The giving of testimonies, the relaying of personal anecdotes, is sometimes appealed to by evangelicals as if it is a crucial part of knowing oneself or someone else is a Christian. They might recount stories of past experiences, especially conversions, as if these stories demonstrated anything at all about Christian theology or its veracity. Such people have a faulty understanding of testimony, as testimony does have value, but never in the context of a serious contemplation of the truth of a religion. The alleged experiences of some other person are of no relevance to whether or not an ideology itself reflects reality, and thus can never serve as positive confirmation that a religion is true.
The reason for testimony's lack of epistemic weight is that the testimony of another person can never be legitimately held up as anything more than mere hearsay: if I was not present to witness an event described by someone else, I do not truly know if it occurred or not. I certainly cannot know if someone's story of their inner mental experiences is even factually correct to begin with, much less if their mental experiences affirm God's presence in his or her life. The fact that testimony reduces down to hearsay places almost all historical events on uncertain grounds, for, oftentimes, the only evidence for them is some sort of hearsay (though there is certainly evidence for certain past events).
In the same way, the religious experiences of other people can never be rationally categorized as truthful. Not only would this conclusion rest upon a non sequitur, it would also ignore the fact that a multitude of people--even within the Christian church--could offer very conflicting anecdotes, with each drawing mutually exclusive conclusions from them. But testimony does have value. It is simply not a tool for identifying if someone's beliefs are correct.
The value of testimony is not that the anecdotes of someone else can ever amount to proof that the events of a historical claim happened or that a religion is true. The ultimate value of testimony comes from the encouragement it can provide to those who already know the truth, not from the fallacious persuasion of those presently unconverted to an ideology. When I hear the stories of how other people came to truths, I celebrate their discoveries with them, but their stories are never themselves the basis for any part of my worldview. Hearing how they abandoned false ideas and arrived at truths can be very uplifting indeed. Encouragement, not epistemological significance, is the value of truthful testimonies.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Game Review--Call Of Duty: Black Ops III (Xbox One)
"When people really want to bury secrets, they tend to bury bodies right along with them."
--Sarah Hall, Call of Duty: Black Ops III
It's been two weeks since the announcement trailer for Black Ops 4, so it's time for a Black Ops III review to celebrate. Followed by two other series entries and with a sequel to succeed it, Black Ops III, though not the newest offering of the franchise, certainly should not be overlooked by those who appreciate a broad range of gameplay variety. With a rich multiplayer system, a surprisingly philosophical campaign, zombie mode (of course!), and several additional modes, Black Ops III's greatest strength is that it truly does offer a wealth of content, even without the DLC.
Production Values
It doesn't have the most gorgeous graphics I've seen on the Xbox One (I think the reboot Tomb Raider games have the most beautiful visuals I've seen on the console), but the visuals are often detailed and the colors vibrant--though sometimes there is a distinct lack of detail on some character models--with the gameplay maintaining a consistent framerate even with numerous enemies onscreen at once. The sound, which is clear and immersive, is particularly useful in modes like zombies, as it allows for easier identification of enemy presences. It is clear that many resources were directed into the production of the game.
Gameplay
--Campaign
For those who enjoy single player activity, the 7+ hour campaign has its own progression system, with its XP meter and rewards kept separate from the leveling system in both multiplayer and zombie mode. Periodic breaks from the normal style of play, like piloting a jet or controlling a ground-based drone, offer some variety for campaign players. Thankfully, not every level is the same; though the basic gameplay mechanics are present for the majority of the campaign, the environments and objectives are quite diverse at times. Just be prepared to potentially die a lot, as some parts can be frustratingly brutal.
--Zombies
The natural evolution of one of Call of Duty's most popular and fun features, zombie mode ascends to new levels of depth in Black Ops III, with its self-contained XP rewards, prestige mode, freedom to level up individual weapons and modify them with attachments, and introduction of the new gobblegum abilities that stand alongside the usual perks. Coop, local and online, can alleviate some of the difficulty of zombie mode, but later waves still become arduous. Map variety includes new maps and--for DLC purchasers--remastered versions of old maps, like Natch Der Untoten, Der Riese (now simply called The Giant), and Kino Der Toten. You can stave off undead beings in an asylum, a theater, a moon base, and even in an alternate version of Stalingrad that has dragons!
--Dead Ops Arcade 2
Dead Ops Arcade 2 expands upon a bonus mode from the first Black Ops, the zombie killing mostly occurring from an aerial perspective (though a power up-like object can temporarily trigger first person mode). You can play it alone or with three companions online. Random, fast-paced, and chaotic, it provides an alternative take on the classic Call of Duty zombie mode.
--Nightmares
In Nightmares mode, the same general campaign environments appear, though the sequence of levels is rearranged, and the narrative is altered from a story about a CIA game of betrayal and AI singularity to one about a virus outbreak that triggers a zombie crisis around the world. Basically, it conjures up an excuse to mix aspects of zombie mode with the loose structure of a normal single player campaign. Only one gun can be held at a time, with zombies dropping random weapons and even power ups from the regular zombie mode. It can be quite difficult! And it takes a very surprising narrative turn at the end.
Story
Some spoilers for the campaign are below.
What initially seems like a CIA mystery set in a very futuristic world becomes a cautionary narrative about artificial intelligence and an attempt to control masses of people. The player's point-of-view character, whose gender, outfits, and weaponry are customizable, has his/her limbs torn off by a robot during an extraction mission in Egypt early on in the story. Fashioned into a cyborg, he/she receives mechanical replacement limbs and a DNI: a direct neural interface. This device enables private mental communication with other DNI users, entrance into an elaborate simulation, the ability to hack into computer systems, and the ability to experience the thoughts and memories of others equipped with DNIs.
A team member appears to suddenly betray his companions, abducting and killing a doctor who was involved in a past CIA project dealing with DNI development. While he seems to be acting as a quasi-terrorist, he, like others who have received DNI implants, is actually being influenced by a self-aware software program, called Corvus, that governs the training simulations and DNI usage. The story shifts here from a futuristic espionage tale to one of how a technological revolution sparks a terrifying calamity. Though at times it might be quite confusing for some players, the story can also be deeply intriguing, showcasing several complicated concepts.
Intellectual Content
Black Ops III's campaign is a wonderful example of entertainment that, while not having the depth of something like Inception, The Matrix, or Terminator (all of which it shares similarities with), allows its story to very naturally raise significant questions. The campaign broaches a variety of complex issues, including artificial intelligence, transhumanism (though it is not called by that name, there is definitely a form of transhumanism in the story), simulation technology, mind-body dualism, what future warfare will look like, and whether or not soldiers should deviate from strict orders to stop injustices.
The direct neural interface (DNI) devices unite many of these themes and concepts, with these implants allowing, as explained in the story section, for soldiers to communicate directly with the minds of other soldiers on closed frequencies, teleport around in battlefield simulations, hack enemy robotics, and download the memories of other DNI users. What does it mean to be a human in such a world? Clearly, a living human with a DNI and modified physical features is still a conscious mind in a bipedal body, but the nature of that body dramatically changes, moving from the purely biological to the cybernetic. If simulations as advanced as the ones connected with the DNIs ever do become created in reality, it could get extraordinarily difficult to distinguish the simulated world from the external world perceived in everyday experiences. The simulations are used by the rogue AI software Corvus as a type of collective afterlife for the consciousnesses (or at least replicas of them) of various deceased characters who had DNIs, introducing an intriguing hypothetical use for a simulation. At the very least, a software program could store projections based upon the minds of actual humans, retaining these projections even when the humans themselves die. This would be far from a legitimate afterlife for the actual consciousnesses, but it could provide a way for the living to interact with digital reconstructions of the dead.
Considering this is a Call of Duty game, the inclusion of some of these concepts was impressive at times. Despite not ever diving straight into the epistemological and metaphysical natures of the issues it confronts, and despite not giving significant answers about them, Black Ops III definitely surprised me with the way its story integrates complicated subjects together. I was not expecting a narrative with this exploration of so many topics that either have exploded or very likely will explode into controversy, popularity, and the public consciousness. Neuroscience, artificial intelligence, the simulation hypothesis, and the nature of futuristic warfare are only becoming more pressing issues with each passing year.
Well done, Black Ops III! The story could have been far more conceptually shallow.
Conclusion
Having never played the prior two Black Ops games, I have no reference point for the progress or lack of it that Black Ops III brings to its own sub-series. But I do know that it is not a small game. The campaign and its alternate Nightmares mode could easily occupy 15+ hours of play time, zombie mode can provide dozens of hours of play, and the traditional multiplayer modes can also offer dozens of hours of enjoyment. At the very least, Black Ops III provides a very multi-faceted, replayable gaming experience that players could invest hundreds of hours into overall. That is nothing trivial! Perhaps this summer I will play Infinite Warfare and World War II for the first times as I await Black Ops 4.
Content:
1. Violence: Gunplay and melee attacks are used to kill a variety of enemies, whether humans, robots, or zombies. Blood is generally minimal, but one early scene in the campaign shows a character lose his/her (depending on player customization) limbs onscreen in a robot assault.
2. Profanity: In the campaign characters use words like "shit" and "fuck."
--Sarah Hall, Call of Duty: Black Ops III
It's been two weeks since the announcement trailer for Black Ops 4, so it's time for a Black Ops III review to celebrate. Followed by two other series entries and with a sequel to succeed it, Black Ops III, though not the newest offering of the franchise, certainly should not be overlooked by those who appreciate a broad range of gameplay variety. With a rich multiplayer system, a surprisingly philosophical campaign, zombie mode (of course!), and several additional modes, Black Ops III's greatest strength is that it truly does offer a wealth of content, even without the DLC.
Production Values
It doesn't have the most gorgeous graphics I've seen on the Xbox One (I think the reboot Tomb Raider games have the most beautiful visuals I've seen on the console), but the visuals are often detailed and the colors vibrant--though sometimes there is a distinct lack of detail on some character models--with the gameplay maintaining a consistent framerate even with numerous enemies onscreen at once. The sound, which is clear and immersive, is particularly useful in modes like zombies, as it allows for easier identification of enemy presences. It is clear that many resources were directed into the production of the game.
Gameplay
--Campaign
For those who enjoy single player activity, the 7+ hour campaign has its own progression system, with its XP meter and rewards kept separate from the leveling system in both multiplayer and zombie mode. Periodic breaks from the normal style of play, like piloting a jet or controlling a ground-based drone, offer some variety for campaign players. Thankfully, not every level is the same; though the basic gameplay mechanics are present for the majority of the campaign, the environments and objectives are quite diverse at times. Just be prepared to potentially die a lot, as some parts can be frustratingly brutal.
--Zombies
The natural evolution of one of Call of Duty's most popular and fun features, zombie mode ascends to new levels of depth in Black Ops III, with its self-contained XP rewards, prestige mode, freedom to level up individual weapons and modify them with attachments, and introduction of the new gobblegum abilities that stand alongside the usual perks. Coop, local and online, can alleviate some of the difficulty of zombie mode, but later waves still become arduous. Map variety includes new maps and--for DLC purchasers--remastered versions of old maps, like Natch Der Untoten, Der Riese (now simply called The Giant), and Kino Der Toten. You can stave off undead beings in an asylum, a theater, a moon base, and even in an alternate version of Stalingrad that has dragons!
--Dead Ops Arcade 2
Dead Ops Arcade 2 expands upon a bonus mode from the first Black Ops, the zombie killing mostly occurring from an aerial perspective (though a power up-like object can temporarily trigger first person mode). You can play it alone or with three companions online. Random, fast-paced, and chaotic, it provides an alternative take on the classic Call of Duty zombie mode.
--Nightmares
In Nightmares mode, the same general campaign environments appear, though the sequence of levels is rearranged, and the narrative is altered from a story about a CIA game of betrayal and AI singularity to one about a virus outbreak that triggers a zombie crisis around the world. Basically, it conjures up an excuse to mix aspects of zombie mode with the loose structure of a normal single player campaign. Only one gun can be held at a time, with zombies dropping random weapons and even power ups from the regular zombie mode. It can be quite difficult! And it takes a very surprising narrative turn at the end.
Story
Some spoilers for the campaign are below.
What initially seems like a CIA mystery set in a very futuristic world becomes a cautionary narrative about artificial intelligence and an attempt to control masses of people. The player's point-of-view character, whose gender, outfits, and weaponry are customizable, has his/her limbs torn off by a robot during an extraction mission in Egypt early on in the story. Fashioned into a cyborg, he/she receives mechanical replacement limbs and a DNI: a direct neural interface. This device enables private mental communication with other DNI users, entrance into an elaborate simulation, the ability to hack into computer systems, and the ability to experience the thoughts and memories of others equipped with DNIs.
A team member appears to suddenly betray his companions, abducting and killing a doctor who was involved in a past CIA project dealing with DNI development. While he seems to be acting as a quasi-terrorist, he, like others who have received DNI implants, is actually being influenced by a self-aware software program, called Corvus, that governs the training simulations and DNI usage. The story shifts here from a futuristic espionage tale to one of how a technological revolution sparks a terrifying calamity. Though at times it might be quite confusing for some players, the story can also be deeply intriguing, showcasing several complicated concepts.
Intellectual Content
Black Ops III's campaign is a wonderful example of entertainment that, while not having the depth of something like Inception, The Matrix, or Terminator (all of which it shares similarities with), allows its story to very naturally raise significant questions. The campaign broaches a variety of complex issues, including artificial intelligence, transhumanism (though it is not called by that name, there is definitely a form of transhumanism in the story), simulation technology, mind-body dualism, what future warfare will look like, and whether or not soldiers should deviate from strict orders to stop injustices.
The direct neural interface (DNI) devices unite many of these themes and concepts, with these implants allowing, as explained in the story section, for soldiers to communicate directly with the minds of other soldiers on closed frequencies, teleport around in battlefield simulations, hack enemy robotics, and download the memories of other DNI users. What does it mean to be a human in such a world? Clearly, a living human with a DNI and modified physical features is still a conscious mind in a bipedal body, but the nature of that body dramatically changes, moving from the purely biological to the cybernetic. If simulations as advanced as the ones connected with the DNIs ever do become created in reality, it could get extraordinarily difficult to distinguish the simulated world from the external world perceived in everyday experiences. The simulations are used by the rogue AI software Corvus as a type of collective afterlife for the consciousnesses (or at least replicas of them) of various deceased characters who had DNIs, introducing an intriguing hypothetical use for a simulation. At the very least, a software program could store projections based upon the minds of actual humans, retaining these projections even when the humans themselves die. This would be far from a legitimate afterlife for the actual consciousnesses, but it could provide a way for the living to interact with digital reconstructions of the dead.
Considering this is a Call of Duty game, the inclusion of some of these concepts was impressive at times. Despite not ever diving straight into the epistemological and metaphysical natures of the issues it confronts, and despite not giving significant answers about them, Black Ops III definitely surprised me with the way its story integrates complicated subjects together. I was not expecting a narrative with this exploration of so many topics that either have exploded or very likely will explode into controversy, popularity, and the public consciousness. Neuroscience, artificial intelligence, the simulation hypothesis, and the nature of futuristic warfare are only becoming more pressing issues with each passing year.
Well done, Black Ops III! The story could have been far more conceptually shallow.
Conclusion
Having never played the prior two Black Ops games, I have no reference point for the progress or lack of it that Black Ops III brings to its own sub-series. But I do know that it is not a small game. The campaign and its alternate Nightmares mode could easily occupy 15+ hours of play time, zombie mode can provide dozens of hours of play, and the traditional multiplayer modes can also offer dozens of hours of enjoyment. At the very least, Black Ops III provides a very multi-faceted, replayable gaming experience that players could invest hundreds of hours into overall. That is nothing trivial! Perhaps this summer I will play Infinite Warfare and World War II for the first times as I await Black Ops 4.
Content:
1. Violence: Gunplay and melee attacks are used to kill a variety of enemies, whether humans, robots, or zombies. Blood is generally minimal, but one early scene in the campaign shows a character lose his/her (depending on player customization) limbs onscreen in a robot assault.
2. Profanity: In the campaign characters use words like "shit" and "fuck."
Sunday, May 27, 2018
The Aether
Perhaps you have heard the word aether at some point. This enigmatic word has scarcely been used in my experience, and it is also scarcely defined. Aether refers to a particular type of dimension very much unlike the one we inhabit. It is sometimes used as a label for a hypothetical place where only the immaterial exists. Imagine space without matter, consciousnesses without bodies, and (of course!) the omnipresent laws of logic being the only things that exist--a realm with only these things is the aether. There is no matter, no physical thing whatsoever, in this realm. There is only the immaterial in the aether.
An error that some Christians might embrace, even unknowingly, is the belief that when the Bible talks about the afterlife it details an aether of sorts. But the ultimate afterlife of Scripture does not involve human spirits without bodies [1] and space without matter. Whether one investigates heaven or hell, an objective reading of the the New Testament plainly affirms something quite different than the aether.
The afterlife described by the Bible--both the New Jerusalem that awaits the saved and the hell that consumes the unsaved until they cease to exist--is not the aether. It is far from it! In both cases, the afterlife destinations of every human are very physical places. The Bible describes New Jerusalem as having gates, a tree, a throne, and a river (Revelation 21-22); in the case of hell, it describes fire (Matthew 18:8), worms (Mark 9:43-49), and the destruction of not just the soul but the body (Matthew 10:28). Never does the Bible teach that the nonphysical will totally supercede the physical. Instead, both will persist together.
Although the passages about New Jerusalem pertain to future events, they can affect the way Christians live in the present. There is no greater reason to celebrate our bodies than the realization that we were not meant to be just minds and God created matter and called it very good (Genesis 1:1, 1:31). God never intended for humans to be beings with no physical bodies, but to be a combination of both consciousness and corporeal substance.
Sometimes an aether-like understanding of heaven might be mistaken for the Biblical one. Whenever this misrepresentation appears, Christians can remember that the heaven of Scripture is both a spiritual and physical place, not a region containing only unembodied consciousnesses, the abstract laws of logic, and space devoid of matter. New Jerusalem is more than the aether. Matter, which God created and called good, will not be abolished; it will exist into the eternal future.
[1]. I say ultimate afterlife because the concepts I am referring to here do not exclude the possibility of disembodied human spirits existing between the death of the body and the resurrections of the saved and unsaved predicted in the New Testament.
An error that some Christians might embrace, even unknowingly, is the belief that when the Bible talks about the afterlife it details an aether of sorts. But the ultimate afterlife of Scripture does not involve human spirits without bodies [1] and space without matter. Whether one investigates heaven or hell, an objective reading of the the New Testament plainly affirms something quite different than the aether.
The afterlife described by the Bible--both the New Jerusalem that awaits the saved and the hell that consumes the unsaved until they cease to exist--is not the aether. It is far from it! In both cases, the afterlife destinations of every human are very physical places. The Bible describes New Jerusalem as having gates, a tree, a throne, and a river (Revelation 21-22); in the case of hell, it describes fire (Matthew 18:8), worms (Mark 9:43-49), and the destruction of not just the soul but the body (Matthew 10:28). Never does the Bible teach that the nonphysical will totally supercede the physical. Instead, both will persist together.
Although the passages about New Jerusalem pertain to future events, they can affect the way Christians live in the present. There is no greater reason to celebrate our bodies than the realization that we were not meant to be just minds and God created matter and called it very good (Genesis 1:1, 1:31). God never intended for humans to be beings with no physical bodies, but to be a combination of both consciousness and corporeal substance.
Sometimes an aether-like understanding of heaven might be mistaken for the Biblical one. Whenever this misrepresentation appears, Christians can remember that the heaven of Scripture is both a spiritual and physical place, not a region containing only unembodied consciousnesses, the abstract laws of logic, and space devoid of matter. New Jerusalem is more than the aether. Matter, which God created and called good, will not be abolished; it will exist into the eternal future.
[1]. I say ultimate afterlife because the concepts I am referring to here do not exclude the possibility of disembodied human spirits existing between the death of the body and the resurrections of the saved and unsaved predicted in the New Testament.
The Appearance Of Design
The appearance of design in the natural world is unmistakable. But in order to discover truths about reality, one must challenging perceptions to find if they actually report the way things are beyond the perceptions. When people marvel at the seeming presence of design in nature, what they often mean is that the physical world exhibits orderliness, consistency, and perhaps some kind of intrinsic beauty. Theists often fail to rationally appraise the cosmos, however.
The leap from the "appearance of design" to the claim that design itself can be known to exist is fraught with non sequiturs. Few will acknowledge that, although external objects and the scientific laws that have thus far governed the external world certainly seem designed--at least in a sense, it does not follow that we are observing actual design. All that the senses can report to us are appearances which can give the impression that the material world has a designer. Identifying what does not follow from this is rather simple.
For millennia, people simply did not have access to an understanding of the precision of variables in the external world. At most, they could recognize that the natural world seemed designed to them. And an intuition or perception proves nothing except that the intuition/perception exists. Advocates of the design argument often overlook or ignore this crucial point. It would expose the flaws in the argument, after all. To maintain their sophistry the apologists who advocate the design argument must not draw attention the the fallacious appeals to probability, myriad of unknowns, and non sequiturs involved in the argument.
Apologists might refer to scientific variables as if they escape the realm of probability and reach the status of proofs of design, with the aforementioned data never actually confirming what these apologists claim: that God exists. Ultimately, the design argument for God tries to fallaciously jump from perceptions of design to a designer, assaulting people with enough miscellaneous examples of seeming design until they forget that the entire argument rests on an unverifiable, subjective sense of probability [1]. Persuasion is not proof, and all the affirmation of apologists cannot transform fallacies into proofs. Thankfully the ability to sort through the correct conclusions does not lay beyond our reach. The truth of the matter is easily demonstrable.
There is design, but to say that the appearance of design proves the existence of design, in turn proving the existence of a designer by extension, is ludicrous. To prove design exists one would first have to prove a designer exists, as that is the only way to prove that the appearance of design reflects actual design in nature. But one could never prove that a designer exists simply by surveying a world with the appearance of design.
For instance, if the universe was past-eternal, there would be no design because the universe would be uncreated, and thus have no designer, for it would have always existed. It is the impossibility of an infinite past that establishes the beginning of the cosmos, and it is reason that reveals the impossibility of something appearing without a cause [2]. Because an uncaused cause exists, the universe is finite and created, and therefore design does exist--but no one can soundly reason this out backwards, as if design can be proven without first proving a designer, and as if a designer/creator can be proven without first proving that the universe had a beginning.
The design argument reeks of assumptions and errors, yet a drastically restructured argument can indeed prove the existence of design. As I have said before, while many think that the design argument for God is a sound and valid argument, what is actually necessary is the God argument for design, without which one cannot establish design to begin with. Many forsake this sequence in their approaches. Reason affirms it anyway because it reflects reality.
The leap from the "appearance of design" to the claim that design itself can be known to exist is fraught with non sequiturs. Few will acknowledge that, although external objects and the scientific laws that have thus far governed the external world certainly seem designed--at least in a sense, it does not follow that we are observing actual design. All that the senses can report to us are appearances which can give the impression that the material world has a designer. Identifying what does not follow from this is rather simple.
 | |
| The mere presence of complexity does not logically establish the existence of either design or a designer, with the former not existing unless the latter does. Perceptions of design do not mean that design is actually present. |
For millennia, people simply did not have access to an understanding of the precision of variables in the external world. At most, they could recognize that the natural world seemed designed to them. And an intuition or perception proves nothing except that the intuition/perception exists. Advocates of the design argument often overlook or ignore this crucial point. It would expose the flaws in the argument, after all. To maintain their sophistry the apologists who advocate the design argument must not draw attention the the fallacious appeals to probability, myriad of unknowns, and non sequiturs involved in the argument.
Apologists might refer to scientific variables as if they escape the realm of probability and reach the status of proofs of design, with the aforementioned data never actually confirming what these apologists claim: that God exists. Ultimately, the design argument for God tries to fallaciously jump from perceptions of design to a designer, assaulting people with enough miscellaneous examples of seeming design until they forget that the entire argument rests on an unverifiable, subjective sense of probability [1]. Persuasion is not proof, and all the affirmation of apologists cannot transform fallacies into proofs. Thankfully the ability to sort through the correct conclusions does not lay beyond our reach. The truth of the matter is easily demonstrable.
There is design, but to say that the appearance of design proves the existence of design, in turn proving the existence of a designer by extension, is ludicrous. To prove design exists one would first have to prove a designer exists, as that is the only way to prove that the appearance of design reflects actual design in nature. But one could never prove that a designer exists simply by surveying a world with the appearance of design.
For instance, if the universe was past-eternal, there would be no design because the universe would be uncreated, and thus have no designer, for it would have always existed. It is the impossibility of an infinite past that establishes the beginning of the cosmos, and it is reason that reveals the impossibility of something appearing without a cause [2]. Because an uncaused cause exists, the universe is finite and created, and therefore design does exist--but no one can soundly reason this out backwards, as if design can be proven without first proving a designer, and as if a designer/creator can be proven without first proving that the universe had a beginning.
The design argument reeks of assumptions and errors, yet a drastically restructured argument can indeed prove the existence of design. As I have said before, while many think that the design argument for God is a sound and valid argument, what is actually necessary is the God argument for design, without which one cannot establish design to begin with. Many forsake this sequence in their approaches. Reason affirms it anyway because it reflects reality.
Saturday, May 26, 2018
Teaching Others How To Think
Sometimes, when I criticize the professors or students at my college for their aversion to public displays of clarity and rationality, I am told that the goal of education is not to tell people what to think, but how to think. And this is nothing but erroneous bullshit.
First of all, why the hell would I come to a university when I already knew how to think? No one needs other people to show him or her what rationality is; reason is self-evident. I learned rationality from personal contemplation, not from the words of others. Anyone can. I came to college to learn new, true information, information that is not affirmed when it is false or unverified and that is not dismissed when it is true and demonstrable. The entire purpose of education is the learning of new information. That is all education is (as my repeated comments over the years of my log's life indicate, I am often very underwhelmed by, and antagonistic towards, HBU)!
Second, I need to highlight just how stupid the aforementioned reaction to my criticisms of professors is at its core. It is universally impossible to teach someone how to think without teaching them what to think, at least in part. The obviousness of this seemingly goes unnoticed by some. There is not a single time where a person encourages someone else to think critically, guiding them along, where they are not also encouraging them to think a certain thing--that critical thinking is useful or correct, at a minimum.
The effects of offering evasive answers, or no answers or clarity at all, can also prove very damaging to the lives of some. I have endured terrifying existential fears and sadness before, and I do not want anyone to experience what I did. When people seek out answers and knowledge, more than trivial curiosity might motivate their searches. Their very wills to live might be tied to the outcome of some intellectual quests. The intellectual shallowness and reluctance of others to honestly answer my questions infuriated me during my existential crisis (as they still do, of course!), and I will never prolong such suffering in the lives of others. The entire purpose of my blog is to broadcast verifiable truths to others, after all! As a Christian, I have further reasons to teach people what to think when they need to hear it--because every person has the opportunity to choose a restored relationship with God, and no one can approach this relationship soundly without a great deal of knowledge. I will not shirk from teaching those who are not thorough self-educators.
Of course it would be unsound to teach someone what to think--by presenting new information about a subject--without acknowledging the necessity of critical thinking, legitimate skepticism, and careful logicality at every step of the receiving end of the education process. However, you simply cannot teach someone a framework or impress a goal upon them without teaching them what to think in some regard. As long as I do not teach that the veracity of my worldview depends on whether or not I endorse it, which would be a fallacious appeal to authority, and as long as the one I am educating does not believe in something just because I say it, there is nothing deficient about this. That person must exercise his or her own intelligence and ensure that everything I say is properly analyzed before being accepted or discarded, but that does not mean that I should actively withhold answers from genuine seekers of truth. Again, there is nothing intellectually deficient in telling others what to think, when this is accompanied by proofs and valid explanations.
The deficiency lies in the idiocy and selfishness of those who withhold information and proofs from those who crave or need them, all in the name of the false belief that one only needs to teach others how to think whenever it is necessary. It is impossible to only teach someone how to think. In doing so, one also teaches something about what to think: that rational thinking is needed for absorbing information. Is the fact that the former inescapably includes the latter that difficult to identify?
First of all, why the hell would I come to a university when I already knew how to think? No one needs other people to show him or her what rationality is; reason is self-evident. I learned rationality from personal contemplation, not from the words of others. Anyone can. I came to college to learn new, true information, information that is not affirmed when it is false or unverified and that is not dismissed when it is true and demonstrable. The entire purpose of education is the learning of new information. That is all education is (as my repeated comments over the years of my log's life indicate, I am often very underwhelmed by, and antagonistic towards, HBU)!
Second, I need to highlight just how stupid the aforementioned reaction to my criticisms of professors is at its core. It is universally impossible to teach someone how to think without teaching them what to think, at least in part. The obviousness of this seemingly goes unnoticed by some. There is not a single time where a person encourages someone else to think critically, guiding them along, where they are not also encouraging them to think a certain thing--that critical thinking is useful or correct, at a minimum.
The effects of offering evasive answers, or no answers or clarity at all, can also prove very damaging to the lives of some. I have endured terrifying existential fears and sadness before, and I do not want anyone to experience what I did. When people seek out answers and knowledge, more than trivial curiosity might motivate their searches. Their very wills to live might be tied to the outcome of some intellectual quests. The intellectual shallowness and reluctance of others to honestly answer my questions infuriated me during my existential crisis (as they still do, of course!), and I will never prolong such suffering in the lives of others. The entire purpose of my blog is to broadcast verifiable truths to others, after all! As a Christian, I have further reasons to teach people what to think when they need to hear it--because every person has the opportunity to choose a restored relationship with God, and no one can approach this relationship soundly without a great deal of knowledge. I will not shirk from teaching those who are not thorough self-educators.
Of course it would be unsound to teach someone what to think--by presenting new information about a subject--without acknowledging the necessity of critical thinking, legitimate skepticism, and careful logicality at every step of the receiving end of the education process. However, you simply cannot teach someone a framework or impress a goal upon them without teaching them what to think in some regard. As long as I do not teach that the veracity of my worldview depends on whether or not I endorse it, which would be a fallacious appeal to authority, and as long as the one I am educating does not believe in something just because I say it, there is nothing deficient about this. That person must exercise his or her own intelligence and ensure that everything I say is properly analyzed before being accepted or discarded, but that does not mean that I should actively withhold answers from genuine seekers of truth. Again, there is nothing intellectually deficient in telling others what to think, when this is accompanied by proofs and valid explanations.
The deficiency lies in the idiocy and selfishness of those who withhold information and proofs from those who crave or need them, all in the name of the false belief that one only needs to teach others how to think whenever it is necessary. It is impossible to only teach someone how to think. In doing so, one also teaches something about what to think: that rational thinking is needed for absorbing information. Is the fact that the former inescapably includes the latter that difficult to identify?
Sexuality In Game Of Thrones
Despite being broaching all manner of divisive philosophical issues, one of the most controversial aspects of Game of Thrones, if not the most controversial one, is its portrayals of sexuality, especially when that sexuality is expressed through incestuous behaviors or coercion. I have already proven that there is nothing Biblically sinful about the mere viewing sex acts or watching something like Game of Thrones [1], so the permissibility of such entertainment is not the focus here. The value of portraying sexuality in entertainment is.
Why is there so much controversy about the sex in Game of Thrones? Once the subjective worries brought about by anxieties about sexuality, found in both the church and in secular culture, are silenced or ignored, there is nothing that can be legitimately appealed to in an effort to condemn the portrayal of sexuality in the show. And why should a show that is at its core about examining human nature omit acknowledgment of an important part of human nature?
If the Bible were to have all of the parts in the narrative involving sex acts omitted, we would lose something valuable from the text. We would certainly forfeit honest depictions of human sexuality, with its existential, moral, and theological dimensions. Because of the way that Game of Thrones is constructed--with its excellent depiction of a whole host of competing worldviews [2]--removing the exploration of sexuality truly would remove a part of the show's honesty. With the legion of historical and modern misunderstandings about sexuality perpetrated by Christians and non-Christians alike, it is crucial that honesty and rationality not be forsaken when sexuality is the subject of conversation or contemplation.
Game of Thrones does not shy away from alluding to or depicting a wide spectrum of sexual behaviors or attitudes, just like it does not hide different approaches to issues of religion, power, general ethics, and meaning. Watchers will see traumatic examples of rape from the first season onward, but they will also see sex used in expression of mutuality (though the best example of this is all the way in season seven). They will see women (like Ygritte) articulating sexual desires that have not always been historically encouraged in the ways that male sexual desires have been. As more characters appear in the story, incest, homosexuality, and bisexuality all surface in some way.
As it also does with politics, power, and religion, the show naturally coaxes out questions about the moral nature of sexuality. Some characters despise homosexuality, while others are unbothered by it. Some characters live in or around societies where marital and war rape is expected and largely tolerated. The conflicting moral judgments made by miscellaneous characters about various sex acts cannot all be simultaneously true. Which of the presented beliefs about sexual morality is correct? They cannot all be. This is part of the significance of showing sexuality in a show like Game of Thrones--since the very nature of the show is that it acknowledges different human motivations, activities, and beliefs, viewers might be stimulated into considering the morality of sexual acts as well.
Not all entertainment needs to emphasize sexuality to the extent that Game of Thrones does (though it is nowhere near as prominent in the show as some people pretend it is), just like not all entertainment needs to emphasize emotionality, spirituality, or the intellect to an identical extent. But there is a need for entertainment that acknowledges sexuality, raises questions about it, and treats it as what it is: a part of normal human existence (even asexuals like me are still sexual beings, after all [3]), and one that needs to be understood in the right existential light. If it takes a secular show like Game of Thrones to accomplish these things, then so be it. The Bible is made all the more relevant and honest by acknowledging sex in its narratives, and so is Game of Thrones.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/why-watching-game-of-thrones-is-not.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/winter-is-coming-realism-of-westeros.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/asexuals-are-still-sexual-beings.html
Why is there so much controversy about the sex in Game of Thrones? Once the subjective worries brought about by anxieties about sexuality, found in both the church and in secular culture, are silenced or ignored, there is nothing that can be legitimately appealed to in an effort to condemn the portrayal of sexuality in the show. And why should a show that is at its core about examining human nature omit acknowledgment of an important part of human nature?
If the Bible were to have all of the parts in the narrative involving sex acts omitted, we would lose something valuable from the text. We would certainly forfeit honest depictions of human sexuality, with its existential, moral, and theological dimensions. Because of the way that Game of Thrones is constructed--with its excellent depiction of a whole host of competing worldviews [2]--removing the exploration of sexuality truly would remove a part of the show's honesty. With the legion of historical and modern misunderstandings about sexuality perpetrated by Christians and non-Christians alike, it is crucial that honesty and rationality not be forsaken when sexuality is the subject of conversation or contemplation.
Game of Thrones does not shy away from alluding to or depicting a wide spectrum of sexual behaviors or attitudes, just like it does not hide different approaches to issues of religion, power, general ethics, and meaning. Watchers will see traumatic examples of rape from the first season onward, but they will also see sex used in expression of mutuality (though the best example of this is all the way in season seven). They will see women (like Ygritte) articulating sexual desires that have not always been historically encouraged in the ways that male sexual desires have been. As more characters appear in the story, incest, homosexuality, and bisexuality all surface in some way.
As it also does with politics, power, and religion, the show naturally coaxes out questions about the moral nature of sexuality. Some characters despise homosexuality, while others are unbothered by it. Some characters live in or around societies where marital and war rape is expected and largely tolerated. The conflicting moral judgments made by miscellaneous characters about various sex acts cannot all be simultaneously true. Which of the presented beliefs about sexual morality is correct? They cannot all be. This is part of the significance of showing sexuality in a show like Game of Thrones--since the very nature of the show is that it acknowledges different human motivations, activities, and beliefs, viewers might be stimulated into considering the morality of sexual acts as well.
Not all entertainment needs to emphasize sexuality to the extent that Game of Thrones does (though it is nowhere near as prominent in the show as some people pretend it is), just like not all entertainment needs to emphasize emotionality, spirituality, or the intellect to an identical extent. But there is a need for entertainment that acknowledges sexuality, raises questions about it, and treats it as what it is: a part of normal human existence (even asexuals like me are still sexual beings, after all [3]), and one that needs to be understood in the right existential light. If it takes a secular show like Game of Thrones to accomplish these things, then so be it. The Bible is made all the more relevant and honest by acknowledging sex in its narratives, and so is Game of Thrones.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/why-watching-game-of-thrones-is-not.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/winter-is-coming-realism-of-westeros.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/asexuals-are-still-sexual-beings.html
The Old Covenant
That God made a covenant with Israel in no way means that the moral revelation that accompanied that covenant was obligatory only for Jews before the coming of Christ, yet many will speak as if it does. Evangelical Christians, in particular, are forced to say that Old Testament morality is largely obsolete if they want to remain evangelicals, because the framework of evangelical ethics disintegrates when people admit the fallacies and errors in this belief.
The Old Covenant, or the Mosaic Covenant, as it is also called, details moral obligations the Israelites were to uphold (Deuteronomy 4:1-8), with destruction, affliction, and dispersion throughout other nations being the ultimate terrestrial punishments God promised to mete on a collectively sinful Jewish society (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). Certainly, since I am not an ancient Jew with whom God made this covenant, I cannot be the recipient of these calamities as covenant plagues. However, I can still be accountable for the majority of the moral demands Yahweh made to the Jews.
Evangelicals, on one hand, decry moral relativism (but often because it contradicts their conservative moral beliefs, not because it is logically impossible), but, on the other hand, literally teach that moral obligations depend on where and when you were born. They almost invariably hold that the punishments of Mosaic Law, as well as a variety of actions condemned therein, were sinful for the Old Testament Israelites, but are not obligatory for Christians today. Thus, they are by definition cultural relativists! Though they will deny this title, it describes the exact moral philosophy they embrace. They do believe that moral obligations are objectively binding, but that the obligations themselves are not uniform across history and geography and are subject to change.
This directly contradicts Deuteronomy 4:8, which says that one purpose behind God revealing his laws to the Jews, including the penal laws, was that they were meant to be recognized as just by surrounding nations. The fact that morality is rooted in God's nature is also a fatal blow to the moral framework of evangelicals, since God's nature is plainly said to never change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). Unless God changes, his moral nature cannot change, and if his moral nature does not change, human moral obligations cannot change.
The morality of the Old Covenant is inflexibly binding wherever it is not clearly limited by geography or time by the very nature of the command itself (a modern American cannot make sacrifices at the temple when there is no temple and he/she does not live in Israel, for example, and the death of Jesus does indeed nullify the need for animal sacrifices, which could never actually rectify human sin in an ultimate sense). Jesus said that heaven and earth would pass away before these inflexible moral requirements do (Matthew 5:18). Clearly, the Jesus presented in Matthew was very much against the idea that a major rift exists between Old Testament and New Testament ethics.
Ask evangelicals where the New Testament directly condemns a variety of sins prohibited in the Old Testament. They often cannot point to even a single verse. Yet still they might insist that those things really are still wrong, despite being condemned nowhere in the New Testament. In the case of certain sins, they may rightly point out, for example, that the New Testament does have a passage that condemns rape (1 Corinthians 7:3-5; see Deuteronomy 22:25-27) and one that condemns the slave trade (1 Timothy 1:9-11; see Exodus 21:16). But is far from obvious that the deity spoken of in the New Testament condemns things like bestiality (Exodus 22:19), torturing someone to extract information (Deuteronomy 19:15), or executing someone for theft (Exodus 22:1-4). Actually, the New Testament does not condemn these things at all, as only the Old Testament does.
One can ironically see that evangelicals who deny that Old Testament laws (laws that don't pertain to things like sickness or the temple) are no longer binding might even be far more likely to teach something like eternal conscious torment for all unsaved beings (in the afterlife), that the abomination of Roman crucifixion was somehow just when imposed on the thieves crucified with Jesus, or that torturing people for information is permissible. They discard the only standard in the Bible which condemns these things, and then proclaim that they emphasize mercy and grace, when the things they defend might never be just to begin with. Their hypocrisy is apparent. They might claim that New Testament morality, vague and unclear as it often is without illumination from the Old Testament [1], replaces judgment with mercy, and then literally say that Roman crucifixion, with all of its affiliated degradations and cruelties (which are condemned in Mosaic Law), was in some way just.
And while it might seem superficially kind to denounce something like stoning people for adultery, their proposed alternatives to criminal punishment are actually far harsher than those prescribed in the Bible--life in prison is far crueler than a swift execution (Exodus 21:12), 1-40 lashes (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), or servitude without abuse (Exodus 22:3, 21:26-27). That they do not realize this testifies only to their stupidity and ignorance. Biblically, there is nothing cruel about Mosaic punishments whatsoever; cruelty would be going beyond them. I am merely showing that even if Biblical punishments were cruel, the primary American alternative is still far crueler.
Never does the New Testament revoke the penal laws of the Old Testament. Never does it say that God's character dramatically changed. Of course there are some differences in the obligations of the ancient Jews and of those in the modern world--there is no obligation to sacrifice an animal, for instance. But unless a New Testament passage directly rescinds a law (as most Christians would claim was done with the dietary and ceremonial laws [2]) or a law is impossible to carry out (like the example of animal sacrifices at the temple), it remains objectively binding for all people. And since God's nature has not changed, the core moral obligations of all humans have not changed.
Yes, the Old Covenant was made with Israel. But just as Yahweh is not only Israel's deity, but also the deity whom all people are obligated to worship, so too is the morality revealed to Israel obligatory to non-Israelites. Modern Christians are not exempt from doing what is intrinsically right; justice does not fluctuate from generation to generation. The intelligence and self-education of Christians, however, do fluctuate wildly from one generation to another.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-new-testament-morals.html
[2]. Though I am a total agnostic on whether or not the dietary laws of Mosaic Law are still binding, as numerous factors are relevant to the issue, most theonomists do not believe that Scripture demands continued compliance with the ceremonial and/or dietary laws. Even if they are not currently obligatory, this has nothing to do with the authority of the penal or other laws.
The Old Covenant, or the Mosaic Covenant, as it is also called, details moral obligations the Israelites were to uphold (Deuteronomy 4:1-8), with destruction, affliction, and dispersion throughout other nations being the ultimate terrestrial punishments God promised to mete on a collectively sinful Jewish society (Deuteronomy 28:15-68). Certainly, since I am not an ancient Jew with whom God made this covenant, I cannot be the recipient of these calamities as covenant plagues. However, I can still be accountable for the majority of the moral demands Yahweh made to the Jews.
Evangelicals, on one hand, decry moral relativism (but often because it contradicts their conservative moral beliefs, not because it is logically impossible), but, on the other hand, literally teach that moral obligations depend on where and when you were born. They almost invariably hold that the punishments of Mosaic Law, as well as a variety of actions condemned therein, were sinful for the Old Testament Israelites, but are not obligatory for Christians today. Thus, they are by definition cultural relativists! Though they will deny this title, it describes the exact moral philosophy they embrace. They do believe that moral obligations are objectively binding, but that the obligations themselves are not uniform across history and geography and are subject to change.
This directly contradicts Deuteronomy 4:8, which says that one purpose behind God revealing his laws to the Jews, including the penal laws, was that they were meant to be recognized as just by surrounding nations. The fact that morality is rooted in God's nature is also a fatal blow to the moral framework of evangelicals, since God's nature is plainly said to never change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). Unless God changes, his moral nature cannot change, and if his moral nature does not change, human moral obligations cannot change.
The morality of the Old Covenant is inflexibly binding wherever it is not clearly limited by geography or time by the very nature of the command itself (a modern American cannot make sacrifices at the temple when there is no temple and he/she does not live in Israel, for example, and the death of Jesus does indeed nullify the need for animal sacrifices, which could never actually rectify human sin in an ultimate sense). Jesus said that heaven and earth would pass away before these inflexible moral requirements do (Matthew 5:18). Clearly, the Jesus presented in Matthew was very much against the idea that a major rift exists between Old Testament and New Testament ethics.
Ask evangelicals where the New Testament directly condemns a variety of sins prohibited in the Old Testament. They often cannot point to even a single verse. Yet still they might insist that those things really are still wrong, despite being condemned nowhere in the New Testament. In the case of certain sins, they may rightly point out, for example, that the New Testament does have a passage that condemns rape (1 Corinthians 7:3-5; see Deuteronomy 22:25-27) and one that condemns the slave trade (1 Timothy 1:9-11; see Exodus 21:16). But is far from obvious that the deity spoken of in the New Testament condemns things like bestiality (Exodus 22:19), torturing someone to extract information (Deuteronomy 19:15), or executing someone for theft (Exodus 22:1-4). Actually, the New Testament does not condemn these things at all, as only the Old Testament does.
One can ironically see that evangelicals who deny that Old Testament laws (laws that don't pertain to things like sickness or the temple) are no longer binding might even be far more likely to teach something like eternal conscious torment for all unsaved beings (in the afterlife), that the abomination of Roman crucifixion was somehow just when imposed on the thieves crucified with Jesus, or that torturing people for information is permissible. They discard the only standard in the Bible which condemns these things, and then proclaim that they emphasize mercy and grace, when the things they defend might never be just to begin with. Their hypocrisy is apparent. They might claim that New Testament morality, vague and unclear as it often is without illumination from the Old Testament [1], replaces judgment with mercy, and then literally say that Roman crucifixion, with all of its affiliated degradations and cruelties (which are condemned in Mosaic Law), was in some way just.
And while it might seem superficially kind to denounce something like stoning people for adultery, their proposed alternatives to criminal punishment are actually far harsher than those prescribed in the Bible--life in prison is far crueler than a swift execution (Exodus 21:12), 1-40 lashes (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), or servitude without abuse (Exodus 22:3, 21:26-27). That they do not realize this testifies only to their stupidity and ignorance. Biblically, there is nothing cruel about Mosaic punishments whatsoever; cruelty would be going beyond them. I am merely showing that even if Biblical punishments were cruel, the primary American alternative is still far crueler.
Never does the New Testament revoke the penal laws of the Old Testament. Never does it say that God's character dramatically changed. Of course there are some differences in the obligations of the ancient Jews and of those in the modern world--there is no obligation to sacrifice an animal, for instance. But unless a New Testament passage directly rescinds a law (as most Christians would claim was done with the dietary and ceremonial laws [2]) or a law is impossible to carry out (like the example of animal sacrifices at the temple), it remains objectively binding for all people. And since God's nature has not changed, the core moral obligations of all humans have not changed.
Yes, the Old Covenant was made with Israel. But just as Yahweh is not only Israel's deity, but also the deity whom all people are obligated to worship, so too is the morality revealed to Israel obligatory to non-Israelites. Modern Christians are not exempt from doing what is intrinsically right; justice does not fluctuate from generation to generation. The intelligence and self-education of Christians, however, do fluctuate wildly from one generation to another.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-new-testament-morals.html
[2]. Though I am a total agnostic on whether or not the dietary laws of Mosaic Law are still binding, as numerous factors are relevant to the issue, most theonomists do not believe that Scripture demands continued compliance with the ceremonial and/or dietary laws. Even if they are not currently obligatory, this has nothing to do with the authority of the penal or other laws.
Sunday, May 20, 2018
Refuting The Consciousness Argument For God
Among the arguments for God's existence resorted to by apologists is the consciousness argument for God, one that has become increasingly popular among some circles. Like all but one of the other arguments for God--which I will mention yet again all throughout this article--the consciousness argument falls short of being a proof, relying on non sequiturs and question-begging assumptions. I will first describe the argument before analyzing its weaknesses.
The consciousness argument ultimately posits that consciousness cannot have a cause that is itself not a consciousness. This is, in a way, an argument similar the Kalam cosmological argument; both address issues of causality and the original cause of certain things (the material world and consciousness respectively). Instead of arguing for an uncaused cause at the beginning of the causal chain, it argues for a consciousness--God--imbuing other things with consciousness--humans and animals. And this is where its weakness lies.
It is true, despite the potential protests of some apologists, that nothing is logically impossible about consciousness emerging from a certain arrangement of matter [1], though other immaterial things besides consciousness exist that are not emergent (things like logic and space are strictly immaterial and exist by necessity independent of consciousness and matter, so it is not as if consciousness is the only immaterial thing [2]). Though the consciousness argument for God might seem a much stronger argument than, say, the transcendental, design, or desire arguments, which are examples of utter sophistry and nothing more [3], it still rests on an unverifiable premise: that consciousness cannot emerge from non-consciousness. This must be assumed; it cannot be proven. Therefore it does not follow by necessity that God exists because human or animal consciousness exists.
There is no evidential support for emergent naturalism regarding consciousness. And as I said, logic and space are both immaterial and mind-independent, so they neither depend on a consciousness nor on matter for their own necessary existences. Total metaphysical naturalism is utterly impossible. But there remains the logical possibility of matter causing consciousness to manifest. As I have explained elsewhere (see [1]), emergent naturalism could not erase the existence of the uncaused cause, which still exists even if the matter it created brought about consciousness and not itself directly, and it also would not change the fact that I do possess free will. My consciousness is still in control of my external bodily activities, like lifting my arms, save for in several cases (involuntary crying, for instance). I still have free will whether or not the uncaused cause directly imbued my species with consciousness and whether or not it was an arrangement of matter that human and animal consciousness originated from.
The logical proof of an uncaused cause remains the only actual confirmation of God's existence. Why Christian apologists continue to rely on other arguments, as if the conclusions followed from the premises and the premises were all demonstrably true, I don't know, and I also don't know why apologists emphasize speculative scientific models over strict logical and mathematical proofs when arguing that the universe had a beginning. But I do know that there is an uncaused cause [4], a deity, whether or not our consciousness was initially produced by it or by the matter it created.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/what-is-emergent-naturalism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-impossibility-of-absolutely-nothing.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/refuting-transcendental-argument-for-god.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/refuting-desire-argument-for-god.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
The consciousness argument ultimately posits that consciousness cannot have a cause that is itself not a consciousness. This is, in a way, an argument similar the Kalam cosmological argument; both address issues of causality and the original cause of certain things (the material world and consciousness respectively). Instead of arguing for an uncaused cause at the beginning of the causal chain, it argues for a consciousness--God--imbuing other things with consciousness--humans and animals. And this is where its weakness lies.
 |
| Consciousness could have originated from matter. |
It is true, despite the potential protests of some apologists, that nothing is logically impossible about consciousness emerging from a certain arrangement of matter [1], though other immaterial things besides consciousness exist that are not emergent (things like logic and space are strictly immaterial and exist by necessity independent of consciousness and matter, so it is not as if consciousness is the only immaterial thing [2]). Though the consciousness argument for God might seem a much stronger argument than, say, the transcendental, design, or desire arguments, which are examples of utter sophistry and nothing more [3], it still rests on an unverifiable premise: that consciousness cannot emerge from non-consciousness. This must be assumed; it cannot be proven. Therefore it does not follow by necessity that God exists because human or animal consciousness exists.
There is no evidential support for emergent naturalism regarding consciousness. And as I said, logic and space are both immaterial and mind-independent, so they neither depend on a consciousness nor on matter for their own necessary existences. Total metaphysical naturalism is utterly impossible. But there remains the logical possibility of matter causing consciousness to manifest. As I have explained elsewhere (see [1]), emergent naturalism could not erase the existence of the uncaused cause, which still exists even if the matter it created brought about consciousness and not itself directly, and it also would not change the fact that I do possess free will. My consciousness is still in control of my external bodily activities, like lifting my arms, save for in several cases (involuntary crying, for instance). I still have free will whether or not the uncaused cause directly imbued my species with consciousness and whether or not it was an arrangement of matter that human and animal consciousness originated from.
The logical proof of an uncaused cause remains the only actual confirmation of God's existence. Why Christian apologists continue to rely on other arguments, as if the conclusions followed from the premises and the premises were all demonstrably true, I don't know, and I also don't know why apologists emphasize speculative scientific models over strict logical and mathematical proofs when arguing that the universe had a beginning. But I do know that there is an uncaused cause [4], a deity, whether or not our consciousness was initially produced by it or by the matter it created.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/what-is-emergent-naturalism.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-impossibility-of-absolutely-nothing.html
[3]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/refuting-transcendental-argument-for-god.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/refuting-desire-argument-for-god.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
The Degrading Nature Of Sexual Stereotypes
The total myths that men are hypervisual, hypersexual beings by nature and that women are asexual/demisexual beings by nature can be immensely destructive and disheartening--but evangelical Christians rarely acknowledge this. They can truly make people of both genders feel like less than what they actually are. I will not focus on refuting this myth yet again here, as multiple times before I have proven that visuality has nothing to do with gender and varies subjectively from individual to individual. What I want to communicate is how dehumanized this myth can make men feel.
Years ago, when told this bullshit by my evangelical parents, it felt very disappointing--degrading even--to be told that I would not be able to help objectifying females. Of course, this was an untrue prediction. But that does not change the fact that I certainly felt disgusted at being told this about myself, much less told something that is objectively untrue about myself and about men in general. Likewise, it felt very degrading to be told that my significant other, should I ever enter a romantic or marital relationship, would at most be sexually attracted to me when a legion of trivial relational factors allowed for it. The rigid gender-based lack of mutuality here was disturbing to me. If I was going to be sexually attracted to my significant other, I wanted that to be reciprocated.
Yet I was told repeatedly that just because she is a woman, my girlfriend or wife would not sexually desire me, despite the fact that I would allegedly be mad with sexual feelings for her. In fact, her own sexual feelings, if she would have them at all, would supposedly be so unpredictable, so contingent on a myriad of random variables, that I would be lucky if she ever actually wanted to have sex with me because she wanted to, and not for some reason related to developing a relational attachment. Additionally, I was told that I would be, at least for a time, obsessively bent on engaging in any form of sexual activity with her that I could. Well, neither I nor other men I know are dominated by hopelessly omnipresent sexual desires. As an asexual and as a rationalist, I now mock the asinine, unintelligent predictions of the evangelical imbeciles I was raised around. Thanks to them, I had to live surrounded by degrading expectations.
As paradoxical as it may seem to some, even as an asexual I still have the desire to be sexually desired by any significant other I have. I have described before how, as an asexual, I would greatly prefer that my spouse would rely on her own hands and things like morally legitimate erotic media to deal with her sexual desires [1], but that does not change the fact that I still would prefer for my spouse to find me sexually attractive in some way (and that I would still engage in sexual activity with her). As for the asinine idea that women don't experience strong sexual urges by nature of being women and that they are not visual, although logic disproves these myths in full, and the Bible contradicts them as well, hearing so many women deny this foolish claim has proven very relieving for me in one regard. I deeply appreciate the transparency and honesty of the numerous female friends in my life.
The trivialization of female sexuality and the grotesque exaggeration of male sexuality alike are abominable, irrational, contra-Biblical things that the evangelical church encourages. As usual, as with almost everything else, I look at evangelicalism here with disgust. These ideas produce a lack of emphasis on female sexuality in marriage, a denial of a basic component of life as a woman, and can severely hurt people of either gender, by assuming that men are helpless slaves to objectifying sexual impulses (and sexual attraction is not itself objectifying, regardless of its potency) and that women are asexual or demisexual beings. In any future marriage of mine, there will be no denial of female sexuality, and there will be no gender-based inequality in the celebration of sexuality.
Fuck evangelicalism, and may these false ideas, and all other evangelical fallacies and errors, fade away along with the entire power of the evangelical church.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/a-marital-benefit-of-erotic-media.html
Years ago, when told this bullshit by my evangelical parents, it felt very disappointing--degrading even--to be told that I would not be able to help objectifying females. Of course, this was an untrue prediction. But that does not change the fact that I certainly felt disgusted at being told this about myself, much less told something that is objectively untrue about myself and about men in general. Likewise, it felt very degrading to be told that my significant other, should I ever enter a romantic or marital relationship, would at most be sexually attracted to me when a legion of trivial relational factors allowed for it. The rigid gender-based lack of mutuality here was disturbing to me. If I was going to be sexually attracted to my significant other, I wanted that to be reciprocated.
Yet I was told repeatedly that just because she is a woman, my girlfriend or wife would not sexually desire me, despite the fact that I would allegedly be mad with sexual feelings for her. In fact, her own sexual feelings, if she would have them at all, would supposedly be so unpredictable, so contingent on a myriad of random variables, that I would be lucky if she ever actually wanted to have sex with me because she wanted to, and not for some reason related to developing a relational attachment. Additionally, I was told that I would be, at least for a time, obsessively bent on engaging in any form of sexual activity with her that I could. Well, neither I nor other men I know are dominated by hopelessly omnipresent sexual desires. As an asexual and as a rationalist, I now mock the asinine, unintelligent predictions of the evangelical imbeciles I was raised around. Thanks to them, I had to live surrounded by degrading expectations.
As paradoxical as it may seem to some, even as an asexual I still have the desire to be sexually desired by any significant other I have. I have described before how, as an asexual, I would greatly prefer that my spouse would rely on her own hands and things like morally legitimate erotic media to deal with her sexual desires [1], but that does not change the fact that I still would prefer for my spouse to find me sexually attractive in some way (and that I would still engage in sexual activity with her). As for the asinine idea that women don't experience strong sexual urges by nature of being women and that they are not visual, although logic disproves these myths in full, and the Bible contradicts them as well, hearing so many women deny this foolish claim has proven very relieving for me in one regard. I deeply appreciate the transparency and honesty of the numerous female friends in my life.
The trivialization of female sexuality and the grotesque exaggeration of male sexuality alike are abominable, irrational, contra-Biblical things that the evangelical church encourages. As usual, as with almost everything else, I look at evangelicalism here with disgust. These ideas produce a lack of emphasis on female sexuality in marriage, a denial of a basic component of life as a woman, and can severely hurt people of either gender, by assuming that men are helpless slaves to objectifying sexual impulses (and sexual attraction is not itself objectifying, regardless of its potency) and that women are asexual or demisexual beings. In any future marriage of mine, there will be no denial of female sexuality, and there will be no gender-based inequality in the celebration of sexuality.
Fuck evangelicalism, and may these false ideas, and all other evangelical fallacies and errors, fade away along with the entire power of the evangelical church.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/a-marital-benefit-of-erotic-media.html
The Infinity Of Space
When contemplating space, the question might arise about whether or not it is a finite thing confined within a sharp boundary. This question actually has an extremely simple answer. It is not only impossible for space to not exist with or without matter inside of it [1], but it is also impossible for it to be anything short of absolutely infinite.
Space, by nature, must not have any finite boundaries, for the very notion of a line dividing space from non-space is one that cannot be true in reality. Since space is just a dimensional area where matter could reside, any line dividing space from non-space would ultimately still be merely dividing space from space, because the area beyond the boundary could still hold matter, and thus would still be space. And thus the line continues being pushed back infinitely--meaning it cannot ever actually exist because there is no point where it is possible for non-space to exist. It is logically and metaphysically impossible for such a line to exist.
To some Christian apologists, it might seem heinous to attribute a property to space that the Bible seems to describe God as possessing: omnipresence. Yet there is nothing contrary to Scripture about what I have said. This is just yet another point overlooked (to my knowledge) by all Christian apologists I have heard of, despite its logical necessity. This aspect of reality could not be any other way, in the same way that the omnipresence of the laws of logic could not be different than it is.
Space cannot be anything other than without boundary. It extends onward, infinitely, in all directions from any given reference point, as it must do this by necessity. Space is limitless, mind-independent, and one of the only things that must exist without exception. The body that houses my consciousness keeps me trapped at one spatial point at a given time, but space itself extends outward from my position forever, limitless and omnipresent.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-impossibility-of-absolutely-nothing.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/einstein-on-empty-space.html
Space, by nature, must not have any finite boundaries, for the very notion of a line dividing space from non-space is one that cannot be true in reality. Since space is just a dimensional area where matter could reside, any line dividing space from non-space would ultimately still be merely dividing space from space, because the area beyond the boundary could still hold matter, and thus would still be space. And thus the line continues being pushed back infinitely--meaning it cannot ever actually exist because there is no point where it is possible for non-space to exist. It is logically and metaphysically impossible for such a line to exist.
To some Christian apologists, it might seem heinous to attribute a property to space that the Bible seems to describe God as possessing: omnipresence. Yet there is nothing contrary to Scripture about what I have said. This is just yet another point overlooked (to my knowledge) by all Christian apologists I have heard of, despite its logical necessity. This aspect of reality could not be any other way, in the same way that the omnipresence of the laws of logic could not be different than it is.
Space cannot be anything other than without boundary. It extends onward, infinitely, in all directions from any given reference point, as it must do this by necessity. Space is limitless, mind-independent, and one of the only things that must exist without exception. The body that houses my consciousness keeps me trapped at one spatial point at a given time, but space itself extends outward from my position forever, limitless and omnipresent.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-impossibility-of-absolutely-nothing.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/einstein-on-empty-space.html
Friday, May 18, 2018
The Logic Of Time Travel (Part 3)
What conditions are metaphysically necessary for time travel to occur? Obviously, there would have to be some sort of spiritual or technological means of traveling in time. It is also obvious that there would have to be something that could travel in time (i.e. a consciousness or object, since abstract, immaterial things like logic and space cannot be sent anywhere). An idea called presentism denies that a past or future exists at all, however. Can time travel be reconciled with the notion of presentism?
Before I elaborate on the relationship between presentism and time travel, I will refute presentism yet again, as I have refuted it in several other blog posts. There is a present moment. In fact, to deny this is to do something while existing in the present moment; there cannot not be such a thing as "right now." But the present moment is so brief, so precise, so fleeting, that a moment of time cannot remain in the present for longer than an instant. By the time I have even comprehended or reflected on the present moment, it has already elapsed, gone into the past, and been replaced by a new moment of time (or else the present moment could not persist).
The present moment, therefore, cannot be the only moment of time that exists. But if presentism was true, would time travel of any kind be even hypothetically possible? No, the very concept of time travel would be inapplicable even if technology somehow scientifically permitted the actualization of time travel. The very possibility of a device ever actually transporting an immaterial consciousness across time is dubious as it is, but even if I set aside technological limitations and the problem of teleporting a consciousness, or even a simple material object, presentism is inherently irreconcilable with time travel.
Since one cannot travel to a destination that does not exist--I cannot drive from Texas to Canada if there is no such thing as Canada--it would be impossible, if only the present moment existed, to travel in time in either direction, as there would be no past and no future to travel to. On presentism, there is only right now when it comes to time. There is not a single moment of time in the past, and not a single moment of time that has yet to elapse. No other points in time exist. Clearly, this makes the concepts of presentism and time travel logically incoherent. The present moment being the sole point of time would render time travel impossible, and for time travel to be possible there must be a past or a future to travel to, as otherwise there could be no time travel.
Presentism is not only false, but it is also incompatible with other concepts like that of a chronological series of events. Thankfully, recognizing the falsity of presentism does not require an enormous amount of effort in itself, since logic and experience plainly demonstrate that the past has existed for at least a moment. This fact alone allows for even the hypothetical possibility of a being or object being transported across time into the past. Likewise, the fact that the present continues to exist means that there is some sort of future that nears or arrives with each elapsed moment, and this alone allows for the possibility of being transported across time into the future, into a time that has not yet been realized.
Before I elaborate on the relationship between presentism and time travel, I will refute presentism yet again, as I have refuted it in several other blog posts. There is a present moment. In fact, to deny this is to do something while existing in the present moment; there cannot not be such a thing as "right now." But the present moment is so brief, so precise, so fleeting, that a moment of time cannot remain in the present for longer than an instant. By the time I have even comprehended or reflected on the present moment, it has already elapsed, gone into the past, and been replaced by a new moment of time (or else the present moment could not persist).
The present moment, therefore, cannot be the only moment of time that exists. But if presentism was true, would time travel of any kind be even hypothetically possible? No, the very concept of time travel would be inapplicable even if technology somehow scientifically permitted the actualization of time travel. The very possibility of a device ever actually transporting an immaterial consciousness across time is dubious as it is, but even if I set aside technological limitations and the problem of teleporting a consciousness, or even a simple material object, presentism is inherently irreconcilable with time travel.
 |
| No one can travel to something that does not exist. |
Since one cannot travel to a destination that does not exist--I cannot drive from Texas to Canada if there is no such thing as Canada--it would be impossible, if only the present moment existed, to travel in time in either direction, as there would be no past and no future to travel to. On presentism, there is only right now when it comes to time. There is not a single moment of time in the past, and not a single moment of time that has yet to elapse. No other points in time exist. Clearly, this makes the concepts of presentism and time travel logically incoherent. The present moment being the sole point of time would render time travel impossible, and for time travel to be possible there must be a past or a future to travel to, as otherwise there could be no time travel.
Presentism is not only false, but it is also incompatible with other concepts like that of a chronological series of events. Thankfully, recognizing the falsity of presentism does not require an enormous amount of effort in itself, since logic and experience plainly demonstrate that the past has existed for at least a moment. This fact alone allows for even the hypothetical possibility of a being or object being transported across time into the past. Likewise, the fact that the present continues to exist means that there is some sort of future that nears or arrives with each elapsed moment, and this alone allows for the possibility of being transported across time into the future, into a time that has not yet been realized.
Movie Review--Deadpool 2
"I'm Batman."
--Deadpool, Deadpool 2
For the second time in less than a month, Josh Brolin has starred in a Marvel superhero film--and each movie has been a very competent offering! Deadpool 2 takes everything that was successful and popular about the first movie and amplifies it in this installment: this one has more effects, expands the excellent humor the first one is known for, and tells a more complex story, all while allowing the titular character to display a wider range of emotions and letting the supporting cast members bring hilarious life to their roles.
Production Values
The first Deadpool used its budgetary limitations as opportunities for jokes (lack of CGI funds led to the weapons being left on the taxi near the end, for instance). This time, important action set pieces are more plentiful, and the action benefits from the larger budget. Expect fight scenes that, though not having the enormous planetary stakes of many recent superhero films, carry definite urgency and personal stakes for key characters. Though one of the trailers mocked a CGI-related problem, the effects are never poor in quality. The grandness of them is particularly on display in several action sequences.
Thankfully, the acting is splendid, with some characters fluctuating between making relentless jokes and sharing personal trials very effectively. Ryan Reynolds, like Hugh Jackman with Wolverine, acts Deadpool so well that it is difficult for me to imagine anyone else so expertly handling the role. In a natural evolution of the character, he shows a broad range of emotions, never losing his signature sense of dark humor, always remaining in character, whatever the nature of the scene. He even takes some verbal shots at last year's Logan, highlighting the fact that, despite both movies being R-rated takes on beloved Marvel characters, they are tonally different, though the popularity surrounding a certain "Pulverine" (to reference a comment by Deadpool from the first movie) is certainly the basis for multiple jokes throughout the movie . . .
The time traveler Cable is masterfully realized by Josh Brolin, hardened yet reeling from pains of his own. Domino, Colossus, Teenage Negasonic Warhead, and a young mutant who becomes a central character are also played very well by their respective actors and actresses. The appearance of a surprise X-Men character adds another figure familiar to knowledgeable comic enthusiasts--but I won't spoil the identity of this person here!
Story
(SPOILERS BELOW!)
Wade Wilson, otherwise called Deadpool, acts as a vigilante with a knack for comedy, hunting down and killing particular criminals. This leads to disastrous personal consequences, as one of his enemies locates his apartment and kills his significant other, Vanessa. After a failed suicide attempt, Colossus brings Wade's remains to Xavier's X-Mansion, persuading him to train as a future member of the X-Men. Deadpool, Colossus, and Teenage Negasonic Warhead try to defuse a situation with an angry mutant boy named Firefist. It turns out that the boy has been abused by the anti-mutant staff of his orphanage, and Deadpool impulsively kills one of them publicly. Both Deadpool and Firefist are given collars that disable their mutant abilities and brought to a prison for mutants.
While in the prison, a time traveling cyborg named Cable tries to kill Firefist, though Wade protects him at the expense of his own safety. At first it is unclear why he wants to kill the boy, but he later reveals that Firefist, if left alive, will eventually kill someone in an act of vengeance, and eventually develop a habit of killing, which results in Firefist killing Cable's family. Circumstances bring Cable, Deadpool, and members of Deadpool's spin-off X-Force group together as allies. All of them intend to stop Firefist from killing, but the methods differ; Cable wants to kill him first and Deadpool wants to redeem him. The rest of the story is a wonderful amalgam of dark comedy with legitimate character development.
Intellectual Content
Deadpool is not a particularly intellectual series, but Deadpool 2, like Brolin's other recent Marvel film Infinity War, does touch upon the utilitarian reasoning behind doing something morally wrong to prevent another wrong. Is it wrong to kill someone who will commit an atrocity in the future if they haven't actually committed the deed yet? Deadpool recognizes that it cannot be just to do so. At the very least, Deadpool 2 does touch upon some themes with serious moral substance, like how parent-child relationships (or relationships that resemble them) can motivate both parties to choose to become a better version of themselves. The film rarely, if ever sacrifices humor for the sake of thematic issues, but the story is a more personal, existential one than what came prior. I still wish it explored the mechanics of time travel a bit more!
Conclusion
Like many movies I have reviewed, Deadpool 2 is not for everyone. But those who love the style of comedy from the first one and who can handle the violence should give it a try. It is darker, yes, but it is also funnier and has far more heart. The credits scenes also have massive potential to please Marvel fans, especially those who are familiar with earlier Marvel films . . . I hope X-Men and general superhero fans make this movie a financial success!
Content:
1. Violence: Deadpool 2 has more gore than either the first Deadpool or Logan, and the violence tends to have a larger scale, involving more expansive environments.
2. Profanity: Unsurprisingly, there are alot of f-bombs and other assorted expletives.
3. Nudity: In one scene Wade's genitalia are briefly made visible, and in another scene a character's buttocks are exposed.
--Deadpool, Deadpool 2
For the second time in less than a month, Josh Brolin has starred in a Marvel superhero film--and each movie has been a very competent offering! Deadpool 2 takes everything that was successful and popular about the first movie and amplifies it in this installment: this one has more effects, expands the excellent humor the first one is known for, and tells a more complex story, all while allowing the titular character to display a wider range of emotions and letting the supporting cast members bring hilarious life to their roles.
 |
|
Production Values
The first Deadpool used its budgetary limitations as opportunities for jokes (lack of CGI funds led to the weapons being left on the taxi near the end, for instance). This time, important action set pieces are more plentiful, and the action benefits from the larger budget. Expect fight scenes that, though not having the enormous planetary stakes of many recent superhero films, carry definite urgency and personal stakes for key characters. Though one of the trailers mocked a CGI-related problem, the effects are never poor in quality. The grandness of them is particularly on display in several action sequences.
Thankfully, the acting is splendid, with some characters fluctuating between making relentless jokes and sharing personal trials very effectively. Ryan Reynolds, like Hugh Jackman with Wolverine, acts Deadpool so well that it is difficult for me to imagine anyone else so expertly handling the role. In a natural evolution of the character, he shows a broad range of emotions, never losing his signature sense of dark humor, always remaining in character, whatever the nature of the scene. He even takes some verbal shots at last year's Logan, highlighting the fact that, despite both movies being R-rated takes on beloved Marvel characters, they are tonally different, though the popularity surrounding a certain "Pulverine" (to reference a comment by Deadpool from the first movie) is certainly the basis for multiple jokes throughout the movie . . .
The time traveler Cable is masterfully realized by Josh Brolin, hardened yet reeling from pains of his own. Domino, Colossus, Teenage Negasonic Warhead, and a young mutant who becomes a central character are also played very well by their respective actors and actresses. The appearance of a surprise X-Men character adds another figure familiar to knowledgeable comic enthusiasts--but I won't spoil the identity of this person here!
Story
(SPOILERS BELOW!)
Wade Wilson, otherwise called Deadpool, acts as a vigilante with a knack for comedy, hunting down and killing particular criminals. This leads to disastrous personal consequences, as one of his enemies locates his apartment and kills his significant other, Vanessa. After a failed suicide attempt, Colossus brings Wade's remains to Xavier's X-Mansion, persuading him to train as a future member of the X-Men. Deadpool, Colossus, and Teenage Negasonic Warhead try to defuse a situation with an angry mutant boy named Firefist. It turns out that the boy has been abused by the anti-mutant staff of his orphanage, and Deadpool impulsively kills one of them publicly. Both Deadpool and Firefist are given collars that disable their mutant abilities and brought to a prison for mutants.
While in the prison, a time traveling cyborg named Cable tries to kill Firefist, though Wade protects him at the expense of his own safety. At first it is unclear why he wants to kill the boy, but he later reveals that Firefist, if left alive, will eventually kill someone in an act of vengeance, and eventually develop a habit of killing, which results in Firefist killing Cable's family. Circumstances bring Cable, Deadpool, and members of Deadpool's spin-off X-Force group together as allies. All of them intend to stop Firefist from killing, but the methods differ; Cable wants to kill him first and Deadpool wants to redeem him. The rest of the story is a wonderful amalgam of dark comedy with legitimate character development.
Intellectual Content
Deadpool is not a particularly intellectual series, but Deadpool 2, like Brolin's other recent Marvel film Infinity War, does touch upon the utilitarian reasoning behind doing something morally wrong to prevent another wrong. Is it wrong to kill someone who will commit an atrocity in the future if they haven't actually committed the deed yet? Deadpool recognizes that it cannot be just to do so. At the very least, Deadpool 2 does touch upon some themes with serious moral substance, like how parent-child relationships (or relationships that resemble them) can motivate both parties to choose to become a better version of themselves. The film rarely, if ever sacrifices humor for the sake of thematic issues, but the story is a more personal, existential one than what came prior. I still wish it explored the mechanics of time travel a bit more!
Conclusion
Like many movies I have reviewed, Deadpool 2 is not for everyone. But those who love the style of comedy from the first one and who can handle the violence should give it a try. It is darker, yes, but it is also funnier and has far more heart. The credits scenes also have massive potential to please Marvel fans, especially those who are familiar with earlier Marvel films . . . I hope X-Men and general superhero fans make this movie a financial success!
Content:
1. Violence: Deadpool 2 has more gore than either the first Deadpool or Logan, and the violence tends to have a larger scale, involving more expansive environments.
2. Profanity: Unsurprisingly, there are alot of f-bombs and other assorted expletives.
3. Nudity: In one scene Wade's genitalia are briefly made visible, and in another scene a character's buttocks are exposed.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Conservative Snowflakes
Perusing around the internet, one can easily find instances of the term "snowflake" being thrown at liberals by conservatives, as if the term single-handedly defeats an opponent through implied or overt mockery. The word is intended to convey a sense of fragility, as if a person accused of the title, like an actual snowflake, must be treated with care, lest a confrontation with reality destroy him or her. If one rejects an idea because the person who articulates it is a "snowflake," then one is a terrible logician. The true irony, however, is not that the term is often used to attempt to settle intellectual matters in a non-intellectual way or by appealing to ad hominems. It is that conservatives can be the biggest snowflakes of all!
I can think of several conservatives in my life that are just as emotionalistic, petty, misinformed, inconsistent, and unintelligent as they claim liberals are. They might even possess these qualities more so than the liberals they denounce, since their inconsistencies are often quite blatant when held against the worldview they claim to possess, though liberals I have known are at least consistent in reasoning from their premises, even when the premises are false. In fact, simply challenging their beliefs might result in an emotional tirade against non-conservatives. I was once even told how seriously disappointed someone in my immediate family was when I did not vote for Trump in an effort to keep Hillary Clinton out of office--as if I give a fuck about satisfying another person's emotional preferences or disregarding the security he or she derives from a fallacy or false belief! I care nothing for another person's worldview unless it is both true and arrived at by the illumination of logic, not by accident or as the result of cultural convenience.
It is amusing to me that conservatives can so gratuitously popularize a pejorative term that has no relevance to the veracity of ideologies, and then turn around and be the very things they enjoy mocking. I am not surprised, since I have found that intelligence, sincerity, and consistency are rare among other persons. Conservative snowflakes simply form just another set of people with a disparity between one belief and another or between belief and action. I will merely call some conservatives snowflakes because they match their own definition of the word, but I will not pretend like calling them snowflakes refutes any of their actual positions, as if cheap internet insults could topple an entire worldview with a single word.
Conservatism and liberalism alike are without logical basis. Both are subscribed to by people who qualify as "snowflakes," but this tells us nothing about the systems themselves. The former (conservatism) is about preserving traditions, which are arbitrary and without authority, and the latter (liberalism) is about abandoning the status quo in favor of achieving alleged progress, with what is viewed as progress likewise amounting to arbitrary preferences. Both conservatism and liberalism are irrational and unbiblical political frameworks, and the proponents of both may approve of severe but different sins (conservatives might be willing to endorse unbiblical forms of torture in displays of utilitarian thinking, defend sexist and racist stereotypes, or callously refuse to understand that factors other than laziness can result in poverty, whereas liberals often promote ideological tolerance, acceptance of contra-Biblical sexual lifestyles, big government, and the idea that abortion is a woman's right). Christians who rally around either conservatism or liberalism are often theologically uneducated, selective in applying Biblical values, or intellectually inactive--or all three.
Neither clinging to tradition nor treating the social acceptance of popular ideas as progress is rational. Conservatives and liberals alike, as simple conversations can easily reveal, are often laughably inept at utilizing logic. But calling a supporter of either party a snowflake does nothing to refute a concept or establish an error. And members of either party can be emotionalistic snowflakes.
I can think of several conservatives in my life that are just as emotionalistic, petty, misinformed, inconsistent, and unintelligent as they claim liberals are. They might even possess these qualities more so than the liberals they denounce, since their inconsistencies are often quite blatant when held against the worldview they claim to possess, though liberals I have known are at least consistent in reasoning from their premises, even when the premises are false. In fact, simply challenging their beliefs might result in an emotional tirade against non-conservatives. I was once even told how seriously disappointed someone in my immediate family was when I did not vote for Trump in an effort to keep Hillary Clinton out of office--as if I give a fuck about satisfying another person's emotional preferences or disregarding the security he or she derives from a fallacy or false belief! I care nothing for another person's worldview unless it is both true and arrived at by the illumination of logic, not by accident or as the result of cultural convenience.
It is amusing to me that conservatives can so gratuitously popularize a pejorative term that has no relevance to the veracity of ideologies, and then turn around and be the very things they enjoy mocking. I am not surprised, since I have found that intelligence, sincerity, and consistency are rare among other persons. Conservative snowflakes simply form just another set of people with a disparity between one belief and another or between belief and action. I will merely call some conservatives snowflakes because they match their own definition of the word, but I will not pretend like calling them snowflakes refutes any of their actual positions, as if cheap internet insults could topple an entire worldview with a single word.
Conservatism and liberalism alike are without logical basis. Both are subscribed to by people who qualify as "snowflakes," but this tells us nothing about the systems themselves. The former (conservatism) is about preserving traditions, which are arbitrary and without authority, and the latter (liberalism) is about abandoning the status quo in favor of achieving alleged progress, with what is viewed as progress likewise amounting to arbitrary preferences. Both conservatism and liberalism are irrational and unbiblical political frameworks, and the proponents of both may approve of severe but different sins (conservatives might be willing to endorse unbiblical forms of torture in displays of utilitarian thinking, defend sexist and racist stereotypes, or callously refuse to understand that factors other than laziness can result in poverty, whereas liberals often promote ideological tolerance, acceptance of contra-Biblical sexual lifestyles, big government, and the idea that abortion is a woman's right). Christians who rally around either conservatism or liberalism are often theologically uneducated, selective in applying Biblical values, or intellectually inactive--or all three.
Neither clinging to tradition nor treating the social acceptance of popular ideas as progress is rational. Conservatives and liberals alike, as simple conversations can easily reveal, are often laughably inept at utilizing logic. But calling a supporter of either party a snowflake does nothing to refute a concept or establish an error. And members of either party can be emotionalistic snowflakes.
Transmitting Knowledge From Generation To Generation
There are no shortcuts to knowledge that circumvent the omnipresent need for logicality. If a being is omniscient, that being would have direct, infallible apprehension of the logicality of all truths in the same way that I, a being riddled with epistemic limitations, have direct and infallible apprehension of logical axioms and my own consciousness.
Suppose that in the future, you become omniscient--there is no knowledge that you do not possess. You write an exhaustive multi-volume series of books on all aspects of reality (which would be an enormous undertaking that could easily not be completable in a single human lifespan [1], but for the sake of the hypothetical entertain this notion). The purpose of this mammoth undertaking is to preserve all of your knowledge for future generations. The difference between this and the ordinary preservation of knowledge through writings, clearly, is that there would be no new knowledge for the following generations to discover if they absorbed the full contents of the series.
In this hypothetical scenario, would you have the ability to transmit omniscience, in a way, to those who come after you? Yes. But even if your books contained neither errors nor ignorance, people would still have to scrutinize the texts, not assuming anything in them is true without proof--either the immediate proof of self-evidence or the proof of valid deduction. They could not legitimately rely on your alleged authority and omniscience as confirmation that your claims are true. Wherever you go beyond the basic knowledge obtainable from simple logic, introspection, and the senses (these categories of knowledge are available to all normal persons), they would need to carefully test your words.
Even in a world where one or more persons becomes omniscient, the omniscience of some could never erase the epistemic limitations of others. The others must still rely on logic itself. If some were omniscient, the others would still have no guarantee this is true apart from systematically assessing the words of the omniscient. This is why there is never such a thing as a generation (short of a generation born omniscient) that can just relaxedly inherit the ideas of the preceding generation. Every idea must still be weighed, every claim analyzed, every belief strictly proved, every unverifiable notion regarded with skepticism.
There is a sense in which one generation might be granted special benefits by standing on the shoulders of the ones that came before, though this only applies in very specific disciplines like science. There is never a generation barred from grasping logic in its entirety. Every person with a developed intellect can deductively reason with perfect logicality, irrespective of his or her geographical position or era in time, yet scientific knowledge, by its very nature, must accumulate over a time far longer than a single person lives. But I cannot legitimately assume that the scientists who came before me were right, as reason demands that I must still, in a sense, treat their work as uncertain until I myself come to grasp it. This is why one cannot simultaneously have an epistemologically secure worldview and merely rely on the words of preceding thinkers. These things are exclusive.
Sometimes people might, childishly, might I add, claim that there are no undiscovered ideas. How could I know this even if it was true? I have not spoken to every person from human history, and I have no ability for my consciousness to gaze into theirs. The more important point, though, is that even if this was the case it does not provide any shortcuts to my own knowledge. Besides, I have myself discovered a broad range of very specific truths that I almost never hear anyone acknowledge [2], and I have never heard of these issues being tackled properly by historical philosophers or theologians.
Logic is the simplest thing in existence. Nothing could be more foundational, more universal, more omnipresent than logic. But the information that one can use logic to critically analyze can be quite complex. Each new generation must embrace the simplicity and intrinsic infallibility of logic for itself, challenging the claims of previous individuals and accepting the ideas that survive this examination. Without this, there is no transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next, only a passing on of assumptions.
[1]. It is logically possible that unknown aspects of reality are much simpler than they seem, and that there is not as much to come to know as some may think, thus rendering it possible to document all knowledge within one lifetime if only epistemic limitations were removed.
[2]. These truths range from things like the impossibility of logic and space not existing (even in the absence of all minds and matter), to proof that I have a physical body, to proof to myself that I am not dreaming while I am actually awake, to specific details about Biblical ethics (especially sexual morality), to hundreds of other precise details about miscellaneous things. Do not think that others telling you that your ideas have been previously discovered means that this is actually the case! But even if it was true, this would not help you at all in itself. You must still discover for yourself what can and cannot be legitimately proven about a given subject. The alleged credibility of others, historical and living, offers no assistance.
Suppose that in the future, you become omniscient--there is no knowledge that you do not possess. You write an exhaustive multi-volume series of books on all aspects of reality (which would be an enormous undertaking that could easily not be completable in a single human lifespan [1], but for the sake of the hypothetical entertain this notion). The purpose of this mammoth undertaking is to preserve all of your knowledge for future generations. The difference between this and the ordinary preservation of knowledge through writings, clearly, is that there would be no new knowledge for the following generations to discover if they absorbed the full contents of the series.
In this hypothetical scenario, would you have the ability to transmit omniscience, in a way, to those who come after you? Yes. But even if your books contained neither errors nor ignorance, people would still have to scrutinize the texts, not assuming anything in them is true without proof--either the immediate proof of self-evidence or the proof of valid deduction. They could not legitimately rely on your alleged authority and omniscience as confirmation that your claims are true. Wherever you go beyond the basic knowledge obtainable from simple logic, introspection, and the senses (these categories of knowledge are available to all normal persons), they would need to carefully test your words.
Even in a world where one or more persons becomes omniscient, the omniscience of some could never erase the epistemic limitations of others. The others must still rely on logic itself. If some were omniscient, the others would still have no guarantee this is true apart from systematically assessing the words of the omniscient. This is why there is never such a thing as a generation (short of a generation born omniscient) that can just relaxedly inherit the ideas of the preceding generation. Every idea must still be weighed, every claim analyzed, every belief strictly proved, every unverifiable notion regarded with skepticism.
There is a sense in which one generation might be granted special benefits by standing on the shoulders of the ones that came before, though this only applies in very specific disciplines like science. There is never a generation barred from grasping logic in its entirety. Every person with a developed intellect can deductively reason with perfect logicality, irrespective of his or her geographical position or era in time, yet scientific knowledge, by its very nature, must accumulate over a time far longer than a single person lives. But I cannot legitimately assume that the scientists who came before me were right, as reason demands that I must still, in a sense, treat their work as uncertain until I myself come to grasp it. This is why one cannot simultaneously have an epistemologically secure worldview and merely rely on the words of preceding thinkers. These things are exclusive.
Sometimes people might, childishly, might I add, claim that there are no undiscovered ideas. How could I know this even if it was true? I have not spoken to every person from human history, and I have no ability for my consciousness to gaze into theirs. The more important point, though, is that even if this was the case it does not provide any shortcuts to my own knowledge. Besides, I have myself discovered a broad range of very specific truths that I almost never hear anyone acknowledge [2], and I have never heard of these issues being tackled properly by historical philosophers or theologians.
Logic is the simplest thing in existence. Nothing could be more foundational, more universal, more omnipresent than logic. But the information that one can use logic to critically analyze can be quite complex. Each new generation must embrace the simplicity and intrinsic infallibility of logic for itself, challenging the claims of previous individuals and accepting the ideas that survive this examination. Without this, there is no transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next, only a passing on of assumptions.
[1]. It is logically possible that unknown aspects of reality are much simpler than they seem, and that there is not as much to come to know as some may think, thus rendering it possible to document all knowledge within one lifetime if only epistemic limitations were removed.
[2]. These truths range from things like the impossibility of logic and space not existing (even in the absence of all minds and matter), to proof that I have a physical body, to proof to myself that I am not dreaming while I am actually awake, to specific details about Biblical ethics (especially sexual morality), to hundreds of other precise details about miscellaneous things. Do not think that others telling you that your ideas have been previously discovered means that this is actually the case! But even if it was true, this would not help you at all in itself. You must still discover for yourself what can and cannot be legitimately proven about a given subject. The alleged credibility of others, historical and living, offers no assistance.
Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Einstein On Empty Space
In a note added to the fifteenth edition of his book Relativity, Albert Einstein wrote the following:
"I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning." (vii)
I am going to refute this false notion that space has no existence independent of material objects. If the entire external world--the fullness of the cosmos--did not exist at all, space itself would still exist. Before I proceed, I need to ask and answer a crucial question. What is space? Space is only an area where matter resides or that could be occupied by matter, and thus is itself a nonphysical dimension. That is all space is.
As several moments of rational reflection will reveal, even without any matter to occupy it, space would still exist--because there would still be a place that could hold matter. The Big Bang did not create space, as space precedes the creation of the cosmos by logical necessity. Before the Big Bang, there would still inescapably be a vast, infinite dimension, devoid of matter, that has the potential to hold a world of physical objects.
The physical cosmos only exists because of the creative action of the uncaused cause/God [1]. But since space is not comprised of matter, and thus does not depend on matter for its existence, as it is only the place matter could hold a position in, it follows that space would exist even in an alternate reality where God never created, since 1) in a reality where God did not create, uncreated things would still exist, and since 2) space cannot not exist (there is no such thing as a possible reality without any area that matter could inhabit) it is by necessity uncreated. This means that space not only does not depend on matter for its existence; it also does not depend on God, since it cannot not exist.
Ultimately, space is within a very small handful of things that exists independently of even God himself (alongside logic). There can be an absence of matter, and one can easily imagine such a thing, but there cannot be an absence of a space that matter could inhabit. It is impossible for absolutely nothing at all to exist, but it is possible for neither matter nor consciousnesses to exist [2]. Logic, which cannot be false, plainly reveals that space exists in the total absence of all matter. Einstein was wrong.
Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. Einstein, Albert. Trans. Lawson, Robert. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1961. Print.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-impossibility-of-absolutely-nothing.html
"I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning." (vii)
I am going to refute this false notion that space has no existence independent of material objects. If the entire external world--the fullness of the cosmos--did not exist at all, space itself would still exist. Before I proceed, I need to ask and answer a crucial question. What is space? Space is only an area where matter resides or that could be occupied by matter, and thus is itself a nonphysical dimension. That is all space is.
 |
| The word space is often used in reference to not just a nonphysical dimension, but also a place occupied by matter, hence the phrase “outer space” referring not to a (in itself) matterless dimension but to the physical cosmos beyond our planet. |
As several moments of rational reflection will reveal, even without any matter to occupy it, space would still exist--because there would still be a place that could hold matter. The Big Bang did not create space, as space precedes the creation of the cosmos by logical necessity. Before the Big Bang, there would still inescapably be a vast, infinite dimension, devoid of matter, that has the potential to hold a world of physical objects.
The physical cosmos only exists because of the creative action of the uncaused cause/God [1]. But since space is not comprised of matter, and thus does not depend on matter for its existence, as it is only the place matter could hold a position in, it follows that space would exist even in an alternate reality where God never created, since 1) in a reality where God did not create, uncreated things would still exist, and since 2) space cannot not exist (there is no such thing as a possible reality without any area that matter could inhabit) it is by necessity uncreated. This means that space not only does not depend on matter for its existence; it also does not depend on God, since it cannot not exist.
Ultimately, space is within a very small handful of things that exists independently of even God himself (alongside logic). There can be an absence of matter, and one can easily imagine such a thing, but there cannot be an absence of a space that matter could inhabit. It is impossible for absolutely nothing at all to exist, but it is possible for neither matter nor consciousnesses to exist [2]. Logic, which cannot be false, plainly reveals that space exists in the total absence of all matter. Einstein was wrong.
Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. Einstein, Albert. Trans. Lawson, Robert. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1961. Print.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-impossibility-of-absolutely-nothing.html
Properly Defining Arrogance
It is utterly erroneous, on the Christian worldview, to think that one has more metaphysical value because of gender, race, nationality, social class, physical beauty, or material prosperity. Anyone who thinks he or she is superior to another person on these grounds is wholly mistaken, and is guilty of a heinous arrogance. Arrogance is thinking more highly of oneself than one should, or thinking oneself valuable for incorrect reasons.
This means that it is not arrogant, therefore, to think oneself superior to others for the right reasons, since it can only be arrogant to overestimate one's value or attribute it to false bases. Is there something that can legitimately make one person superior to another? Yes. This truth is controversial, but all aspects of reality are controversial with some people. The veracity of something does not hinge on it being accepted or welcomed.
It is objectively true that if values exist--if there is a standard of right and wrong--then the people who strive to be morally righteous are superior to those who do not, since people who choose not to pursue righteousness choose to live for lesser things, becoming lesser in the process. No person's actions can remove God's image from himself or herself (Genesis 1:26-27). This does not change the fact, though, that people are not morally equal [1].
In short, arrogance is falsely misjudging yourself to be more valuable than you actually are, not recognizing that you are morally superior to others if that is indeed the case. Some Christians would be very uncomfortable with this--but their insecurity or irrationality cannot alter the nature of reality. It follows necessarily from people choosing morally differing actions that they cannot be morally equal, and moral inferiors legitimately cannot have the same value as moral superiors. Perhaps some may object that perceiving others to be morally inferior prevent us from rightly loving them as Scripture commands, but this is an asinine, bullshit belief that is logically unsound.
Of course it is possible for a person to both see that someone is a moral inferior while also realizing that the moral inferior is still a person who cannot deserve to be mistreated. Caring for the ultimate wellbeing of someone and having strong personal affections for someone do not exclude recognizing their moral inferiority. False definitions (of love, for instance), arbitrary claims, and eisegesis of the Bible are all factors that might lead to confusion about this fact.
Identifying moral inferiority in another person, and even acknowledging it aloud, is certainly not arrogant. It is honest.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist/blogspot.com/2018/03/people-are-not-morally-equal.html
This means that it is not arrogant, therefore, to think oneself superior to others for the right reasons, since it can only be arrogant to overestimate one's value or attribute it to false bases. Is there something that can legitimately make one person superior to another? Yes. This truth is controversial, but all aspects of reality are controversial with some people. The veracity of something does not hinge on it being accepted or welcomed.
It is objectively true that if values exist--if there is a standard of right and wrong--then the people who strive to be morally righteous are superior to those who do not, since people who choose not to pursue righteousness choose to live for lesser things, becoming lesser in the process. No person's actions can remove God's image from himself or herself (Genesis 1:26-27). This does not change the fact, though, that people are not morally equal [1].
In short, arrogance is falsely misjudging yourself to be more valuable than you actually are, not recognizing that you are morally superior to others if that is indeed the case. Some Christians would be very uncomfortable with this--but their insecurity or irrationality cannot alter the nature of reality. It follows necessarily from people choosing morally differing actions that they cannot be morally equal, and moral inferiors legitimately cannot have the same value as moral superiors. Perhaps some may object that perceiving others to be morally inferior prevent us from rightly loving them as Scripture commands, but this is an asinine, bullshit belief that is logically unsound.
Of course it is possible for a person to both see that someone is a moral inferior while also realizing that the moral inferior is still a person who cannot deserve to be mistreated. Caring for the ultimate wellbeing of someone and having strong personal affections for someone do not exclude recognizing their moral inferiority. False definitions (of love, for instance), arbitrary claims, and eisegesis of the Bible are all factors that might lead to confusion about this fact.
Identifying moral inferiority in another person, and even acknowledging it aloud, is certainly not arrogant. It is honest.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist/blogspot.com/2018/03/people-are-not-morally-equal.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)