Some types of Platonism, particularly moral Platonism, are asinine worldviews that cannot be argued for apart from circular reasoning and other fallacies [1]. Still, I want to draw attention to the fact that, despite the idiocy of proposing that a group of "forms" exists abstractly beyond human consciousness and the material world [2], combining some of the forms would fashion something very familiar to Christians. According to Platonism there are forms of particular things ("beauty" or "greenness") that reflect the things themselves; to see the forms after experiencing everyday human life would be like seeing what causes shadows after seeing only the shadows for so long.
If forms like the form of beauty, form of justice, and form of goodness (these are only three examples pertaining to values) were combined--and the result had its own conscious, personal mind--then the result would greatly resemble the deity of Christianity. There are enormous differences between Platonism and Christian theism, of course: on Platonism there is nothing to reveal the nature of values, whereas in Christianity (or other types of personal theism) God reveals to humans the realm of values. This means that on moral Platonism no one can ever know the actual content of the moral forms, left only with conflicting subjective perceptions and nothing to bring to light what goodness or justice actually are. Another difference is that Platonism simply asserts that thing like justice and beauty just exist, but Christianity actually grounds values in the nature of the uncaused cause.
The Christian response to the forms is to recognize that Platonism takes parts of Yahweh's nature, divides them up, separates them, and removes them from the status of being metaphysically necessary. An uncaused cause cannot not exist [3], so if the forms of values are not rooted in the nature of the uncaused cause there is nothing about them that is necessary. There is also the fact that apart from the nature of a deity there can be no values at all, for otherwise there is no moral authority; there are merely forms that exist, but what makes the things these forms epitomize good or obligatory?
Platonism (general Platonism, not mathematical Platonism) keeps the uncaused cause and values separate. Christianity, contrarily, recognizes that the latter could only exist as a part of the former's very nature. It does not follow from the existence of an uncaused cause that values exist, but values cannot exist except as part of the uncaused cause's nature. What Socrates/Plato viewed as separate is intimately unified in Christianity.
I mentioned "greenness" as an example of a form earlier, yet to say that God is green is hardly a statement relevant to Christian theology. Not all of the Platonic forms are relevant to the results of combining the specific forms that I have described. But even I, someone who hates the fallacies of general Platonism, must acknowledge that some aspects of moral Platonism are merely a distortion of Christian ideas, restructured into something unhelpful, baseless, and epistemologically unsound.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-circular-reasoning-of-platonism.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-epistemic-problem-of-moral-platonism.html
[2]. The only things that exist abstractly by necessity are the laws of logic and concepts that logic imposes itself on (this is very similar to modern mathematical Platonism). If someone identifies as a Platonist but simply means by this that logic and/or numerical concepts exist by necessity independent of consciousness and matter, he or she has a correct worldview on this point. But this is not the same as moral Platonism or the broader Platonism of Plato.
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Appraising The Apocrypha
After reading four books from the apocrypha recently (Tobit, Judith, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), noticing that there is a possible historical error in Judith 1:1, I felt like posting about something important that must be remembered by Protestant Christians when reading the apocrypha. While Catholics and (unless I'm mistaken) the Greek Orthodox hold the Old Testament apocrypha to be authoritative and divinely inspired, those with a Protestant background could find apocryphal works quite foreign, perhaps even frustrating or alarming.
In a post around a year ago (ironic that at almost the same time of the year I'm writing about the apocrypha again!) I explained how some seeming contradictions between the apocrypha and the accepted Protestant canon of Scripture might not be contradictions at all [1], much like some claimed contradictions in the Old and New Testaments can be demonstrated to not actually be contradictions. Now I want to focus on something else--what follows and doesn't follow from a book in the apocrypha being proven to be incompatible with the established Protestant canon.
If one book of the apocrypha, like Judith (I will use this as an example because of the potential error in its first verse), turns out to be demonstrably false, no other work of the apocrypha is discredited. The individual books can stand or fall on their own. If one is objectively not inspired, this does not mean that another one isn't, and vice versa. The seeming error I have referred to in Judith is how Judith 1:1 says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, not of Babylon. Now, perhaps the verse uses Assyria as an interchangeable term for Babylon, as someone has suggested to me. This is logically possible. But until I see more evidence beyond mere speculation I do not know if Judith 1:1 is historically accurate or not. Even if Judith is historically inaccurate, however, the veracity of books like Bel and the Dragon is still a separate issue.
I do want to affirm that the book of Judith does contain a major theological error, regardless of whether or not the first verse is historically flawed. Judith 16:17 clearly describes eternal conscious torment as being true, yet, as I have shown elsewhere [2], the Protestant canon actually teaches that neither the human body nor mind/soul is immortal on its own and that only those who are saved (with the possible exception of Satan and two other figures) will have eternal life, with the unsaved being annihilated by God on a physical and conscious mental level. Because of this teaching, Judith contradicts what the Old and New Testament teach.
But just because Judith contains erroneous teaching does not mean that the other apocryphal books do. This is where Protestant Christians must be careful--in order to pursue God's revelation and live rationally they must not overreact to an actual error in an apocryphal book by rejecting all of the other works. That is a fallacious response.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-veracity-of-apocrypha.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-annihilationism.html
In a post around a year ago (ironic that at almost the same time of the year I'm writing about the apocrypha again!) I explained how some seeming contradictions between the apocrypha and the accepted Protestant canon of Scripture might not be contradictions at all [1], much like some claimed contradictions in the Old and New Testaments can be demonstrated to not actually be contradictions. Now I want to focus on something else--what follows and doesn't follow from a book in the apocrypha being proven to be incompatible with the established Protestant canon.
If one book of the apocrypha, like Judith (I will use this as an example because of the potential error in its first verse), turns out to be demonstrably false, no other work of the apocrypha is discredited. The individual books can stand or fall on their own. If one is objectively not inspired, this does not mean that another one isn't, and vice versa. The seeming error I have referred to in Judith is how Judith 1:1 says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, not of Babylon. Now, perhaps the verse uses Assyria as an interchangeable term for Babylon, as someone has suggested to me. This is logically possible. But until I see more evidence beyond mere speculation I do not know if Judith 1:1 is historically accurate or not. Even if Judith is historically inaccurate, however, the veracity of books like Bel and the Dragon is still a separate issue.
I do want to affirm that the book of Judith does contain a major theological error, regardless of whether or not the first verse is historically flawed. Judith 16:17 clearly describes eternal conscious torment as being true, yet, as I have shown elsewhere [2], the Protestant canon actually teaches that neither the human body nor mind/soul is immortal on its own and that only those who are saved (with the possible exception of Satan and two other figures) will have eternal life, with the unsaved being annihilated by God on a physical and conscious mental level. Because of this teaching, Judith contradicts what the Old and New Testament teach.
But just because Judith contains erroneous teaching does not mean that the other apocryphal books do. This is where Protestant Christians must be careful--in order to pursue God's revelation and live rationally they must not overreact to an actual error in an apocryphal book by rejecting all of the other works. That is a fallacious response.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-veracity-of-apocrypha.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-annihilationism.html
Monday, February 26, 2018
The Morality Of Vows
If there is a moral obligation to keep one's word, particularly through vows, then what are people obligated to do when their vows require them to perform some evil act? And what of when one benevolent vow forces one to contradict another benevolent vow? First, one must realize that moral dilemmas can only exist if two legitimate moral goods or obligations come into conflict. Second, one must realize that according to Christian ethics some sins are more evil than others and thus should be avoided at greater costs than others (although all sin is to be avoided wherever possible). I will use two examples to help explore the answers to these questions, one from the book of Judges in the Bible and one from the spectacularly well-written and philosophically rich show Game of Thrones. First, I will examine the one from the Bible.
Judges 11:29-40 tells of how a man named Jephthah made a vow to God that if he received military victory over the Ammonites he would sacrifice whatever exited his house upon his return as a burnt offering. His daughter came out. Now, there is some potentially legitimate dispute among theologians as to whether Jephthah's daughter was merely consigned to life as a virgin, with some thinking verses 37-40 support this, or was killed as a burnt offering, as verse 31 strongly suggests. But either way Jephthah kept his vow (verse 39). Since the human sacrifice interpretation is the more popular one in my experience, and since verse 31 at the very least does strongly support it, the rest of this post will speak as if Jephthah did indeed burn his daughter. It is also worth noting that in Genesis 22 God did not actually require that Abraham sacrifice Isaac, despite God telling him to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering in Genesis 22:2--and in fact an angel directly told Abraham not to when he prepared to kill Isaac (22:10-12).
The dilemma in Jephthah's case surfaces because Deuteronomy 23:21-23 specifically commands all who make vows to God to uphold them. And yet Exodus 21:12-14 prohibits all murder, and Leviticus 20:1-5, Deuteronomy 12:31, and Deuteronomy 18:10 explicitly condemn human sacrifice. Both breaking a vow to God and human sacrifice are intrinsic wrongs. And what if one made a vow to God that he or she would torture someone in a Biblically-condemned way (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), engage in the slave trade (Exodus 21:16), or serve someone who acts contrarily to God's revelations about the nature of justice in his Law? All of these other aforementioned acts are intrinsically evil as well. Is someone who vows to enact these sins obligated to carry them out?
Since I have in the past two weeks been binge watching Game of Thrones, I'll bring in an additional example of morally ambiguity in upholding vows from the series. A swordsman named Jaime Lannister, known as the Kingslayer for his killing of King Aerys Targaryen (called the Mad King for his obsession with pyromancy and burning people) describes to Lady Stark how his multiple vows could only work together under very select circumstances (season two, episode seven). He explains himself: "So many vows. They make you swear and swear. Defend the king, obey the king, obey your father, protect the innocent, defend the weak. But what if your father despises the king? What if the king massacres the innocent? It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or another."
Later, showing great vulnerability, he tells the lady knight Brienne of Tarth how he killed the Mad King he had sworn to serve in order to prevent the burning of his own father Tywin and of civilians (season three, episode five). He had been instructed by the king to burn his father, and the king had also demanded the death, by fire, of many men, women, and children. In Jaime's case it was objectively impossible for him to uphold all of his vows at once--just as it was impossible for Jephthah to act righteously by sacrificing his daughter--and even if it were not he would have had to do evil in order to serve the Mad King. It is impossible for one to have an obligation to do something that is sinful. Saying otherwise is to suggest something that cannot be, for it cannot be right and obligatory for someone to do what is wrong.
There are many situations that one can imagine which pit Biblical commands against each other. For instance, if a murderous person demands to know where a potential victim is, unless one remains silent or attacks the aggressor one must take a course of action that in some way involves a lie (Leviticus 19:11) or endangers the innocent (Leviticus 19:16). Which would you choose? One can conjure up other such scenarios that pose moral dilemmas. Yet moral truths remain constant and do not change to suit our circumstances. Lying, like murder or aiding murder, like other sins, is wrong intrinsically and can never itself be good. How should a person react to events that demand one sin or another?
Not all moral obligations are equally important because not all sins are equally evil [1]. Jesus himself calls some sins worse than others (John 19:11) and some moral goods better than others (Matthew 23:23), and Mosaic Law demands very different punishments for different sins, with some sins not legally punishable at all because they do not have the metaphysical status of crimes. If all sins are equal God would have prescribed capital punishment for all of them or not prescribed capital punishment for any of them. Human sacrifice, like rape, sorcery, or physically assaulting one's parents, is a capital crime in Scripture, yet breaking a vow is not one. It is always wrong to break vows to God, but it is worse to uphold a vow to do something atrocious in his name.
Yes, if something is wrong it is wrong regardless of the consequences. An immoral thing does not and cannot become morally good. But not all evils are equal in severity and depravity. And not all moral dilemmas allow for abstaining from sin by inaction--Jephthah would have broken his vow to God if he did nothing and would have committed a capital offense if he kept his vow by sacrificing his daughter. But the right thing for Jephthah to do was for him to not sacrifice a human being in the name of Yahweh (if that was what his vow required), and the right thing for Jaime to do was to kill the Mad King, ending the life of a malevolent tyrant before he could ensure an illicit localized genocide. Moral dilemmas can only exist if genuine moral obligations come into conflict--breaking a vow to God is inherently wrong, but so is human sacrifice.
The story of Jephthah in particular reminds us to not make careless promises, for we may pay for our lack of foresight by forcing ourselves into hellacious situations. It also reminds us what the cost of reacting wrongly in a true moral dilemma can be: our decisions in such dilemmas can deeply affect the lives of others, or even end them entirely.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-alleged-equality-of-sins.html
Judges 11:29-40 tells of how a man named Jephthah made a vow to God that if he received military victory over the Ammonites he would sacrifice whatever exited his house upon his return as a burnt offering. His daughter came out. Now, there is some potentially legitimate dispute among theologians as to whether Jephthah's daughter was merely consigned to life as a virgin, with some thinking verses 37-40 support this, or was killed as a burnt offering, as verse 31 strongly suggests. But either way Jephthah kept his vow (verse 39). Since the human sacrifice interpretation is the more popular one in my experience, and since verse 31 at the very least does strongly support it, the rest of this post will speak as if Jephthah did indeed burn his daughter. It is also worth noting that in Genesis 22 God did not actually require that Abraham sacrifice Isaac, despite God telling him to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering in Genesis 22:2--and in fact an angel directly told Abraham not to when he prepared to kill Isaac (22:10-12).
The dilemma in Jephthah's case surfaces because Deuteronomy 23:21-23 specifically commands all who make vows to God to uphold them. And yet Exodus 21:12-14 prohibits all murder, and Leviticus 20:1-5, Deuteronomy 12:31, and Deuteronomy 18:10 explicitly condemn human sacrifice. Both breaking a vow to God and human sacrifice are intrinsic wrongs. And what if one made a vow to God that he or she would torture someone in a Biblically-condemned way (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), engage in the slave trade (Exodus 21:16), or serve someone who acts contrarily to God's revelations about the nature of justice in his Law? All of these other aforementioned acts are intrinsically evil as well. Is someone who vows to enact these sins obligated to carry them out?
Since I have in the past two weeks been binge watching Game of Thrones, I'll bring in an additional example of morally ambiguity in upholding vows from the series. A swordsman named Jaime Lannister, known as the Kingslayer for his killing of King Aerys Targaryen (called the Mad King for his obsession with pyromancy and burning people) describes to Lady Stark how his multiple vows could only work together under very select circumstances (season two, episode seven). He explains himself: "So many vows. They make you swear and swear. Defend the king, obey the king, obey your father, protect the innocent, defend the weak. But what if your father despises the king? What if the king massacres the innocent? It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or another."
Later, showing great vulnerability, he tells the lady knight Brienne of Tarth how he killed the Mad King he had sworn to serve in order to prevent the burning of his own father Tywin and of civilians (season three, episode five). He had been instructed by the king to burn his father, and the king had also demanded the death, by fire, of many men, women, and children. In Jaime's case it was objectively impossible for him to uphold all of his vows at once--just as it was impossible for Jephthah to act righteously by sacrificing his daughter--and even if it were not he would have had to do evil in order to serve the Mad King. It is impossible for one to have an obligation to do something that is sinful. Saying otherwise is to suggest something that cannot be, for it cannot be right and obligatory for someone to do what is wrong.
There are many situations that one can imagine which pit Biblical commands against each other. For instance, if a murderous person demands to know where a potential victim is, unless one remains silent or attacks the aggressor one must take a course of action that in some way involves a lie (Leviticus 19:11) or endangers the innocent (Leviticus 19:16). Which would you choose? One can conjure up other such scenarios that pose moral dilemmas. Yet moral truths remain constant and do not change to suit our circumstances. Lying, like murder or aiding murder, like other sins, is wrong intrinsically and can never itself be good. How should a person react to events that demand one sin or another?
Not all moral obligations are equally important because not all sins are equally evil [1]. Jesus himself calls some sins worse than others (John 19:11) and some moral goods better than others (Matthew 23:23), and Mosaic Law demands very different punishments for different sins, with some sins not legally punishable at all because they do not have the metaphysical status of crimes. If all sins are equal God would have prescribed capital punishment for all of them or not prescribed capital punishment for any of them. Human sacrifice, like rape, sorcery, or physically assaulting one's parents, is a capital crime in Scripture, yet breaking a vow is not one. It is always wrong to break vows to God, but it is worse to uphold a vow to do something atrocious in his name.
Yes, if something is wrong it is wrong regardless of the consequences. An immoral thing does not and cannot become morally good. But not all evils are equal in severity and depravity. And not all moral dilemmas allow for abstaining from sin by inaction--Jephthah would have broken his vow to God if he did nothing and would have committed a capital offense if he kept his vow by sacrificing his daughter. But the right thing for Jephthah to do was for him to not sacrifice a human being in the name of Yahweh (if that was what his vow required), and the right thing for Jaime to do was to kill the Mad King, ending the life of a malevolent tyrant before he could ensure an illicit localized genocide. Moral dilemmas can only exist if genuine moral obligations come into conflict--breaking a vow to God is inherently wrong, but so is human sacrifice.
The story of Jephthah in particular reminds us to not make careless promises, for we may pay for our lack of foresight by forcing ourselves into hellacious situations. It also reminds us what the cost of reacting wrongly in a true moral dilemma can be: our decisions in such dilemmas can deeply affect the lives of others, or even end them entirely.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-alleged-equality-of-sins.html
Sunday, February 25, 2018
On Politics
Politics--some people like to keep out of it, but it is something highly important and necessary in any society. It is to geography what physiology is to anatomy: geography and anatomy tell of where things are, but politics and physiology deal with how certain things function. Politics deals with the managing of power structures, the structures themselves varying in nature, despite politics itself always being the application of philosophical ideas into the sphere of societal governance.
All people have worldviews (it is impossible for a conscious, rational being to not have a worldview), and this does not change for people who hold governmental or societal power. The politics of a group is inevitably the manifestation of the worldview(s) of those in authority. It follows, of course, that there are political ideologies that are in accordance with reality and those that are not. Some political systems will reflect the way things are and some will deviate from reality.
Thus politics needs to be of interest to those who care about ethics, values, metaphysics, theology, and epistemology, since a ruler or politician will by necessity be translating some concept into at least part of a framework that he or she will use to influence or control others. To govern in a way aligned with reality without doing so by accident one needs to be a serious, sound thinker. To shy away from addressing politics as the inherently philosophical subject that it is means to leave politics in the hands of the ignorant, the fallacious, the unethical, and the unworthy.
With what politics is established, the next subjects of inquiry might be the following. What different political structures are there? And which of them, if any, is morally best? Are any of them obligatory or evil? Autocracy, monarchy, democracy, conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, to name some? These are not minor questions, for if politicians act in a way that is not just or rational, there will be consequences of some form, differing in severity along with the extent of the injustice or irrationality.
Ideas carry great consequences, whether immediate or latent. All ideas are either true or false to some degree. Some may see politics as a realm where morality and reality do not matter, only power, success, and popularity. Yet any moral obligations do not cease to be obligations if one assumes political authority. Reality does not cease to be reality just because one can hide from the common people behind a title or an office.
All people have worldviews (it is impossible for a conscious, rational being to not have a worldview), and this does not change for people who hold governmental or societal power. The politics of a group is inevitably the manifestation of the worldview(s) of those in authority. It follows, of course, that there are political ideologies that are in accordance with reality and those that are not. Some political systems will reflect the way things are and some will deviate from reality.
Thus politics needs to be of interest to those who care about ethics, values, metaphysics, theology, and epistemology, since a ruler or politician will by necessity be translating some concept into at least part of a framework that he or she will use to influence or control others. To govern in a way aligned with reality without doing so by accident one needs to be a serious, sound thinker. To shy away from addressing politics as the inherently philosophical subject that it is means to leave politics in the hands of the ignorant, the fallacious, the unethical, and the unworthy.
With what politics is established, the next subjects of inquiry might be the following. What different political structures are there? And which of them, if any, is morally best? Are any of them obligatory or evil? Autocracy, monarchy, democracy, conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, to name some? These are not minor questions, for if politicians act in a way that is not just or rational, there will be consequences of some form, differing in severity along with the extent of the injustice or irrationality.
Ideas carry great consequences, whether immediate or latent. All ideas are either true or false to some degree. Some may see politics as a realm where morality and reality do not matter, only power, success, and popularity. Yet any moral obligations do not cease to be obligations if one assumes political authority. Reality does not cease to be reality just because one can hide from the common people behind a title or an office.
Did David Rape Bathsheba?
In the last six months I have observed some argue that the fact that David was a king during his extramarital sex with Bathsheba brought a massive power imbalance that made the sex coercive in some way. If true, this makes David's offense in 2 Samuel 11 even greater, also meaning that Bathsheba did not actually sin with David at all, as victims of rape have committed no sin in being the recipients of forced sex (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). If true, many Christians have been taught a very sanitized version of an already dark story.
But this is a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says. That David was king does not mean that he committed rape; this doesn't follow at all. There is nothing at all in the text that indicates in any way that a rape occurred. Yes, rape is more degrading and depraved than consensual adultery, but David and Bathsheba engaged in consensual adultery. This means 1) that Bathsheba was not an innocent victim of another person's force and 2) that David was not as evil as some might represent him as being.
David was an adulterer just like Bathsheba was an adulteress, and both of them deserved to die (Deuteronomy 22:22). But in the Biblical account of their infidelity neither party raped the other--yes, women can and have raped men, and even the Bible records at least one example of this (Lot's daughters having sex with him while he was drunk in Genesis 19) and an example of an attempted female-on-male rape (Potiphar's wife sexually assaulting Joseph in Genesis 37). Asinine cultural beliefs and assumptions interfere with some people's right understanding of this, unfortunately. Potiphar's wife came far closer to raping Joseph, who might have been far younger than her, than David did to raping Bathsheba.
2 Samuel 11-12 contains a story of a grave sin. But it is not a story of nonconsensual sex. There are accounts in the Bible where one can read of women raping men (or trying to) or men raping women, but the account of David and Bathsheba sleeping together is not among them.
But this is a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says. That David was king does not mean that he committed rape; this doesn't follow at all. There is nothing at all in the text that indicates in any way that a rape occurred. Yes, rape is more degrading and depraved than consensual adultery, but David and Bathsheba engaged in consensual adultery. This means 1) that Bathsheba was not an innocent victim of another person's force and 2) that David was not as evil as some might represent him as being.
David was an adulterer just like Bathsheba was an adulteress, and both of them deserved to die (Deuteronomy 22:22). But in the Biblical account of their infidelity neither party raped the other--yes, women can and have raped men, and even the Bible records at least one example of this (Lot's daughters having sex with him while he was drunk in Genesis 19) and an example of an attempted female-on-male rape (Potiphar's wife sexually assaulting Joseph in Genesis 37). Asinine cultural beliefs and assumptions interfere with some people's right understanding of this, unfortunately. Potiphar's wife came far closer to raping Joseph, who might have been far younger than her, than David did to raping Bathsheba.
2 Samuel 11-12 contains a story of a grave sin. But it is not a story of nonconsensual sex. There are accounts in the Bible where one can read of women raping men (or trying to) or men raping women, but the account of David and Bathsheba sleeping together is not among them.
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Why Watching Game Of Thrones Is Not Sinful
Already, only less than a week into my resumption of watching Game of Thrones after an at least three month hiatus, I have had to deal with some expected objections. While the opposition hasn't been as fierce as it could've been, I have for years noticed that some Christians love to either condemn entertainment like Game of Thrones as evil or credit entertainment with causing humans to sin. Thus I am going to refute such stupidities. I am going to explain why it is not sinful to watch Game of Thrones.
God, at least according to standard evangelical theology, is omnipresent--and thus sees all, as he is in the presence of all. By necessity this would mean that God sees every sinful activity. Yet God does not and cannot sin (James 1:13). So it follows inescapably that according to the theology of the conservative Christians who oppose Game of Thrones there is nothing wrong with merely seeing sin. Never does the Bible condemn literature for containing accounts or descriptions of sins. If that were sinful, then the Bible itself would be a very sinful text, with its accounts of murder, blasphemy, incest, sorcery, rape, kidnapping, theft, and illicit torture, to name only some of the sins it contains! What the Bible does say is not to add to its commands (Deuteronomy 4:2).
There is nothing wrong with reading about or seeing, in a video game or film, any sin at all. Besides, any line drawn of which someone says "This violence/sex is too much" is purely arbitrary and subjective. Conscience is an unreliable guide based on subjective feelings, and social norms left to themselves are arbitrary beliefs in place because of mere consensus and not rationality. Neither can verify or falsify a moral claim; only verifiable divine revelation can do that. Whether someone likes this or not, logic proves the fallacious nature of using these as guides for moral beliefs and the Bible itself affirms that only it can reveal moral knowledge (Romans 7:7).
Creators of entertainment sin if they make entertainment with the aim of promoting evil or enticing people to commit it, but there is nothing wrong with audiences watching sins in films or reading of them in literature, whether sorcery or murder or adultery or blasphemy or some other moral offense--unless one partakes in the entertainment with the intent of celebrating the sins in some way (like watching erotic media about bestiality or incest or rape in order to get sexually excited). Some Christians selectively object to certain sins appearing in entertainment, particularly sexual sins (my parents definitely fall into this category) or violent ones, and even more legalistic ones might object to any portrayals of sexual acts of violence altogether, despite the fact that not all sex or violence is even sinful. If someone can't handle watching a sin without reacting illicitly on a mental level (by wanting to participate in the sin), then the problem lies in the audience member and he or she can stop watching if need be. But no form of entertainment can make a person sin mentally or with their body.
Now I will address the issue of sexuality in the show. The infamous nudity in Game of Thrones is sometimes purely nonsexual, like when Daenerys is found crouching nude with her newly-hatched dragons at the end of season one or when Melisandre (Stannis Baratheon's religious advisor), naked, gives birth to a demonic figure in a cave in season two. As for the actual sex scenes, they are not only nowhere near as frequent as some anti-GOT people might claim, but also brief, relatively non-graphic, and sometimes shot in a way that doesn't even show the full bodies of those involved. And sex is sometimes not even the only or main thing occurring in those scenes to begin with. There are fallacious teachers like Kevin DeYoung who, in addition to likely misunderstanding what the Bible defines as lust and sexual sin in the first place, will decry Game of Thrones without having watched a single episode and will even admit that they have not watched any of it, meaning anything they say about the show is based on unverified speculation or hearsay. And neither is a legitimate proof of a claim, meaning that to know what is even in the show one must actually watch it first.
Some Christians might compare several of the sex scenes in Game of Thrones to what can be found in erotic media online, but the truth is that erotic media isn't sinful just because it is erotic [1]; some erotic media can be legitimately consumed and enjoyed by singles and married people alike with no sin! The sexual phobias and legalism of some Christians do not reflect the actual teachings of the Bible. Far from it! Sexuality is just another dimension to human nature and is nothing to either worship or fear.
Since I referred to my parents a few paragraphs ago, I will use them as an example of something. They introduced me to the film Passion of the Christ. Much of the movie, as viewers can recall, shows brutal, prolonged, malicious torture of a very sadistic nature. The tortures of Roman crucifixion portrayed here are extremely unbiblical (Deuteronomy 25:1-3) [2]. And they actually happened in documented history, whereas Game of Thrones is fantasy fiction. Yet my parents had no problem showing this movie to me, although they would freak out at the thought of even short non-graphic sex scenes in a movie. They would even panic at the portrayal of nudity in film, despite nudity being neither sexual nor sinful in itself in any way. My parents, and all like them, have subjective, arbitrary, fallacious, selective, unbiblical criteria for claiming that a work of entertainment shouldn't be viewed.
Combine the political intrigue of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings with the moral degeneracy in the book of Judges, make a TV show, and you'd get something very similar to Game of Thrones. If some Christians don't want to watch the show, that is fine. But they violate a command of God's (Deuteronomy 4:2) when they impose their extra-Biblical preferences or convictions on others as if they had some objective moral authority.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-1.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-2_19.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-3.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/we-are-getting-what-our-deeds-deserve.html
God, at least according to standard evangelical theology, is omnipresent--and thus sees all, as he is in the presence of all. By necessity this would mean that God sees every sinful activity. Yet God does not and cannot sin (James 1:13). So it follows inescapably that according to the theology of the conservative Christians who oppose Game of Thrones there is nothing wrong with merely seeing sin. Never does the Bible condemn literature for containing accounts or descriptions of sins. If that were sinful, then the Bible itself would be a very sinful text, with its accounts of murder, blasphemy, incest, sorcery, rape, kidnapping, theft, and illicit torture, to name only some of the sins it contains! What the Bible does say is not to add to its commands (Deuteronomy 4:2).
There is nothing wrong with reading about or seeing, in a video game or film, any sin at all. Besides, any line drawn of which someone says "This violence/sex is too much" is purely arbitrary and subjective. Conscience is an unreliable guide based on subjective feelings, and social norms left to themselves are arbitrary beliefs in place because of mere consensus and not rationality. Neither can verify or falsify a moral claim; only verifiable divine revelation can do that. Whether someone likes this or not, logic proves the fallacious nature of using these as guides for moral beliefs and the Bible itself affirms that only it can reveal moral knowledge (Romans 7:7).
Creators of entertainment sin if they make entertainment with the aim of promoting evil or enticing people to commit it, but there is nothing wrong with audiences watching sins in films or reading of them in literature, whether sorcery or murder or adultery or blasphemy or some other moral offense--unless one partakes in the entertainment with the intent of celebrating the sins in some way (like watching erotic media about bestiality or incest or rape in order to get sexually excited). Some Christians selectively object to certain sins appearing in entertainment, particularly sexual sins (my parents definitely fall into this category) or violent ones, and even more legalistic ones might object to any portrayals of sexual acts of violence altogether, despite the fact that not all sex or violence is even sinful. If someone can't handle watching a sin without reacting illicitly on a mental level (by wanting to participate in the sin), then the problem lies in the audience member and he or she can stop watching if need be. But no form of entertainment can make a person sin mentally or with their body.
Now I will address the issue of sexuality in the show. The infamous nudity in Game of Thrones is sometimes purely nonsexual, like when Daenerys is found crouching nude with her newly-hatched dragons at the end of season one or when Melisandre (Stannis Baratheon's religious advisor), naked, gives birth to a demonic figure in a cave in season two. As for the actual sex scenes, they are not only nowhere near as frequent as some anti-GOT people might claim, but also brief, relatively non-graphic, and sometimes shot in a way that doesn't even show the full bodies of those involved. And sex is sometimes not even the only or main thing occurring in those scenes to begin with. There are fallacious teachers like Kevin DeYoung who, in addition to likely misunderstanding what the Bible defines as lust and sexual sin in the first place, will decry Game of Thrones without having watched a single episode and will even admit that they have not watched any of it, meaning anything they say about the show is based on unverified speculation or hearsay. And neither is a legitimate proof of a claim, meaning that to know what is even in the show one must actually watch it first.
Some Christians might compare several of the sex scenes in Game of Thrones to what can be found in erotic media online, but the truth is that erotic media isn't sinful just because it is erotic [1]; some erotic media can be legitimately consumed and enjoyed by singles and married people alike with no sin! The sexual phobias and legalism of some Christians do not reflect the actual teachings of the Bible. Far from it! Sexuality is just another dimension to human nature and is nothing to either worship or fear.
Since I referred to my parents a few paragraphs ago, I will use them as an example of something. They introduced me to the film Passion of the Christ. Much of the movie, as viewers can recall, shows brutal, prolonged, malicious torture of a very sadistic nature. The tortures of Roman crucifixion portrayed here are extremely unbiblical (Deuteronomy 25:1-3) [2]. And they actually happened in documented history, whereas Game of Thrones is fantasy fiction. Yet my parents had no problem showing this movie to me, although they would freak out at the thought of even short non-graphic sex scenes in a movie. They would even panic at the portrayal of nudity in film, despite nudity being neither sexual nor sinful in itself in any way. My parents, and all like them, have subjective, arbitrary, fallacious, selective, unbiblical criteria for claiming that a work of entertainment shouldn't be viewed.
Combine the political intrigue of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings with the moral degeneracy in the book of Judges, make a TV show, and you'd get something very similar to Game of Thrones. If some Christians don't want to watch the show, that is fine. But they violate a command of God's (Deuteronomy 4:2) when they impose their extra-Biblical preferences or convictions on others as if they had some objective moral authority.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-1.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-2_19.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-3.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/we-are-getting-what-our-deeds-deserve.html
Business Is Not Inherently Unethical
Unfortunately, some people might assume negative things about the moral character of those in the business world simply because they are in business. Certainly not everyone holds these fallacious views about businesspeople! But as a Christian and as someone in the process of obtaining a business-related degree, I want to emphasize why it is erroneous and fallacious to view businesspeople as unethical by default. Business is not some inherently unethical thing, but something that can be used in a legitimate or illegitimate way, as with all other things.
How might some people view those in business? Marketers might be assumed to be deceitful, manipulative people who would misrepresent a product if that is what attracted buyers. Managers might be thought of as egoistic leaders who have no genuine concern for their underlings. And other examples could be listed. But just because a man or woman is involved in successful business, whatever his or her function (accountant, manager, marketer, R & D, human resources, etc), does not mean that he or she has no regard for ethics and other humans.
It does not follow from being a marketer that one intends to deceive others about a product, or from being a manager that one tramples on subordinates, or from being a general businessperson that one only cares about profit, and so on. There is no logical incompatibility between Biblical ethics and business. To condemn the whole of business as sinful is a deeply fallacious, contra-Biblical overreaction to the offenses of some businesspeople. It is itself sinful to condemn that which is not immoral (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Could a marketer misrepresent a product's safety, features, or quality? Of course! But this does not invalidate the entirety of marketing or mean that marketing cannot exist apart from dishonesty. Could a manager overlook the diligence of workers, treat them callously, or treat them unfairly? Of course! But this does not mean that to be a manager one must engage in such behaviors. Business does not inherently require dishonesty or self-absorption or a utilitarian willingness to do almost anything for profit.
Slave trading (Exodus 21:16) and prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:18) are examples of occupations that are intrinsically unethical, yet they fit into a relatively small category; outside of this class of activities (the examples I gave are not exhaustive), all business occupations can be pursued in a way that is not morally wrong. There is no traditional position within a company that itself requires unethical behavior for the position to even continue to exist!
Businesspeople are not slaves to selfishness and moral apathy simply by nature of being businesspeople. Business can offer unique opportunities to practice egoism, illicit manipulation, and deception, but it also can offer opportunities to treat others in a dignifying way, express care for the community, and exercise legitimate stewardship of resources. Assumptions are inherently fallacious, and they become no less fallacious when they are made about the character of businesspeople being negative. In this case what is true of the part, of some businesspeople, is not true of the whole. In order to have a consistent worldview, Christians must not view things like business as outside the domain of Christianity and Christian ethics.
How might some people view those in business? Marketers might be assumed to be deceitful, manipulative people who would misrepresent a product if that is what attracted buyers. Managers might be thought of as egoistic leaders who have no genuine concern for their underlings. And other examples could be listed. But just because a man or woman is involved in successful business, whatever his or her function (accountant, manager, marketer, R & D, human resources, etc), does not mean that he or she has no regard for ethics and other humans.
It does not follow from being a marketer that one intends to deceive others about a product, or from being a manager that one tramples on subordinates, or from being a general businessperson that one only cares about profit, and so on. There is no logical incompatibility between Biblical ethics and business. To condemn the whole of business as sinful is a deeply fallacious, contra-Biblical overreaction to the offenses of some businesspeople. It is itself sinful to condemn that which is not immoral (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Could a marketer misrepresent a product's safety, features, or quality? Of course! But this does not invalidate the entirety of marketing or mean that marketing cannot exist apart from dishonesty. Could a manager overlook the diligence of workers, treat them callously, or treat them unfairly? Of course! But this does not mean that to be a manager one must engage in such behaviors. Business does not inherently require dishonesty or self-absorption or a utilitarian willingness to do almost anything for profit.
Slave trading (Exodus 21:16) and prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:18) are examples of occupations that are intrinsically unethical, yet they fit into a relatively small category; outside of this class of activities (the examples I gave are not exhaustive), all business occupations can be pursued in a way that is not morally wrong. There is no traditional position within a company that itself requires unethical behavior for the position to even continue to exist!
Businesspeople are not slaves to selfishness and moral apathy simply by nature of being businesspeople. Business can offer unique opportunities to practice egoism, illicit manipulation, and deception, but it also can offer opportunities to treat others in a dignifying way, express care for the community, and exercise legitimate stewardship of resources. Assumptions are inherently fallacious, and they become no less fallacious when they are made about the character of businesspeople being negative. In this case what is true of the part, of some businesspeople, is not true of the whole. In order to have a consistent worldview, Christians must not view things like business as outside the domain of Christianity and Christian ethics.
Friday, February 23, 2018
Moral Skepticism In Westeros
Game of Thrones beautifully portrays a diverse set of philosophical beliefs and human practices, many of which cannot all be simultaneously true, presenting the main tenets of postmodernism as the series unfolds. I have written about how the show captures the postmodern spirit rather well already [1] (oh yes, there are plenty of things I want to write about concerning Game of Thrones!). This time I want to focus on something related but distinct: why moral skepticism is the best conclusion regarding ethics that the characters of the show can reach. In the world of Westeros there are multiple primary religions--one generally acknowledged theological system called the Faith of the Seven and another system that worships the "Old Gods." In Essos there is the Dothraki religion that involves a deity called the Great Stallion (the Dothraki are a people whose culture revolves around horses), complete with its own eschatology and prophecies.
In all the episodes I have seen so far, the first 10 (all of season one), there is no evidence that has been present for the conclusion that one of these religions is true and the others false. A companion of Jon Snow named Sam complains in season one about how the Seven do not answer his prayers, leading to him converting to worship of the Old Gods while he lives in the Night's Watch. People make casual references to these religions, albeit often brief and vague ones, and yet they never describe any actual evidence for any of them, much less evidence that favors one over the others.
An inevitable philosophical consequence of this--although it has not yet been mentioned by any of the characters--is a total absence of any sound basis for a values system [2]. Although, of course, by logical necessity there would still have to be some sort of uncaused cause in the universe of Game of Thrones, it does not follow from the existence of an uncaused cause alone that morality exists, and none of the religions in Westeros have to be true by necessity, meaning that perhaps there is no such thing as right or wrong in the series world. There is no reason, in the context of the information given by the series (in the episodes I have viewed), for any characters to lean more towards the moral tenets of one ideology as opposed to another.
There are some spoilers for season one below.
Lord Stark adhered to a very objectivist, deontological moral philosophy before his beheading, one that recognizes that if a thing is wrong it is wrong in itself, not because of unwanted political consequences. He frequently spoke of honor, unwilling to violate his conceptions of it, being the only advisor to King Robert Baratheon to refuse to condone killing Daenerys' unborn child, and being ready to execute Ser Jorah for slave trafficking using criminals. Eddard Stark is firm in his moral convictions and chastises others for not having the same consistency, for not universally condemning and avoiding actions he considers evil. But there is no evidence that his moral system is any more legitimate than that of the others around him--or even that of the Dothraki, an Essos tribe which has no moral objections to war rape, abusive slavery, drawn-out tortures, militarism, and arbitrary murder of civilians. The Dothraki celebrate only coercive strength, and the likes of Cersei Lannister only want to acknowledge truths that grant a Machiavellian power of manipulation over others. Lord Stark's ethical beliefs certainly are not reflected in the actions of other inhabitants of Westeros or Essos.
In the series world, why is Stark's moral system correct and those of others incorrect? The only things these characters can appeal to are religions with no evidential support, subjective pangs of conscience, or arbitrary legal systems steeped in traditions. At the very least, Westeros shows what the world looks like when different consciences, legal systems, and cultural norms collide. If there is no moral nature to the uncaused cause and if none of the religions of Westeros or Essos are true, then moral nihilism is the only correct stance on ethics in Westeros; since no one in Westeros or Essos can verify or falsify any of the religions practiced therein, though, moral skepticism is the only legitimate position on morality for their inhabitants to hold. The absence of verifiable (here I mean evidentially supportable) divine revelation leaves the people only able to rely on fallacious appeals to emotion, tradition, and authority.
People don't often take moral epistemology seriously enough, even, unfortunately, Christians. I would encourage Christians who are willing to watch Game of Thrones and who think that conscience and social norms hold any legitimate authority in moral epistemology to view the series--and to see what diverse, conflicting moral beliefs exist when people act like social norms, legal systems, or conscience can reveal moral truths. Such beliefs about moral epistemology are fallacious, untrue, and inevitably lead to subjective and arbitrary judgments that conflict with those of others. The dangers of conscience and social conditioning are many.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/winter-is-coming-realism-of-westeros.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
In all the episodes I have seen so far, the first 10 (all of season one), there is no evidence that has been present for the conclusion that one of these religions is true and the others false. A companion of Jon Snow named Sam complains in season one about how the Seven do not answer his prayers, leading to him converting to worship of the Old Gods while he lives in the Night's Watch. People make casual references to these religions, albeit often brief and vague ones, and yet they never describe any actual evidence for any of them, much less evidence that favors one over the others.
An inevitable philosophical consequence of this--although it has not yet been mentioned by any of the characters--is a total absence of any sound basis for a values system [2]. Although, of course, by logical necessity there would still have to be some sort of uncaused cause in the universe of Game of Thrones, it does not follow from the existence of an uncaused cause alone that morality exists, and none of the religions in Westeros have to be true by necessity, meaning that perhaps there is no such thing as right or wrong in the series world. There is no reason, in the context of the information given by the series (in the episodes I have viewed), for any characters to lean more towards the moral tenets of one ideology as opposed to another.
There are some spoilers for season one below.
Lord Stark adhered to a very objectivist, deontological moral philosophy before his beheading, one that recognizes that if a thing is wrong it is wrong in itself, not because of unwanted political consequences. He frequently spoke of honor, unwilling to violate his conceptions of it, being the only advisor to King Robert Baratheon to refuse to condone killing Daenerys' unborn child, and being ready to execute Ser Jorah for slave trafficking using criminals. Eddard Stark is firm in his moral convictions and chastises others for not having the same consistency, for not universally condemning and avoiding actions he considers evil. But there is no evidence that his moral system is any more legitimate than that of the others around him--or even that of the Dothraki, an Essos tribe which has no moral objections to war rape, abusive slavery, drawn-out tortures, militarism, and arbitrary murder of civilians. The Dothraki celebrate only coercive strength, and the likes of Cersei Lannister only want to acknowledge truths that grant a Machiavellian power of manipulation over others. Lord Stark's ethical beliefs certainly are not reflected in the actions of other inhabitants of Westeros or Essos.
In the series world, why is Stark's moral system correct and those of others incorrect? The only things these characters can appeal to are religions with no evidential support, subjective pangs of conscience, or arbitrary legal systems steeped in traditions. At the very least, Westeros shows what the world looks like when different consciences, legal systems, and cultural norms collide. If there is no moral nature to the uncaused cause and if none of the religions of Westeros or Essos are true, then moral nihilism is the only correct stance on ethics in Westeros; since no one in Westeros or Essos can verify or falsify any of the religions practiced therein, though, moral skepticism is the only legitimate position on morality for their inhabitants to hold. The absence of verifiable (here I mean evidentially supportable) divine revelation leaves the people only able to rely on fallacious appeals to emotion, tradition, and authority.
People don't often take moral epistemology seriously enough, even, unfortunately, Christians. I would encourage Christians who are willing to watch Game of Thrones and who think that conscience and social norms hold any legitimate authority in moral epistemology to view the series--and to see what diverse, conflicting moral beliefs exist when people act like social norms, legal systems, or conscience can reveal moral truths. Such beliefs about moral epistemology are fallacious, untrue, and inevitably lead to subjective and arbitrary judgments that conflict with those of others. The dangers of conscience and social conditioning are many.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/winter-is-coming-realism-of-westeros.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-nature-of-conscience.html
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Introspection: The Inward Gaze
It is impossible for knowledge to exist without a conscious mind, for without consciousness there is nothing to perceive, think, or be aware of anything at all. The senses, housed in the body, are stimulated by things in the external world, which is itself external to both the body and mind; introspection searches one's own mind, whether probing one's emotional state, reflecting on a memory, deciphering one's intentions, or engaging in some other mental act. The very concept of the external world is only valid because there is a distinction between a perceiving mind and material objects being perceived. They cannot be one and the same.
Those who claim that all knowledge comes from the senses commit three grave errors. First, they make a self-refuting claim, for the senses do not prove that all knowledge comes from them, and thus the claim itself cannot be true. Second, all knowledge involves logic, without which there could be no intelligible experiences, and logic is grasped by the mind, not the senses. Third, the senses can perceive external objects only because there is a conscious mind behind them.
Introspection is an inward gaze, a stare into one's own mind/spirit. It is not a gaze at some outer material object. This means that the mind is distinct from the senses. One can perceive the mind without even having any senses at all, but one cannot perceive through the senses without having a mind. The very notion that the senses ground all knowledge is false, impossible, self-refuting, and an idea that only an asinine thinker would ever believe.
It is with some degree of introspection that I constantly perceive, for, although I can close my eyes and will my mind's focus to retreat into itself, to focus on anything I must be aware of my inner consciousness. There is not a moment when I perceive on any level, whether when awake or in dreams, that involves no introspection at all. The inward gaze is omnipresent in my experiences, even if only to the slight extent of simple awareness that there is a self that is perceiving.
No, not all knowledge comes from the senses. Far from it! Knowledge can exist without the senses or without any matter at all because a conscious mind can exist without them. But knowledge cannot be obtained through the senses unless there is a mind experiencing sensory perceptions. And thus for knowledge to exist, it is true by necessity that not all knowledge comes from the senses.
Logic, people. It is helpful and it cannot be false. And it does not rely on matter or the senses for its existence or authority. It has both by intrinsic necessity.
Those who claim that all knowledge comes from the senses commit three grave errors. First, they make a self-refuting claim, for the senses do not prove that all knowledge comes from them, and thus the claim itself cannot be true. Second, all knowledge involves logic, without which there could be no intelligible experiences, and logic is grasped by the mind, not the senses. Third, the senses can perceive external objects only because there is a conscious mind behind them.
Introspection is an inward gaze, a stare into one's own mind/spirit. It is not a gaze at some outer material object. This means that the mind is distinct from the senses. One can perceive the mind without even having any senses at all, but one cannot perceive through the senses without having a mind. The very notion that the senses ground all knowledge is false, impossible, self-refuting, and an idea that only an asinine thinker would ever believe.
It is with some degree of introspection that I constantly perceive, for, although I can close my eyes and will my mind's focus to retreat into itself, to focus on anything I must be aware of my inner consciousness. There is not a moment when I perceive on any level, whether when awake or in dreams, that involves no introspection at all. The inward gaze is omnipresent in my experiences, even if only to the slight extent of simple awareness that there is a self that is perceiving.
No, not all knowledge comes from the senses. Far from it! Knowledge can exist without the senses or without any matter at all because a conscious mind can exist without them. But knowledge cannot be obtained through the senses unless there is a mind experiencing sensory perceptions. And thus for knowledge to exist, it is true by necessity that not all knowledge comes from the senses.
Logic, people. It is helpful and it cannot be false. And it does not rely on matter or the senses for its existence or authority. It has both by intrinsic necessity.
The Function Of Incarceration In Mosaic Law
Prisons are seemingly accepted by many I know as the just solution to many crimes. Although sometimes used interchangeably with the word jail, the word prison refers to something somewhat different in my country. In America, jails are used at the local level to hold people awaiting trial or to enact generally short sentences (around a year or less) for misdemeanors, whereas prisons are used to enact longer sentences for those convicted of felonies. Much of this system is utterly foreign to Biblical criminal punishments, although many Christians I've known have yet to realize this or become concerned about this.
In Leviticus 24:12, readers can find an account of a man who blasphemed God, and until they knew what punishment for this offense God would reveal the Israelites put the man in custody, seemingly in something that at least amounted to a makeshift jail. This was a temporary confinement, only to last until the just penalty came to light. The penalty, ultimately, was death (Leviticus 24:16). A similar story can be found in Numbers 15:32-36, with the sin in question being gathering wood on the Sabbath instead of blasphemy. As in the other account, the offender was temporarily kept in custody until it was clear how to proceed.
Never once are jails/prisons prescribed as actual penalties for criminal offenses in Mosaic Law. Instead, a variety of punishments are prescribed and often fastened to particular actions, ranging from financial damages or restitution (Exodus 21:18-19, Exodus 21:1-4) to servitude to pay off a debt (Exodus 22:3) to amputation of body parts (Exodus 21:23-25, Deuteronomy 25:11-12) to execution (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 22:22) to 1-40 lashes (Deuteronomy 25:1-3). The only function of a "prison" in Mosaic Law is to confine men and women who are awaiting a trial or verdict. Offenders are to, depending on their crimes, make restitution to victims, be flogged in a humane way and then released without stigma, lose select body parts, or be removed from terrestrial life and thus be unable to harm anyone else further. These are Biblically just punishments.
Instead of acknowledging the alien nature of prisons to just criminal punishment, many Christians I know speak as if the American justice system is just simply by nature of being established by the government, which is just an appeal to authority combined with non sequiturs and question begging. Then there's also the fact that some people I know would likely get upset over public consensual homosexual affection (which is not problematic) seem content to not challenge the Biblical capital offense of homosexual rape, or other violence, in American prisons. I fucking hate people who hold to such hypocrisy--especially when they claim they represent Christianity and reason. The fact of the matter is that Biblical morality rejects the use of prisons for punitive purposes as unjust.
The Biblically prescribed justice system offers a spectrum of punishments that are tailored to particular crimes, instead of giving many offenders different extents of the same punishment. And at least one of the Bible's legal penalties could be highly rehabilitative: if a thief has no money with which to repay someone he or she stole from, he or she is sentenced to work the debt off, with the maximum amount of time permitted for the servitude being six full years (Exodus 21:2). During this period the poor thief could learn a new occupation, engage in introspective soul-searching, be productive in a way that benefits the community (or at least a part of it), and perhaps even come to befriend the person(s) he or she stole from.
If Christianity is true, then the American prison system is unjust, as were many other criminal punishment systems before it in other nations, for in Christian theology Mosaic Law reflects God's nature and God's nature does not change (Malachi 3:6). The fact that I hear little to no talk about this issue from many Christians reveals an ignorance about basic Christian ethics and moral epistemology. It is my hope that other Christians begin to recognize that they are at best deeply inconsistent in their worldview ethics when they contradict the prescriptions of the Bible.
In Leviticus 24:12, readers can find an account of a man who blasphemed God, and until they knew what punishment for this offense God would reveal the Israelites put the man in custody, seemingly in something that at least amounted to a makeshift jail. This was a temporary confinement, only to last until the just penalty came to light. The penalty, ultimately, was death (Leviticus 24:16). A similar story can be found in Numbers 15:32-36, with the sin in question being gathering wood on the Sabbath instead of blasphemy. As in the other account, the offender was temporarily kept in custody until it was clear how to proceed.
Never once are jails/prisons prescribed as actual penalties for criminal offenses in Mosaic Law. Instead, a variety of punishments are prescribed and often fastened to particular actions, ranging from financial damages or restitution (Exodus 21:18-19, Exodus 21:1-4) to servitude to pay off a debt (Exodus 22:3) to amputation of body parts (Exodus 21:23-25, Deuteronomy 25:11-12) to execution (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 22:22) to 1-40 lashes (Deuteronomy 25:1-3). The only function of a "prison" in Mosaic Law is to confine men and women who are awaiting a trial or verdict. Offenders are to, depending on their crimes, make restitution to victims, be flogged in a humane way and then released without stigma, lose select body parts, or be removed from terrestrial life and thus be unable to harm anyone else further. These are Biblically just punishments.
Instead of acknowledging the alien nature of prisons to just criminal punishment, many Christians I know speak as if the American justice system is just simply by nature of being established by the government, which is just an appeal to authority combined with non sequiturs and question begging. Then there's also the fact that some people I know would likely get upset over public consensual homosexual affection (which is not problematic) seem content to not challenge the Biblical capital offense of homosexual rape, or other violence, in American prisons. I fucking hate people who hold to such hypocrisy--especially when they claim they represent Christianity and reason. The fact of the matter is that Biblical morality rejects the use of prisons for punitive purposes as unjust.
The Biblically prescribed justice system offers a spectrum of punishments that are tailored to particular crimes, instead of giving many offenders different extents of the same punishment. And at least one of the Bible's legal penalties could be highly rehabilitative: if a thief has no money with which to repay someone he or she stole from, he or she is sentenced to work the debt off, with the maximum amount of time permitted for the servitude being six full years (Exodus 21:2). During this period the poor thief could learn a new occupation, engage in introspective soul-searching, be productive in a way that benefits the community (or at least a part of it), and perhaps even come to befriend the person(s) he or she stole from.
If Christianity is true, then the American prison system is unjust, as were many other criminal punishment systems before it in other nations, for in Christian theology Mosaic Law reflects God's nature and God's nature does not change (Malachi 3:6). The fact that I hear little to no talk about this issue from many Christians reveals an ignorance about basic Christian ethics and moral epistemology. It is my hope that other Christians begin to recognize that they are at best deeply inconsistent in their worldview ethics when they contradict the prescriptions of the Bible.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Language And Logic
It's time to revisit the topic of language! First I will define what a language is and describe how it is used in conjunction with logic. A language is a system of oral and written communication that is used in a somewhat homogenous manner, and logic is the set of laws that shows what things are and what follows and doesn't follow from a given thing. Together, of course, they are used in effective communication--not that any communication between humans is perfect, though, as a person can only have access to his or her own mind and thus can only know what he or she means by a word in a certain case. Human languages, even so, work well enough for people to get by when they are used consistently.
Linguistic systems devised by humans are arbitrary, but one can still use them with internal consistency and still use them to communicate objective truths [1]. When used coherently, language is used in a rational manner that allows for mutual communication between non-telepathic beings. One must use logic to spot inconsistencies in how people use language, like, for instance, when someone defines a word a certain way and then soon after uses it to convey a different meaning.
Analytic philosophers (I am definitely one) use logic to deconstruct and thus analyze linguistic propositions, as well as the concepts they represent, using reason to appraise the verifiability of the concepts expressed by language. They are often contrasted with continental philosophers, who focus on the more experiential, existential aspects of human life--not that analytic philosophy does not allow for existentialism, for it certainly does! It is just that historical continental philosophers were not as concerned with actually verifying ideas in any thorough sense.
Of course, a sound epistemology is the only way to know if one is correct in one's conclusions to begin with [2], so without an emphasis on legitimate epistemology one is at best right by accident. In other words, continental philosophy without analytic philosophy attached in some way is nonsense (there is no way to know the human condition without logic). Despite these loose differences in how the two are sometimes categorized, one could be both an analytic and continental philosopher in the same way that one can be both a rationalist and empiricist [3] as I am. As long as a quest to understand human nature does not neglect rationalism and correct epistemology, there is nothing about continental philosophy in itself that is unsound; likewise, as long as an analytic philosopher or rationalist does not stray from reason, there is nothing problematic about engaging in continental philosophy.
An example of an analytic philosopher from history would be Descartes (not that he applied rationalism consistently), whereas an example of a historical continental philosopher would be Kierkegaard. Of course, as I already said, there is no contradiction in emphasizing logic, linguistics, and existentialism--as long as the latter is not pursued in a manner contrary to reason. The pairing of language and logic is not irrelevant to discovering the human experience, for logic, at least, must be used in order to even know what it means to be human.
Logic must be used to even have a framework for understanding meaning and identity, and language must be used to convey any findings to other humans. Precise language and a correct grasp of logic are vital to philosophical endeavors. Without the clarity that they provide, one is lost in uncertainty, inability to communicate properly, or both.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-relativity-of-language.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/language-can-describe-truth.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-necessity-of-cartesian-skepticism.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-reliability-of-experience.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-necessity-of-experience-to-knowledge.html
Linguistic systems devised by humans are arbitrary, but one can still use them with internal consistency and still use them to communicate objective truths [1]. When used coherently, language is used in a rational manner that allows for mutual communication between non-telepathic beings. One must use logic to spot inconsistencies in how people use language, like, for instance, when someone defines a word a certain way and then soon after uses it to convey a different meaning.
Analytic philosophers (I am definitely one) use logic to deconstruct and thus analyze linguistic propositions, as well as the concepts they represent, using reason to appraise the verifiability of the concepts expressed by language. They are often contrasted with continental philosophers, who focus on the more experiential, existential aspects of human life--not that analytic philosophy does not allow for existentialism, for it certainly does! It is just that historical continental philosophers were not as concerned with actually verifying ideas in any thorough sense.
Of course, a sound epistemology is the only way to know if one is correct in one's conclusions to begin with [2], so without an emphasis on legitimate epistemology one is at best right by accident. In other words, continental philosophy without analytic philosophy attached in some way is nonsense (there is no way to know the human condition without logic). Despite these loose differences in how the two are sometimes categorized, one could be both an analytic and continental philosopher in the same way that one can be both a rationalist and empiricist [3] as I am. As long as a quest to understand human nature does not neglect rationalism and correct epistemology, there is nothing about continental philosophy in itself that is unsound; likewise, as long as an analytic philosopher or rationalist does not stray from reason, there is nothing problematic about engaging in continental philosophy.
An example of an analytic philosopher from history would be Descartes (not that he applied rationalism consistently), whereas an example of a historical continental philosopher would be Kierkegaard. Of course, as I already said, there is no contradiction in emphasizing logic, linguistics, and existentialism--as long as the latter is not pursued in a manner contrary to reason. The pairing of language and logic is not irrelevant to discovering the human experience, for logic, at least, must be used in order to even know what it means to be human.
Logic must be used to even have a framework for understanding meaning and identity, and language must be used to convey any findings to other humans. Precise language and a correct grasp of logic are vital to philosophical endeavors. Without the clarity that they provide, one is lost in uncertainty, inability to communicate properly, or both.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-relativity-of-language.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/language-can-describe-truth.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-necessity-of-cartesian-skepticism.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-reliability-of-experience.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-necessity-of-experience-to-knowledge.html
Sunday, February 18, 2018
Winter Is Coming: The Realism Of Westeros
"I’ve always taken it as a code William Faulkner’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech from the early ‘50’s, where he said that the human heart in conflict with the self was the only thing worth writing about."
--George R. R. Martin [1]
I have recently been meaning to start rewatching Game of Thrones after being introduced to it last semester but only getting around eight episodes into the first season. The show is derived from author George R. R. Martin's fantasy book series called A Song of Ice and Fire, the first entry in the series titled A Game of Thrones. Focusing on a land called Westeros (and at times another land called Essos), the TV series presents an alien world--and yet one very much like ours. Abnormally longer durations of the natural seasons help distinguish Westeros from earth, yet other aspects of the land are not so different. The Game of Thrones show explores issues like ethics, politics, religion, sexuality, patriarchal social structures, and the unpredictability of future events in a manner that acknowledges just how varying human beliefs really are.
The show lays out, intentionally or unintentionally, the primary tenets of postmodernism [2], with various characters believing in conflicting narratives and ideologies that they wield to secure power, trapped in the subjectivity of their own experiences or preferences. Viewers can identify Machiavellian, Kantian, skeptical, theistic, and Nietzschean ideas (and more I'm sure) scattered throughout. The show is viciously honest in its portrayal of diverse human motivations and worldviews, with some characters living out values that they view as objectively binding, and others acting in a much more amoral, self-interested way. Despite being fantasy, it is firmly realistic in its depiction of the chaos and uncertainty of human life--realistic apart from the mythical aspects, of course (such as the White Walkers).
In the TV series (or at least what I have seen of it) there is no single narrator figure or primary point-of-view character. There is no grand metanarrative that unifies most of the characters, no single metaphysical framework that Westeros as a whole clings to. Instead, there are many smaller ideological narratives that unfold. Viewers are left with a host of perspectives and worldviews that are logically exclusive; for one to be true, others must be false. Death is one of the few seeming certainties of life in Westeros, generously but randomly visiting its inhabitants. If, as the show states, all men must die ("Valar Morghulis"), then how will we live--how should we live--given this plurality of contrary beliefs that we face in our relatively brief lives? This is not a question that is irrelevant to our daily existence. It is one of omnipresent importance.
Sometimes, even in today's connected world and its unparalleled access to information, people can forget just how non-uniform worldviews really are across geography and time. Truth remains constant and the way things are, regardless of human awareness of it or desire for it. Yet worldviews truly can differ wildly from person to person even within the same kingdom or city. As a postmodern rationalist (and that's certainly not an oxymoron), I find fictional worlds like that of Game of Thrones very intriguing precisely because of the way that they address the reality of conflicting beliefs and motivations. The ideological disparity and resulting political events fashion a sense of realism.
I've read that George R. R. Martin wanted to create a world without the more simplistic moral frameworks of some other fantasy stories (like Lord of the Rings) by including moral ambiguity and differing character perspectives. He has specifically said that he wrote his series as a response of sorts to Tolkien. Certainly, the web of actions in Westeros can be more difficult to morally appraise, since characters can be multi-faceted. And certainly many in the show would be executed under Scripture's Mosaic Law for capital crimes like incest (Jaime and Cersei Lannister), rape (Khal Drogo), and murder (Ned Stark's death), to name some of the Biblical capital crimes that make an appearance in just the first season.
Even with the fantasy setting, the brutal, complex world of Westeros is not that different from our own. Both are populated by a plethora of individuals with their own personal agendas, conflicting ideologies, and methods. Both hold competing religions--religions that cannot all be true simultaneously. Both house grand power struggles. That one also features dragons and wights (reanimated corpses) does not detract from the other distinct similarities.
Do these things not mirror the status of our own world? That is the effect of some fantasy tales, for despite all the foreign elements in their worlds they can still mimic and remind us of our own.
[1]. http://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/18/grrm-interview-part-2-fantasy-and-history/
[2]. Postmodernism is NOT relativism. Relativism is a self-refuting, impossible denial of objective truth, whereas postmodernism is a skepticism about many conflicting truth claims due to the subjectivity of perception and limitations on human knowledge. As long as someone's postmodernism acknowledges necessary truths and logic (logic alone being objective), it is a worldview that factually represents the human epistemological condition as it is. I am a postmodernism and a rationalist, a postmodernist and a Christian. There is nothing about these concepts that is intrinsically contradictory to the other aspects if they are defined correctly.
--George R. R. Martin [1]
 |
|
I have recently been meaning to start rewatching Game of Thrones after being introduced to it last semester but only getting around eight episodes into the first season. The show is derived from author George R. R. Martin's fantasy book series called A Song of Ice and Fire, the first entry in the series titled A Game of Thrones. Focusing on a land called Westeros (and at times another land called Essos), the TV series presents an alien world--and yet one very much like ours. Abnormally longer durations of the natural seasons help distinguish Westeros from earth, yet other aspects of the land are not so different. The Game of Thrones show explores issues like ethics, politics, religion, sexuality, patriarchal social structures, and the unpredictability of future events in a manner that acknowledges just how varying human beliefs really are.
The show lays out, intentionally or unintentionally, the primary tenets of postmodernism [2], with various characters believing in conflicting narratives and ideologies that they wield to secure power, trapped in the subjectivity of their own experiences or preferences. Viewers can identify Machiavellian, Kantian, skeptical, theistic, and Nietzschean ideas (and more I'm sure) scattered throughout. The show is viciously honest in its portrayal of diverse human motivations and worldviews, with some characters living out values that they view as objectively binding, and others acting in a much more amoral, self-interested way. Despite being fantasy, it is firmly realistic in its depiction of the chaos and uncertainty of human life--realistic apart from the mythical aspects, of course (such as the White Walkers).
In the TV series (or at least what I have seen of it) there is no single narrator figure or primary point-of-view character. There is no grand metanarrative that unifies most of the characters, no single metaphysical framework that Westeros as a whole clings to. Instead, there are many smaller ideological narratives that unfold. Viewers are left with a host of perspectives and worldviews that are logically exclusive; for one to be true, others must be false. Death is one of the few seeming certainties of life in Westeros, generously but randomly visiting its inhabitants. If, as the show states, all men must die ("Valar Morghulis"), then how will we live--how should we live--given this plurality of contrary beliefs that we face in our relatively brief lives? This is not a question that is irrelevant to our daily existence. It is one of omnipresent importance.
Sometimes, even in today's connected world and its unparalleled access to information, people can forget just how non-uniform worldviews really are across geography and time. Truth remains constant and the way things are, regardless of human awareness of it or desire for it. Yet worldviews truly can differ wildly from person to person even within the same kingdom or city. As a postmodern rationalist (and that's certainly not an oxymoron), I find fictional worlds like that of Game of Thrones very intriguing precisely because of the way that they address the reality of conflicting beliefs and motivations. The ideological disparity and resulting political events fashion a sense of realism.
I've read that George R. R. Martin wanted to create a world without the more simplistic moral frameworks of some other fantasy stories (like Lord of the Rings) by including moral ambiguity and differing character perspectives. He has specifically said that he wrote his series as a response of sorts to Tolkien. Certainly, the web of actions in Westeros can be more difficult to morally appraise, since characters can be multi-faceted. And certainly many in the show would be executed under Scripture's Mosaic Law for capital crimes like incest (Jaime and Cersei Lannister), rape (Khal Drogo), and murder (Ned Stark's death), to name some of the Biblical capital crimes that make an appearance in just the first season.
Even with the fantasy setting, the brutal, complex world of Westeros is not that different from our own. Both are populated by a plethora of individuals with their own personal agendas, conflicting ideologies, and methods. Both hold competing religions--religions that cannot all be true simultaneously. Both house grand power struggles. That one also features dragons and wights (reanimated corpses) does not detract from the other distinct similarities.
Do these things not mirror the status of our own world? That is the effect of some fantasy tales, for despite all the foreign elements in their worlds they can still mimic and remind us of our own.
 |
| Photo credit: DigitalMajority on Visual hunt / CC BY-NC-SA |
[1]. http://entertainment.time.com/2011/04/18/grrm-interview-part-2-fantasy-and-history/
[2]. Postmodernism is NOT relativism. Relativism is a self-refuting, impossible denial of objective truth, whereas postmodernism is a skepticism about many conflicting truth claims due to the subjectivity of perception and limitations on human knowledge. As long as someone's postmodernism acknowledges necessary truths and logic (logic alone being objective), it is a worldview that factually represents the human epistemological condition as it is. I am a postmodernism and a rationalist, a postmodernist and a Christian. There is nothing about these concepts that is intrinsically contradictory to the other aspects if they are defined correctly.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
The Problem Of Pain (Part 2)
In part one of this series I explained how using the problem of pain as a moral argument against God is self-defeating, since in the absence of God there is no such thing as right or wrong [1], along with how only if some sort of theism is true can suffering result in anything meaningful. This time I want to write about one of the most challenging books in the Bible: Job. People ask from time to time why good people encounter trials, and Job is a very theologically rich book that explores how living a legitimately righteous life will not necessarily spare someone from heartache, bodily agony, and loss. It has relevance in every generation.
In the first two chapters the titular man is tested by God. A consistently righteous person, Job suffers the death of his children, the theft of his camels, and the destruction of his sheep and many of his servants by fire from the sky. All of this happens after Satan accuses Job of only serving God rightly because he has an prosperous life. Soon, his body is covered in sores, his wife counseling him to curse God and die. Several friends of Job first take pity on him, but they eventually come to charge him with some hidden wrong because of the magnitude of his suffering. And eventually God speaks to Job.
Ultimately, God does not give Job an exact explanation of why he experienced the suffering described earlier in the book--God instead gives him a series of questions and descriptions that highlight the finite nature of Job's understanding. Chapters 38-41 present question after question about Job's knowledge of both the physical cosmos and Christian metaphysics. In the end, Job simply repents of questioning God's righteousness, content to acknowledge and accept the fact that God remains good despite the existence of his pain.
This is no mere stoicism that the book of Job teaches, however! Realizing that it does not follow from the existence of suffering that God is not good (for there is no other moral authority besides or beyond God) does not mean that we should just passively accept whatever occurs without emotional catharsis or never entertain serious questions! Sometimes doubts and trials can provoke the deepest growth, the fiercest passions for certainty, and the greatest desires to amend our lives and live rightly. Humans are intellectual and emotional beings, and we are made to grapple with intellectual and emotional realities, however difficult they may be to confront.
It is one thing to wonder what actions are right and which ones conform to God's nature (to discover one is to discover the other); it is another to wonder if God is unjust. The latter is inherently philosophically unsound. I do not merely mean Biblically unsound, but that it defies logic itself. There is an uncaused cause, which I refer to using the word God, and this fact is provable in full by logic alone [2]. The only way that there is even such a thing as right or wrong is if this entity has a moral nature, since there could be no other moral authority, meaning that if the uncaused cause does not have a moral nature then there is no problem of evil to begin with! Hence, it is unsound to wonder if God is unjust. Such a thing is metaphysically and logically impossible. What we can do when faced with suffering is allow it to transform us and make ourselves more righteous, more knowledgable, more firm, and more consistent because of it.
From the book of Job readers can ascertain two truths: 1) righteousness does not prevent all terrestrial suffering and 2) there might be legitimate explanations for specific instances of human suffering that we know nothing about at the present time. Job is never told in the text about Satan's claims about his uprightness, nor is he told that God directly allowed for his sufferings to occur. He never hears why he endured so much loss and grief. And yet, when God answers him without actually providing specific answers, he repents.
The contents of Job can be some of the most challenging information in the Bible to understand and live out.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-problem-of-pain-part-1.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
In the first two chapters the titular man is tested by God. A consistently righteous person, Job suffers the death of his children, the theft of his camels, and the destruction of his sheep and many of his servants by fire from the sky. All of this happens after Satan accuses Job of only serving God rightly because he has an prosperous life. Soon, his body is covered in sores, his wife counseling him to curse God and die. Several friends of Job first take pity on him, but they eventually come to charge him with some hidden wrong because of the magnitude of his suffering. And eventually God speaks to Job.
Ultimately, God does not give Job an exact explanation of why he experienced the suffering described earlier in the book--God instead gives him a series of questions and descriptions that highlight the finite nature of Job's understanding. Chapters 38-41 present question after question about Job's knowledge of both the physical cosmos and Christian metaphysics. In the end, Job simply repents of questioning God's righteousness, content to acknowledge and accept the fact that God remains good despite the existence of his pain.
This is no mere stoicism that the book of Job teaches, however! Realizing that it does not follow from the existence of suffering that God is not good (for there is no other moral authority besides or beyond God) does not mean that we should just passively accept whatever occurs without emotional catharsis or never entertain serious questions! Sometimes doubts and trials can provoke the deepest growth, the fiercest passions for certainty, and the greatest desires to amend our lives and live rightly. Humans are intellectual and emotional beings, and we are made to grapple with intellectual and emotional realities, however difficult they may be to confront.
It is one thing to wonder what actions are right and which ones conform to God's nature (to discover one is to discover the other); it is another to wonder if God is unjust. The latter is inherently philosophically unsound. I do not merely mean Biblically unsound, but that it defies logic itself. There is an uncaused cause, which I refer to using the word God, and this fact is provable in full by logic alone [2]. The only way that there is even such a thing as right or wrong is if this entity has a moral nature, since there could be no other moral authority, meaning that if the uncaused cause does not have a moral nature then there is no problem of evil to begin with! Hence, it is unsound to wonder if God is unjust. Such a thing is metaphysically and logically impossible. What we can do when faced with suffering is allow it to transform us and make ourselves more righteous, more knowledgable, more firm, and more consistent because of it.
From the book of Job readers can ascertain two truths: 1) righteousness does not prevent all terrestrial suffering and 2) there might be legitimate explanations for specific instances of human suffering that we know nothing about at the present time. Job is never told in the text about Satan's claims about his uprightness, nor is he told that God directly allowed for his sufferings to occur. He never hears why he endured so much loss and grief. And yet, when God answers him without actually providing specific answers, he repents.
The contents of Job can be some of the most challenging information in the Bible to understand and live out.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-problem-of-pain-part-1.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
Yahweh The King
Having recently written on why monarchy is neither sinful nor obligatory [1], I wanted to follow my previous post with a reminder that no human's words are true or morally authoritative because of the political or social status of that person. Those who insist otherwise commit a host of logical fallacies that invalidate their arguments, if not the conclusions also. No monarch's words can alter objective reality.
Biblically, there is no such thing as the medieval concept of the divine right of kings; only rulers that rule justly can have God's authority backing theirs (Romans 13:3-5) [2]. All monarchs, despite their power, despite their positions, still are obligated to abide by Yahweh's revealed instructions just as those who are not kings and queens are. Yahweh is the ultimate king of the earth to whom they owe their own allegiance, for "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it" (Psalm 24:1).
No human monarch, no matter how much influence and notoriety he or she has amassed, decides what is right and wrong, for right is a reflection of Yahweh's immutable character (Malachi 3:6) and wrong is whatever deviates from his nature. Apart from a deity with a moral nature, there can be no moral authority in existence, and thus no human moral claim is true simply because a certain person utters it. It is only from the allowance of Yahweh that human rulers draw breath. If he willed it, they would cease to exist on both a physical level and a conscious mental level--and this annihilation is the fate that awaits the unsaved (2 Peter 2:6, Matthew 10:28), monarchs included. In all things we must never waver in our willingness to disregard all human commands that contradict those of Yahweh (Acts 5:29).
And God is not behind wicked rulers as some might claim. They are an abomination, and will be judged as such. All of them are accountable to God's standard, which he revealed to Israel through Mosaic Law, in part so that other nations might observe this standard and, in time, learn to recognize its laws as just and originating from the creator deity (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). Not a single one is above the laws of Yahweh (Deuteronomy 17:18-20), with the ultimate metaphysical treason being committed each time a king or queen, or any other human ruler, acts as if he or she is above them.
No Caesar can outlive the deity who alone is immortal by nature (1 Timothy 6:16). No Caesar has moral authority outside of exact alignment with the laws of Yahweh. No Caesar deserves the allegiance of men and women simply by virtue of being king.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-moral-theology-of-monarchy.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/11/romans-13-and-reconstructionism.html
Biblically, there is no such thing as the medieval concept of the divine right of kings; only rulers that rule justly can have God's authority backing theirs (Romans 13:3-5) [2]. All monarchs, despite their power, despite their positions, still are obligated to abide by Yahweh's revealed instructions just as those who are not kings and queens are. Yahweh is the ultimate king of the earth to whom they owe their own allegiance, for "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it" (Psalm 24:1).
No human monarch, no matter how much influence and notoriety he or she has amassed, decides what is right and wrong, for right is a reflection of Yahweh's immutable character (Malachi 3:6) and wrong is whatever deviates from his nature. Apart from a deity with a moral nature, there can be no moral authority in existence, and thus no human moral claim is true simply because a certain person utters it. It is only from the allowance of Yahweh that human rulers draw breath. If he willed it, they would cease to exist on both a physical level and a conscious mental level--and this annihilation is the fate that awaits the unsaved (2 Peter 2:6, Matthew 10:28), monarchs included. In all things we must never waver in our willingness to disregard all human commands that contradict those of Yahweh (Acts 5:29).
And God is not behind wicked rulers as some might claim. They are an abomination, and will be judged as such. All of them are accountable to God's standard, which he revealed to Israel through Mosaic Law, in part so that other nations might observe this standard and, in time, learn to recognize its laws as just and originating from the creator deity (Deuteronomy 4:5-8). Not a single one is above the laws of Yahweh (Deuteronomy 17:18-20), with the ultimate metaphysical treason being committed each time a king or queen, or any other human ruler, acts as if he or she is above them.
No Caesar can outlive the deity who alone is immortal by nature (1 Timothy 6:16). No Caesar has moral authority outside of exact alignment with the laws of Yahweh. No Caesar deserves the allegiance of men and women simply by virtue of being king.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-moral-theology-of-monarchy.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/11/romans-13-and-reconstructionism.html
The Moral Theology Of Monarchy
As regular readers have likely noticed, I've been writing about more directly political concepts this year, and in the process of doing so I have arrived at questions about monarchy. Is monarchy sinful? Since the Israelites had monarchs and they were a people chosen by God, is monarchy the only legitimate way to govern a nation? A monarchy is a system of government where a monarch, often a king or queen, reigns. The Biblical stance towards monarchy is rather simple. But first, I want to address an objection to monarchy that I've heard.
Monarchy is often thought of as hereditary, with a throne being passed down to the monarch's children, but monarchy itself is not necessarily hereditary and could be based on something other than bloodline and family ties. I understand why some would find a hereditary monarchy displeasing, as the role of king or queen is passed on to children who may or may not be worthy of the title simply because of their family name. But it needs to be noted that this is not the only form of monarchy (and that depraved royal offspring are not guaranteed). There are quite a few other possible ways to choose a king or queen.
In Deuteronomy 17, which is set chronologically before Israel even had a king, one can find ethical limitations placed on monarchies. For instance, a king is explicitly told not to pull a Solomon and marry many wives (17:17), accumulate large quantities of silver or gold (17:17), or think that he is above the rest of Mosaic Law (17:18-20). Each of these principles, inverted in the case of the principle about mass polygamy, would apply by logical extension to queens as well. While God allowed for monarchs to eventually rule Israel, he was not unclear about the moral expectations his people should have for them.
Biblically speaking, monarchy--like polygamy (and by logical extension polyandry), corporal punishment, and capital punishment--is not evil within certain ethical parameters. If it was sinful, then God could not have codified laws about monarchy into Deuteronomy 17, but would have condemned the system outright (James 1:13). Monarchy is also clearly not mandatory, since, although in Deuteronomy God allowed for a future monarch, God never demanded that Israel have one to begin with. He merely predicted that the Israelites would eventually ask for a king.
Deuteronomy 17:14-15 reads as follows: "When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, 'Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,' be sure to appoint over you the king the Lord your God chooses." It was the people who asked that God give them a king like that of other nations (1 Samuel 8). And God gave them one. Monarchy itself is neither good nor evil, and the Bible makes this clear through what it does and does not say about the concept. The moral obligations of a monarch are also clear.
Now, there is nothing about monarchy in itself that contradicts Christian libertarianism [1], since the presence of a monarch does not mean that the monarch is micromanaging the lives of citizens beyond the laws of justice that God has prescribed (Deuteronomy 4:2). Although the concept of a libertarian monarchy may be foreign to the minds of some, there is no logical incompatibility between the concepts in themselves, though I cannot presently think of any historical monarchies that fit this model. A king or queen could govern in a way that is limited mostly or only to protecting citizens via enforcing just punishments for sins that have the metaphysical status of crimes and by fighting foreign invaders.
Monarchy is not something to dread or universally reject, nor is it some intrinsic good. It is a tool that God can use and also something that can be used in an illegitimate manner that contradicts God's instructions. And Christian libertarians have no reason to automatically view a monarchy as incompatible with theonomist libertarianism.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/secular-and-christian-libertarianism.html
Monarchy is often thought of as hereditary, with a throne being passed down to the monarch's children, but monarchy itself is not necessarily hereditary and could be based on something other than bloodline and family ties. I understand why some would find a hereditary monarchy displeasing, as the role of king or queen is passed on to children who may or may not be worthy of the title simply because of their family name. But it needs to be noted that this is not the only form of monarchy (and that depraved royal offspring are not guaranteed). There are quite a few other possible ways to choose a king or queen.
In Deuteronomy 17, which is set chronologically before Israel even had a king, one can find ethical limitations placed on monarchies. For instance, a king is explicitly told not to pull a Solomon and marry many wives (17:17), accumulate large quantities of silver or gold (17:17), or think that he is above the rest of Mosaic Law (17:18-20). Each of these principles, inverted in the case of the principle about mass polygamy, would apply by logical extension to queens as well. While God allowed for monarchs to eventually rule Israel, he was not unclear about the moral expectations his people should have for them.
Biblically speaking, monarchy--like polygamy (and by logical extension polyandry), corporal punishment, and capital punishment--is not evil within certain ethical parameters. If it was sinful, then God could not have codified laws about monarchy into Deuteronomy 17, but would have condemned the system outright (James 1:13). Monarchy is also clearly not mandatory, since, although in Deuteronomy God allowed for a future monarch, God never demanded that Israel have one to begin with. He merely predicted that the Israelites would eventually ask for a king.
Deuteronomy 17:14-15 reads as follows: "When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, 'Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,' be sure to appoint over you the king the Lord your God chooses." It was the people who asked that God give them a king like that of other nations (1 Samuel 8). And God gave them one. Monarchy itself is neither good nor evil, and the Bible makes this clear through what it does and does not say about the concept. The moral obligations of a monarch are also clear.
Now, there is nothing about monarchy in itself that contradicts Christian libertarianism [1], since the presence of a monarch does not mean that the monarch is micromanaging the lives of citizens beyond the laws of justice that God has prescribed (Deuteronomy 4:2). Although the concept of a libertarian monarchy may be foreign to the minds of some, there is no logical incompatibility between the concepts in themselves, though I cannot presently think of any historical monarchies that fit this model. A king or queen could govern in a way that is limited mostly or only to protecting citizens via enforcing just punishments for sins that have the metaphysical status of crimes and by fighting foreign invaders.
Monarchy is not something to dread or universally reject, nor is it some intrinsic good. It is a tool that God can use and also something that can be used in an illegitimate manner that contradicts God's instructions. And Christian libertarians have no reason to automatically view a monarchy as incompatible with theonomist libertarianism.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/secular-and-christian-libertarianism.html
Friday, February 16, 2018
Movie Review--Black Panther
"It is hard for a good man to be king."
--King T'Chaka, Black Panther
At last, a Marvel movie after Doctor Strange that isn't brimming over with unnecessary jokes that kill dramatic tension, isn't overcrowded, and doesn't feature a criminally undeveloped villain! Black Panther is just what the MCU needed to vary itself up in time for the upcoming Infinity War. It takes returning character T'Challa and gives him a story that reveals one of the most unique superhero environments in cinema, along with the most well-realized villain in Marvel's cinematic universe.
Production Values
The acting in this offering is incredible, and not only in a few cases but as a consistent rule. Chadwick Boseman wonderfully acts King T'Challa with a gravity and yet a great ease. Never once does he seem out of character. T'Challa's sister Shuri has a very well-portrayed sense of humor, thanks to actress Letitia Wright--she provides most of the film's effective and strategically-placed laughs. And Michael B. Jordan, impressively, brings the primary villain Erik Killmonger to the screen in a way that is far deeper, personal, and thoughtful than the presentation of any other MCU villain I can think of (I haven't seen all of them but every one I've seen severely underdeveloped the villains). His performance helps set this movie distinctly apart from other recent Marvel offerings. Many other great black actors and actresses make appearances too, from Forest Whitaker to Get Out's Daniel Kaluuya. I also found it very fun to see Andy Serkis and Martin Freeman, as a CIA agent and arms dealer (first introduced back in Age of Ultron) respectively, reunited after The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey! One scene in particular gives them a chance to interact alone to great effect.
Thankfully, the script isn't bogged down by gratuitous comedy, which allows the movie's darker scenes to remain intact, unspoiled by "funny" one liners. This also lets the philosophical/ethical issues of the film get addressed in a way that actually treats them with the seriousness they have and require in real life, something that definitely works to the movie's advantage. Excellent special effects only enhance the spectacle. The scenery is unique, the acting all-around fantastic, and the African-themed soundtrack stands out amidst the MCU's horrendously bland soundtracks (with the soundtrack for The Incredible Hulk being an exception to the usual blandness), with Black Panther making the most of resources invested into it.
Story
(Spoilers below!!)
The African nation of Wakanda has some exposure to the outside world, but the true nature of the civilization therein is concealed beneath an energy dome that hides the fact that it is one of the most advanced regions on the planet, thanks to a highly useful metal called vibranium, carried into the earth by a meteorite crash millions of years ago. The monarchy of Wakanda is such that before every coronation the various tribes from Wakanda are able to have someone challenge the prince to combat, with victory deciding the fate of the throne.
The previous king having died in the events of Captain America: Civil War, Prince T'Challa assumes the kingship, only to face serious threats to Wakanda and other countries from a self-serving arms dealer named Ulysses Klaue and a seeker of the throne. This throne-seeker is Erik Killmonger, a man whose father was killed in America years ago, while Erik was a young child, before he could enact his plan to give vibranium weaponry to American blacks so that they could overpower their social oppressors. The king at that time refused to permit this. Erik, his father the brother of the prior Wakandan king, has a legitimate tie to the bloodline, and thus cannot be immediately dismissed.
Erik, after defeating T'Challa in ritual combat customary to the Wakandan monarchy, becomes a tyrant intent on carrying out a racially-motivated global genocide in order to establish Wakanda as the undisputed leader of the world, the goal being to right past and present wrongs against blacks worldwide. T'Challa, fighting alongside his former lover, sister, and an American CIA member, reclaims his kingdom and pledges to use his influence to help the world that Erik correctly saw injustice in.
Intellectual Content
Like last year's Wonder Woman, Black Panther is a recent superhero film that actually has a thematic message that is both relevant and significant. The central moral clash of the film pertains to the impact of Wakanda's traditional isolationist politics that keep vibranium a secret from other countries as well as to the injustices historically and presently suffered by blacks around the world. Erik Killmonger, like his father before him, wants to use vibranium to empower oppressed black communities and enable them to slay those who hold them down. Erik commits several fallacies in the process, like assuming, or at least strongly implying, that enormous numbers of American whites actively participate in social oppression of blacks, when there is nothing about being white alone that makes one a racist or abusive. Still, he serves as a great example of how someone can embrace hypocrisy and overreaction to the point of mistaking them for things good or just. And this lets the movie take seriously the racial division that has remained in America from centuries past--although America is not even the sole country shown onscreen.
What are the obligations of prosperous nations to the less fortunate regions of the world? What should a powerful leader do when he or she has the chance to act on behalf of the oppressed of other countries? The film tries to answer these questions through an unfolding narrative, and not by mere dialogue alone. Through the story and character actions the morally reprehensible aspects of extreme isolationism are shown, for the isolationism in traditional Wakanda easily produces selfishness. It can indeed be difficult, as T'Challa is told near the beginning of the film, for a good man to be a king, but even a ruler from a society steeped in tradition can recognize the moral folly of continuing the mistakes of previous leaders in the name of tradition.
Conclusion
Black Panther, hopefully, is the start of a departure from the recent MCU comedy and characterization formulas that have overstayed their welcome. It succeeds as a drama and as an action movie, elevated by excellent performances and a script that flees from Marvel cliches. May the other Marvel films to be released later this year embrace the type of storytelling and worldbuilding this movie showcases so well!
Content:
1. Violence: Despite some brawls and deaths, nothing graphic is shown.
2. Profanity: There are only occasional uses of profanity to my recollection.
--King T'Chaka, Black Panther
At last, a Marvel movie after Doctor Strange that isn't brimming over with unnecessary jokes that kill dramatic tension, isn't overcrowded, and doesn't feature a criminally undeveloped villain! Black Panther is just what the MCU needed to vary itself up in time for the upcoming Infinity War. It takes returning character T'Challa and gives him a story that reveals one of the most unique superhero environments in cinema, along with the most well-realized villain in Marvel's cinematic universe.
Production Values
The acting in this offering is incredible, and not only in a few cases but as a consistent rule. Chadwick Boseman wonderfully acts King T'Challa with a gravity and yet a great ease. Never once does he seem out of character. T'Challa's sister Shuri has a very well-portrayed sense of humor, thanks to actress Letitia Wright--she provides most of the film's effective and strategically-placed laughs. And Michael B. Jordan, impressively, brings the primary villain Erik Killmonger to the screen in a way that is far deeper, personal, and thoughtful than the presentation of any other MCU villain I can think of (I haven't seen all of them but every one I've seen severely underdeveloped the villains). His performance helps set this movie distinctly apart from other recent Marvel offerings. Many other great black actors and actresses make appearances too, from Forest Whitaker to Get Out's Daniel Kaluuya. I also found it very fun to see Andy Serkis and Martin Freeman, as a CIA agent and arms dealer (first introduced back in Age of Ultron) respectively, reunited after The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey! One scene in particular gives them a chance to interact alone to great effect.
Thankfully, the script isn't bogged down by gratuitous comedy, which allows the movie's darker scenes to remain intact, unspoiled by "funny" one liners. This also lets the philosophical/ethical issues of the film get addressed in a way that actually treats them with the seriousness they have and require in real life, something that definitely works to the movie's advantage. Excellent special effects only enhance the spectacle. The scenery is unique, the acting all-around fantastic, and the African-themed soundtrack stands out amidst the MCU's horrendously bland soundtracks (with the soundtrack for The Incredible Hulk being an exception to the usual blandness), with Black Panther making the most of resources invested into it.
Story
(Spoilers below!!)
The African nation of Wakanda has some exposure to the outside world, but the true nature of the civilization therein is concealed beneath an energy dome that hides the fact that it is one of the most advanced regions on the planet, thanks to a highly useful metal called vibranium, carried into the earth by a meteorite crash millions of years ago. The monarchy of Wakanda is such that before every coronation the various tribes from Wakanda are able to have someone challenge the prince to combat, with victory deciding the fate of the throne.
The previous king having died in the events of Captain America: Civil War, Prince T'Challa assumes the kingship, only to face serious threats to Wakanda and other countries from a self-serving arms dealer named Ulysses Klaue and a seeker of the throne. This throne-seeker is Erik Killmonger, a man whose father was killed in America years ago, while Erik was a young child, before he could enact his plan to give vibranium weaponry to American blacks so that they could overpower their social oppressors. The king at that time refused to permit this. Erik, his father the brother of the prior Wakandan king, has a legitimate tie to the bloodline, and thus cannot be immediately dismissed.
Erik, after defeating T'Challa in ritual combat customary to the Wakandan monarchy, becomes a tyrant intent on carrying out a racially-motivated global genocide in order to establish Wakanda as the undisputed leader of the world, the goal being to right past and present wrongs against blacks worldwide. T'Challa, fighting alongside his former lover, sister, and an American CIA member, reclaims his kingdom and pledges to use his influence to help the world that Erik correctly saw injustice in.
Intellectual Content
Like last year's Wonder Woman, Black Panther is a recent superhero film that actually has a thematic message that is both relevant and significant. The central moral clash of the film pertains to the impact of Wakanda's traditional isolationist politics that keep vibranium a secret from other countries as well as to the injustices historically and presently suffered by blacks around the world. Erik Killmonger, like his father before him, wants to use vibranium to empower oppressed black communities and enable them to slay those who hold them down. Erik commits several fallacies in the process, like assuming, or at least strongly implying, that enormous numbers of American whites actively participate in social oppression of blacks, when there is nothing about being white alone that makes one a racist or abusive. Still, he serves as a great example of how someone can embrace hypocrisy and overreaction to the point of mistaking them for things good or just. And this lets the movie take seriously the racial division that has remained in America from centuries past--although America is not even the sole country shown onscreen.
What are the obligations of prosperous nations to the less fortunate regions of the world? What should a powerful leader do when he or she has the chance to act on behalf of the oppressed of other countries? The film tries to answer these questions through an unfolding narrative, and not by mere dialogue alone. Through the story and character actions the morally reprehensible aspects of extreme isolationism are shown, for the isolationism in traditional Wakanda easily produces selfishness. It can indeed be difficult, as T'Challa is told near the beginning of the film, for a good man to be a king, but even a ruler from a society steeped in tradition can recognize the moral folly of continuing the mistakes of previous leaders in the name of tradition.
Conclusion
Black Panther, hopefully, is the start of a departure from the recent MCU comedy and characterization formulas that have overstayed their welcome. It succeeds as a drama and as an action movie, elevated by excellent performances and a script that flees from Marvel cliches. May the other Marvel films to be released later this year embrace the type of storytelling and worldbuilding this movie showcases so well!
 |
| Photo credit: junaidrao on Visualhunt / CC BY-NC-ND |
Content:
1. Violence: Despite some brawls and deaths, nothing graphic is shown.
2. Profanity: There are only occasional uses of profanity to my recollection.
Escapism: Never A Full Escape
As someone who loves entertainment, particularly movies and video games, I have had to affirm to others the uses of entertainment throughout my life, refuting charges of escapism (not that escapism is inherently wrong), escapism being a habitual retreat away from reality into something else. Of course, not everyone who regularly visits fictional worlds via entertainment does so strictly out of a desire for escapism, but sometimes people suspicious of entertainment just being an escape from reality need to be reminded that entertainment can never actually leave reality behind in full.
What motives for seeking escapism in entertainment might someone harbor? Perhaps a longing for a hedonistic pursuit of pleasure. Or perhaps a desire to flee from the pains of the "real world," as an alcoholic might flee to alcohol in an attempt to hide from something else. But this flight can only go so far before one realizes that reality remains present.
Whatever the medium, whatever the story, there is no such thing as entertainment that totally escapes from reality. At the very least all entertainment and art still captures and exemplifies necessary truths (such as a thing being what it is or how there must be a way that reality is). And some entertainment certainly goes far beyond a minimal acknowledgement of logical axioms, also addressing complex, significant issues of metaphysical, ethical, or existential nature. Since humans tend to care about these issues, their creations will tend to reflect their wrestlings, longings, and inquiries.
People may sometimes enjoy entertainment for purposes of personal escapism, not consciously intending to enjoy or seriously contemplate the explorations of philosophical subjects so natural to art, yet this escape that they seek can never be total. Entertainment and art cannot fully escape reality because that is an impossible thing; they cannot not convey some sort of worldview because it is impossible for their creators to not have worldviews. Art is not some realm that is capable of avoiding all contact with truth, and the humans that create it are likewise utterly incapable of entirely dismissing reality--even when they might try their very hardest to do so.
Truth cannot be silenced or denied in full, and it will and does have the final say in all things, even if what exactly that say is in a given matter remains unknown for the present time.
What motives for seeking escapism in entertainment might someone harbor? Perhaps a longing for a hedonistic pursuit of pleasure. Or perhaps a desire to flee from the pains of the "real world," as an alcoholic might flee to alcohol in an attempt to hide from something else. But this flight can only go so far before one realizes that reality remains present.
Whatever the medium, whatever the story, there is no such thing as entertainment that totally escapes from reality. At the very least all entertainment and art still captures and exemplifies necessary truths (such as a thing being what it is or how there must be a way that reality is). And some entertainment certainly goes far beyond a minimal acknowledgement of logical axioms, also addressing complex, significant issues of metaphysical, ethical, or existential nature. Since humans tend to care about these issues, their creations will tend to reflect their wrestlings, longings, and inquiries.
People may sometimes enjoy entertainment for purposes of personal escapism, not consciously intending to enjoy or seriously contemplate the explorations of philosophical subjects so natural to art, yet this escape that they seek can never be total. Entertainment and art cannot fully escape reality because that is an impossible thing; they cannot not convey some sort of worldview because it is impossible for their creators to not have worldviews. Art is not some realm that is capable of avoiding all contact with truth, and the humans that create it are likewise utterly incapable of entirely dismissing reality--even when they might try their very hardest to do so.
Truth cannot be silenced or denied in full, and it will and does have the final say in all things, even if what exactly that say is in a given matter remains unknown for the present time.
Power Bases In Leadership
In the 1900s two men, John French and Bertram Raven respectively, defined five main sources of power from which leaders can derive their influence. A leader could easily have multiple power bases to draw from, so it is not as if a person can only have his or her influence derived from just one of these categories. A person could even have all five bases motivate others to behave in a certain way. The power bases are not logically exclusive. And, of course, these concepts and practices existed before they were formally codified in the 1900s (just as logic was not invented by Aristotle).
Clearly, politics and business heavily involve leadership. But part of my reason for writing this out is simply because I often have information I've put on my blog locked within my mind upon writing it, and I could benefit from this in light of a college class that has thus far been taught in a way that is both very vague and ineffective in teaching on leadership.
Expert power exists when someone holds power/influence because of his or her knowledge, expertise, and/or skills. By nature this power can be quite narrow, focused into a very particular area, and thus someone who has expert power in one scenario may have none of it in another situation. People need to be careful to never believe that an expert is correct simply by nature of being an expert, though.
Legitimate power rests on the perceived authority of a position itself. For instance, someone might listen to the president of the United States simply because of the office held by him (or her, although there has not yet been a female American president). There is a great irony about some instances of "legitimate power": just because someone is respected for his or her position doesn't mean that he or she should even be in the position to begin with! The problem with this power base is that no one actually has intellectual or moral authority simply by holding a position, only by operating in accordance with reality. Someone with legitimate power might not deserve or be qualified for his or her role, regardless of what others think.
Referent power is rooted in social connections with others. A leader with a strong referent power base can inspire change, easily obtain the allegiance of others, and maintain strong relationships with subordinates. Those who have certain personalities may possess this kind of influence without having to develop it over time. In a more informal sense, people who are not leaders of a political, religious, or business entity can still have referent power. Empathy can greatly help cultivate referent power, although empathy is not logically necessary to have it--even a charming sociopath or psychopath could have it too. A manipulative person and genuine person alike could have referent power.
Reward power is, as the name directly suggests, based on the bestowing of rewards to reinforce desired behaviors. In a business setting, rewards might include additional one-time compensation, raises, promotions, new responsibilities, or even internal company recognition. A Theory Y leader might gravitate towards this power base, with Theory Y being the belief that people tend to be self-motivated and others-oriented, and the contrary Theory X holding that people tend to be lazy and selfish. Both theories are false and fallacious, of course, because they extrapolate from one person or set of persons to others, when all people are individuals with their own at least partly unique motivations and characteristics. The reward power base could certainly foster referent power, an example of how one base could connect with another.
Coercive power is the inverse of reward power, derived from the meting out of punishments or the fear of what punishments might be imposed. It could stand on the mere threat of punishment and not necessarily only the carrying out of punishments. Thus, this power can be wielded without ever even punishing anyone in actuality, as simple intimidation or expectation can be sufficient to establish this base. A person who leads mostly or solely through coercive power is a tyrant, a person who rules through illegitimate fear. A Theory X leader could easily emphasize coercive power.
Clearly, politics and business heavily involve leadership. But part of my reason for writing this out is simply because I often have information I've put on my blog locked within my mind upon writing it, and I could benefit from this in light of a college class that has thus far been taught in a way that is both very vague and ineffective in teaching on leadership.
Expert power exists when someone holds power/influence because of his or her knowledge, expertise, and/or skills. By nature this power can be quite narrow, focused into a very particular area, and thus someone who has expert power in one scenario may have none of it in another situation. People need to be careful to never believe that an expert is correct simply by nature of being an expert, though.
Legitimate power rests on the perceived authority of a position itself. For instance, someone might listen to the president of the United States simply because of the office held by him (or her, although there has not yet been a female American president). There is a great irony about some instances of "legitimate power": just because someone is respected for his or her position doesn't mean that he or she should even be in the position to begin with! The problem with this power base is that no one actually has intellectual or moral authority simply by holding a position, only by operating in accordance with reality. Someone with legitimate power might not deserve or be qualified for his or her role, regardless of what others think.
Referent power is rooted in social connections with others. A leader with a strong referent power base can inspire change, easily obtain the allegiance of others, and maintain strong relationships with subordinates. Those who have certain personalities may possess this kind of influence without having to develop it over time. In a more informal sense, people who are not leaders of a political, religious, or business entity can still have referent power. Empathy can greatly help cultivate referent power, although empathy is not logically necessary to have it--even a charming sociopath or psychopath could have it too. A manipulative person and genuine person alike could have referent power.
Reward power is, as the name directly suggests, based on the bestowing of rewards to reinforce desired behaviors. In a business setting, rewards might include additional one-time compensation, raises, promotions, new responsibilities, or even internal company recognition. A Theory Y leader might gravitate towards this power base, with Theory Y being the belief that people tend to be self-motivated and others-oriented, and the contrary Theory X holding that people tend to be lazy and selfish. Both theories are false and fallacious, of course, because they extrapolate from one person or set of persons to others, when all people are individuals with their own at least partly unique motivations and characteristics. The reward power base could certainly foster referent power, an example of how one base could connect with another.
Coercive power is the inverse of reward power, derived from the meting out of punishments or the fear of what punishments might be imposed. It could stand on the mere threat of punishment and not necessarily only the carrying out of punishments. Thus, this power can be wielded without ever even punishing anyone in actuality, as simple intimidation or expectation can be sufficient to establish this base. A person who leads mostly or solely through coercive power is a tyrant, a person who rules through illegitimate fear. A Theory X leader could easily emphasize coercive power.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
Memory And Intelligence
This is a short post in light of a recent conversation. Some people seem to think that having a good memory equates to being intelligent, but, although a good memory and intelligence can work together wonderfully, they are distinct things. In reality, memory itself, however impressive or reliable, has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a rational person.
Intelligence is a person's capacity for grasping and utilizing logic, and a good memory is one that reliably stores and recalls information. Clearly, both of these things can complement each other, and a person can wield the two harmoniously and to great effect. But someone can have one without the other because they are different. One can recite facts or information without knowing or understanding how to critically assess what is being recited, and one can be extremely intelligent without having a helpful memory.
It is not that they don't often appear in the same person, but that the presence of one does not necessitate the presence of the other. The most intelligent people I know all have excellent memories. However, those who want to be more rational (though, of course, there is not always such a thing as "more rational," for there is a point at which someone is perfectly logical) and have better memories can perhaps develop both more rationality and a more useful memory.
Certainly the two might often appear together. But just as education is not synonymous with intelligence, so too even an accurate, full memory is not synonymous with it. To some memory may give the appearance of intelligence, yet this alone does not mean that deep intelligence is actually present. Perhaps very little intelligence is there despite the large volume of information within someone's memory.
Intelligence is a person's capacity for grasping and utilizing logic, and a good memory is one that reliably stores and recalls information. Clearly, both of these things can complement each other, and a person can wield the two harmoniously and to great effect. But someone can have one without the other because they are different. One can recite facts or information without knowing or understanding how to critically assess what is being recited, and one can be extremely intelligent without having a helpful memory.
It is not that they don't often appear in the same person, but that the presence of one does not necessitate the presence of the other. The most intelligent people I know all have excellent memories. However, those who want to be more rational (though, of course, there is not always such a thing as "more rational," for there is a point at which someone is perfectly logical) and have better memories can perhaps develop both more rationality and a more useful memory.
Certainly the two might often appear together. But just as education is not synonymous with intelligence, so too even an accurate, full memory is not synonymous with it. To some memory may give the appearance of intelligence, yet this alone does not mean that deep intelligence is actually present. Perhaps very little intelligence is there despite the large volume of information within someone's memory.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Egalitarianism And Cross-Gender Friendships
I've addressed many aspects of opposite gender friendships on my blog already--including how it is asinine to say that such friendships are logically impossible [1], how they are not sinful [2], how Paul the apostle had at least one close female friend [3], and how affection for a significant other and a friend of the opposite gender are not locked in a zero sum game [4]. There is another aspect of these friendships that I want to emphasize: a person who rejects and avoids opposite gender friendships is a person who either does not believe in gender equality or who does not consistently live out a recognition of gender equality. I do not see this point made with enough force or frequency.
If someone consistently refuses to befriend people of other races, to be alone with them, or to express affection towards them, out of fear or suspicion, then charges of racism towards this person are entirely legitimate. In intentionally avoiding cross-race friendships by default, he or she is systematically discriminating against people of other races. This person is racist on the level of action, at least, whether or not the person truly embraces racism in the mind. Even if the person claims that all races are metaphysically equal in value, his or her actions reveal either an unwillingness to live out that truth or that he or she does not truly believe in equality of value.
It is likewise true that if someone is sexist if he or she actively refuses to befriend people of the opposite gender simply because they are of the opposite gender. Whatever someone's alleged basis for doing so is, he or she cannot live as if men and women are equal. I am not saying that people without cross-race friendships are racist or that people without cross-gender friendships are sexist, but that avoiding these friendships simply because they involve people of other races or the other gender is racist or sexist, and therefore utterly contrary to Christianity.
Friendship is one of the greatest tools that Christians can use to help heal male-female relationships from the damaging errors churchgoers and the secular world sometimes teach. It has the power to reconcile, to transform, and to liberate. Relational intimacy can be, by far, one of the most potent aspects of human life. To intentionally oppose friendship between men and women is to oppose one of the greatest expressions of commitment to gender equality, which is plainly taught in the Bible, starting in the very first chapter.
Someone could see from my actions, without ever speaking to me, that I am not fearful of intimacy with women. The church at large will never consistently, Biblically stand for gender equality until it has peace about Christian brothers and sisters becoming and acting like friends. One of the greatest arenas for the display of egalitarianism is friendship.
Logic, people. It is helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/an-observation-about-cross-gender.html
[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
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/persis-pauls-dear-friend.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/01/sacred-unions-sacred-passions-part-1.html
If someone consistently refuses to befriend people of other races, to be alone with them, or to express affection towards them, out of fear or suspicion, then charges of racism towards this person are entirely legitimate. In intentionally avoiding cross-race friendships by default, he or she is systematically discriminating against people of other races. This person is racist on the level of action, at least, whether or not the person truly embraces racism in the mind. Even if the person claims that all races are metaphysically equal in value, his or her actions reveal either an unwillingness to live out that truth or that he or she does not truly believe in equality of value.
It is likewise true that if someone is sexist if he or she actively refuses to befriend people of the opposite gender simply because they are of the opposite gender. Whatever someone's alleged basis for doing so is, he or she cannot live as if men and women are equal. I am not saying that people without cross-race friendships are racist or that people without cross-gender friendships are sexist, but that avoiding these friendships simply because they involve people of other races or the other gender is racist or sexist, and therefore utterly contrary to Christianity.
Friendship is one of the greatest tools that Christians can use to help heal male-female relationships from the damaging errors churchgoers and the secular world sometimes teach. It has the power to reconcile, to transform, and to liberate. Relational intimacy can be, by far, one of the most potent aspects of human life. To intentionally oppose friendship between men and women is to oppose one of the greatest expressions of commitment to gender equality, which is plainly taught in the Bible, starting in the very first chapter.
Someone could see from my actions, without ever speaking to me, that I am not fearful of intimacy with women. The church at large will never consistently, Biblically stand for gender equality until it has peace about Christian brothers and sisters becoming and acting like friends. One of the greatest arenas for the display of egalitarianism is friendship.
Logic, people. It is helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/an-observation-about-cross-gender.html
[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
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/persis-pauls-dear-friend.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/01/sacred-unions-sacred-passions-part-1.html
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Understanding Bribery
Bribery is an issue that must be confronted in the business world, including by Christian businesspeople--but what I have often heard Christians say about the moral dimensions of bribery things that are unbiblical, overly simplistic, and fallacious. But before I examine the morality of bribes I need to clarify what a bribe is and what it is not. There are two things which I need to distinguish from bribery, as the three are different and must be treated accordingly.
Facilitating payments are intended to accelerate a decision or action, not change the actual decision made or action taken. For instance, a facility might close down for a weekend, and a shipment that would otherwise be shipped out on the next Monday could be moved up to the preceding Friday by a facilitation payment. This payment was not used to persuade someone to overlook an illegal or immoral act, or to illicitly secure a certain outcome, or to appease corrupt leadership. It was simply made to bring about a planned activity faster. However, some might still object to facilitating payments because of their capacity to allow successful companies to have an advantage over smaller businesses that do not have as many resources.
Giving a gift is separated from giving a bribe in that gift giving is an act of benevolence and kindness, perhaps to smoothen business relationships, whereas bribery is intended to obtain an advantage by swaying a course of action. There is no gift size or frequency of giving at which point a gift becomes a bribe; calling something bribery because of size or frequency inescapably involves arbitrary lines. The intention behind giving to another party determines if bribery is occurring. With the distinction between facilitating payments, gifts, and bribes addressed, I will now turn my attention to the morality of bribery.
Anyone who objectively reads the Bible will see that bribery is not intrinsically immoral under all circumstances (only divine revelation can reveal moral truths, not conscience or social consensus). Exodus 23:6-8 condemns bribes--but in the context of civil and criminal justice. Likewise, using a bribe to intentionally, maliciously harm another party is wrong by extension, but this is not because bribery itself is intrinsically sinful. Simply using money to motivate someone else to do something nonsinful is not wrong. The Bible has nothing against using bribery outside of malicious intentions, perversions of justice, or to persuade someone to commit any other sinful act; any use of bribery that does not fall into these sinful categories is permissible (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Yes, bribery advantages some businesses over others by giving them better opportunities to succeed and by depriving other parties of certain opportunities. But all business contracts and decisions by nature exclude some other party from an opportunity, so, although smaller businesses will not have as many resources to expend in bribes, there is still not necessarily anything wrong about using bribes in business contexts. The goal of the bribe--what the bribe is intended to bring about--and the motives behind it determine if it is immoral or not.
Facilitating payments are intended to accelerate a decision or action, not change the actual decision made or action taken. For instance, a facility might close down for a weekend, and a shipment that would otherwise be shipped out on the next Monday could be moved up to the preceding Friday by a facilitation payment. This payment was not used to persuade someone to overlook an illegal or immoral act, or to illicitly secure a certain outcome, or to appease corrupt leadership. It was simply made to bring about a planned activity faster. However, some might still object to facilitating payments because of their capacity to allow successful companies to have an advantage over smaller businesses that do not have as many resources.
Giving a gift is separated from giving a bribe in that gift giving is an act of benevolence and kindness, perhaps to smoothen business relationships, whereas bribery is intended to obtain an advantage by swaying a course of action. There is no gift size or frequency of giving at which point a gift becomes a bribe; calling something bribery because of size or frequency inescapably involves arbitrary lines. The intention behind giving to another party determines if bribery is occurring. With the distinction between facilitating payments, gifts, and bribes addressed, I will now turn my attention to the morality of bribery.
Anyone who objectively reads the Bible will see that bribery is not intrinsically immoral under all circumstances (only divine revelation can reveal moral truths, not conscience or social consensus). Exodus 23:6-8 condemns bribes--but in the context of civil and criminal justice. Likewise, using a bribe to intentionally, maliciously harm another party is wrong by extension, but this is not because bribery itself is intrinsically sinful. Simply using money to motivate someone else to do something nonsinful is not wrong. The Bible has nothing against using bribery outside of malicious intentions, perversions of justice, or to persuade someone to commit any other sinful act; any use of bribery that does not fall into these sinful categories is permissible (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Yes, bribery advantages some businesses over others by giving them better opportunities to succeed and by depriving other parties of certain opportunities. But all business contracts and decisions by nature exclude some other party from an opportunity, so, although smaller businesses will not have as many resources to expend in bribes, there is still not necessarily anything wrong about using bribes in business contexts. The goal of the bribe--what the bribe is intended to bring about--and the motives behind it determine if it is immoral or not.
Monday, February 12, 2018
The Strength Of Vulnerability
Emotional vulnerability might be very frightening for some. To put oneself in a situation where one is vulnerable is to put oneself in a place where one may be emotionally rejected or harmed. It may make some uncomfortable to either be vulnerable or be exposed to the vulnerability of others, and, in some cases, it may be perceived as a mark of weakness. Yet, vulnerability, far from being an indicator of weakness, can require an immense emotional and psychological strength, especially for those who have previously shared their hearts with others and been hurt as a result.
Whether because of past experience or natural personality, it can be very difficult for some people to open up, while it might be much easier for others. But it is not easy for everyone to share their souls. When others do share them, sometimes all they need or want is an attentive listener or someone who will not trample on what they are willing to expose. The mere thought of being trampled upon could be terrifying for some.
And yet it remains true that vulnerability is necessary for relationships to become anything more than casual. Marriages, dating relationships, and friendships--and our relationships with God--can never reach substantial depth without a willingness to open up. I am not a telepath, and thus I very often need to communicate with others using spoken or written language. In order for other non-telepathic beings to know and understand me personally I must share myself with them, and this inevitably involves vulnerability. For me and another person to mutually bond, we must be willing to be honest with each other, and with ourselves--and this means that one or both parties might be misunderstood or emotionally harmed in the process.
All deep knowledge of other people cannot come about apart from vulnerability. There is not a close relationship I have ever been in that did not at some point involve me telling the other person something about myself, not knowing how he or she would treat or perceive me because of it. And I know that I have found this to be incredibly rewarding in the handful of intimate relationships I have cultivated. A sense of relational peace and oneness has resulted.
Christians in particular need to see the strength of vulnerability, recognizing it as the potent thing it is, a thing that can move people and paradoxically empower them. It is vulnerability that enables the greatest relational intimacy, whether the relationship is one between spouses, friends, or dating partners. This fact must be remembered as we cherish existing relationships and seek to forge new ones.
Whether because of past experience or natural personality, it can be very difficult for some people to open up, while it might be much easier for others. But it is not easy for everyone to share their souls. When others do share them, sometimes all they need or want is an attentive listener or someone who will not trample on what they are willing to expose. The mere thought of being trampled upon could be terrifying for some.
And yet it remains true that vulnerability is necessary for relationships to become anything more than casual. Marriages, dating relationships, and friendships--and our relationships with God--can never reach substantial depth without a willingness to open up. I am not a telepath, and thus I very often need to communicate with others using spoken or written language. In order for other non-telepathic beings to know and understand me personally I must share myself with them, and this inevitably involves vulnerability. For me and another person to mutually bond, we must be willing to be honest with each other, and with ourselves--and this means that one or both parties might be misunderstood or emotionally harmed in the process.
All deep knowledge of other people cannot come about apart from vulnerability. There is not a close relationship I have ever been in that did not at some point involve me telling the other person something about myself, not knowing how he or she would treat or perceive me because of it. And I know that I have found this to be incredibly rewarding in the handful of intimate relationships I have cultivated. A sense of relational peace and oneness has resulted.
Christians in particular need to see the strength of vulnerability, recognizing it as the potent thing it is, a thing that can move people and paradoxically empower them. It is vulnerability that enables the greatest relational intimacy, whether the relationship is one between spouses, friends, or dating partners. This fact must be remembered as we cherish existing relationships and seek to forge new ones.
The Tu Quoque Fallacy
The tu quoque fallacy occurs when someone accused of something, trying to deflect away the criticism, accuses his or her opponent of the same thing in an attempt to defend the error. Here's a scenario. A thief breaks into the house of her neighbor. When caught and condemned by the neighbor, she brings to his attention that he has stolen from her in the past and that therefore her actions are justifiable. The two point their fingers at each other.
Consider another example. A man uses a logical fallacy in an argument, and his opponent mentions this. But the man, remembering that his opponent used a logical fallacy just earlier in the conversation, cries out about the earlier fallacy of the other person. Both individuals have used a logical fallacy. The former says that his fellow's use of a fallacy means that his should be overlooked.
Is drawing attention to hypocrisy in situations like these logically fallacious? Not in itself. The way that hypocrisy is pointed out and the intent in doing so determine whether someone is committing the tu quoque fallacy or just observing an inconsistency--the two are objectively distinct. Noting and mentioning that a person has committed the very fault he or she is criticizing is legitimate, as long as one does not use this as some sort of justification or defense for his or her own error.
There is a difference between pointing out hypocrisy and acting like pointing out hypocrisy absolves you of your own faults, and this is an important thing to clarify. Not everyone who identifies a mistake he or she has committed in the actions or words of another person is being fallacious, but doing so does not make past mistakes right, as it only correctly points out that another person has done the same. The tu quoque might seem, especially in certain contexts (like a political debate), like a tempting way to make oneself appear justified by making an opponent look morally or intellectually inconsistent, but the hypocrisy of an opponent does not nullify any legitimate criticism that the opponent brings against another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)