The idea persists in some minds that sex outside of a procreative intent is immoral. Though not all Catholics may believe this, it is often represented as a teaching of the Catholic church. As always in moral and theological issues, Christians need to investigate what the Bible teaches about the matter, having regard for tradition or conscience only when it strictly conforms to reason and Scripture. And the Bible disaffirms this belief.
Yes, the biological purpose of sex is to create children, and, yes, God did authorize humans to multiply (Genesis 1:28). But that is not the only purpose of sex! God created it for pleasure and for bonding as well. Song of Songs is certainly not about procreation, but the pleasure and intimacy that results from a mutual sexual relationship! Sex can bond people together in a way quite differently than other activities. But even if Song of Songs didn't exist in the Bible, it is clear from the rest of Scripture that neither procreation or a desire for procreation is not necessary to make sex morally acceptable.
Something is only sinful if it violates a revealed law corresponding to God's nature (1 John 3:4, Deuteronomy 4:2, Romans 7:7). So does the Bible say that legitimate sexual activity in marriage always involves a desire for procreation? The Bible never says that all people need to get married. It never says that all married people are morally obligated to have kids. It also certainly never says that couples should have as many kids as possible or as many as they can financial support, contrary to what quiverfull theology proposes! But the Bible does say that as long as couples are not committing a sinful act, they are free to express their sexuality in mutuality (1 Corinthians 7:3-5). Thus, it follows logically and within the Biblical system that sex is not exclusively for the production of children. Spouses need not feel pressured to create a legion of children, much less any children at all.
It isn't difficult to recognizes that logic and the Bible refute the claim that all morally legitimate sex involves some procreative aspect. This is a hollow, potentially destructive tradition--people might try to have as many kids as possible or rarely have sex if they truly believe it! Christian spouses who believe it can walk away from it with full confidence in its irrationality and unbiblicality, focusing their attention on the broader and more universal functions of sexuality.
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Masturbation And Self-Knowledge
Men and women (denial or dismissal of female sexuality greatly irritates me [1]) don't have to wait until marriage to discover the details about how their bodies function, and I don't mean via studying anatomy and physiology. Masturbation provides a form of immediate, simple education about one's genital functions. Better yet, it offers the opportunity to practice handling physical arousal and experiencing sexual pleasure, all of which can yield knowledge that is beneficial to learn ahead of time, before marriage.
First-time marital sex can be very awkward for some Christians, and masturbation can lessen or avert that awkwardness by enabling couples to already know the workings of their bodies and what things bring them pleasure. Even if this only helps them decide what foreplay they prefer by teaching themselves how they like to be touched, it still isn't a useless form of self-education, as they can discover which actions result in which sensations.
If a Christian doesn't view sex properly in a moral, intellectual, and metaphysical sense, he or she will not necessarily go from sexual awkwardness to comfort with sexuality upon marrying. Of course, there is no Biblical or logical basis for viewing sexuality as awkward in the first place, but feelings of awkwardness could definitely creep into marital sex if neither partner knows what they're doing or has any idea of what makes them feel good. But masturbation is not just a way to learn about how one's genitals function, but is also a way to express or develop a general comfort with one's body and sexuality. Someone who masturbates may have a far more relaxed attitude towards his or her body and its functions than someone who does not. Bringing this knowledge, comfort, and relaxed spirit into a marriage could prove very helpful for some.
Besides, after all, if masturbation is not sinful [2], then there is no legitimate objection that can be raised against it as long as it is properly used. Pointing out the usefulness it can offer in preparing for sexual interaction with a spouse and in becoming more comfortable and familiar with one's own body and its sexual functions can be a valuable thing. It could really help some people in these two areas.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/myths-about-masturbation.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/sexual-self-stimulation.html
First-time marital sex can be very awkward for some Christians, and masturbation can lessen or avert that awkwardness by enabling couples to already know the workings of their bodies and what things bring them pleasure. Even if this only helps them decide what foreplay they prefer by teaching themselves how they like to be touched, it still isn't a useless form of self-education, as they can discover which actions result in which sensations.
If a Christian doesn't view sex properly in a moral, intellectual, and metaphysical sense, he or she will not necessarily go from sexual awkwardness to comfort with sexuality upon marrying. Of course, there is no Biblical or logical basis for viewing sexuality as awkward in the first place, but feelings of awkwardness could definitely creep into marital sex if neither partner knows what they're doing or has any idea of what makes them feel good. But masturbation is not just a way to learn about how one's genitals function, but is also a way to express or develop a general comfort with one's body and sexuality. Someone who masturbates may have a far more relaxed attitude towards his or her body and its functions than someone who does not. Bringing this knowledge, comfort, and relaxed spirit into a marriage could prove very helpful for some.
Besides, after all, if masturbation is not sinful [2], then there is no legitimate objection that can be raised against it as long as it is properly used. Pointing out the usefulness it can offer in preparing for sexual interaction with a spouse and in becoming more comfortable and familiar with one's own body and its sexual functions can be a valuable thing. It could really help some people in these two areas.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/myths-about-masturbation.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/sexual-self-stimulation.html
The Myths About Moral Agreement
The myths people believe about deep moral agreement across all time and culture are tired myths that rest on fallacies and an ignorance of human societies. Have cultures always agreed on basic moral ideas? Not really, when one examines them from a closer standpoint than a superficial distance. While they often agree on basic concepts (or at least pretend to), like that civilizations should be just, all claims of moral similarities fall apart at a more specific level.
I'll use an example of this. Romans and modern Americans might all agree that societies should be "just", but the Romans might call their heinously grotesque tortures for non-citizens just, while Americans might insist that prison is just. Does a murderer deserve to be imprisoned or crucified? Neither, according to the Bible; the Bible prescribes a different punishment for men and women who murder. Cultures may agree on a superficial level that certain values, like "justice" and "love", are good, but do they agree at all when one probes beyond empty words? Not at all! Simply compare the wide differences between the legal systems of different countries and eras of time and this can be easily seen.
What about being loving? Do all people agree on what that means? To use a contemporary example from within the same society, liberal and conservative Christians might strongly dispute what it means to love other people, with the former saying that we should be accepting of homosexual marriages and the latter saying that we should love people by telling them the truth about how homosexual behaviors (not the orientation) are sinful. Can they both be right? No, and it is clear that they don't agree. They do not have the same ideas about love beyond a vague outline that happens to overlap, but when one looks inside the outline, differences can be found in abundance.
Even within the same culture one can find a plethora of divergent moral claims. Hell, one can find a great disparity in moral beliefs even in the same household and family! One of the only specific actions I can think of that every society I've read about condemned is murder of upper-class males. When one probes beyond superficial similarities in the lip service groups pay to moral concepts (they are often not loyal to moral truths but their preferences and socially-inherited ideas of what morality is), one sees that they almost never agree on the specifics of how these concepts are to be applied, and the specifics are where moral systems often fall apart. These systems can't all be correct, but they can all be incorrect. Different societies have had wildly differing views on sexuality, torture, racism, sexism, and so on. Societies that prohibit female leadership and societies that codify gender equality aren't similar. Societies that discriminate against foreigners do not have the same moral beliefs as those who do not discriminate on such grounds. Societies that reserve capital punishment for a handful of crimes believe very different things about morality and justice than societies that enact capital punishment for far more crimes do. Societies that practice pedophilia in the name of philosophy and truth (the ancient Greeks) do not have the same moral beliefs as societies that oppose pedophilia (modern America).
Here a very important point must be made. Even if everyone on Earth agreed not just about the generalities of morality, such as that an obligation to be loving or just exists, but also in the specifics, it does not follow in any way that their moral beliefs are correct, much less that morality even exists. If everyone agreed that infanticide or crucifixion or patriarchal subjugation of women is good, the agreement means only that they have a consensus and nothing more; they are not correct simply because they agree and they can all be wrong together. The same is true even if they all agree that something like murder is wrong. It is only an appeal to popularity, a fallacy, that is believed when one holds the opposite conclusion about agreement. Besides, conscience is purely subjective and not a reliable indicator of moral truths in any way [1] to begin with.
The myths of moral agreement are twofold: that everyone actually agrees about what actions and attitudes are right and wrong, and that agreement somehow means that the moral belief at the center of that agreement must be correct. It screams of irrationality when moral objectivists argue that some moral claim can be known to be true on the basis of some alleged cross-cultural agreement. First of all, cultures agree on far less than is usually admitted. Second of all, agreement has no significance whatsoever and only proves that people agree, not that they are correct in their consensus. Moral objectivists who think murder is evil would never let someone get away with arguing that murder isn't evil if everyone agrees it isn't, and I won't let moral objectivists get away with arguing the opposite conclusion using the same fallacies.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
I'll use an example of this. Romans and modern Americans might all agree that societies should be "just", but the Romans might call their heinously grotesque tortures for non-citizens just, while Americans might insist that prison is just. Does a murderer deserve to be imprisoned or crucified? Neither, according to the Bible; the Bible prescribes a different punishment for men and women who murder. Cultures may agree on a superficial level that certain values, like "justice" and "love", are good, but do they agree at all when one probes beyond empty words? Not at all! Simply compare the wide differences between the legal systems of different countries and eras of time and this can be easily seen.
What about being loving? Do all people agree on what that means? To use a contemporary example from within the same society, liberal and conservative Christians might strongly dispute what it means to love other people, with the former saying that we should be accepting of homosexual marriages and the latter saying that we should love people by telling them the truth about how homosexual behaviors (not the orientation) are sinful. Can they both be right? No, and it is clear that they don't agree. They do not have the same ideas about love beyond a vague outline that happens to overlap, but when one looks inside the outline, differences can be found in abundance.
Even within the same culture one can find a plethora of divergent moral claims. Hell, one can find a great disparity in moral beliefs even in the same household and family! One of the only specific actions I can think of that every society I've read about condemned is murder of upper-class males. When one probes beyond superficial similarities in the lip service groups pay to moral concepts (they are often not loyal to moral truths but their preferences and socially-inherited ideas of what morality is), one sees that they almost never agree on the specifics of how these concepts are to be applied, and the specifics are where moral systems often fall apart. These systems can't all be correct, but they can all be incorrect. Different societies have had wildly differing views on sexuality, torture, racism, sexism, and so on. Societies that prohibit female leadership and societies that codify gender equality aren't similar. Societies that discriminate against foreigners do not have the same moral beliefs as those who do not discriminate on such grounds. Societies that reserve capital punishment for a handful of crimes believe very different things about morality and justice than societies that enact capital punishment for far more crimes do. Societies that practice pedophilia in the name of philosophy and truth (the ancient Greeks) do not have the same moral beliefs as societies that oppose pedophilia (modern America).
Here a very important point must be made. Even if everyone on Earth agreed not just about the generalities of morality, such as that an obligation to be loving or just exists, but also in the specifics, it does not follow in any way that their moral beliefs are correct, much less that morality even exists. If everyone agreed that infanticide or crucifixion or patriarchal subjugation of women is good, the agreement means only that they have a consensus and nothing more; they are not correct simply because they agree and they can all be wrong together. The same is true even if they all agree that something like murder is wrong. It is only an appeal to popularity, a fallacy, that is believed when one holds the opposite conclusion about agreement. Besides, conscience is purely subjective and not a reliable indicator of moral truths in any way [1] to begin with.
The myths of moral agreement are twofold: that everyone actually agrees about what actions and attitudes are right and wrong, and that agreement somehow means that the moral belief at the center of that agreement must be correct. It screams of irrationality when moral objectivists argue that some moral claim can be known to be true on the basis of some alleged cross-cultural agreement. First of all, cultures agree on far less than is usually admitted. Second of all, agreement has no significance whatsoever and only proves that people agree, not that they are correct in their consensus. Moral objectivists who think murder is evil would never let someone get away with arguing that murder isn't evil if everyone agrees it isn't, and I won't let moral objectivists get away with arguing the opposite conclusion using the same fallacies.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
Monday, November 27, 2017
The Circular Reasoning Of Platonism
Have you ever talked with someone who thinks that Platonism is rational? For a rationalist, it's quite an irritating experience! Platonism may have been extremely popular within a certain geographical area for a certain period of time, but it can't withstand a logical examination. The HBU honors college is unfortunately quite fond of Plato and Platonism in general, and thus out of frustration I want to explain why it is impossible to rationally establish values on a Platonist worldview. I already explained this briefly in another post [1], but here I will elaborate more on why Platonism is irrational.
Platonism is the stance that abstract objects, like justice, goodness, beauty, and so on, exist outside of the material realm that the senses perceive and outside of human consciousness. What it gets right is that moral obligations cannot be material things and thus, if they exist, they must exist in a nonphysical way. A moral obligation is not a tangible, physical thing. But the forms of this worldview cannot be argued for apart from fallacies. In this post, when I refer to Platonism I do not mean any kind of modern mathematical Platonism, but the broad system of forms and values in the philosophy of Plato.
In Platonism, one form has special significance: the form of the "good", which provides illumination of the other forms. Apart from the good, the other forms could not exist, and humans could not have knowledge of any of them. The good grounds and reveals moral truths. It enables human understanding in the way that the sun allows humans to see other objects in the external world. As I said, the good and the other forms are not perceived by the bodily senses; they are allegedly grasped by reason and experience. This experience includes the experience of talking with others (hence the dialogues of Plato).
But Platonism reeks of epistemological errors. Platonist moral epistemology hinges on whether or not humans can know if the forms exist and know what they are like. Since one can only know of morality through the forms, one would have to first demonstrate that the forms exist. The specifics here are crucial. If someone cannot perceive the forms with his or her senses, and the forms (at least the ones pertaining to values) do not exist by pure logical necessity, then there is no reason to believe that they exist in the first place, and thus no reason to believe in Platonist morality. No amount of introspection or conversation with others enables someone to discover the existence of something that cannot be proven to exist logically. Likewise, having a feeling of conscience does not in any way establish the existence of objective morality or any forms. No feeling, idea, or conversation can prove that these forms exist at all.
Platonists must assume their conclusions about morality and the forms before they argue, for they land in an overt example of circular reasoning whether they start by appealing to either their moral beliefs or to the forms; they cannot actually establish either the forms or their morality in order to argue for the other in the first place. How do they know their values and moral intuitions and beliefs are correct? Because of the forms. How do they know that the forms exist? Because of their moral intuitions and experiences. There is no verifiable starting point here, yet logic requires one. A conclusion without a proper logical proof is a shot in the dark. If it turns out to be correct, it is correct only by accident.
Platonism makes the mistake of teaching that humans can know moral truths, truths about how things should be and not just how they are, simply through reason and reflection and experience, when logic, by itself, can tell people nothing except how reality is--or how reality is if a certain starting premise or set of premises is true. Logic does not reveal that Platonic forms exist by necessity. What it does reveal is that Platonism is riddled with fallacies. Divine revelation is required for moral knowledge to be obtained, for without a deity there can be no anchor for values and without divine revelation no one could ever know objective morality [2], just his or her moral preferences or feelings.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-epistemic-problem-of-moral-platonism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
Platonism is the stance that abstract objects, like justice, goodness, beauty, and so on, exist outside of the material realm that the senses perceive and outside of human consciousness. What it gets right is that moral obligations cannot be material things and thus, if they exist, they must exist in a nonphysical way. A moral obligation is not a tangible, physical thing. But the forms of this worldview cannot be argued for apart from fallacies. In this post, when I refer to Platonism I do not mean any kind of modern mathematical Platonism, but the broad system of forms and values in the philosophy of Plato.
In Platonism, one form has special significance: the form of the "good", which provides illumination of the other forms. Apart from the good, the other forms could not exist, and humans could not have knowledge of any of them. The good grounds and reveals moral truths. It enables human understanding in the way that the sun allows humans to see other objects in the external world. As I said, the good and the other forms are not perceived by the bodily senses; they are allegedly grasped by reason and experience. This experience includes the experience of talking with others (hence the dialogues of Plato).
But Platonism reeks of epistemological errors. Platonist moral epistemology hinges on whether or not humans can know if the forms exist and know what they are like. Since one can only know of morality through the forms, one would have to first demonstrate that the forms exist. The specifics here are crucial. If someone cannot perceive the forms with his or her senses, and the forms (at least the ones pertaining to values) do not exist by pure logical necessity, then there is no reason to believe that they exist in the first place, and thus no reason to believe in Platonist morality. No amount of introspection or conversation with others enables someone to discover the existence of something that cannot be proven to exist logically. Likewise, having a feeling of conscience does not in any way establish the existence of objective morality or any forms. No feeling, idea, or conversation can prove that these forms exist at all.
Platonists must assume their conclusions about morality and the forms before they argue, for they land in an overt example of circular reasoning whether they start by appealing to either their moral beliefs or to the forms; they cannot actually establish either the forms or their morality in order to argue for the other in the first place. How do they know their values and moral intuitions and beliefs are correct? Because of the forms. How do they know that the forms exist? Because of their moral intuitions and experiences. There is no verifiable starting point here, yet logic requires one. A conclusion without a proper logical proof is a shot in the dark. If it turns out to be correct, it is correct only by accident.
Platonism makes the mistake of teaching that humans can know moral truths, truths about how things should be and not just how they are, simply through reason and reflection and experience, when logic, by itself, can tell people nothing except how reality is--or how reality is if a certain starting premise or set of premises is true. Logic does not reveal that Platonic forms exist by necessity. What it does reveal is that Platonism is riddled with fallacies. Divine revelation is required for moral knowledge to be obtained, for without a deity there can be no anchor for values and without divine revelation no one could ever know objective morality [2], just his or her moral preferences or feelings.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-epistemic-problem-of-moral-platonism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
Complementarianism Is Inherently Sexist
I strongly suspect that if I were to endorse the fallacious and unbiblical "separate but equal" nonsense with regards to race, complementarians in my life would rightly recognize this as inescapably racist. Calling whites or blacks (to name just two "races") "separate but equal" would be, in effect, to make a claim of cognitive dissonance, a claim where each aspect contradicts the other. Segregating races is inherently racist no matter how firmly someone insists the groups are ultimately "equal". It is discrimination according to skin color or ethnic background. That it is racist is an immutable logical fact. But if I were to say that men and women are "separate but equal" in abilities and roles, and that they should be kept "separate but equal" in some social functions or occupations, I doubt I'd get the same response. Instead of correctly calling this sexist, they'd probably say that this is God's design.
If "separate but equal" is racist, then it is also sexist. And it is racist. Thus it follows by logical necessity that it is sexist as well. One of the two has largely fallen out of favor in evangelical American churches. But depending on where you are, the other idea is still very much alive, kept popular by ignorance, fallacies, pseudoscience, and assumptions. Truth remains true even when people don't accept or understand it. It doesn't matter what people believe. It doesn't matter what they've been taught or what they prefer.
Complementarianism is inherently sexist for the same reasons "separate but equal" is inherently racist. Some manifestations of complementarianism are more sexist and irrational than others, make no mistake. Light complementarianism dabbles in benevolent sexism [1], which is still illogical, contra-Biblical, sinful, and sexist, but heavier complementarianism holds women hostage to male ownership and the arbitrary whims of irrational men who are in power in a family or church. But a woman is a full person, with her own autonomy, moral agency, and intellect, wholly apart from a father, brother, boyfriend, or husband. She does not need male supervision or male validation.
Staunch complementarians, hoping to characterize complementarianism as a benevolent power imbalance, may say that Ephesians 5, for instance, actually is not sexist because it commands husbands to love their wives. First of all, Ephesians 5 does not establish that the Bible teaches complementarianism; this doesn't follow from the text and the chapter context actually affirms egalitarianism [2]. Second of all, a unilateral obligation to submit and a unilateral obligation to love are still sexist, even if only in the sense of "benevolent" sexism. That complementarianism is sexist in one way or another is logically inescapable.
The creation narrative doesn't teach complementarianism [3]. The Bible constantly affirms the equality and freedom of both men and women in a wide variety of ways [4], starting with its declaration that all men and women alike are made in God's image and are to corule and costeward the planet together (Genesis 1:26-28) and then going onward to Mosaic Law [4] and beyond. Complementarianism is sexist, and sexism is sinful, as it innately contradicts the metaphysical equality of men and women as God's image bearers and contradicts the actual moral teachings of the Bible. This is a very crucial metaphysical and moral issue that demands the attention of all rationalists and Christians.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/benevolent-sexism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-error-of-complementarian-arguments.html
[4]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/gender-equality-in-parental-authority.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/sexuality-in-marriage-part-1-mutuality.html
[4]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/bible-on-gender-equality.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-bible-never.html
 |
| "Separate but equal" is a horrendously unbiblical concept whether applied to race or gender. |
If "separate but equal" is racist, then it is also sexist. And it is racist. Thus it follows by logical necessity that it is sexist as well. One of the two has largely fallen out of favor in evangelical American churches. But depending on where you are, the other idea is still very much alive, kept popular by ignorance, fallacies, pseudoscience, and assumptions. Truth remains true even when people don't accept or understand it. It doesn't matter what people believe. It doesn't matter what they've been taught or what they prefer.
Complementarianism is inherently sexist for the same reasons "separate but equal" is inherently racist. Some manifestations of complementarianism are more sexist and irrational than others, make no mistake. Light complementarianism dabbles in benevolent sexism [1], which is still illogical, contra-Biblical, sinful, and sexist, but heavier complementarianism holds women hostage to male ownership and the arbitrary whims of irrational men who are in power in a family or church. But a woman is a full person, with her own autonomy, moral agency, and intellect, wholly apart from a father, brother, boyfriend, or husband. She does not need male supervision or male validation.
 |
| No person, whether a man or woman or a member of any race, has special value just because he or she was born with certain genitalia or a certain skin color. |
Staunch complementarians, hoping to characterize complementarianism as a benevolent power imbalance, may say that Ephesians 5, for instance, actually is not sexist because it commands husbands to love their wives. First of all, Ephesians 5 does not establish that the Bible teaches complementarianism; this doesn't follow from the text and the chapter context actually affirms egalitarianism [2]. Second of all, a unilateral obligation to submit and a unilateral obligation to love are still sexist, even if only in the sense of "benevolent" sexism. That complementarianism is sexist in one way or another is logically inescapable.
The creation narrative doesn't teach complementarianism [3]. The Bible constantly affirms the equality and freedom of both men and women in a wide variety of ways [4], starting with its declaration that all men and women alike are made in God's image and are to corule and costeward the planet together (Genesis 1:26-28) and then going onward to Mosaic Law [4] and beyond. Complementarianism is sexist, and sexism is sinful, as it innately contradicts the metaphysical equality of men and women as God's image bearers and contradicts the actual moral teachings of the Bible. This is a very crucial metaphysical and moral issue that demands the attention of all rationalists and Christians.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/benevolent-sexism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-error-of-complementarian-arguments.html
[4]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/gender-equality-in-parental-authority.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/sexuality-in-marriage-part-1-mutuality.html
[4]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/bible-on-gender-equality.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-bible-never.html
Sunday, November 26, 2017
Examining The Meditations (Part 9): Disparity Between Ideas And Objects
Entries in this series:
Examining The Meditations (Part 1): The Religion Of Descartes --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-1-religion.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 2): Cartesian Doubt --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-2-cartesian.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 3): The Ramifications Of Skepticism --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-3-descent.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 4): Illusion And Reality --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-4-illusion.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 5): "I am, I exist" --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-5-i-am-i.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 6): Mind-Body Dualism --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 7): Classifying Thoughts --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-7.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 8): The Natural Light --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-8-natural.html
I left off in this series some time ago in part eight (sorry!), where I explained how Descartes discovers that it does not logically follow from him having an idea of a particular external object that such an object exists as anything more than a mental representation, because all that logically proves is that he has the idea of that object in his mind. I will leap right back in, so read the previous post(s) if you need to see how Descartes got to this point in his book Meditations on First Philosophy.
He continues onward to explain how even if something does exist outside of him, his senses can distort certain information about it, like its appearance or size:
"And finally, even if these ideas did come from things other than myself, it would not follow that they must resemble those things. Indeed, I think I have often discovered a great disparity <between an object and its idea> in many cases. For example, there are two different ideas of the sun which I find within me. One of them, which is acquired as it were from the senses and which is a prime example of an idea which I reckon to come from an external source, makes the sun appear very small. The other idea is based on astronomical reasoning, that is, it is derived from certain notions which are innate in me (or else it is constructed by me in some other way), and this idea shows the sun to be several times larger than the earth." (27)
Descartes understands that even if external objects do exist, his senses might present them in such a way that they are actually quite different than they are perceived to be in some regards. In this case he is not elaborating about the possibility that the sun does not exist even though he perceives it to. In the last entry in this series I already went over how he recognizes that just perceiving an object doesn't mean it exists by logical necessity. Here, instead, he means that even if the sun does exist, it doesn't follow from it seeming to be a certain way that it is as it seems to be. In the example of the sun, he sees a small dot in the daylight sky that he calls the sun. The sun is a star, a celestial body that provides light. Scientific examination leads him to the conclusion that in actuality this sun he observes as small is multiple times larger than the earth he resides on.
Again, the point here is not that the sun does not exist (although Descartes has not proven that any external objects exist yet, and later fails to do so in a sound and valid manner), but that available sensory data can seem to contradict the notions that reason and empirical investigation point towards. The sun cannot be both tiny by comparison to him and huge by comparison to the earth all at once. I use reference points to judge size here because nothing is "big" or "small" in itself, just as nothing is "young" or "old" in itself; something is large or small only by comparison to something else. Terms of size have no objective significance except in comparisons. Descartes admits that only one of these two models in his mind can represent the actual sun:
"Obviously both these ideas cannot resemble the sun which exists outside me; and reason persuades me that the idea which seems to have emanated most directly from the sun itself has in fact no resemblance to it at all." (27)
"All these considerations are enough to establish that it is not reliable judgment but merely some blind impulse that has made me believe up till now that there exist things distinct from myself which transmit to me ideas or images of themselves through the sense organs or in some other way." (27)
In part six of this series I showed how I know for sure that I have a physical body that my immaterial consciousness inhabits. Just as in this series I have demonstrated how I know that my memory is reliable and that I have a body, I will now explain how I know that there is an external world, even if it doesn't resemble how it perceive it. I will summarize how I know I have a body here because it is very relevant, but go read part six again if you need to see a deeper explanation. In short, I cannot experience any physical sensations (touch, temperature, pain, and so on) unless I have some sort of physical body with which I can experience them, as a mind is immaterial and by itself could not experience such things. Only a physical body could receive physical sensations.
With the fact that I have a body established, it next becomes logically evident that my body houses the senses which make me aware of its existence. My senses also report physical sensations that originate outside of my body. I do not know if I am perceiving the world outside of my body as it truly is, but I know with absolute certainty that I am contacting something external to me (in this case by "external to me" I mean outside of both my mind and my body). This much I can know through logic and experience. I may expand this abridged explanation later in this series, but for now, it will suffice.
At this point, Descartes thinks of another possible pathway to verifying the existence of external objects:
"But it now occurs to me that there is another way of investigating whether some of the things of which I possess ideas exist outside of me." (27)
Descartes moves to an analysis of causality in the next pages. Approaching his argument for God's existence, he hopes to verify the reliability of his senses by showing that God is not a deceiver. I hope to continue this series again before the year's end!
Examining The Meditations (Part 1): The Religion Of Descartes --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-1-religion.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 2): Cartesian Doubt --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-2-cartesian.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 3): The Ramifications Of Skepticism --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-3-descent.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 4): Illusion And Reality --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-4-illusion.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 5): "I am, I exist" --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-5-i-am-i.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 6): Mind-Body Dualism --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 7): Classifying Thoughts --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-7.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 8): The Natural Light --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-8-natural.html
I left off in this series some time ago in part eight (sorry!), where I explained how Descartes discovers that it does not logically follow from him having an idea of a particular external object that such an object exists as anything more than a mental representation, because all that logically proves is that he has the idea of that object in his mind. I will leap right back in, so read the previous post(s) if you need to see how Descartes got to this point in his book Meditations on First Philosophy.
He continues onward to explain how even if something does exist outside of him, his senses can distort certain information about it, like its appearance or size:
"And finally, even if these ideas did come from things other than myself, it would not follow that they must resemble those things. Indeed, I think I have often discovered a great disparity <between an object and its idea> in many cases. For example, there are two different ideas of the sun which I find within me. One of them, which is acquired as it were from the senses and which is a prime example of an idea which I reckon to come from an external source, makes the sun appear very small. The other idea is based on astronomical reasoning, that is, it is derived from certain notions which are innate in me (or else it is constructed by me in some other way), and this idea shows the sun to be several times larger than the earth." (27)
Descartes understands that even if external objects do exist, his senses might present them in such a way that they are actually quite different than they are perceived to be in some regards. In this case he is not elaborating about the possibility that the sun does not exist even though he perceives it to. In the last entry in this series I already went over how he recognizes that just perceiving an object doesn't mean it exists by logical necessity. Here, instead, he means that even if the sun does exist, it doesn't follow from it seeming to be a certain way that it is as it seems to be. In the example of the sun, he sees a small dot in the daylight sky that he calls the sun. The sun is a star, a celestial body that provides light. Scientific examination leads him to the conclusion that in actuality this sun he observes as small is multiple times larger than the earth he resides on.
Again, the point here is not that the sun does not exist (although Descartes has not proven that any external objects exist yet, and later fails to do so in a sound and valid manner), but that available sensory data can seem to contradict the notions that reason and empirical investigation point towards. The sun cannot be both tiny by comparison to him and huge by comparison to the earth all at once. I use reference points to judge size here because nothing is "big" or "small" in itself, just as nothing is "young" or "old" in itself; something is large or small only by comparison to something else. Terms of size have no objective significance except in comparisons. Descartes admits that only one of these two models in his mind can represent the actual sun:
"Obviously both these ideas cannot resemble the sun which exists outside me; and reason persuades me that the idea which seems to have emanated most directly from the sun itself has in fact no resemblance to it at all." (27)
 |
| The sun can appear to be very small by comparison to other things we see, yet scientific investigation has yielded the idea that the sun is much larger than the earth. Descartes realizes that both cannot be true. And if the latter is true, then the "idea" of the sun provided directly by his senses is somewhat misleading. |
"All these considerations are enough to establish that it is not reliable judgment but merely some blind impulse that has made me believe up till now that there exist things distinct from myself which transmit to me ideas or images of themselves through the sense organs or in some other way." (27)
In part six of this series I showed how I know for sure that I have a physical body that my immaterial consciousness inhabits. Just as in this series I have demonstrated how I know that my memory is reliable and that I have a body, I will now explain how I know that there is an external world, even if it doesn't resemble how it perceive it. I will summarize how I know I have a body here because it is very relevant, but go read part six again if you need to see a deeper explanation. In short, I cannot experience any physical sensations (touch, temperature, pain, and so on) unless I have some sort of physical body with which I can experience them, as a mind is immaterial and by itself could not experience such things. Only a physical body could receive physical sensations.
With the fact that I have a body established, it next becomes logically evident that my body houses the senses which make me aware of its existence. My senses also report physical sensations that originate outside of my body. I do not know if I am perceiving the world outside of my body as it truly is, but I know with absolute certainty that I am contacting something external to me (in this case by "external to me" I mean outside of both my mind and my body). This much I can know through logic and experience. I may expand this abridged explanation later in this series, but for now, it will suffice.
At this point, Descartes thinks of another possible pathway to verifying the existence of external objects:
"But it now occurs to me that there is another way of investigating whether some of the things of which I possess ideas exist outside of me." (27)
Descartes moves to an analysis of causality in the next pages. Approaching his argument for God's existence, he hopes to verify the reliability of his senses by showing that God is not a deceiver. I hope to continue this series again before the year's end!
Dating: "Opposites Attract"?
In dating, sometimes people offer advice that really isn't as brilliant as they mistakenly think it is. The cliche phrase "opposites attract" is in this category. My parents insisted to me earlier in my life that this is indeed inevitably the case. Before I show how dangerous this belief can be, I'm going to prove them wrong. But make no mistake: those who want a healthy relationship, in dating and in eventual marriage, need to seriously consider if pairing with an "opposite" is really the most intelligent thing to do. It isn't inherently destructive! It still isn't inherently natural or intrinsically conducive to a strong relationship.
Not everyone is attracted to opposites. I know for sure that I sure as hell am not, at least in a great many areas! For instance, I, a big extrovert, would be totally fine with an introvert girlfriend or spouse--depending on how introverted she is--but I certainly prefer an extrovert like myself. I definitely could not tolerate someone with a different epistemology or metaphysic, though, but I recognize this is a difference in worldview and not strictly in personality. When people assert that "opposites attract", as if opposites in personalities are inherently attracted to each other, they commit the fallacy of composition. Some people may be attracted to a different personality (introverts to extroverts or vice versa, for example). Some may not be. The fallacy here lies in extrapolating from a certain group of people to people in general. But it can be very relationally dangerous when two true opposites enter a relationship of this type.
Here are some ways that opposites could end up being terrible for each other in the long-term relationship that Christians should be searching for in their dating life. A huge extrovert and a major introvert could make a horrible pair. One would almost always want social stimulation and conversation, and the other would almost always need isolation to energize. The two could end up draining each other very quickly. Likewise, an asexual and someone with a high sex drive could prove a terrible match. Unless each partner understands the other, this difference in sexual natures could frustrate one or both very quickly. Opposite personalities can easily lead to a lot of strife, misunderstanding, anger, and general unease. There are definitely ways to navigate each of these differences, yet it is still very, for lack of a better word, stupid to charge into a romantic or marital relationship with someone who truly is an "opposite". One must think about how these differences will affect the everyday interactions of dating partners or spouses. I have to think about these things since I am a huge extrovert and an asexual myself!
Of course, as far as ideological differences are concerned, it is rarely not entirely pointless to knowingly date someone who doesn't share one's values (moral beliefs), metaphysics (for instance, theism or atheism), or major worldview goals. Besides--wherever disagreement appears, someone is correct and someone is incorrect or neither party is correct. Someone who isn't interested in amending his or her beliefs according to reality is not someone a committed Christian should waste time with. Time is a fleeting resource, and people who aren't in the right place or headed in the right direction are not necessarily worth investing time and energy into, and Christians are told to only marry other Christians anyway (1 Corinthians 7:39). A Christian should not marry someone who does not love God and who is not committed to him, and thus there is no legitimate reason for a Christian to have a dating relationship with a known non-Christian.
Beware the advice of others. Whether the advice is about dating or something else, remember that most people probably aren't critical thinkers and are likely just, when it gets down to it, regurgitating whatever arbitrary advice was given to them by their parents or social structures. Mistakes in dating or marriage can prove very costly. If you want a strong relationship, don't just assume that the advice many people will offer is true. Considering how ignorant a lot of people are, it may very well be shit. Be careful about selecting the kind of person you enter into a relationship of this type with (if you seek such a relationship at all).
Not everyone is attracted to opposites. I know for sure that I sure as hell am not, at least in a great many areas! For instance, I, a big extrovert, would be totally fine with an introvert girlfriend or spouse--depending on how introverted she is--but I certainly prefer an extrovert like myself. I definitely could not tolerate someone with a different epistemology or metaphysic, though, but I recognize this is a difference in worldview and not strictly in personality. When people assert that "opposites attract", as if opposites in personalities are inherently attracted to each other, they commit the fallacy of composition. Some people may be attracted to a different personality (introverts to extroverts or vice versa, for example). Some may not be. The fallacy here lies in extrapolating from a certain group of people to people in general. But it can be very relationally dangerous when two true opposites enter a relationship of this type.
Here are some ways that opposites could end up being terrible for each other in the long-term relationship that Christians should be searching for in their dating life. A huge extrovert and a major introvert could make a horrible pair. One would almost always want social stimulation and conversation, and the other would almost always need isolation to energize. The two could end up draining each other very quickly. Likewise, an asexual and someone with a high sex drive could prove a terrible match. Unless each partner understands the other, this difference in sexual natures could frustrate one or both very quickly. Opposite personalities can easily lead to a lot of strife, misunderstanding, anger, and general unease. There are definitely ways to navigate each of these differences, yet it is still very, for lack of a better word, stupid to charge into a romantic or marital relationship with someone who truly is an "opposite". One must think about how these differences will affect the everyday interactions of dating partners or spouses. I have to think about these things since I am a huge extrovert and an asexual myself!
Of course, as far as ideological differences are concerned, it is rarely not entirely pointless to knowingly date someone who doesn't share one's values (moral beliefs), metaphysics (for instance, theism or atheism), or major worldview goals. Besides--wherever disagreement appears, someone is correct and someone is incorrect or neither party is correct. Someone who isn't interested in amending his or her beliefs according to reality is not someone a committed Christian should waste time with. Time is a fleeting resource, and people who aren't in the right place or headed in the right direction are not necessarily worth investing time and energy into, and Christians are told to only marry other Christians anyway (1 Corinthians 7:39). A Christian should not marry someone who does not love God and who is not committed to him, and thus there is no legitimate reason for a Christian to have a dating relationship with a known non-Christian.
Beware the advice of others. Whether the advice is about dating or something else, remember that most people probably aren't critical thinkers and are likely just, when it gets down to it, regurgitating whatever arbitrary advice was given to them by their parents or social structures. Mistakes in dating or marriage can prove very costly. If you want a strong relationship, don't just assume that the advice many people will offer is true. Considering how ignorant a lot of people are, it may very well be shit. Be careful about selecting the kind of person you enter into a relationship of this type with (if you seek such a relationship at all).
Saturday, November 25, 2017
Profanity And Children
"I don't want my kids to hear that!" Profanity is not sinful [1], but that doesn't stop some Christians from objecting to it. One of the things I hear used against it often is the claim that children shouldn't hear it. Or that some parent doesn't want his or her kids to hear or use it. Let's examine this logically, to see if it even is possible for this, of all things, to be a legitimate argument against profanity. This is a brief post. It doesn't take long to realize that this is a stupid argument!
If something is not intrinsically wrong in itself, then how can it be wrong for children to be exposed to it or do it? It can't be! Example? If saying the word "drat" is not wrong, then it isn't wrong if a two year old utters it in frustration or anger. Same with any other word, whether one that starts with an s, a d, or even an f. I think many people I've known would easily admit the former (about "drat") while struggling to affirm the latter. But if a word is not wrong, then it simply is not wrong--regardless of who says it. And, as explained in the posts linked to in the footnote (I have addressed this particular point elsewhere), profanity is not sinful on the Christian worldview. Even if this were not the case, any line drawn as to why a word like "drat" or "darn" is alright but a word like "damn" isn't is purely arbitrary and cannot be drawn without a multitude of fallacies.
At the very least, telling someone that children shouldn't hear expletives because they are allegedly "sinful" is to tell someone, whether the speaker is aware of it or not, that adults should preserve an illogical cultural tradition of viewing certain words as inherently "bad", and that adults should keep an irrational and extra-Biblical tradition intact, all for the sake of the fragile feelings of legalists. This isn't really that difficult to understand when one thinks rationally. Many people, Christians included, simply accept the morality they've been taught and have yet to challenge the inadequacies of it on an epistemological and metaphysical or Biblical level. But it does not have to be this way!
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/profanity-profane-or-permissible.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-fallacies-of-anti-profanity.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-delusion-of-inverse-morality.html
If something is not intrinsically wrong in itself, then how can it be wrong for children to be exposed to it or do it? It can't be! Example? If saying the word "drat" is not wrong, then it isn't wrong if a two year old utters it in frustration or anger. Same with any other word, whether one that starts with an s, a d, or even an f. I think many people I've known would easily admit the former (about "drat") while struggling to affirm the latter. But if a word is not wrong, then it simply is not wrong--regardless of who says it. And, as explained in the posts linked to in the footnote (I have addressed this particular point elsewhere), profanity is not sinful on the Christian worldview. Even if this were not the case, any line drawn as to why a word like "drat" or "darn" is alright but a word like "damn" isn't is purely arbitrary and cannot be drawn without a multitude of fallacies.
At the very least, telling someone that children shouldn't hear expletives because they are allegedly "sinful" is to tell someone, whether the speaker is aware of it or not, that adults should preserve an illogical cultural tradition of viewing certain words as inherently "bad", and that adults should keep an irrational and extra-Biblical tradition intact, all for the sake of the fragile feelings of legalists. This isn't really that difficult to understand when one thinks rationally. Many people, Christians included, simply accept the morality they've been taught and have yet to challenge the inadequacies of it on an epistemological and metaphysical or Biblical level. But it does not have to be this way!
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/profanity-profane-or-permissible.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-fallacies-of-anti-profanity.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-delusion-of-inverse-morality.html
Personal Frustrations
I'm irate. I'm very pissed off. Yet again, today I've dealt with false claims about my Christianity, among other things, that misrepresent me and my worldview. With no more useful outlet for my frustration available to me now, I decided to just vent here about the stupidity of a claim I've heard some people in my life make recently.
There are those who doubt my status as a Christian simply because I don't believe on emotionalistic or social grounds, and because I admit that I don't actually know if Christianity is true and thus I don't actually believe it is. No, I'm not an intellectually dishonest person, so I admit openly that I don't know if Christianity is true in full. My commitment to it is based solely on the fact that evidence in its favor exists and that I am able to access that information. But it is sincere commitment based on rationality and demonstrable facts. If Christianity is true, then I do not want to squander my time with other things. And that is what everything in the Christian worldview reduces down to: a matter of truth, and truth alone (John 8:32). My commitment to Christianity is not based on feelings, assumptions, or inherited family beliefs (since I was raised by professed Christian parents). It is rooted in the best probabilistic assessment of the evidence I have, since this is not something I can have absolute certainty of. But probabilism has led me here. I am no pretender.
It gets very damn irritating to hear the same straw men of my Christianity get erected and attacked, as if in destroying a misrepresentation of my worldview people are actually overthrowing it! My worldview cannot be false because logic can't be false and the claims I am making are in strict adherence to logic. It is not that I claim to know more than I do or can know. On the contrary, unlike most people I've met, I actually admit openly that I can't know a great many things--if any consciousness other than my own exists, if the past has existed for more than a moment, if God loves me, if my senses perceive the external world as it is, and so on. When I make claims, I am not stating that I believe something I can't prove. That is why I claim that there is evidence supporting Christianity and not that Christianity is true, for instance.
I have found that one of the greatest sources of annoyance in my spiritual journey has been other Christians. This post was more a rant about recent personal irritations than about me making a specific intellectual point. Forgive the unusual nature of it, but it is important for rationalists to remember that most people are not helpful or accurate when it comes to spiritual and intellectual matters. Venting is healthy, and sometimes it is the only way to handle anger without detonating in an illicit manner at another person. And anger is powerful. When people who know me think of me, I do not want them to think I am in any way lacking passion for truth and reason. I do not want them thinking my commitment to Christianity is lukewarm or insincere.
There are those who doubt my status as a Christian simply because I don't believe on emotionalistic or social grounds, and because I admit that I don't actually know if Christianity is true and thus I don't actually believe it is. No, I'm not an intellectually dishonest person, so I admit openly that I don't know if Christianity is true in full. My commitment to it is based solely on the fact that evidence in its favor exists and that I am able to access that information. But it is sincere commitment based on rationality and demonstrable facts. If Christianity is true, then I do not want to squander my time with other things. And that is what everything in the Christian worldview reduces down to: a matter of truth, and truth alone (John 8:32). My commitment to Christianity is not based on feelings, assumptions, or inherited family beliefs (since I was raised by professed Christian parents). It is rooted in the best probabilistic assessment of the evidence I have, since this is not something I can have absolute certainty of. But probabilism has led me here. I am no pretender.
It gets very damn irritating to hear the same straw men of my Christianity get erected and attacked, as if in destroying a misrepresentation of my worldview people are actually overthrowing it! My worldview cannot be false because logic can't be false and the claims I am making are in strict adherence to logic. It is not that I claim to know more than I do or can know. On the contrary, unlike most people I've met, I actually admit openly that I can't know a great many things--if any consciousness other than my own exists, if the past has existed for more than a moment, if God loves me, if my senses perceive the external world as it is, and so on. When I make claims, I am not stating that I believe something I can't prove. That is why I claim that there is evidence supporting Christianity and not that Christianity is true, for instance.
I have found that one of the greatest sources of annoyance in my spiritual journey has been other Christians. This post was more a rant about recent personal irritations than about me making a specific intellectual point. Forgive the unusual nature of it, but it is important for rationalists to remember that most people are not helpful or accurate when it comes to spiritual and intellectual matters. Venting is healthy, and sometimes it is the only way to handle anger without detonating in an illicit manner at another person. And anger is powerful. When people who know me think of me, I do not want them to think I am in any way lacking passion for truth and reason. I do not want them thinking my commitment to Christianity is lukewarm or insincere.
Friday, November 24, 2017
Movie Review--Justice League
"For Unity! For Darkseid."
--Steppenwolf, Justice League
The long awaited superhero movie has finally arrived--to lukewarm critical response and an estimated 100 million dollar loss. I am writing this review partly out of a desire to recognize some of the positive things about the movie so that, in recommending it, it can be as small a financial failure as possible. No, there's not a wealth of intellectual content here to dissect, but aspects of it are well-executed, and I don't want rumors of the cancellation of the DCEU (DC Extended Universe) movies to become true reports, even though I expect the series to get at least to Wonder Woman 2.
Production Values
As far as production values go, a blend of the spectacular and the mediocre is on full display in Justice League. The primary actors and actresses--Gal Gadot, Jason Mamoa, Ben Affleck, Ezra Miller, and Ray Fisher--handle their roles very well, and so do the other characters. Jeremy Irons as Alfred, J.K. Simmons as Commissioner Gordon, and Connie Nelson as Hippolyta--each of these supporting characters is acted finely, despite the characters not appearing all that much, with the exception of Alfred. The script does indeed show a lot of supporting characters that are to be examined more closely in follow-up films about individual heroes, like the Atlantean Mera. Viewers get to see, briefly, Mera and some Atlantean guards in action, foreshadowing next year's Aquaman film (and according to my subjective perceptions, Jason Mamoa and Amber Heard [Mera] are very beautiful people!).
But the scriptwriters, or the producers (or maybe this was in the script but overruled?), didn't want the villain Steppenwolf to be developed. Although he has a very formidable presence as an alien warlord, practically nothing about his motivations or characterization is present, save for a single line where he says he hopes to become one of the New Gods. The problem of undeveloped villains has unfortunately appeared in almost every superhero movie since The Dark Knight series. Also, Steppwolf's CGI looks very much like CGI, meaning it doesn't actually look real. Other scenes sometimes seem subpar as far as the animation goes too.
And Steppenwolf's lack of development highlights another problem--the movie is very condensed into just two hours. It might have benefitted from a longer runtime, some of which could have been used to explore Steppenwolf more, or even show his home planet Apokalips--or even have Darkseid make a cameo. But it does have coherent plot and pacing, unlike Suicide Squad. It does further the worldbuilding in a much more natural way than Batman vs. Superman did. In Justice League the world's various factions, whether they be subaquatic Atlanteans or island-bound Amazons, truly seem to coexist in a way that has great storytelling potential--with inter-race politics, a rich mythological history, and many notable characters.
Story
(SPOILERS)
Batman lures out a Parademon servant of Steppenwolf, a scout representing alien forces that seek to invade earth while Superman's death leaves the planet vulnerable. It was searching for an object called a mother box. Bruce Wayne, rightly concerned that his Batman persona is inadequate to fend off such an invasion, and Diana Prince, Wonder Woman, plan to recruit a handful of other powerful beings and metahumans (humans with special superhuman powers [1]) to help them oppose the coming invaders. Their targets are young Barry Allen, otherwise known as the Flash, Arthur Curry, called Aquaman, and Victor Stone, or Cyborg.
The urgency increases when Steppenwolf steals a mother box from Themyscira, island of the Amazons. Millennia ago, Diana says, Steppenwolf assaulted the earth with his Parademons and sought to combine three mother boxes on the planet in order to unleash their power by forming the Unity with them, transforming Earth into the likeness of his homeworld Apokalips. An alliance of Amazons, gods, Atlanteans, humans, and the Green Lantern Corps repelled him, but he said he would return and claim the earth.
Victor is thought dead by all except his father and the duo who want his help and doesn't have interest in working with others, Aquaman is initially unwilling to assist Bruce and Diana, and at first only Barry Allen agrees to fight with them. Aquaman changes his mind when Steppenwolf takes a mother box from Atlantis. Victor changes his when his father becomes the ninth kidnapping victim of the Parademons. Arthur joins the group as they fight Steppenwolf under Gotham Harbor, Steppenwolf proving more powerful than even their combined efforts. In an attempt to bring more power to their side, the Justice League resurrects Superman using the pool where Luther created Doomsday.
They do bring Superman back to life. But they barely tame him. His resurrection temporarily altered his mind, leaving him hostile to the League members. In the aftermath of the fight, Steppenwolf obtains the third mother box. He forms the Unity and begins "terraforming" the planet, starting in Russia. With Superman's help once his mind is restored, Steppenwolf is defeated and seemingly brought back to Apokalips.
Intellectual Content
One thing this movie deprived itself of philosophically was an examination of the values of Steppenwolf's planet Apokalips. Apokalips, according to what I've read online (I haven't read the comics), is governed by an extremely egoistic fascist dictator called Darkseid, a name only mentioned once in the movie. Darkseid seeks a thing called the Anti-Life Equation, which will erase all free will in the universe besides his own. Although a few interesting comments about the nature of power and how different individuals respond to it were tossed around in Justice League, showing Darkseid and exploring his personal philosophy, even a little, could have greatly tapped into this theme. After all, a planetary dictator hoping to bring all minds into submission to his own could be a very effective story springboard into a depiction of the nature of tyranny, lust for power, selfishness, and psychopathy (or sociopathy).
Conclusion
Justice League could have been a more thoroughly quality film than it turned out to be, and maybe the reshoots and director change have to do with that. I would love to see Zach Snyder's original cut. But it really wasn't as rushed as some people make it seem. The DCEU isn't as desperately accelerated as some sites claim! The Avengers came out in 2012, four years after the MCU was kicked off by Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. Justice League entered theaters in late 2017, with the first DCEU movie, Man of Steel, coming out in 2013. DC really hasn't rushed the movies as much as some people seem to think, though some of the installments (Suicide Squad) have elements that are very poor in quality. If you like superhero movies, watch this movie despite the lack of critical acclaim! It still has some great action and showcases some major comics figures. Let's show DC some support!
Content:
1. Violence: Plenty of brawls, but the only blood is green CGI Parademon blood. It has the kind of mild violence one might expect from a PG-13 superhero movie.
2. Profanity: There are multiple uses of "mild" to "medium" profanity throughout.
[1]. I realize that Diana herself is not, strictly speaking, actually a metahuman, since she is an Amazon, because though Amazons look identical to humans from the outside, they are a race of humanoid female warriors created by Zeus and imbued with superhuman strength. Batman doesn't actually possess any superpower; he just uses technology to overpower his opponents. Aquaman is an Atlantean and thus not a human, just like Wonder Woman and Superman, who is Kryptonian. So there are ultimately only two legitimate metahumans (Flash and Cyborg) on the Justice League by the end of the movie, as many of its members aren't even human and Batman isn't technically a superhero by the strictest definition, just a capable and technologically-fortified regular man!
--Steppenwolf, Justice League
The long awaited superhero movie has finally arrived--to lukewarm critical response and an estimated 100 million dollar loss. I am writing this review partly out of a desire to recognize some of the positive things about the movie so that, in recommending it, it can be as small a financial failure as possible. No, there's not a wealth of intellectual content here to dissect, but aspects of it are well-executed, and I don't want rumors of the cancellation of the DCEU (DC Extended Universe) movies to become true reports, even though I expect the series to get at least to Wonder Woman 2.
 |
|
Production Values
As far as production values go, a blend of the spectacular and the mediocre is on full display in Justice League. The primary actors and actresses--Gal Gadot, Jason Mamoa, Ben Affleck, Ezra Miller, and Ray Fisher--handle their roles very well, and so do the other characters. Jeremy Irons as Alfred, J.K. Simmons as Commissioner Gordon, and Connie Nelson as Hippolyta--each of these supporting characters is acted finely, despite the characters not appearing all that much, with the exception of Alfred. The script does indeed show a lot of supporting characters that are to be examined more closely in follow-up films about individual heroes, like the Atlantean Mera. Viewers get to see, briefly, Mera and some Atlantean guards in action, foreshadowing next year's Aquaman film (and according to my subjective perceptions, Jason Mamoa and Amber Heard [Mera] are very beautiful people!).
But the scriptwriters, or the producers (or maybe this was in the script but overruled?), didn't want the villain Steppenwolf to be developed. Although he has a very formidable presence as an alien warlord, practically nothing about his motivations or characterization is present, save for a single line where he says he hopes to become one of the New Gods. The problem of undeveloped villains has unfortunately appeared in almost every superhero movie since The Dark Knight series. Also, Steppwolf's CGI looks very much like CGI, meaning it doesn't actually look real. Other scenes sometimes seem subpar as far as the animation goes too.
And Steppenwolf's lack of development highlights another problem--the movie is very condensed into just two hours. It might have benefitted from a longer runtime, some of which could have been used to explore Steppenwolf more, or even show his home planet Apokalips--or even have Darkseid make a cameo. But it does have coherent plot and pacing, unlike Suicide Squad. It does further the worldbuilding in a much more natural way than Batman vs. Superman did. In Justice League the world's various factions, whether they be subaquatic Atlanteans or island-bound Amazons, truly seem to coexist in a way that has great storytelling potential--with inter-race politics, a rich mythological history, and many notable characters.
Story
(SPOILERS)
Batman lures out a Parademon servant of Steppenwolf, a scout representing alien forces that seek to invade earth while Superman's death leaves the planet vulnerable. It was searching for an object called a mother box. Bruce Wayne, rightly concerned that his Batman persona is inadequate to fend off such an invasion, and Diana Prince, Wonder Woman, plan to recruit a handful of other powerful beings and metahumans (humans with special superhuman powers [1]) to help them oppose the coming invaders. Their targets are young Barry Allen, otherwise known as the Flash, Arthur Curry, called Aquaman, and Victor Stone, or Cyborg.
The urgency increases when Steppenwolf steals a mother box from Themyscira, island of the Amazons. Millennia ago, Diana says, Steppenwolf assaulted the earth with his Parademons and sought to combine three mother boxes on the planet in order to unleash their power by forming the Unity with them, transforming Earth into the likeness of his homeworld Apokalips. An alliance of Amazons, gods, Atlanteans, humans, and the Green Lantern Corps repelled him, but he said he would return and claim the earth.
Victor is thought dead by all except his father and the duo who want his help and doesn't have interest in working with others, Aquaman is initially unwilling to assist Bruce and Diana, and at first only Barry Allen agrees to fight with them. Aquaman changes his mind when Steppenwolf takes a mother box from Atlantis. Victor changes his when his father becomes the ninth kidnapping victim of the Parademons. Arthur joins the group as they fight Steppenwolf under Gotham Harbor, Steppenwolf proving more powerful than even their combined efforts. In an attempt to bring more power to their side, the Justice League resurrects Superman using the pool where Luther created Doomsday.
They do bring Superman back to life. But they barely tame him. His resurrection temporarily altered his mind, leaving him hostile to the League members. In the aftermath of the fight, Steppenwolf obtains the third mother box. He forms the Unity and begins "terraforming" the planet, starting in Russia. With Superman's help once his mind is restored, Steppenwolf is defeated and seemingly brought back to Apokalips.
Intellectual Content
One thing this movie deprived itself of philosophically was an examination of the values of Steppenwolf's planet Apokalips. Apokalips, according to what I've read online (I haven't read the comics), is governed by an extremely egoistic fascist dictator called Darkseid, a name only mentioned once in the movie. Darkseid seeks a thing called the Anti-Life Equation, which will erase all free will in the universe besides his own. Although a few interesting comments about the nature of power and how different individuals respond to it were tossed around in Justice League, showing Darkseid and exploring his personal philosophy, even a little, could have greatly tapped into this theme. After all, a planetary dictator hoping to bring all minds into submission to his own could be a very effective story springboard into a depiction of the nature of tyranny, lust for power, selfishness, and psychopathy (or sociopathy).
Conclusion
Justice League could have been a more thoroughly quality film than it turned out to be, and maybe the reshoots and director change have to do with that. I would love to see Zach Snyder's original cut. But it really wasn't as rushed as some people make it seem. The DCEU isn't as desperately accelerated as some sites claim! The Avengers came out in 2012, four years after the MCU was kicked off by Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. Justice League entered theaters in late 2017, with the first DCEU movie, Man of Steel, coming out in 2013. DC really hasn't rushed the movies as much as some people seem to think, though some of the installments (Suicide Squad) have elements that are very poor in quality. If you like superhero movies, watch this movie despite the lack of critical acclaim! It still has some great action and showcases some major comics figures. Let's show DC some support!
Content:
1. Violence: Plenty of brawls, but the only blood is green CGI Parademon blood. It has the kind of mild violence one might expect from a PG-13 superhero movie.
2. Profanity: There are multiple uses of "mild" to "medium" profanity throughout.
[1]. I realize that Diana herself is not, strictly speaking, actually a metahuman, since she is an Amazon, because though Amazons look identical to humans from the outside, they are a race of humanoid female warriors created by Zeus and imbued with superhuman strength. Batman doesn't actually possess any superpower; he just uses technology to overpower his opponents. Aquaman is an Atlantean and thus not a human, just like Wonder Woman and Superman, who is Kryptonian. So there are ultimately only two legitimate metahumans (Flash and Cyborg) on the Justice League by the end of the movie, as many of its members aren't even human and Batman isn't technically a superhero by the strictest definition, just a capable and technologically-fortified regular man!
The Stupidity Of The Billy Graham Rule
I've seen a lot of references to the Billy Graham rule on a social media feed of mine recently. As usual, that means I'm frustrated with the stupidity of a lot of people. The Billy Graham rule is a principle, codified by evangelist Billy Graham, that prohibits being alone with a member of the opposite gender other than one's spouse, or by extension other family members. There are many flaws and errors contained within both the conclusion and the premises used to argue for it. Time to tear this erroneous nonsense apart using logic and Scripture!
Where does the Bible condemn men and women, whether separately married or unmarried, being alone with each other? It does not. And conscience and social beliefs do not--cannot--reveal moral truths; only God can do that. This is basic moral epistemology, and the Bible also affirms this (Deuteronomy 4:2, 1 John 3:4, Romans 7:7). If God did not reveal something to be an objective moral obligation, then it is nothing but an unbiblical invention of legalistic humans, legalism being the construction of extra-Biblical rules, a thing prohibited by the Bible itself. It has no moral authority because it conforms to no moral obligation grounded in God's nature. Such is the Billy Graham rule. Also, it is worth noting that Jesus himself met with and conversed with women alone. He did this in John 4 with the Samaritan woman at the well and in John 20 with Mary Magdalene after his resurrection. All Biblical information aside, there is simply nothing sexual about being alone with the opposite gender. No situation is inherently sexual except one where someone is performing a sexual act.
Every time I hear of married people who allegedly practice this paranoid rule, I want to ask them questions. Why the hell would they marry people they don't trust to not have affairs? Do they really think it is morally wrong to be alone with a person who has a somewhat different anatomy than them? Do they really have such a small amount of self-control or no rational ability to see that being alone with the opposite gender is not a sexual thing? Spouses who encourage the Billy Graham rule may likely just be responding to a poorly-planned relationship choice by invoking a controlling attitude. And I call bullshit! If I marry, I will not marry someone I suspect of infidelity, and I will not restrict the natural freedom of my spouse wherever God has revealed something to be amoral or innocent. She is morally free to do whatever she wishes as long as she does not sin, and the same is true of me.
The Billy Graham rule inevitably suffocates two things: male-female friendships and female presence in the workplace. Any sound theologian knows that the Bible never condemns opposite gender friendships, no matter how close [1]. The Apostle Paul himself had a close friendship with a woman (Romans 16:12 [2]). And any sound logician knows that there is nothing romantic or sexual about men and women engaging in deep friendships [3]. Anyone who tells someone else that God prohibits, discourages, or dislikes relational intimacy between men and women slanders God and commits the error Jesus so harshly rebuked the Pharisees for (Matthew 15:3-9)--inventing extra-Biblical obligations and crediting them with objective divine authority. Such things are just the constructs of the weak, the ignorant, the irrational. They are stupid, mistaken beliefs at best, and the result of people thinking others share their faults at worst.
As for the workplace, women will be held back wherever insecure, fallacious, fearful men abide by the Billy Graham rule. This idiotic principle would easily keep women below the glass ceiling. "The glass ceiling" is a phrase that refers to a barrier that prevents women from ascending to top leadership positions in a company alongside men, one that they can see through but never go past. It is a manifestation of sexism in the business world. The Billy Graham rule would certainly stymie the promotion of, mentoring of, and leadership opportunities for women, as the men in power operating according to this rule would refuse to meet with women under the same circumstances they would meet men. This discrimination and sexism totally contradict the equal metaphysical value God imbued all men and women with (Genesis 1:26-27).
Lastly, I want to remind Christians what the Bible prescribes for careless or intentional false accusations, since sometimes proponents of the Billy Graham rule cite possible charges of illicit sexual advances as justification for it. Deuteronomy 19:16-21 says to give such accusers the punishment the falsely accused would have received were the charges accurate. Since adultery and rape deserve death (Deuteronomy 22:22, 25-27), anyone who falsely accuses another person of either out of laziness or malice deserves to die. No one is morally required to avoid innocent activities to not be fallaciously perceived as immoral. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of observers to not be irrational, to not make erroneous judgments, and to not misrepresent the actions of others. People who misperceive the behaviors and words of others are the problem, not me or other innocent people.
The Billy Graham rule, and the false ideology of anyone who thinks it is a moral obligation or a rational principle, is absolutely stupid! It is sexist, legalistic, fallacious, irrational, and immoral to impose this asinine construct on other people. I have never met an egalitarian who told me to live by it. But I have been encouraged to submit to this legalism and irrationality by complementarians. As to be expected, there is a correlation between gender-relation legalism and the theological and philosophical garbage called complementarianism. I speak with my usual ferocity because Christians need to hear the truth of the matter. As in all things, only the truth can set us free (John 8:32). Only it can liberate us from false guilt, lies, illogicality, and concern for the false perceptions of others.
Let us remember that we serve God, not the humans who misrepresent reality. It is God that we should strive to please and not other people. A person can choose to abide by this rule out of legitimate weakness of character, but never is it morally or logically correct to demand that others do the same. This is the very spirit of legalism, which is condemned so thoroughly in both the Old Testament and New Testament.
Logic, people. It is very damn helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/opposite-gender-friendships-part-1.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/persis-pauls-dear-friend.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/opposite-gender-friendships-part-2.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/an-observation-about-cross-gender.html
Where does the Bible condemn men and women, whether separately married or unmarried, being alone with each other? It does not. And conscience and social beliefs do not--cannot--reveal moral truths; only God can do that. This is basic moral epistemology, and the Bible also affirms this (Deuteronomy 4:2, 1 John 3:4, Romans 7:7). If God did not reveal something to be an objective moral obligation, then it is nothing but an unbiblical invention of legalistic humans, legalism being the construction of extra-Biblical rules, a thing prohibited by the Bible itself. It has no moral authority because it conforms to no moral obligation grounded in God's nature. Such is the Billy Graham rule. Also, it is worth noting that Jesus himself met with and conversed with women alone. He did this in John 4 with the Samaritan woman at the well and in John 20 with Mary Magdalene after his resurrection. All Biblical information aside, there is simply nothing sexual about being alone with the opposite gender. No situation is inherently sexual except one where someone is performing a sexual act.
Every time I hear of married people who allegedly practice this paranoid rule, I want to ask them questions. Why the hell would they marry people they don't trust to not have affairs? Do they really think it is morally wrong to be alone with a person who has a somewhat different anatomy than them? Do they really have such a small amount of self-control or no rational ability to see that being alone with the opposite gender is not a sexual thing? Spouses who encourage the Billy Graham rule may likely just be responding to a poorly-planned relationship choice by invoking a controlling attitude. And I call bullshit! If I marry, I will not marry someone I suspect of infidelity, and I will not restrict the natural freedom of my spouse wherever God has revealed something to be amoral or innocent. She is morally free to do whatever she wishes as long as she does not sin, and the same is true of me.
The Billy Graham rule inevitably suffocates two things: male-female friendships and female presence in the workplace. Any sound theologian knows that the Bible never condemns opposite gender friendships, no matter how close [1]. The Apostle Paul himself had a close friendship with a woman (Romans 16:12 [2]). And any sound logician knows that there is nothing romantic or sexual about men and women engaging in deep friendships [3]. Anyone who tells someone else that God prohibits, discourages, or dislikes relational intimacy between men and women slanders God and commits the error Jesus so harshly rebuked the Pharisees for (Matthew 15:3-9)--inventing extra-Biblical obligations and crediting them with objective divine authority. Such things are just the constructs of the weak, the ignorant, the irrational. They are stupid, mistaken beliefs at best, and the result of people thinking others share their faults at worst.
As for the workplace, women will be held back wherever insecure, fallacious, fearful men abide by the Billy Graham rule. This idiotic principle would easily keep women below the glass ceiling. "The glass ceiling" is a phrase that refers to a barrier that prevents women from ascending to top leadership positions in a company alongside men, one that they can see through but never go past. It is a manifestation of sexism in the business world. The Billy Graham rule would certainly stymie the promotion of, mentoring of, and leadership opportunities for women, as the men in power operating according to this rule would refuse to meet with women under the same circumstances they would meet men. This discrimination and sexism totally contradict the equal metaphysical value God imbued all men and women with (Genesis 1:26-27).
Lastly, I want to remind Christians what the Bible prescribes for careless or intentional false accusations, since sometimes proponents of the Billy Graham rule cite possible charges of illicit sexual advances as justification for it. Deuteronomy 19:16-21 says to give such accusers the punishment the falsely accused would have received were the charges accurate. Since adultery and rape deserve death (Deuteronomy 22:22, 25-27), anyone who falsely accuses another person of either out of laziness or malice deserves to die. No one is morally required to avoid innocent activities to not be fallaciously perceived as immoral. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of observers to not be irrational, to not make erroneous judgments, and to not misrepresent the actions of others. People who misperceive the behaviors and words of others are the problem, not me or other innocent people.
The Billy Graham rule, and the false ideology of anyone who thinks it is a moral obligation or a rational principle, is absolutely stupid! It is sexist, legalistic, fallacious, irrational, and immoral to impose this asinine construct on other people. I have never met an egalitarian who told me to live by it. But I have been encouraged to submit to this legalism and irrationality by complementarians. As to be expected, there is a correlation between gender-relation legalism and the theological and philosophical garbage called complementarianism. I speak with my usual ferocity because Christians need to hear the truth of the matter. As in all things, only the truth can set us free (John 8:32). Only it can liberate us from false guilt, lies, illogicality, and concern for the false perceptions of others.
Let us remember that we serve God, not the humans who misrepresent reality. It is God that we should strive to please and not other people. A person can choose to abide by this rule out of legitimate weakness of character, but never is it morally or logically correct to demand that others do the same. This is the very spirit of legalism, which is condemned so thoroughly in both the Old Testament and New Testament.
Logic, people. It is very damn helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/opposite-gender-friendships-part-1.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/persis-pauls-dear-friend.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/opposite-gender-friendships-part-2.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/an-observation-about-cross-gender.html
Sunday, November 19, 2017
Refuting Arguments Against Free Will
Free will is of utmost metaphysical and epistemological significance. If someone does not have free will, he or she cannot know anything, because all beliefs would be formed outside of his or her control and thus could never be verified. Of course, I can know that free will exists (in my case) if I can reason and have knowledge, since no free will means no ability to control any thoughts or choose beliefs and thus no belief of mine is certain. A being can only possess the ability to reason if it also possesses free will [1].
As I have pointed out so many times on my blog, I know some things with absolute certainty--my consciousness, the contents of my mind, that I have sensory perceptions while not asleep, that I have memories, that I can reason, that logic exists and is itself infallible, that truth exists, and so on--and thus I know that what follows from me not having free will is objectively untrue. It is not that consciousness, rationality, and at least knowledge of inviolable universal axioms (like "truth exists") simply seem to be true; there is no way that the axioms cannot be, and I am aware of their veracity. I know for sure that I have consciousness and that I am a rational being, since the fact that my constant experiences are intelligible at all proves that I grasp the three laws of logic and since I can and do reason actively. And a human's ability to reason is infallible to the extent it is aligned with reason (the laws of logic and what follows from things) itself. I realize that I have knowledge and then realize that free will follows from this, not the other way around.
That I have a will is almost as immediately obvious as my consciousness, if not as obvious. Since what follows from me not having free will is false, my conscious experiences of controlling some of my thoughts and bodily functions, like lifting an arm or curling my toes, are not illusions. My mind really is animating my body and enabling me to perform free actions with it. Also, it not only follows from a person not having free will that he or she cannot know anything at all, but it also follows from a person not having free will, since that person cannot reason, that he or she could not have any reason to believe that free will does not exist to begin with.
With that aside (I have already explained much of this before [2]), I will list and refute specific arguments against free will, ranging from ones based on biology to ones based on theology.
Biology: Materialism, material determinism
Mind, the seat of consciousness, is purely immaterial and is not the brain, as I have proven on other posts [3] (and just as consciousness and mind are immaterial, so is logic), and is what presides over the body (not all bodily functions occur or do not occur as willed--coughs, physical arousal of the genitals, and so forth). Without a conscious mind, having a will is impossible. The very existence of someone's will, even if it wasn't free, depends solely on the existence of his or her mind. Since determinism in the material world could only affect material things, the processes that govern the behavior of matter and nature would not negate freedom of the will because minds, without which wills cannot exist, are nonphysical.
Determinism in nature is like a set of dominoes; once a domino knocks down the next one the reaction continues, the dominoes unable to choose to stand or fall. But having a conscious mind places a being in a new position, one with agency and intentionality. The mind remains free. It is only because I have a mind that I perceive, think, or will at all. If there was no immaterial component to my nature, no consciousness and mind, then there would be no part of my nature that could choose (or perceive or know) anything, and "my" (there is no self apart from a mind) behaviors could be solely determined by external material forces.
Psychology: The subconscious, personality
The very notion of the subconscious mind is unsupported and unsupportable [4]. Still, the idea has been accepted in some circles that a subconscious portion of the mind, a mental caldron of hidden desires and motives, secretly dictates the conscious will of an individual. Even if the human mind had a subconscious component behind detectable mental activity, the fact that a person knows and is aware of anything at all necessitates free will. As I explained above, rationality and knowledge require free will, and the subconscious does not erase these things. The conscious mind is still what actually contemplates and makes decisions.
Personality does not erase free will. Individuals have their own unique mental characteristics and preferences that can drastically shape how they perceive the world. My own personality--consisting of my extroversion, passion, desires, motives, and other subjective mental characteristics--does influence what behaviors I may want to partake in, but this influence does not in any way negate my ability to choose my actions themselves.
Sociology: Social conditioning
Social conditioning does not nullify free will or mean it does not exist. To truly fight social conditioning, one must take a strictly rationalist approach and doubt and test everything, until only things that cannot be false are at the foundation of one's worldview and undiluted reason is utilized to discover what necessarily follows. But conditioning is not an unsurpassable hurdle to knowledge and in no way means that humans do not make free choices. Someone could fight and walk away from social conditioning; it does not follow from the mind being conditioned that it therefore cannot make its own choices using an uncoerced will guided only by itself. Conditioning might affect what people do and believe, not because peoples' actions are controlled by their society, but because they can allow their culture to influence the way that they decide to behave.
Theology: Divine determinism
Christians in particular err Biblically, in addition to the aforementioned offenses against logic, when they claim that God makes choices about human actions on behalf of humans, whether for their salvation or their moral lives. Deuteronomy 30:19, John 7:17, Joshua 24:15, and Genesis 2:16-17 are passages of the Bible that clearly teach or necessitate human free will. Even if the Bible did not explicitly affirm human free will, I know with absolute certainty, through the process described above, that I do possess free will whether or not Christianity is true.
Besides, the idea that God forces people to become saved apart form their own volitions is very unbiblical, for reasons I have discussed elsewhere [5]. This idea would mean that God is directly responsible for the fact that the unsaved have not chosen a restored relationship with him, meaning that God keeps them in a state of ontological rebellion against himself (Ephesians 2:1-5) and thus in a state of sin, that he punishes and will punish people for outcomes they could never reject--denying moral autonomy and responsibility as stated in verses like Deuteronomy 24:16, and that he does not want everyone to be saved despite Scripture testifying to the exact opposite (2 Peter 3:8-9, 1 Timothy 2:3-4). Only a Biblically erroneous theologian would ever teach such a thing!
Conclusion
Human epistemology and moral responsibility depend on whether or not humans have free will. This means that the issue of free will is of huge importance to philosophy and theology! Christians must address the topic accurately, rationally, and Biblically, especially in the face of a culture steeped in a scientism that often denies the existence of free will due to fallacies. Reality is on the side of those who affirm free will, whether or not the entirety of the Bible and Christianity is true!
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/reason-refutes-determinism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/explaining-free-will.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/consciousness-cannot-be-illusory.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-immateriality-of-consciousness.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-subconscious.html
[5]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/foreknowledge-is-not-predestination.html
As I have pointed out so many times on my blog, I know some things with absolute certainty--my consciousness, the contents of my mind, that I have sensory perceptions while not asleep, that I have memories, that I can reason, that logic exists and is itself infallible, that truth exists, and so on--and thus I know that what follows from me not having free will is objectively untrue. It is not that consciousness, rationality, and at least knowledge of inviolable universal axioms (like "truth exists") simply seem to be true; there is no way that the axioms cannot be, and I am aware of their veracity. I know for sure that I have consciousness and that I am a rational being, since the fact that my constant experiences are intelligible at all proves that I grasp the three laws of logic and since I can and do reason actively. And a human's ability to reason is infallible to the extent it is aligned with reason (the laws of logic and what follows from things) itself. I realize that I have knowledge and then realize that free will follows from this, not the other way around.
That I have a will is almost as immediately obvious as my consciousness, if not as obvious. Since what follows from me not having free will is false, my conscious experiences of controlling some of my thoughts and bodily functions, like lifting an arm or curling my toes, are not illusions. My mind really is animating my body and enabling me to perform free actions with it. Also, it not only follows from a person not having free will that he or she cannot know anything at all, but it also follows from a person not having free will, since that person cannot reason, that he or she could not have any reason to believe that free will does not exist to begin with.
With that aside (I have already explained much of this before [2]), I will list and refute specific arguments against free will, ranging from ones based on biology to ones based on theology.
Biology: Materialism, material determinism
Mind, the seat of consciousness, is purely immaterial and is not the brain, as I have proven on other posts [3] (and just as consciousness and mind are immaterial, so is logic), and is what presides over the body (not all bodily functions occur or do not occur as willed--coughs, physical arousal of the genitals, and so forth). Without a conscious mind, having a will is impossible. The very existence of someone's will, even if it wasn't free, depends solely on the existence of his or her mind. Since determinism in the material world could only affect material things, the processes that govern the behavior of matter and nature would not negate freedom of the will because minds, without which wills cannot exist, are nonphysical.
Determinism in nature is like a set of dominoes; once a domino knocks down the next one the reaction continues, the dominoes unable to choose to stand or fall. But having a conscious mind places a being in a new position, one with agency and intentionality. The mind remains free. It is only because I have a mind that I perceive, think, or will at all. If there was no immaterial component to my nature, no consciousness and mind, then there would be no part of my nature that could choose (or perceive or know) anything, and "my" (there is no self apart from a mind) behaviors could be solely determined by external material forces.
Psychology: The subconscious, personality
The very notion of the subconscious mind is unsupported and unsupportable [4]. Still, the idea has been accepted in some circles that a subconscious portion of the mind, a mental caldron of hidden desires and motives, secretly dictates the conscious will of an individual. Even if the human mind had a subconscious component behind detectable mental activity, the fact that a person knows and is aware of anything at all necessitates free will. As I explained above, rationality and knowledge require free will, and the subconscious does not erase these things. The conscious mind is still what actually contemplates and makes decisions.
Personality does not erase free will. Individuals have their own unique mental characteristics and preferences that can drastically shape how they perceive the world. My own personality--consisting of my extroversion, passion, desires, motives, and other subjective mental characteristics--does influence what behaviors I may want to partake in, but this influence does not in any way negate my ability to choose my actions themselves.
Sociology: Social conditioning
Social conditioning does not nullify free will or mean it does not exist. To truly fight social conditioning, one must take a strictly rationalist approach and doubt and test everything, until only things that cannot be false are at the foundation of one's worldview and undiluted reason is utilized to discover what necessarily follows. But conditioning is not an unsurpassable hurdle to knowledge and in no way means that humans do not make free choices. Someone could fight and walk away from social conditioning; it does not follow from the mind being conditioned that it therefore cannot make its own choices using an uncoerced will guided only by itself. Conditioning might affect what people do and believe, not because peoples' actions are controlled by their society, but because they can allow their culture to influence the way that they decide to behave.
Theology: Divine determinism
Christians in particular err Biblically, in addition to the aforementioned offenses against logic, when they claim that God makes choices about human actions on behalf of humans, whether for their salvation or their moral lives. Deuteronomy 30:19, John 7:17, Joshua 24:15, and Genesis 2:16-17 are passages of the Bible that clearly teach or necessitate human free will. Even if the Bible did not explicitly affirm human free will, I know with absolute certainty, through the process described above, that I do possess free will whether or not Christianity is true.
Besides, the idea that God forces people to become saved apart form their own volitions is very unbiblical, for reasons I have discussed elsewhere [5]. This idea would mean that God is directly responsible for the fact that the unsaved have not chosen a restored relationship with him, meaning that God keeps them in a state of ontological rebellion against himself (Ephesians 2:1-5) and thus in a state of sin, that he punishes and will punish people for outcomes they could never reject--denying moral autonomy and responsibility as stated in verses like Deuteronomy 24:16, and that he does not want everyone to be saved despite Scripture testifying to the exact opposite (2 Peter 3:8-9, 1 Timothy 2:3-4). Only a Biblically erroneous theologian would ever teach such a thing!
Conclusion
Human epistemology and moral responsibility depend on whether or not humans have free will. This means that the issue of free will is of huge importance to philosophy and theology! Christians must address the topic accurately, rationally, and Biblically, especially in the face of a culture steeped in a scientism that often denies the existence of free will due to fallacies. Reality is on the side of those who affirm free will, whether or not the entirety of the Bible and Christianity is true!
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/reason-refutes-determinism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/explaining-free-will.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/consciousness-cannot-be-illusory.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-immateriality-of-consciousness.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-subconscious.html
[5]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/foreknowledge-is-not-predestination.html
Saturday, November 18, 2017
Unseen Depression
Something is not nonexistent just because it isn't visible, known, or otherwise perceivable. This applies to mental illness just as much as it does to deep metaphysics and epistemology. Just because something doesn't seem to be there doesn't mean it is not present. A person can seem happy, joyful, content, and at peace to external observers, when inside he or she is submerged in the difficulties of depression.
It is unfortunate that some will look at "high-functioning" people and conclude, fallaciously and without basis, that they must not suffer from anxiety, emptiness, lack of energy, or suicidal thoughts, or any of the other forms through which depression can manifest itself. This can make it far more socially and emotionally difficult for someone who is thought of as too high-functioning to be depressed to publicly admit that he or she actually does have the condition.
After all, coming forward can be very difficult when people don't think others will believe them or offer support. The same is true of things besides depression. Those who feel pressured to minimize their acknowledgment of their own depression (or other mental illness) may have bought into the damaging--and false--idea that those with mental illness simply need to keep moving on, without addressing their problems adequately.
But mental illness is not something that people need to keep secret, and unspoken pains can hurt all the deeper because they are confined. Isolation, even the emotional or social isolation that comes from not telling others about one's problems, can amplify the difficulties of things like depression. Sharing knowledge of such things could either help relieve some of the stress or be the first step towards getting other forms of help.
I implore other Christians to be supportive and caring when helping those with depression. For the Christians that struggle with it themselves, they have an additional resource in their relationships with God. They can find a source of motivation and energy in their relationships with God that they will not find in their dealings with other humans. Jesus said that he came so that people could "have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10), and God does not care any less about our mental and emotional health than he does about that of our physical bodies. At the very least, Christians with depression can converse with God about their trials--he understands even when other people do not, and not just when our trials involve depression or other mental health issues.
It is unfortunate that some will look at "high-functioning" people and conclude, fallaciously and without basis, that they must not suffer from anxiety, emptiness, lack of energy, or suicidal thoughts, or any of the other forms through which depression can manifest itself. This can make it far more socially and emotionally difficult for someone who is thought of as too high-functioning to be depressed to publicly admit that he or she actually does have the condition.
After all, coming forward can be very difficult when people don't think others will believe them or offer support. The same is true of things besides depression. Those who feel pressured to minimize their acknowledgment of their own depression (or other mental illness) may have bought into the damaging--and false--idea that those with mental illness simply need to keep moving on, without addressing their problems adequately.
But mental illness is not something that people need to keep secret, and unspoken pains can hurt all the deeper because they are confined. Isolation, even the emotional or social isolation that comes from not telling others about one's problems, can amplify the difficulties of things like depression. Sharing knowledge of such things could either help relieve some of the stress or be the first step towards getting other forms of help.
I implore other Christians to be supportive and caring when helping those with depression. For the Christians that struggle with it themselves, they have an additional resource in their relationships with God. They can find a source of motivation and energy in their relationships with God that they will not find in their dealings with other humans. Jesus said that he came so that people could "have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10), and God does not care any less about our mental and emotional health than he does about that of our physical bodies. At the very least, Christians with depression can converse with God about their trials--he understands even when other people do not, and not just when our trials involve depression or other mental health issues.
The Error Of Complementarian Arguments
Complementarianism is one of the most destructive ideologies in modern church history. I pass up no opportunity to mock it, refute it, and challenge it. You can read other articles where I have more specifically refuted the very foundations of complementarianism [1]; here I only intend to show the lunacy of secondary arguments for complementarian beliefs. I will explain and deconstruct some of the dumbest arguments for complementarianism and unilateral submission of wives to husbands, or women to men in general, that I have ever heard, besides the pitiful misunderstanding of Ephesians 5 that complementarians have often presented to me.
I want to highlight that all of these points are argued from out of narratives. Narratives alone solely describe events; by themselves they do not prescribe moral judgments.
Creation Sequence
The order of creation in Genesis 2 does not tell us anything except that creation occurred in a certain order. If a being created first automatically deserves a more authoritative position than what comes after, then all of us humans need to submit to plants and fish, men and women alike. Non sequiturs abound when complementarians use this pathetic argument, unsurprisingly! That God made Eve to help Adam in no way disproves the teaching of mutual submission in marriage or the fact that men and women are not different beyond their bodily anatomy and physiology. How is egalitarianism falsified by this? It can't be since Genesis 2 isn't even a prescriptive part of the Bible; it is merely a description of the historical creation of humanity. Adam and Eve were intended to rule the garden of Eden, and the whole earth by extension (Genesis 1:26-28), together, not in some gender-based hierarchy:
Genesis 1:26-28--"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'"
Yahweh is no sexist deity, for he imbued both men and women with his divine image and gave them both the same commission. All of us, men and women alike, are called to manage God's creation for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). God does not discriminate in giving talents. Humans have no basis for discriminating against one gender in the application of those talents, therefore.
Adam Naming Eve
Because Adam was created before Eve, he simply decided to name her. As I proved above, nothing about the creation sequence necessitates the erroneous belief of complementarianism, and, likewise, nothing about Adam naming Eve because he existed before she did means that women must not lead men or that men and women should not practice mutual submission. Again, this argument rests on a major non sequitur. It just does not follow. Adam and Eve were still both equally God's image bearers and equally tasked with stewarding the planet.
Temptation Of Eve
As with the previous two fallacy-filled arguments, an argument for complementarianism based upon the fact that Eve succumbed to temptation fails. First of all, this doesn't follow from the text. Second, just because one woman or man is one way doesn't mean all of them are. To say otherwise commits the fallacy of composition. Women do not have some tendency to be or want to be deceived just because they are women, just as men do not have a tendency to want truth just because they are men. Thus, women do not need men to guide them, just as men do not need women to guide them. What we are all told to do is mutually submit to each other, men and women alike, out of "reverence for Christ" (Ephesians 5:21), not because we are helpless and lost without people who have different genitals (non-physical characteristics of "masculinity" and "femininity" do not exist; see below), but because we are spiritual and intellectual equals who serve the same God together.
Logic utterly disproves any absurd claim that someone has certain personality, mental, or spiritual characteristics simply for being a man or woman; reason proves that it does not follow from having a male or female body that any of these traits will be found, enabling people to see through the hollow lies of social conditioning and cultural constructs--and that examples of people who clearly do not have the natures complementarianism ascribes to them exist in abundance. Without there being any innate non-physical differences between men and women, the entire basis for gender roles and gender-specific moral obligations falls apart [2], not that roles logically follow from personality differences anyway. Since there are none, as logic reveals, and as the Bible confirms with its egalitarian theology that contradicts gender stereotypes of all eras.
Egalitarianism, not complementarianism, is logically and Biblically correct. Men and women are not called to live under the sexist, fallacious, irrational, unbiblical claims that complementarians must accept in order to maintain belief in their errors. All it takes to see through the lies of complementarianism is a rational mind.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/book-criticism-preparing-to-be-help.html
[2]. See here for a handful of the articles I explain this in:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-alleged-differences-between-men-and.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/women-are-not-mysterious.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/sexuality-in-marriage-part-3-gender-lies.html
I want to highlight that all of these points are argued from out of narratives. Narratives alone solely describe events; by themselves they do not prescribe moral judgments.
Creation Sequence
The order of creation in Genesis 2 does not tell us anything except that creation occurred in a certain order. If a being created first automatically deserves a more authoritative position than what comes after, then all of us humans need to submit to plants and fish, men and women alike. Non sequiturs abound when complementarians use this pathetic argument, unsurprisingly! That God made Eve to help Adam in no way disproves the teaching of mutual submission in marriage or the fact that men and women are not different beyond their bodily anatomy and physiology. How is egalitarianism falsified by this? It can't be since Genesis 2 isn't even a prescriptive part of the Bible; it is merely a description of the historical creation of humanity. Adam and Eve were intended to rule the garden of Eden, and the whole earth by extension (Genesis 1:26-28), together, not in some gender-based hierarchy:
Genesis 1:26-28--"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'"
Yahweh is no sexist deity, for he imbued both men and women with his divine image and gave them both the same commission. All of us, men and women alike, are called to manage God's creation for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). God does not discriminate in giving talents. Humans have no basis for discriminating against one gender in the application of those talents, therefore.
Adam Naming Eve
Because Adam was created before Eve, he simply decided to name her. As I proved above, nothing about the creation sequence necessitates the erroneous belief of complementarianism, and, likewise, nothing about Adam naming Eve because he existed before she did means that women must not lead men or that men and women should not practice mutual submission. Again, this argument rests on a major non sequitur. It just does not follow. Adam and Eve were still both equally God's image bearers and equally tasked with stewarding the planet.
Temptation Of Eve
As with the previous two fallacy-filled arguments, an argument for complementarianism based upon the fact that Eve succumbed to temptation fails. First of all, this doesn't follow from the text. Second, just because one woman or man is one way doesn't mean all of them are. To say otherwise commits the fallacy of composition. Women do not have some tendency to be or want to be deceived just because they are women, just as men do not have a tendency to want truth just because they are men. Thus, women do not need men to guide them, just as men do not need women to guide them. What we are all told to do is mutually submit to each other, men and women alike, out of "reverence for Christ" (Ephesians 5:21), not because we are helpless and lost without people who have different genitals (non-physical characteristics of "masculinity" and "femininity" do not exist; see below), but because we are spiritual and intellectual equals who serve the same God together.
Logic utterly disproves any absurd claim that someone has certain personality, mental, or spiritual characteristics simply for being a man or woman; reason proves that it does not follow from having a male or female body that any of these traits will be found, enabling people to see through the hollow lies of social conditioning and cultural constructs--and that examples of people who clearly do not have the natures complementarianism ascribes to them exist in abundance. Without there being any innate non-physical differences between men and women, the entire basis for gender roles and gender-specific moral obligations falls apart [2], not that roles logically follow from personality differences anyway. Since there are none, as logic reveals, and as the Bible confirms with its egalitarian theology that contradicts gender stereotypes of all eras.
Egalitarianism, not complementarianism, is logically and Biblically correct. Men and women are not called to live under the sexist, fallacious, irrational, unbiblical claims that complementarians must accept in order to maintain belief in their errors. All it takes to see through the lies of complementarianism is a rational mind.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/book-criticism-preparing-to-be-help.html
[2]. See here for a handful of the articles I explain this in:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-alleged-differences-between-men-and.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/women-are-not-mysterious.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/sexuality-in-marriage-part-3-gender-lies.html
Thursday, November 16, 2017
Understanding Asexuality
Asexuality is nothing more than the condition of experiencing little to no sexual desire, attraction, and feelings [1]. It is a simple thing, but one not understood properly by some. Thus I will provide an explanation as to what asexuality does not mean. As an asexual myself, I care about other people correctly understanding it. I will list things that asexuals do or can do that do not mean in any way that they are not asexuals.
Asexuals can want and crave romantic relationships. Asexuality has to do with sexual desire; aromantic people have no romantic attraction to other people. Thus, one could be asexual without being aromantic. Although I am asexual, I definitely would love to be in a romantic and marital relationship if I met a girl I was interested in. It is not a particularly high priority of mine, though. Both subjective happiness from personal pursuits and deeper fulfillment from serving God and others are still entirely possible for asexuals!
Asexuals can think someone is beautiful or even sexy. Judging someone to be sexy is judging them to be sexually attractive, meaning either that the person making the judgment experiences sexual attraction to him or her or could see how other people would feel sexual attraction for him or her, so the latter would be the case with most asexuals. Thinking someone is either beautiful or sexy is not the same as actually being attracted to him or her. I think that many people, men and women alike, are physically beautiful! I know that means only that I perceive them to be beautiful, not that they are, and it signifies no sexual desire on my part.
Asexuals can experience bodily sexual arousal of the genitals randomly or from specific stimuli. Since asexuality is about a lack or minimal presence of sexual desire, nothing about the bodies and physiology of asexuals is necessarily unusual. In some cases, it can also be that an asexual person has sexual desires, perhaps even more than a very small amount, yet any sexual feelings he or she experiences seem aimless and undirected. Physical arousal might still be accompanied by sexual feelings of some type--just more limited or unfocused. Arousal of the body can still be pleasurable for asexuals. They might also like erotic media or foreplay with a spouse for the way these activities can arouse their bodies. Non-asexual persons might direct sexual feelings into masturbation or sex, but asexuals in the same situation still would not necessarily have any urge to take the same courses of action. But they can still accidentally or intentionally experience sexual arousal, and may like it. And this brings me to my next point.
Asexuals can masturbate and thoroughly enjoy it [2]. Some may, to excite a partner or to experience pleasurable physical sensations for themselves, regularly, happily masturbate, or only do it on occasion. As I've mentioned before, not having the mental presence of active sexual desire does not mean that one's genitals do not function and provide pleasure. Having a normally-functioning penis or clitoris and enjoying or intentionally encouraging its arousal does not mean someone is not asexual. Whether with a partner or in private, asexuals can certainly both masturbate and love it.
Asexuals can enjoy sex itself. Having little to no sexual desire does not mean that one fears sexuality, avoids it, is mentally repulsed by it, or finds it physically uncomfortable. On the contrary, an asexual might even look forward to having sex--it would just be a different kind of appreciation. Just as an asexual can enjoy masturbation for the physical sensations of it, an asexual can enjoy sex itself for the physical pleasure it may bring, not to mention the emotional bond it can develop. Pleasing a non-asexual spouse could still be a very high priority, for instance. After all, being asexual does not make someone aromantic; asexuals can still have strong romantic desires and sex may channel or express them.
Asexuals can want to be sexually desired. I actually do want to be sexually desired by my girlfriend/spouse if I ever enter that type of relationship! Despite not experiencing sexual desire or attraction myself, I want my significant other/spouse to be attracted to both my mind, with its intellect and spirituality, and my body. It is paradoxical, but not a contradiction. I will not want to have actual sexual intercourse regularly, but I will certainly respect the desires and feelings of my possible future spouse (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).
Although asexuality may be misunderstood by some--and perhaps even misunderstood by some asexuals themselves--it is not a difficult concept to grasp logically. I hope that this information is helpful, either to non-asexuals who are curious or to asexuals who have questions or simply want to promote awareness of what asexuality is and isn't. May it prove useful to those who need it!
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/an-explanation-of-asexuality.html
[2]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/myths-about-masturbation.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/more-myths-about-masturbation.html
Asexuals can want and crave romantic relationships. Asexuality has to do with sexual desire; aromantic people have no romantic attraction to other people. Thus, one could be asexual without being aromantic. Although I am asexual, I definitely would love to be in a romantic and marital relationship if I met a girl I was interested in. It is not a particularly high priority of mine, though. Both subjective happiness from personal pursuits and deeper fulfillment from serving God and others are still entirely possible for asexuals!
Asexuals can think someone is beautiful or even sexy. Judging someone to be sexy is judging them to be sexually attractive, meaning either that the person making the judgment experiences sexual attraction to him or her or could see how other people would feel sexual attraction for him or her, so the latter would be the case with most asexuals. Thinking someone is either beautiful or sexy is not the same as actually being attracted to him or her. I think that many people, men and women alike, are physically beautiful! I know that means only that I perceive them to be beautiful, not that they are, and it signifies no sexual desire on my part.
Asexuals can experience bodily sexual arousal of the genitals randomly or from specific stimuli. Since asexuality is about a lack or minimal presence of sexual desire, nothing about the bodies and physiology of asexuals is necessarily unusual. In some cases, it can also be that an asexual person has sexual desires, perhaps even more than a very small amount, yet any sexual feelings he or she experiences seem aimless and undirected. Physical arousal might still be accompanied by sexual feelings of some type--just more limited or unfocused. Arousal of the body can still be pleasurable for asexuals. They might also like erotic media or foreplay with a spouse for the way these activities can arouse their bodies. Non-asexual persons might direct sexual feelings into masturbation or sex, but asexuals in the same situation still would not necessarily have any urge to take the same courses of action. But they can still accidentally or intentionally experience sexual arousal, and may like it. And this brings me to my next point.
Asexuals can masturbate and thoroughly enjoy it [2]. Some may, to excite a partner or to experience pleasurable physical sensations for themselves, regularly, happily masturbate, or only do it on occasion. As I've mentioned before, not having the mental presence of active sexual desire does not mean that one's genitals do not function and provide pleasure. Having a normally-functioning penis or clitoris and enjoying or intentionally encouraging its arousal does not mean someone is not asexual. Whether with a partner or in private, asexuals can certainly both masturbate and love it.
Asexuals can enjoy sex itself. Having little to no sexual desire does not mean that one fears sexuality, avoids it, is mentally repulsed by it, or finds it physically uncomfortable. On the contrary, an asexual might even look forward to having sex--it would just be a different kind of appreciation. Just as an asexual can enjoy masturbation for the physical sensations of it, an asexual can enjoy sex itself for the physical pleasure it may bring, not to mention the emotional bond it can develop. Pleasing a non-asexual spouse could still be a very high priority, for instance. After all, being asexual does not make someone aromantic; asexuals can still have strong romantic desires and sex may channel or express them.
Asexuals can want to be sexually desired. I actually do want to be sexually desired by my girlfriend/spouse if I ever enter that type of relationship! Despite not experiencing sexual desire or attraction myself, I want my significant other/spouse to be attracted to both my mind, with its intellect and spirituality, and my body. It is paradoxical, but not a contradiction. I will not want to have actual sexual intercourse regularly, but I will certainly respect the desires and feelings of my possible future spouse (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).
Although asexuality may be misunderstood by some--and perhaps even misunderstood by some asexuals themselves--it is not a difficult concept to grasp logically. I hope that this information is helpful, either to non-asexuals who are curious or to asexuals who have questions or simply want to promote awareness of what asexuality is and isn't. May it prove useful to those who need it!
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/an-explanation-of-asexuality.html
[2]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/myths-about-masturbation.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/more-myths-about-masturbation.html
Distractions To Communicating Truth
Presentation is ultimately nothing but a mere formality designed to enhance the persuasion of a claim or series of claims. It often is mistaken for more when, in reality, it is nothing more than a frame intended to highlight a picture better--or a frame intended to distract from the fact that the picture it surrounds is missing or very damaged. The contents of a picture themselves have nothing to do with an external frame, and likewise superficial presentation has nothing to do with the veracity or verifiability of claims.
One can see this by examining pathos and ethos, which stand alongside logos as the three main components of traditional rhetoric. Pathos is an appeal to emotion, ethos an appeal to credibility (of the speaker/author or someone else), and logos an appeal to logic. A problem quickly becomes evident. Holding a title, being recognized by others, and having done something for a long time, in themselves, have nothing to do with the quality, soundness, and validity of a communicator's points. Someone could have been a theologian for 30 years but still be a shit thinker (as many theologians I have read or heard of seem to be). A scientist with great social and scientific backing is not validated intellectually by having a following and support. Social credibility has nothing to do with whether someone is correct or not. Likewise, an audience's feelings do not dictate the truth or falsity of someone's claims. Only logic, not perceived credibility or emotions, reveals if someone is correct when they make a claim. Ethos and pathos profit off of the gullibility and ignorance of those who accept fallacies, namely the fallacies of appeal to authority (or tradition) and appeal to emotion.
A person might be absolutely terrible at wielding language in a smooth, coherent, precise manner, all while holding perfectly correct and demonstrable beliefs. Inversely, a person might be a very persuasive, winsome, talented speaker, but be hiding fallacies and errors behind the facade of a "good" presentation. At this point, pathos and ethos have become a hindrance to the communication of truths. Not that either pathos or ethos really has any place in a purely rational proof of something--someone who wants proof instead of persuasion looks only to the logos of a communicator. If someone communicates the truth to me, it does not really matter if the speaker misuses language as arbitrarily defined by a society or does not have a professional background; if I understand what he or she means, then communication has succeeded, and if he or she uses no fallacies, then there are no errors to rebuke.
Some people might think that without these superficial formalities of presentation, such as grammar, eloquence, emotional appeals, and status, communication would not be successful. However, these things are all ultimately irrelevant to the truth of someone's claims and the verifiability of them, and they are judged to be persuasive or useful on purely subjective, utilitarian grounds. They are all constructs of a particular society that arbitrarily assigns a certain "value" to them. At best, they are, as are words themselves, "mere vehicles; the passengers are what matters" [1].
Does this mean that I will never use specific presentation approaches, linguistic or otherwise? No. But I do so either at my own whim, simply because I want to in a particular case, or because I seek a quick connection with a particular person or group, when I would just as readily abandon those formalities for a different audience or topic. It is not because I rely on or care about any of these things in themselves that I ever use them. There is nothing intrinsically flawed about using them, only with taking them as actual determiners of truth or correctness.
At best, ethos and pathos are distractions from what really matters in communicating and proving claims, and at worst they are intentionally misused to conceal errors. In a truly rational world, people would care only about the rationality of a communicator, not about emotional reactions or perceived authority on a matter. My society has much distance to travel before it can correctly call itself rational.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-relativity-of-language.html
One can see this by examining pathos and ethos, which stand alongside logos as the three main components of traditional rhetoric. Pathos is an appeal to emotion, ethos an appeal to credibility (of the speaker/author or someone else), and logos an appeal to logic. A problem quickly becomes evident. Holding a title, being recognized by others, and having done something for a long time, in themselves, have nothing to do with the quality, soundness, and validity of a communicator's points. Someone could have been a theologian for 30 years but still be a shit thinker (as many theologians I have read or heard of seem to be). A scientist with great social and scientific backing is not validated intellectually by having a following and support. Social credibility has nothing to do with whether someone is correct or not. Likewise, an audience's feelings do not dictate the truth or falsity of someone's claims. Only logic, not perceived credibility or emotions, reveals if someone is correct when they make a claim. Ethos and pathos profit off of the gullibility and ignorance of those who accept fallacies, namely the fallacies of appeal to authority (or tradition) and appeal to emotion.
A person might be absolutely terrible at wielding language in a smooth, coherent, precise manner, all while holding perfectly correct and demonstrable beliefs. Inversely, a person might be a very persuasive, winsome, talented speaker, but be hiding fallacies and errors behind the facade of a "good" presentation. At this point, pathos and ethos have become a hindrance to the communication of truths. Not that either pathos or ethos really has any place in a purely rational proof of something--someone who wants proof instead of persuasion looks only to the logos of a communicator. If someone communicates the truth to me, it does not really matter if the speaker misuses language as arbitrarily defined by a society or does not have a professional background; if I understand what he or she means, then communication has succeeded, and if he or she uses no fallacies, then there are no errors to rebuke.
Some people might think that without these superficial formalities of presentation, such as grammar, eloquence, emotional appeals, and status, communication would not be successful. However, these things are all ultimately irrelevant to the truth of someone's claims and the verifiability of them, and they are judged to be persuasive or useful on purely subjective, utilitarian grounds. They are all constructs of a particular society that arbitrarily assigns a certain "value" to them. At best, they are, as are words themselves, "mere vehicles; the passengers are what matters" [1].
Does this mean that I will never use specific presentation approaches, linguistic or otherwise? No. But I do so either at my own whim, simply because I want to in a particular case, or because I seek a quick connection with a particular person or group, when I would just as readily abandon those formalities for a different audience or topic. It is not because I rely on or care about any of these things in themselves that I ever use them. There is nothing intrinsically flawed about using them, only with taking them as actual determiners of truth or correctness.
At best, ethos and pathos are distractions from what really matters in communicating and proving claims, and at worst they are intentionally misused to conceal errors. In a truly rational world, people would care only about the rationality of a communicator, not about emotional reactions or perceived authority on a matter. My society has much distance to travel before it can correctly call itself rational.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-relativity-of-language.html
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Persis: Paul's "Dear Friend"
Those in the church who oppose deep friendships between men and women will find reason to be frustrated with the Apostle Paul. As he himself mentions in the book of Romans, he shared a close, fulfilling friendship with a woman. I doubt this is often acknowledged by anti-cross-gender friendship legalists!
According to Romans 16:12, Paul enjoyed a deep relationship with this woman! Her name was Persis. One does not need to puzzle over perceived difficulty with identifying the gender of Persis due to the foreign name, as Paul directly calls her "my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord". Persis was a woman and a close friend of Paul. Not only does the Bible never condemn such friendships, as they are not sinful at all (Deuteronomy 4:2, Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4), but it provides an example of them by specifically mentioning this detail of Paul's life. The language he uses, "dear friend", signifies that this relationship was not one of casual acquaintances; it was a deep friendship founded on their mutual Christian lifestyles.
In Romans 16 Paul praises and expresses affection for multiple other women, in addition to Persis--Phoebe, Tryphena, Tryphosa, etc. Paul was no sexist, legalistic person. He clearly affirmed cross-gender friendship! He did not oppose women working alongside men in evangelism and spiritual activities. This is but one of multiple indicators of his egalitarian worldview [1].
Someone who opposes cross-gender friendship is inevitably irrational, insecure, sexist, legalistic, or all of these things at once. I have elsewhere written at length about the utter stupidity of opposition to cross-gender friendship, whether between singles or separately married people or singles and married people [2], about how the possible development of sexual attraction does not actually destroy such friendships by necessity [3], and about how cross-gender friendship can strongly protect against sexual immorality [4]. I only recently discovered that Paul enjoyed a deep friendship with a woman, but it does not surprise me at all! There is nothing questionable or illicit about God's followers engaging in activities that are not sinful.
[1]. Paul clearly teaches egalitarian things about marriage and sexuality (1 Corinthians 7:3-5), as well a mutual submission of all believers to each other, irrespective of gender (Ephesians 5:21).
[2]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/opposite-gender-friendships-part-1.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/opposite-gender-friendships-part-2.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/an-observation-about-cross-gender.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/attraction-in-cross-gender-friendship.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/cross-gender-friendship-protection-from.html
According to Romans 16:12, Paul enjoyed a deep relationship with this woman! Her name was Persis. One does not need to puzzle over perceived difficulty with identifying the gender of Persis due to the foreign name, as Paul directly calls her "my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord". Persis was a woman and a close friend of Paul. Not only does the Bible never condemn such friendships, as they are not sinful at all (Deuteronomy 4:2, Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4), but it provides an example of them by specifically mentioning this detail of Paul's life. The language he uses, "dear friend", signifies that this relationship was not one of casual acquaintances; it was a deep friendship founded on their mutual Christian lifestyles.
In Romans 16 Paul praises and expresses affection for multiple other women, in addition to Persis--Phoebe, Tryphena, Tryphosa, etc. Paul was no sexist, legalistic person. He clearly affirmed cross-gender friendship! He did not oppose women working alongside men in evangelism and spiritual activities. This is but one of multiple indicators of his egalitarian worldview [1].
Someone who opposes cross-gender friendship is inevitably irrational, insecure, sexist, legalistic, or all of these things at once. I have elsewhere written at length about the utter stupidity of opposition to cross-gender friendship, whether between singles or separately married people or singles and married people [2], about how the possible development of sexual attraction does not actually destroy such friendships by necessity [3], and about how cross-gender friendship can strongly protect against sexual immorality [4]. I only recently discovered that Paul enjoyed a deep friendship with a woman, but it does not surprise me at all! There is nothing questionable or illicit about God's followers engaging in activities that are not sinful.
[1]. Paul clearly teaches egalitarian things about marriage and sexuality (1 Corinthians 7:3-5), as well a mutual submission of all believers to each other, irrespective of gender (Ephesians 5:21).
[2]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/opposite-gender-friendships-part-1.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/opposite-gender-friendships-part-2.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/an-observation-about-cross-gender.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/attraction-in-cross-gender-friendship.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/cross-gender-friendship-protection-from.html
The Impossibility Of Total Skepticism
In discussions about human epistemology I do not see central truths about skepticism acknowledged enough. Skepticism about a matter is impossible without knowledge of why one does not know something about that matter--a person cannot identify what he or she does not know something without knowing something that distinguishes knowledge from what cannot be known and that identifies actual knowledge.
Allow me to provide some examples. I know that I cannot see into the future because I know that I am a being that inhabits the present moment and travels through time sequentially. I know that I do not know if other people are really conscious because I know that it does not follow from my perceptions of their outward actions that they truly possess their own consciousnesses. I know that I am unaware of whether or not my memory holds a perfect record of every event in my life outside of my awareness because I can only access memories I am aware of. I cannot know that I do not know something without understanding the concept to some degree and knowing that I cannot verify or falsify it, for I cannot know that I have epistemic limitations which prevent me from obtaining some item of knowledge without knowing that I have epistemic limitations.
As I've been telling people for years, there is only one way for humans to be capable of having some knowledge; either there are a handful of truths that cannot be false and cannot be escaped or there is no such thing as human knowledge. Without a foundation of these axioms, as I call them, that is true by absolute necessity, no knowledge is possible because there would be no starting point for it, and total skepticism would follow. These axioms do exist and no denial will change their necessary existence and intrinsic veracity. It is impossible for them to not be true regardless of what else is true [1]. Apart from them, there is no foundation for knowledge and thus humans cannot know anything at all without them. It is impossible for the foundation of knowledge to be a religious text, an assumption, a preference, or a socially-engrained belief. This is not difficult to realize.
There are legitimate and illegitimate types of skepticism [2]. Some affirm themselves, some refute themselves. It is quite easy to distinguish between the two when one grasps logic, for then one can separate demonstrably-true skepticism from that which is self-refuting. Total skepticism is impossible. Yet this does not alter the fact that skepticism is the best we can hope for in a great many matters. But make no mistake: it is axioms, not mere beliefs, that rescue us from an epistemological abyss of nothingness.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-nature-of-absolute-certainty.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-necessity-of-cartesian-skepticism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/10/healthy-and-irrational-skepticism.html
Allow me to provide some examples. I know that I cannot see into the future because I know that I am a being that inhabits the present moment and travels through time sequentially. I know that I do not know if other people are really conscious because I know that it does not follow from my perceptions of their outward actions that they truly possess their own consciousnesses. I know that I am unaware of whether or not my memory holds a perfect record of every event in my life outside of my awareness because I can only access memories I am aware of. I cannot know that I do not know something without understanding the concept to some degree and knowing that I cannot verify or falsify it, for I cannot know that I have epistemic limitations which prevent me from obtaining some item of knowledge without knowing that I have epistemic limitations.
As I've been telling people for years, there is only one way for humans to be capable of having some knowledge; either there are a handful of truths that cannot be false and cannot be escaped or there is no such thing as human knowledge. Without a foundation of these axioms, as I call them, that is true by absolute necessity, no knowledge is possible because there would be no starting point for it, and total skepticism would follow. These axioms do exist and no denial will change their necessary existence and intrinsic veracity. It is impossible for them to not be true regardless of what else is true [1]. Apart from them, there is no foundation for knowledge and thus humans cannot know anything at all without them. It is impossible for the foundation of knowledge to be a religious text, an assumption, a preference, or a socially-engrained belief. This is not difficult to realize.
There are legitimate and illegitimate types of skepticism [2]. Some affirm themselves, some refute themselves. It is quite easy to distinguish between the two when one grasps logic, for then one can separate demonstrably-true skepticism from that which is self-refuting. Total skepticism is impossible. Yet this does not alter the fact that skepticism is the best we can hope for in a great many matters. But make no mistake: it is axioms, not mere beliefs, that rescue us from an epistemological abyss of nothingness.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-nature-of-absolute-certainty.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-necessity-of-cartesian-skepticism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/10/healthy-and-irrational-skepticism.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)