a masterful addition to the MCU that delivered, thankfully, everything the MCU needed at this stage. Which is stage 3 to be precise. Ok, that was a Marvel joke. I know it's actually phase 3. With numerous past movies exploring the origin stories of various superheroes, I wasn't sure if Doctor Strange would deviate from the rather formulaic story structure of past entries and represent a creative new direction, but it definitely succeeded in doing so. While recent Marvel origin films like Ant Man are entertaining but basically retellings of older stories with different characters (in this case, Ant Man was Iron Man with a different protagonist and different technology), Doctor Strange distinguishes itself from other superhero movies quite effectively with its unique visuals, abnormal thematic material, and clever ending. I was pleasantly surprised and definitely entertained.
Content
1. Violence: There is not much violence in the film. Several people are killed in non-graphic ways on or off-screen.
2. Profanity: Occasionally a character will drop the word "sh-t", but the profanity is infrequent.
[1]. http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/film/director-strange
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-multiverse-part-1.html
[3]. Christians should be more concerned about what worldview a film portrays sin with than what sins are actually shown, as there is nothing sinful about showing any sin (Deuteronomy 4:2). Judging how much violence or terror can be placed in a movie before the film has gone "too far" is a hopelessly subjective exercise, with Christians often arbitrarily drawing nonexistent personal lines at random points and then trying to enforce their subjective convictions as objective moral boundaries for all people.
--Stephen Strange, Doctor Strange
"You think you know how the world works? You think that this material universe is all there is? What is real? What mysteries lie beyond the reach of your senses? At the root of existence, mind and matter meet. Thoughts form reality. This universe is only one of an infinite number. Worlds without end; some benevolent and life-giving, others filled with malice and hunger. Dark places where powers older than time lie, ravenous and waiting. Who are you in this vast multiverse, Mr. Strange?"
--The Ancient One, Doctor Strange
Director Scott Derrickson did it. He designed a Marvel movie that defied many of the cliches which are expected at this point, and one that is genuinely intellectual and mind-bending in a non-forced way. What was successful about the movie and what did I enjoy? Continue reading to learn.
 |
|
Production Values
Wow. To say this movie has fine production values would be a massive understatement. Excellent would be a more fitting word. Benedict Cumberbatch absolutely nails the role of Stephen Strange, perfectly embodying the arrogant doctor who develops drastically different priorities and a very different worldview as the film progresses. His performance exudes humor, authenticity, and, when necessary, great amounts of arrogance. Tilda Swinton as The Ancient One is another acting highlight; she is perfect for the role! I understand that The Ancient One in the comics was not even a female, but now I will always imagine Tilda's character when I think of The Ancient One. Her performance is very convincing and appropriately enigmatic. Mads Mikkelsen, whom I eagerly want to see in Rogue One this December, did not have much screen time and played a villain who could have been much more developed (as usual with many MCU villains), but the few scenes where he speaks revealed a far more sophisticated motivation for his character than I expected. Were Kaecilius played by anyone other than Mikkelsen, I may have thought less of the character.
The CGI environments sometimes resemble those in Inception, but they are certainly trippy and mind-bending, showcasing fantastic effects work that clearly distinguishes the visuals of Doctor Strange from anything else in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) so far. A great script also benefits the story immensely, complementing the great casting and unique special effects. The production values are of a very high quality.
Story
"Hypocrite!"
This is what Kaecilius, the movie's primary villain, accuses a robed woman of being in the opening scenes. Within the first few minutes viewers learn two things: 1) in this world people wield what appears to be sophisticated magic and 2) the successful and talented Dr. Stephen Strange is an arrogant a--hole, but an intelligent one. Able to engage in medical procedures with skill and precision, Stephen demonstrates that he is a knowledgable and experienced doctor, though his relationships with others suffer because of his pride.
Despite all of his ability, his own carelessness quickly leads to a vehicle accident that realistically seems like it should have killed Stephen yet merely robs him of stable hands instead. Searching for a miraculous route to recovery so he can resume his occupation as a doctor with a perfect medical operation record, he pursues a source of potential help he otherwise would have scoffed at: a hope of spiritual guidance found in an area where more spiritual people may be able to assist him in mending his body. Actually, when he finds the location he is searching for, he still scoffs as a bald Celtic woman called The Ancient One informs him that his philosophical assumptions about the universe and himself are incorrect. She wants to heal him through a seemingly New Age approach instead of by using science, and Strange objects and disputes with her naive views until she reaches out, strikes him, and catapults his spirit from his body, allowing him several moments to marvel (get it? MARVEL?) at his empty physical shell and the disembodied inner soul he never believed he had.
Fortunately for The Ancient One, she has a new apprentice, which is quite useful because she and a group of sorcerer students plan to fight a rogue sorcerer named Kaecilius, the man who challenged The Ancient One in the film's first scene.
And I'll conclude this section without spoilers but by still stating that the story was engaging and exciting and that the climactic end fight was much more unique than the generic scenes found in many other superhero movies where the superheroes confront villains who are opening or have opened portals to the sky. Bravos, Derrickson.
Intellectual Content
I want to mention at the beginning of this section that the director of this movie is an open Christian who has directed several Christian horror projects (no, that's not an oxymoron) and who had interesting thoughts about directing Doctor Strange as a Christian [1] when the source material revolves around the more fantastical elements of Marvel.
One of those elements is the existence of the multiverse, a hypothetical model of the cosmos featuring multiple or an infinite number of universes. Ironically, I had just written about the concept of the multiverse around the same time I first watched Doctor Strange [2]. I enjoyed not only that the idea of the multiverse was in the movie but that the multiverse was used to promote an anti-naturalism message, whereas most scientists who believe in the multiverse use it as a far-fetched defense for naturalism. The Ancient One launched Stephen into the multiverse (how is uncertain) to reveal to him that it does not logically follow that something is not false or imaginary just because his senses do not perceive it, because his intellect is unaware of it, or because he is personally incredulous about it. After having his astral form released by The Ancient One and being thrown into visions of the infinite multiverse, Stephen decided to adapt his worldview to what he now knew to be true.
Of course, his first dramatic experience with his astral/spirit form ends with The Ancient One recalling him to his body. Upon regaining his body after floating around for several moments, Stephen asks if LSD was in the tea he drank before experiencing involuntary astral projection. Obviously, he had assumed that he was drugged instead of even acknowledging the possibility that he had felt his consciousness leave his physical body. Assumptions interfere with the pursuit of true knowledge, and Stephen eventually learns of his error. This highlights the importance of making no assumptions when attempting to verify a worldview. Do not beg the question for or against a claim. By the way, I found it hilarious that someone as allegedly intelligent as Stephen would ever make a laughably unscientific claim like "We are made of matter and nothing more." It is a claim that reason refutes in full. Rationalism can never lead to naturalism; it reveals it to be objectively false. Logic and consciousness--which cannot be illusory--are strictly immaterial things.
The Ancient One tells Strange that "Your intellect has taken you far in life, but it will take you no further." The movie does not have an anti-intellect theme but it does imply that there are truths, and significant truths at that, which are inaccessible to most people and which they will likely only accept when shown them instead of merely being verbally told about them.
Now it's time to address a point I know has surfaced in Christian circles.
While Christian film "critic" Ted Baehr has attacked Doctor Strange for the prominence of sorcery in the movie, I dispute the position that it is a movie Christians should avoid. First of all, as readers of this blog will know, there is no obvious reason why cinematic depictions of sin are sinful to watch. The Bible contains narratives which tell of graphic violence, kidnapping, brutal rape, and torture, yet Christians are sometimes opposed to simple appearances of minor profanity in movies. Not only is the depiction of things like violence or sorcery not immoral at all in and of itself [3], but I can make a very reasonable case that the "sorcery" in Doctor Strange is not the kind condemned in Mosaic Law (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 18:9-11). Sorcery in the Bible is an act of idolatry, and perhaps of malice as well, that occurs when one taps into dark spiritual powers derived from demonic origins. The sorcery prohibited in Mosaic Law has undeniable ties to the supernatural (see the verses I mentioned above). But this is very different than the type of spells used and referenced in Doctor Strange. Whereas the kind in the Bible is a result of communicating or aligning with supernatural entities, the type of "magic" in the newest MCU entry has nothing to do with the supernatural--in the sense that it is not derived from a spiritual source, but a natural one. The Ancient One speaks about how the spells that she and her companions cast simply are manifestations of energy from other areas within the multiverse, meaning the "magic" is derived from the natural, material world and has nothing to do with any malevolent or demonic spiritual forces. In other words, the characters are not wielding magic that is necessarily related to the kind described as evil in the Bible; it is a completely different form of "sorcery." Also, I don't want to hear any Christian that loves The Lord of the Rings and the character Gandalf condemn Doctor Strange. That's called hypocrisy, and Christians that I know generally excel at displaying it.
(SPOILER)
Dormammu's timeless realm in the "dark dimension" seems to make no scientific or theological sense. Time did not exist before the creation of the material world--modern cosmology and the Bible agree on this--yet in the Doctor Strange universe somehow there is an area in the freaking material world where time does not exist. How could the Big Bang produce a universe/multiverse in time and then somehow create an area without time within that multiverse when time and space are connected and were created together? I mean, the only being that is timeless in the strictest sense of the word is what we call God, since he existed prior to the Big Bang (though other spiritual beings would be outside of time as well but they were still created). Now, when Stephen enters the dark dimension to "bargain" with Dormammu you could clearly see that things move as if time is elapsing, which indicates that the dark dimension still acts like it is in time. Marvel movie apologists might suggest that Strange had introduced time to Dormammu and thus because of the presence of time during the "bargaining" time loop scene particles and objects moved as they only can in time. However, the movie never clarified so I'm still calling scientific and theological BS. But . . . that was still a funny scene.
Conclusion
Scott Derrickson has crafted a masterful addition to the MCU that delivered, thankfully, everything the MCU needed at this stage. Which is stage 3 to be precise. Ok, that was a Marvel joke. I know it's actually phase 3. With numerous past movies exploring the origin stories of various superheroes, I wasn't sure if Doctor Strange would deviate from the rather formulaic story structure of past entries and represent a creative new direction, but it definitely succeeded in doing so. While recent Marvel origin films like Ant Man are entertaining but basically retellings of older stories with different characters (in this case, Ant Man was Iron Man with a different protagonist and different technology), Doctor Strange distinguishes itself from other superhero movies quite effectively with its unique visuals, abnormal thematic material, and clever ending. I was pleasantly surprised and definitely entertained.
Content
1. Violence: There is not much violence in the film. Several people are killed in non-graphic ways on or off-screen.
2. Profanity: Occasionally a character will drop the word "sh-t", but the profanity is infrequent.
[1]. http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/film/director-strange
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-multiverse-part-1.html
[3]. Christians should be more concerned about what worldview a film portrays sin with than what sins are actually shown, as there is nothing sinful about showing any sin (Deuteronomy 4:2). Judging how much violence or terror can be placed in a movie before the film has gone "too far" is a hopelessly subjective exercise, with Christians often arbitrarily drawing nonexistent personal lines at random points and then trying to enforce their subjective convictions as objective moral boundaries for all people.
Monday, November 14, 2016
A Discarded Hope
I long so deeply for other people to value truth as I do and for them to employ and honor reason as I do. I truly do. For years I have wanted others to seek truth and orient their feelings, goals, priorities, desires, and actions around what is true and verifiable instead of their own individual whims and opinions.
But the depressing reality is that this is almost never the case. People generally don't want proof; they want personal persuasion. They usually do not seek truth; they pursue comfort. They do not want reason; they want assumptions. Blaise Pascal was right: people largely choose beliefs based on the subjective appeal of the ideas to them as individuals rather than the ability of those ideas to be objectively proven. And this is why most people are useless when it comes to helping others seek truth, reason, and certainty.
I am at a point in my life where I am finally willing to sever my intellectual ambitions from the rotted and naive hope that other people as a whole would respond positively to my endeavors and methods. Now I discard that hope, freeing myself to focus on my own intellectual journey without the unwillingness of others slowing me down. When other people remain apathetic to truth or continue to rely on irrational epistemologies after your prolonged efforts to convince them otherwise, it is time to leave them behind in your pursuit of the truths they are not rational or dedicated enough to desire as intensely as you do.
But the depressing reality is that this is almost never the case. People generally don't want proof; they want personal persuasion. They usually do not seek truth; they pursue comfort. They do not want reason; they want assumptions. Blaise Pascal was right: people largely choose beliefs based on the subjective appeal of the ideas to them as individuals rather than the ability of those ideas to be objectively proven. And this is why most people are useless when it comes to helping others seek truth, reason, and certainty.
I am at a point in my life where I am finally willing to sever my intellectual ambitions from the rotted and naive hope that other people as a whole would respond positively to my endeavors and methods. Now I discard that hope, freeing myself to focus on my own intellectual journey without the unwillingness of others slowing me down. When other people remain apathetic to truth or continue to rely on irrational epistemologies after your prolonged efforts to convince them otherwise, it is time to leave them behind in your pursuit of the truths they are not rational or dedicated enough to desire as intensely as you do.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Differences In Epistemology
No one can rationally expect to get very far in conversations with others unless the two parties share the same or very similar epistemology. It amazes me that people sometimes engage in repeated discussion with others knowing that they dispute the appropriate foundation of knowledge and yet they still anticipate that their epistemology will persuade their opponents when it is completely different from that of those they are conversing with.
Exposure to the beliefs of others does no good unless one deconstructs, dissects, and analyses them properly. People with different epistemologies will never agree on what qualifies as evidence and (more importantly) proof and therefore will never concur on what conclusions are true and what reasoning is sound. Someone like me finds no benefit from talking with such people except to learn what ideas are assumptive and unverifiable. Many people seem to know that they will enter a conversation only to conclude it by telling the other discusser that they simply disagree and that it is pointless to continue trying to persuade each other further. Anyone who wants to find truth without being bogged down by people's unwillingness to make no assumptions will flee from this epistemology, for it sacrifices absolute certainty and the rigidness of truth for the sake of mutual agreement and shared persuasion.
Because of this foundational disagreement over the obtaining and verification of knowledge, people with opposing epistemologies often "agree to disagree", which does not propel anyone forward on their quest for truth. A retreat back into comforting but unverified personal beliefs because one couldn't prove his or her epistemology correct is not a sign of maturity but one of intellectual bankruptcy. To find truth, one must begin with an epistemology which can grant total certainty of at least some things. Otherwise, one can claim to assume, hope, prefer, believe, or accept that something is true, but one cannot claim to know it is true. That is why I am a rationalist who starts my epistemology with axioms and truths which are inescapable and knowable a priori and why I have little patience for people who start with other beginning points.
Fitheists and adherents of scientism will never accomplish much in their discussions, and neither will representatives of opposing epistemic foundations. Presuppositionalists and rationalists, for example, will merely frustrate each other if they engage in serious debate or dialogue due to the absolutely irreconcilable differences in their epistemologies. Our society values tolerance and superficial peace and thus it certainly promotes the idea of "agreeing to disagree" with people of alternate worldviews, but this approach does not ultimately help people who value truth enough to pursue it wholeheartedly as I do. When dealing with people of other epistemic worldviews, I find myself irritated because I understand that whether me and my opponent concur or disagree on a particular point there is only a very minimal amount of intellectual benefit I can acquire from the talk if we don't even have the same starting point. After all, if this is the case, I should not expect the two of us to prioritize verification methods in the same way or to understand or accept facts in the same manner.
When debating others, don't settle for negotiating complex ideas with people who don't have correct epistemologies when you can target their epistemology at its foundation and shatter their beliefs at a much more intimate and base level. This is when conversational progress is made--when people collectively begin their epistemology at the correct place and do not deviate from the straight and narrow path.
Exposure to the beliefs of others does no good unless one deconstructs, dissects, and analyses them properly. People with different epistemologies will never agree on what qualifies as evidence and (more importantly) proof and therefore will never concur on what conclusions are true and what reasoning is sound. Someone like me finds no benefit from talking with such people except to learn what ideas are assumptive and unverifiable. Many people seem to know that they will enter a conversation only to conclude it by telling the other discusser that they simply disagree and that it is pointless to continue trying to persuade each other further. Anyone who wants to find truth without being bogged down by people's unwillingness to make no assumptions will flee from this epistemology, for it sacrifices absolute certainty and the rigidness of truth for the sake of mutual agreement and shared persuasion.
Because of this foundational disagreement over the obtaining and verification of knowledge, people with opposing epistemologies often "agree to disagree", which does not propel anyone forward on their quest for truth. A retreat back into comforting but unverified personal beliefs because one couldn't prove his or her epistemology correct is not a sign of maturity but one of intellectual bankruptcy. To find truth, one must begin with an epistemology which can grant total certainty of at least some things. Otherwise, one can claim to assume, hope, prefer, believe, or accept that something is true, but one cannot claim to know it is true. That is why I am a rationalist who starts my epistemology with axioms and truths which are inescapable and knowable a priori and why I have little patience for people who start with other beginning points.
Fitheists and adherents of scientism will never accomplish much in their discussions, and neither will representatives of opposing epistemic foundations. Presuppositionalists and rationalists, for example, will merely frustrate each other if they engage in serious debate or dialogue due to the absolutely irreconcilable differences in their epistemologies. Our society values tolerance and superficial peace and thus it certainly promotes the idea of "agreeing to disagree" with people of alternate worldviews, but this approach does not ultimately help people who value truth enough to pursue it wholeheartedly as I do. When dealing with people of other epistemic worldviews, I find myself irritated because I understand that whether me and my opponent concur or disagree on a particular point there is only a very minimal amount of intellectual benefit I can acquire from the talk if we don't even have the same starting point. After all, if this is the case, I should not expect the two of us to prioritize verification methods in the same way or to understand or accept facts in the same manner.
When debating others, don't settle for negotiating complex ideas with people who don't have correct epistemologies when you can target their epistemology at its foundation and shatter their beliefs at a much more intimate and base level. This is when conversational progress is made--when people collectively begin their epistemology at the correct place and do not deviate from the straight and narrow path.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
The Multiverse
Have you ever hypothesized about a possible alternative reality that mirrors yours but has different events and outcomes? Such an imaginative idea is one of many involved with the concept of a multiverse: a cosmos where our universe is one of multiple, numerous, or infinite universes that exist outside of and alongside our own. In this ontological model, alternate versions of myself and other people could be living drastically different lives in their own self-contained universes. The potential for interdimensional exploration and storytelling material would be unimaginable, but dreams of discovering a multiverse are destined for futility.
As fascinating and confusing as the concept may be, no evidence for a multiverse exists, though there is no actual way for us to know if the multiverse is real anyway. Even if our universe is one of multiple or many universes, there is simply no way to know this from our current perspective inside of our own universe. This places the multiverse hypothesis alongside unverifiable and unfalsifiable ideas like the simulation hypothesis or the existence of extraterrestrial life.
This cosmological model has sparked some speculation that a multiverse would be eternal in the past. Contrary to what some new atheists like Lawrence Krauss have implied, a multiverse cannot escape an initial "Big Bang" (a beginning of the multiverse). Allow me to demonstrate why. It is impossible for there to be an infinite number of events or moments of time in the past. If I asked someone to count down from 63 to 0, they could do so. Even if I asked this person to count down from 15,000,000,000 to 0, it would be possible to comply even if an extraordinary quantity of time was spent doing this. However, if I requested that he or she count down from infinity to 0, they would be entirely unable to. Why? With no starting point, this individual could never reach 0, much less even begin their task. In the same way, there cannot be an infinite amount of time in the past because there would be no way for the present moment to arrive. Thus, time itself had an absolute fixed beginning that each second moves me further away from. A multiverse cannot avoid this fact or threaten it in any way. Note that this proof has nothing to do with whether or not the future is infinite; there can be an infinite number of moments in the future but there cannot be in the past.
Another interesting idea associated with a multiverse theory is the belief that if a multiverse exists there is no need for God as a designer. According to this objection, if the multiverse contains an infinite or extraordinarily large number of universes then of course some of them will have locations with seemingly perfect conditions for human life. New atheist use of a multiverse theory to evade the design argument (or in some ludicrous cases even the Kalam cosmological argument) is either a gamble based on blind faith or a tactic of desperation. Even if this successfully offered a possible alternative to the design argument for God, I demonstrated above that an absolute beginning of the multiverse is still logically inescapable and thus an uncaused cause, what theists refer to as God, is still entirely necessary for any material world to exist at all.
Actually, were a multiverse to turn out to be real, the discovery would only compound the dazzling intricacy and the phenomenal complexity of God's creation.
P.S. I just watched Doctor Strange last night and was excited by the inclusion of a multiverse in the story, but I began writing this post before I realized the coincidence. I was very pleased with the depiction of the multiverse featured in the film, which as a whole was MARVEL-ous.
As fascinating and confusing as the concept may be, no evidence for a multiverse exists, though there is no actual way for us to know if the multiverse is real anyway. Even if our universe is one of multiple or many universes, there is simply no way to know this from our current perspective inside of our own universe. This places the multiverse hypothesis alongside unverifiable and unfalsifiable ideas like the simulation hypothesis or the existence of extraterrestrial life.
This cosmological model has sparked some speculation that a multiverse would be eternal in the past. Contrary to what some new atheists like Lawrence Krauss have implied, a multiverse cannot escape an initial "Big Bang" (a beginning of the multiverse). Allow me to demonstrate why. It is impossible for there to be an infinite number of events or moments of time in the past. If I asked someone to count down from 63 to 0, they could do so. Even if I asked this person to count down from 15,000,000,000 to 0, it would be possible to comply even if an extraordinary quantity of time was spent doing this. However, if I requested that he or she count down from infinity to 0, they would be entirely unable to. Why? With no starting point, this individual could never reach 0, much less even begin their task. In the same way, there cannot be an infinite amount of time in the past because there would be no way for the present moment to arrive. Thus, time itself had an absolute fixed beginning that each second moves me further away from. A multiverse cannot avoid this fact or threaten it in any way. Note that this proof has nothing to do with whether or not the future is infinite; there can be an infinite number of moments in the future but there cannot be in the past.
Another interesting idea associated with a multiverse theory is the belief that if a multiverse exists there is no need for God as a designer. According to this objection, if the multiverse contains an infinite or extraordinarily large number of universes then of course some of them will have locations with seemingly perfect conditions for human life. New atheist use of a multiverse theory to evade the design argument (or in some ludicrous cases even the Kalam cosmological argument) is either a gamble based on blind faith or a tactic of desperation. Even if this successfully offered a possible alternative to the design argument for God, I demonstrated above that an absolute beginning of the multiverse is still logically inescapable and thus an uncaused cause, what theists refer to as God, is still entirely necessary for any material world to exist at all.
Actually, were a multiverse to turn out to be real, the discovery would only compound the dazzling intricacy and the phenomenal complexity of God's creation.
P.S. I just watched Doctor Strange last night and was excited by the inclusion of a multiverse in the story, but I began writing this post before I realized the coincidence. I was very pleased with the depiction of the multiverse featured in the film, which as a whole was MARVEL-ous.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Examples of Fallacies (Part 2)
Slippery Slope
"No Christian should watch the Saw movies because they will make people commit violent acts."
"If we allow public nudity, people will start having sex in public! It is clear we shouldn't allow nudity in the community."
The slippery slope fallacy tries to persuade people to avoid something because of what it may lead to, not because that thing is inherently evil. As such, slippery slope arguments are unreliable, erroneous, and highly illogical. They shift a debate or conversation away from attempting to prove something is objectively wrong and instead try to promote fear or suspicion of a possible outcome that does not necessarily have anything to do with the issue in question. I love the Saw movies and viewing them has not triggered some desire to kidnap and torture people. Actually, viewing a movie or playing a video game cannot make someone do anything. Entertainment often gets blamed for the ridiculous behavior of sentient, volitional beings, but it cannot make someone do anything whatsoever. As for the second example, exposure to nudity cannot create lust or force someone to objectify another person. Those attitudes are chosen by the one who lusts or objectifies. Nudity in and of itself has nothing at all to do with sex, though it can be sensual or sexual if people make it that way. If Jesus is correct (Mark 7), evil emerges from inside the human heart and thus people's actions are not caused by an external source like a violent film or an attractive body, though our race excels at blaming its corrupt actions on others or on outside events.
Fallacy of Composition
"All Christians are anti-intellectual and don't care about science or reason! I know because I've talked to some of them!"
This is a common attack on Christians used by internet atheists. Notice that the stupidity or ignorance of Christians has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Christianity itself is true. The fallacy of composition on display here incorrectly assumes that if a part of something is one way, the whole will be that way also. Some Christians are indeed stupid and conversation with them is unprofitable, but not all of them are like this--otherwise this blog would not even exist. Anyone who makes universal statements based on limited data is unjustifiably extrapolating true information about a single or relatively minor portion of a greater whole and using it to prematurely make conclusions about the whole itself (or taking a few portions and extrapolating from them). Anyone who judges an ethnicity based on a small sample of individuals commits this fallacy, for instance. To the untrained mind this is an easy error to succumb to.
Moralistic Fallacy
"Women in our country have always remained in the home instead of entering the workplace. Clearly, this is how things should be."
The moralistic fallacy is often used to attempt to persuade people or a society not to alter their ways because in the past they have always practiced certain things or lived a specific way or in the present they have adopted a particular lifestyle they view as moral. It is a fallacy because such claims assert that the way things are is the way they should be, a position which would have hindered every moral reformer in previous millennia. No society would have ever stopped implementing misogyny, racism, hypocrisy, infliction of cruel punishments, militarism, or any other evil if people merely accepted the current reality as moral perfection. This fallacy may sometimes be paired with a utilitarian approach to ethics.
Appeal to Ignorance
"You can't prove God doesn't exist, so I'm justified in believing he does."
"Until you can prove God exists I am justified in believing he isn't real."
I have heard both of the statements above far too many times. When pressed for evidence or proof, people can sometimes resort to simply declaring that they are justified in their beliefs just because the opposing side cannot prove their position. Not only would consistently living this way lead to the death of rationality and stagnation of all learning, it simply does not follow that just because something is unverified or unprovable that a competing claim is therefore true. This is illicit reasoning in, unfortunately, one of its most prominent and common forms.
False Dilemma
"What you've been telling me is either the whole truth or a complete lie!"
A false dilemma, such as the one illustrated above, presents two opposing options as if they are the only ones that exist. Sometimes there are only two possibilities with regards to an idea. For instance, God either exists or doesn't; there is no possible middle ground. A claim is ultimately either true or false; there is no third option. But what about other issues? Are humans good or evil? Clearly another answer is possible: humans are both good and evil. To say people are either just good or just evil is a drastic oversimplification of reality.
"No Christian should watch the Saw movies because they will make people commit violent acts."
"If we allow public nudity, people will start having sex in public! It is clear we shouldn't allow nudity in the community."
The slippery slope fallacy tries to persuade people to avoid something because of what it may lead to, not because that thing is inherently evil. As such, slippery slope arguments are unreliable, erroneous, and highly illogical. They shift a debate or conversation away from attempting to prove something is objectively wrong and instead try to promote fear or suspicion of a possible outcome that does not necessarily have anything to do with the issue in question. I love the Saw movies and viewing them has not triggered some desire to kidnap and torture people. Actually, viewing a movie or playing a video game cannot make someone do anything. Entertainment often gets blamed for the ridiculous behavior of sentient, volitional beings, but it cannot make someone do anything whatsoever. As for the second example, exposure to nudity cannot create lust or force someone to objectify another person. Those attitudes are chosen by the one who lusts or objectifies. Nudity in and of itself has nothing at all to do with sex, though it can be sensual or sexual if people make it that way. If Jesus is correct (Mark 7), evil emerges from inside the human heart and thus people's actions are not caused by an external source like a violent film or an attractive body, though our race excels at blaming its corrupt actions on others or on outside events.
Fallacy of Composition
"All Christians are anti-intellectual and don't care about science or reason! I know because I've talked to some of them!"
This is a common attack on Christians used by internet atheists. Notice that the stupidity or ignorance of Christians has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Christianity itself is true. The fallacy of composition on display here incorrectly assumes that if a part of something is one way, the whole will be that way also. Some Christians are indeed stupid and conversation with them is unprofitable, but not all of them are like this--otherwise this blog would not even exist. Anyone who makes universal statements based on limited data is unjustifiably extrapolating true information about a single or relatively minor portion of a greater whole and using it to prematurely make conclusions about the whole itself (or taking a few portions and extrapolating from them). Anyone who judges an ethnicity based on a small sample of individuals commits this fallacy, for instance. To the untrained mind this is an easy error to succumb to.
Moralistic Fallacy
"Women in our country have always remained in the home instead of entering the workplace. Clearly, this is how things should be."
The moralistic fallacy is often used to attempt to persuade people or a society not to alter their ways because in the past they have always practiced certain things or lived a specific way or in the present they have adopted a particular lifestyle they view as moral. It is a fallacy because such claims assert that the way things are is the way they should be, a position which would have hindered every moral reformer in previous millennia. No society would have ever stopped implementing misogyny, racism, hypocrisy, infliction of cruel punishments, militarism, or any other evil if people merely accepted the current reality as moral perfection. This fallacy may sometimes be paired with a utilitarian approach to ethics.
Appeal to Ignorance
"You can't prove God doesn't exist, so I'm justified in believing he does."
"Until you can prove God exists I am justified in believing he isn't real."
I have heard both of the statements above far too many times. When pressed for evidence or proof, people can sometimes resort to simply declaring that they are justified in their beliefs just because the opposing side cannot prove their position. Not only would consistently living this way lead to the death of rationality and stagnation of all learning, it simply does not follow that just because something is unverified or unprovable that a competing claim is therefore true. This is illicit reasoning in, unfortunately, one of its most prominent and common forms.
False Dilemma
"What you've been telling me is either the whole truth or a complete lie!"
A false dilemma, such as the one illustrated above, presents two opposing options as if they are the only ones that exist. Sometimes there are only two possibilities with regards to an idea. For instance, God either exists or doesn't; there is no possible middle ground. A claim is ultimately either true or false; there is no third option. But what about other issues? Are humans good or evil? Clearly another answer is possible: humans are both good and evil. To say people are either just good or just evil is a drastic oversimplification of reality.
Christian Fantasies = False Moralism
Sometimes the frustration is endless when one tries to reason with Christians. Whether it's a Christian apologist or a skeptic hoping to convince a believer of the need for rationality, the result is usually hopeless. Not only, however, do some (or most?) Christians seem to be volitionally unwilling or emotionally incapable of engaging in a detailed and elaborate conversation about why Christianity is true, they also have little to no desire to talk about the real effects and errors of incompetent and baseless "Christian" traditions about moral ideas.
I, unlike many other Christians, do not oppose nudity [1], profanity [2], bikinis [3], opposite-gender friendships [4], metal music [5], M-rated video games, R-rated movies, or many of the other shunned practices or things uncommon in generic American Christian circles. But I am not the only Christian who believes nudity is not immoral and is in fact positive; many other websites have taught that already. I am not the only one to defend use of profanity as a largely amoral habit; a surprising amount of intelligent Christian peers have agreed with me. A slowly increasing amount of Christians are finally realizing that there was never anything sinful or unnatural or inherently "dangerous" about representatives of both genders evolving deep, passionate friendships with the other sex. I am not the only one who holds these positions. I have never refrained from being vocal and transparent about the fact that these things are not morally abominable. Not only does the Bible not condemn these things, they can be extremely healthy and beneficial when viewed properly.
There are more complex and obscure truths I have discovered that present Christians are far less familiar with about issues like premarital sex [6]. These revelations are extremely controversial, but at least some Christians are still willing to discuss the arguments for each side and assess them rationally.
But there are ideas which I have come to know as true which I have yet to publicize or speak with others about. In fact, I have arrived at some very unusual and intriguing conclusions. Now why would someone like me, uncaring about the upsetting of traditions or the offense of other people at genuine truths, abstain from telling others? Because of fear? No. Unfortunately, a significant part of my hesitation to discuss my conclusions or leanings with fellow Christians is because I do not expect them to care to consider if they are wrong. They are so entrenched in their false ideals that they label anyone who tries to lead them away from such errors and fallacies an unrighteous person.
My frustration is sourced not only in the fact that these Christians adhere to false or weak beliefs on various moral matters--the true problem is ultimately that many of them are unwilling to change even when their arguments are thoroughly refuted and an airtight case is constructed against their positions. They have simply assumed their conclusions without realizing the error of such a strategy and the fact that they are being hypocritical when they criticize other people for assuming different moral beliefs. When someone invests legitimate effort into separating baseless traditions and preferences of the current Christian culture from actual truths, sometimes painfully and agonizingly and very patiently, he or she is usually greeted only with suspicion and contempt by others who have never even tried to seriously verify their own claims. Then, in unfocused and unsound attempts to defend their inherited moral beliefs, the ignorant majority in the church will resort to non sequiturs, circular reasoning, appeals to emotion, and citations of unauthoritative extra-Biblical tradition.
Because I care about what is objectively wrong in and of itself, I condemn acts and attitudes the modern church seems unaware of or apathetic towards. Prison rape, anti-intellectualism, unchristian ideas about government, and legalistic slippery-slope rules erected by ignorant Christians are all regular targets of my moral indignation. But I do not care to appease other people--believers or those in the secular world--by supporting their fallacious and pointless false morality. Even if I may not publicize my conclusions, I will still abide by them. There exists such an infuriating irony in the church: Christians reject the very Old Testament laws they ascribe to God as they endlessly invent suffocating and irrational moral principles to replace them with. Will it be profitable for me to share my more controversial positions which I have yet to divulge to others? The willingness of others will determinate that.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/bible-on-nudity-part-1.html (I have yet to continue this series, although I eventually will.)
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/profanity-profane-or-permissible.html
[3]. See these articles:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/can-clothing-objectify.html
C. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/are-superhero-movies-sexist.html
[4]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/opposite-gender-friendships-part-1.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/opposite-gender-friendships-part-2.html
[5]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-defense-of-metal-genre.html
[6]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-exodus-2216-17.html
I, unlike many other Christians, do not oppose nudity [1], profanity [2], bikinis [3], opposite-gender friendships [4], metal music [5], M-rated video games, R-rated movies, or many of the other shunned practices or things uncommon in generic American Christian circles. But I am not the only Christian who believes nudity is not immoral and is in fact positive; many other websites have taught that already. I am not the only one to defend use of profanity as a largely amoral habit; a surprising amount of intelligent Christian peers have agreed with me. A slowly increasing amount of Christians are finally realizing that there was never anything sinful or unnatural or inherently "dangerous" about representatives of both genders evolving deep, passionate friendships with the other sex. I am not the only one who holds these positions. I have never refrained from being vocal and transparent about the fact that these things are not morally abominable. Not only does the Bible not condemn these things, they can be extremely healthy and beneficial when viewed properly.
There are more complex and obscure truths I have discovered that present Christians are far less familiar with about issues like premarital sex [6]. These revelations are extremely controversial, but at least some Christians are still willing to discuss the arguments for each side and assess them rationally.
But there are ideas which I have come to know as true which I have yet to publicize or speak with others about. In fact, I have arrived at some very unusual and intriguing conclusions. Now why would someone like me, uncaring about the upsetting of traditions or the offense of other people at genuine truths, abstain from telling others? Because of fear? No. Unfortunately, a significant part of my hesitation to discuss my conclusions or leanings with fellow Christians is because I do not expect them to care to consider if they are wrong. They are so entrenched in their false ideals that they label anyone who tries to lead them away from such errors and fallacies an unrighteous person.
My frustration is sourced not only in the fact that these Christians adhere to false or weak beliefs on various moral matters--the true problem is ultimately that many of them are unwilling to change even when their arguments are thoroughly refuted and an airtight case is constructed against their positions. They have simply assumed their conclusions without realizing the error of such a strategy and the fact that they are being hypocritical when they criticize other people for assuming different moral beliefs. When someone invests legitimate effort into separating baseless traditions and preferences of the current Christian culture from actual truths, sometimes painfully and agonizingly and very patiently, he or she is usually greeted only with suspicion and contempt by others who have never even tried to seriously verify their own claims. Then, in unfocused and unsound attempts to defend their inherited moral beliefs, the ignorant majority in the church will resort to non sequiturs, circular reasoning, appeals to emotion, and citations of unauthoritative extra-Biblical tradition.
Because I care about what is objectively wrong in and of itself, I condemn acts and attitudes the modern church seems unaware of or apathetic towards. Prison rape, anti-intellectualism, unchristian ideas about government, and legalistic slippery-slope rules erected by ignorant Christians are all regular targets of my moral indignation. But I do not care to appease other people--believers or those in the secular world--by supporting their fallacious and pointless false morality. Even if I may not publicize my conclusions, I will still abide by them. There exists such an infuriating irony in the church: Christians reject the very Old Testament laws they ascribe to God as they endlessly invent suffocating and irrational moral principles to replace them with. Will it be profitable for me to share my more controversial positions which I have yet to divulge to others? The willingness of others will determinate that.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/bible-on-nudity-part-1.html (I have yet to continue this series, although I eventually will.)
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/profanity-profane-or-permissible.html
[3]. See these articles:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/can-clothing-objectify.html
C. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/are-superhero-movies-sexist.html
[4]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/opposite-gender-friendships-part-1.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/opposite-gender-friendships-part-2.html
[5]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/a-defense-of-metal-genre.html
[6]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-exodus-2216-17.html
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Romans 13 And Reconstructionism
"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
--Romans 13:3-4
The concept of human government may have been ordained by God as a terrestrial solution to crime and evil, but governments were not authorized to invent their own definitions of justice or define just punishments for crime. Their immense authority must be subject to the higher authority of the supreme moral law they attempt to capture in their own laws. Although the high emphasis on Scriptural authority in the Christian community seemingly would lead to Christians defending and advocating the very legal code that they believe God himself revealed to Israel, many Christians try to distance themselves as far as possible from Mosaic Law, in explicit contradiction of their claims that God is just and good and would never instruct anyone to do something evil. In fact, many of them seem to see no ethical or theological problem with abandoning criminal law and punishment to the relativistic American society that has no rational or metaphysical basis for its moral beliefs. To the contrary, I have heard sermons or noticed Christian websites directly endorse Roman use of extremely barbaric penalties like crucifixion [1] and express apathy towards both God's divine legal decrees and the influence of pagan and secular ideas of justice. However, Romans 13 does not deprive Mosaic Law of its moral authority or authorize the government to operate outside of the moral boundaries imposed by it.
Did God smile when Draco of Greece executed people for vegetable theft? Did he gaze with approval as the Romans sadistically tortured their criminals with such intensity that even other Romans would not describe it fully? Is justice upheld when Islamic officials demand that the hands of thieves be permanently removed (Surah 5:38)? Were ancient societies right to commonly mutilate offenders? If the answer to these questions is no, then do not say that such governments as those which enforce such penalties are legitimate or just, much less blessed by God. And no one can find a standard by which to judge the correctness or error of these pagan punishments except by the one God made plain in the Old Testament. But this is the very standard some Christians disregard and fear.
No government can justify executing people for crimes like theft [2] or assault [3] or torturing people beyond the mild tortures allowed in Scripture [4], nor can a government justify lightly punishing rape [5] or kidnapping [6]. Hell, a government cannot even justify its own existence apart from submission to the objective morality that God alone can ground or reveal. Never does Romans 13 allow any pagan government the liberty of usurping, perverting, or ignoring the laws God revealed and established. Interestingly and disturbingly, people who focus more on the New Testament than the Old are far likelier to express lenience towards injustices that the Old Testament laws would never tolerate. The depravities of the American prison system, the leniency or cruelty found in modern justice systems, the emphasis on separating government from God and theological truths . . . those who honor the Old Testament do not view these things as just or acceptable, yet many modern Christians are quite content to keep enforcement of justice and theology separate, to demonize the Mosaic Law revealed by the God they claim to follow while supporting a corrupt and crumbling governmental body, and to adopt baseless societal moral preferences while abandoning objective moral facts.
What other standard could someone appeal to other than Mosaic Law? Intuition? Nobody seems to have the same moral intuitions regarding what should be labeled a crime and what the just punishments for crimes are. Emotion? Something as subjective and malleable as emotion could never lead us to justice. Consensus? Consensus always fluctuates and people have agreed that dementedly unjust laws are acceptable. Natural law? Natural law is merely a sophisticated phrase referring to something subjective--merely the conscience; conscience is better than nothing but is subject to the same problems mentioned in the past few sentences. No one can look to nature and find moral truths without committing the infamous naturalistic fallacy. Nature doesn't inform us of how things should be, it merely depicts how they are.
What then shall we substitute for God's laws? The barrage of ever-changing and conflicting ideals found across varying societies? Personal preferences about justice? The unreliable feelings and shifting consensus of the philosophically and theologically uninformed and ignorant populace? Trying to construct a moral epistemology and justice system apart from reconstructionism is a hopeless pursuit without any ontological or epistemological foundation. To seek or defend a criminal justice system other than that of God is to allow a human government to commit injustice of various types; there could be no other result when humans neglect God's objective punitive standard.
Arguing that government is sacred apart from alignment with God's revelation on legal and political matters is a worthless endeavor, for there can be nothing authoritative or valuable about government outside of its proper boundaries [7].
[1]. See below:
A. "Barabbas knew that he was guilty and that he had done crimes worthy of death. He knew that he deserved to go to that cross and to suffer the DEATH PENALTY. He knew he was justly condemned."
--http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/lifeochr/lifeoc14.htm
B. "While Jesus was on the cross the Romans inflicted the death penalty on the two criminals next to Him. Christ said nothing in their defense, or against their crucifixions. One of those two mocked Christ. In response, the other criminal (whom Jesus would immediately declare righteous, Luke 23:43) said of their punishments, 'we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong' (Luke 23:41). What did this forgiven criminal, this newly justified man, say about the death penalty? Bottom line: the criminals were getting their just punishment. The dying criminal knew the truth, as he said, 'we indeed' are 'justly' punished."
--http://kgov.com/death-penalty
[2]. Exodus 22:1-4, 7-15; Leviticus 6:1-5; Numbers 5:5-8.
[3]. Exodus 21:18-19.
[4]. Deuteronomy 25:1-3.
[5]. Deuteronomy 22:25-27.
[6]. Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7.
[7]. I have written multiple times already on this matter, either to clarify the actual meaning or function of certain Biblical laws or to refute distortions or misconceptions about them. Note that there are more posts on this blog which address other issues of theonomy/reconstructionism, Mosaic Law, and just penalties.
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/reconstructionism.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/jesus-and-paul-on-mosaic-law.html
C. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/capital-crimes-part-1.html
D. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/capital-crimes-part-2.html
E. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/capital-crimes-part-3.html
F. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/corporal-punishment-part-1.html
G. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/corporal-punishment-part-2.html
--Romans 13:3-4
The concept of human government may have been ordained by God as a terrestrial solution to crime and evil, but governments were not authorized to invent their own definitions of justice or define just punishments for crime. Their immense authority must be subject to the higher authority of the supreme moral law they attempt to capture in their own laws. Although the high emphasis on Scriptural authority in the Christian community seemingly would lead to Christians defending and advocating the very legal code that they believe God himself revealed to Israel, many Christians try to distance themselves as far as possible from Mosaic Law, in explicit contradiction of their claims that God is just and good and would never instruct anyone to do something evil. In fact, many of them seem to see no ethical or theological problem with abandoning criminal law and punishment to the relativistic American society that has no rational or metaphysical basis for its moral beliefs. To the contrary, I have heard sermons or noticed Christian websites directly endorse Roman use of extremely barbaric penalties like crucifixion [1] and express apathy towards both God's divine legal decrees and the influence of pagan and secular ideas of justice. However, Romans 13 does not deprive Mosaic Law of its moral authority or authorize the government to operate outside of the moral boundaries imposed by it.
 |
| Can conflicting punitive philosophies and punishments employed by various governments all be simultaneously just? No. |
Did God smile when Draco of Greece executed people for vegetable theft? Did he gaze with approval as the Romans sadistically tortured their criminals with such intensity that even other Romans would not describe it fully? Is justice upheld when Islamic officials demand that the hands of thieves be permanently removed (Surah 5:38)? Were ancient societies right to commonly mutilate offenders? If the answer to these questions is no, then do not say that such governments as those which enforce such penalties are legitimate or just, much less blessed by God. And no one can find a standard by which to judge the correctness or error of these pagan punishments except by the one God made plain in the Old Testament. But this is the very standard some Christians disregard and fear.
No government can justify executing people for crimes like theft [2] or assault [3] or torturing people beyond the mild tortures allowed in Scripture [4], nor can a government justify lightly punishing rape [5] or kidnapping [6]. Hell, a government cannot even justify its own existence apart from submission to the objective morality that God alone can ground or reveal. Never does Romans 13 allow any pagan government the liberty of usurping, perverting, or ignoring the laws God revealed and established. Interestingly and disturbingly, people who focus more on the New Testament than the Old are far likelier to express lenience towards injustices that the Old Testament laws would never tolerate. The depravities of the American prison system, the leniency or cruelty found in modern justice systems, the emphasis on separating government from God and theological truths . . . those who honor the Old Testament do not view these things as just or acceptable, yet many modern Christians are quite content to keep enforcement of justice and theology separate, to demonize the Mosaic Law revealed by the God they claim to follow while supporting a corrupt and crumbling governmental body, and to adopt baseless societal moral preferences while abandoning objective moral facts.
 |
| If Christianity is true (and a great deal of evidence supports this claim), then what the Bible says about criminal punishment is morally valid and whatever contradicts it is false. |
What other standard could someone appeal to other than Mosaic Law? Intuition? Nobody seems to have the same moral intuitions regarding what should be labeled a crime and what the just punishments for crimes are. Emotion? Something as subjective and malleable as emotion could never lead us to justice. Consensus? Consensus always fluctuates and people have agreed that dementedly unjust laws are acceptable. Natural law? Natural law is merely a sophisticated phrase referring to something subjective--merely the conscience; conscience is better than nothing but is subject to the same problems mentioned in the past few sentences. No one can look to nature and find moral truths without committing the infamous naturalistic fallacy. Nature doesn't inform us of how things should be, it merely depicts how they are.
What then shall we substitute for God's laws? The barrage of ever-changing and conflicting ideals found across varying societies? Personal preferences about justice? The unreliable feelings and shifting consensus of the philosophically and theologically uninformed and ignorant populace? Trying to construct a moral epistemology and justice system apart from reconstructionism is a hopeless pursuit without any ontological or epistemological foundation. To seek or defend a criminal justice system other than that of God is to allow a human government to commit injustice of various types; there could be no other result when humans neglect God's objective punitive standard.
 |
| Human legal systems possess no inherent moral authority. Whatever authority they have depends on their conformity to the moral revelation of God. |
Arguing that government is sacred apart from alignment with God's revelation on legal and political matters is a worthless endeavor, for there can be nothing authoritative or valuable about government outside of its proper boundaries [7].
[1]. See below:
A. "Barabbas knew that he was guilty and that he had done crimes worthy of death. He knew that he deserved to go to that cross and to suffer the DEATH PENALTY. He knew he was justly condemned."
--http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/lifeochr/lifeoc14.htm
B. "While Jesus was on the cross the Romans inflicted the death penalty on the two criminals next to Him. Christ said nothing in their defense, or against their crucifixions. One of those two mocked Christ. In response, the other criminal (whom Jesus would immediately declare righteous, Luke 23:43) said of their punishments, 'we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong' (Luke 23:41). What did this forgiven criminal, this newly justified man, say about the death penalty? Bottom line: the criminals were getting their just punishment. The dying criminal knew the truth, as he said, 'we indeed' are 'justly' punished."
--http://kgov.com/death-penalty
[2]. Exodus 22:1-4, 7-15; Leviticus 6:1-5; Numbers 5:5-8.
[3]. Exodus 21:18-19.
[4]. Deuteronomy 25:1-3.
[5]. Deuteronomy 22:25-27.
[6]. Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7.
[7]. I have written multiple times already on this matter, either to clarify the actual meaning or function of certain Biblical laws or to refute distortions or misconceptions about them. Note that there are more posts on this blog which address other issues of theonomy/reconstructionism, Mosaic Law, and just penalties.
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/reconstructionism.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/jesus-and-paul-on-mosaic-law.html
C. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/capital-crimes-part-1.html
D. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/capital-crimes-part-2.html
E. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/capital-crimes-part-3.html
F. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/corporal-punishment-part-1.html
G. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/corporal-punishment-part-2.html
Friday, November 4, 2016
13th Amendment--A Biblical Parallel
Embedded within the United States Bill of Rights and the additional amendments to the Constitution are some principles that directly reflect moral rights and duties imposed by the Old Testament Law. For example, one could favorably compare the 5th Amendment to Deuteronomy 17:6 or the 8th Amendment to Deuteronomy 25:3, with the obvious conclusion being that at least portions of the amendments to the Constitution overlap with instructions in Mosaic Law. I noticed the 13th Amendment in particular as I was scanning a list of them several days ago and noticed that, as with several other amendments, the Bible concurred with it.
Let us compare the two:
13th Amendment--"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Exodus 21:16, 22:3--"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death . . . A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft."
These principles are almost identical. Truly, it is downright hypocritical for people to hold that the U.S. Constitutional amendments are ethical while attacking the Old Testament for permitting limited slavery. Of course, in Biblical law the possession of a slave in the circumstances described in Exodus 22:3 also came with the moral obligation not to mistreat or maim the slave (Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27) and to release him or her after six years of service unless the slave wished to remain with his or her master until death (Exodus 21:1-6, Deuteronomy 15:12-18).
One of the seemingly darkest stains on America's past is the abominable slave trade which led to the kidnapping, involuntary enslavement, and immoral treatment of thousands of Africans. Yet, when American legislation finally prohibited the slave trade, it ensured that servitude as a criminal penalty was not abolished too. Some Americans seem all too aware of the horrific slave trade but not of the fact that the 13th Amendment still permits a specific type of slavery. What many people are certainly unaware of, however, is that the Bible explicitly agrees with the 13th Amendment, meaning anyone who objects to Exodus 22:3 but not to the amendment in question commits the grave error of intellectual and moral hypocrisy. Mosaic Law allowed for this limited and temporary form of slavery as a natural extension of the Bible's prominent legal doctrine of restitution, with thieves--or those who owed money for alternative crimes as well--who were unable to provide reimbursement and amends for their crimes working to restore the monetary value of what was lost, damaged, or stolen.
A superior response to theft with inability to restore has never been concocted by humans. Because a thief who had nothing to pay back his or her victim with likely stole out of desperation in order to obtain food or basic living items, having him or her live with the victim or someone else in order to generate income to pay off the debt removed the thief from the bleak circumstances, providing him or her with food, shelter, a way to possibly learn an occupation which could later be used to sustain the thief after release, and all the legal protection that came attached with the status of a slave (see two paragraphs above). Seen in this light, having a thief work as a temporary slave would have not only been restorative for the victim but possibly rehabilitative for the thief (or other criminal).
The Mosaic handling of slavery is the most ethical and benevolent one could ask for--and the 13th Amendment concurs. To object to one but not the other is completely inconsistent and logically indefensible. But people these days don't necessarily care about what is rational or defensible, do they?
Let us compare the two:
13th Amendment--"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Exodus 21:16, 22:3--"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death . . . A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft."
These principles are almost identical. Truly, it is downright hypocritical for people to hold that the U.S. Constitutional amendments are ethical while attacking the Old Testament for permitting limited slavery. Of course, in Biblical law the possession of a slave in the circumstances described in Exodus 22:3 also came with the moral obligation not to mistreat or maim the slave (Exodus 21:20-21, 26-27) and to release him or her after six years of service unless the slave wished to remain with his or her master until death (Exodus 21:1-6, Deuteronomy 15:12-18).
One of the seemingly darkest stains on America's past is the abominable slave trade which led to the kidnapping, involuntary enslavement, and immoral treatment of thousands of Africans. Yet, when American legislation finally prohibited the slave trade, it ensured that servitude as a criminal penalty was not abolished too. Some Americans seem all too aware of the horrific slave trade but not of the fact that the 13th Amendment still permits a specific type of slavery. What many people are certainly unaware of, however, is that the Bible explicitly agrees with the 13th Amendment, meaning anyone who objects to Exodus 22:3 but not to the amendment in question commits the grave error of intellectual and moral hypocrisy. Mosaic Law allowed for this limited and temporary form of slavery as a natural extension of the Bible's prominent legal doctrine of restitution, with thieves--or those who owed money for alternative crimes as well--who were unable to provide reimbursement and amends for their crimes working to restore the monetary value of what was lost, damaged, or stolen.
A superior response to theft with inability to restore has never been concocted by humans. Because a thief who had nothing to pay back his or her victim with likely stole out of desperation in order to obtain food or basic living items, having him or her live with the victim or someone else in order to generate income to pay off the debt removed the thief from the bleak circumstances, providing him or her with food, shelter, a way to possibly learn an occupation which could later be used to sustain the thief after release, and all the legal protection that came attached with the status of a slave (see two paragraphs above). Seen in this light, having a thief work as a temporary slave would have not only been restorative for the victim but possibly rehabilitative for the thief (or other criminal).
The Mosaic handling of slavery is the most ethical and benevolent one could ask for--and the 13th Amendment concurs. To object to one but not the other is completely inconsistent and logically indefensible. But people these days don't necessarily care about what is rational or defensible, do they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)