The Appeal Of Antiheroes

Photo credit: junaidrao on Visual Hunt /

  CC BY-NC-ND

A new trailer for this October's Venom was released today, claiming that the world has enough superheroes, with the obvious implied conclusion being that antiheroes like Venom are called for in a cinematic landscape dominated by hero characters with somewhat predictable tendencies.  An antihero is a morally complicated person, one who may commit evil acts with benevolent motivations, commit good acts with illicit motivations, or alternate between serving righteousness and evil.  They are only increasing in onscreen popularity.

The fundamental nature of an antihero takes elements that are traditionally separated in entertainment and overtly mixes them together.  Antiheroes should not be imitated in their moral ambiguity, but they do magnify an important truth from the mundane scale of everyday behaviors, amplifying this truth to the scale of the more blatant acts that lend themselves to film narratives, which thereby allows viewers to perceive an exaggeration of basic human complexity.

What is the moral nature of human beings?  Describing many people as simply "good" or "evil" is far too simplistic.  Human nature, in terms of how it is expressed over time by many individuals, is far more complex than any reductionistic position that characterizes all humans as mostly or entirely good or mostly or entirely depraved can allow for--because many people are not mostly good or mostly bad.  Instead, various dimensions of their actions and motivations are good, amoral, or evil.  The two moral poles at either end of the spectrum can never occupy the exact same space in someone's life, but they can coexist together in rather serpentine ways that can be difficult for them to articulate.

Human free will, varying degrees of reliance on reason, and individual personalities ensure that human behaviors, motivations, and beliefs are not uniform.  As a result, the moral standings of different people are not generally shared, given the numerous variables that contribute to them.  People are their own individuals.  A commitment to good that is found in the life of one person might drastically differ from the way another person lives his or her life, and there are thousands of ways that goodness and evil can intertwine in someone's lifestyle, always excluding and yet appearing alongside each other.  Introspection can reveal to a person just where he or she is on this spectrum.

Antiheroes reflect the morally ambiguous status that a great many people can seem to relate to.  It is not that many people are morally ambiguous to the extent of Venom, Jaime Lannister, or Deadpool, but that many people make everyday decisions that cannot always be outright classified as mostly good or evil.  There is always a choice to align with one moral status or the other, and no one has to engage in any wrongdoing at all.  But one can do the right thing for the wrong reasons, and vice versa.  Characters like Venom simply highlight the complex moral tendencies that many people already have within themselves.

Intellectual Originality

When someone says that we are "only standing on the shoulders of those before us," he or she is gravely mistaken.  Yes, there are specific disciplines (science and history especially) that can only make great progress over time because one generation passes on information to the next.  However, there are at least three fatal flaws with the position that we can only rediscover the sound conclusions of earlier generations.

First of all, there are enormous matters that have been largely, if not entirely, glossed over by historical philosophers and theologians, ranging from matters of epistemology to metaphysics to genuine Christian doctrine (the metaphysics of logic, the extent of absolute certainty, and multiple other issues have scarcely been correctly addressed).  Combined with the fact that most writers and thinkers were thoroughly fallacious, it becomes clear that history contradicts the idea that humans generally tend to gravitate towards truth.  It is only a minority that embraces actual rationality.

Second, even if all knowable truths had been discovered throughout prior generations, one could and likely will discover at least a large number of them independently, as if it was the first time any human had learned of them.  In such a scenario past men and women would have nothing at all to do with one’s discoveries.  To credit them with one’s intellectual realizations would, therefore, be erroneous.

Third, since someone had to be the first person to discover or recognize a truth, it is not true that people can only stand on the shoulders of others.  This is even more pronounced when someone must challenge or overturn a common ideology in order to make progress: in at least some cases, this would mean venturing out into uncharted philosophical territory.

Of course intellectual originality is not dead!  There is a great deal of philosophical/theological stagnancy in the present world, but this is because of a refusal by the majority to critically think about concepts that scarcely receive proper attention, as well as a reluctance to confess that many documented people of history engaged in mere sophistry.  One reason it is not impossible to develop genuine intellectual originality is because many humans were often never close to the truth to begin with.  History is a record of the numerous fallacies, ideological failures, and assumptions that many individuals have embraced.

If someone tells you that you can do nothing except rediscover truths that others have acknowledged, they are lying, ignorant, or stupid.  It is impossible to derive all of one’s knowledge from the work of past individuals.

The Deepest Spiritual Growth

Any serious thinker who has seen the general condition of American churches knows how pathetic that condition is: many churches are submerged in fallacious argumentation, ignorance of the Bible (oh, I love how conservative Christians often think they know what I mean here!), and a lack of genuine concern for truth and consistency.  Not only is this unfortunately an accurate diagnosis of the church at large, but there is not even an obligation to attend church at all, much less church services on a Sunday morning.  Not that most Christians will ever bring this up: ignorance and love of tradition see to that.

When I find Christians that do admit that there is nothing obligatory about church in any form, one of the first things they claim is that there are still benefits to the traditional Sunday church model, like social connections and emotional encouragement.  The theological core of church is the uniting of these things with an honest, accurate exploration of Christian doctrines.  But when it comes to spiritual growth, are churches generally useful?  Organized churches are not the best option, in many cases, for cultivating such a thing.  Many people who think otherwise mistake shallowness for a fulfilling relationship with God and other humans.

Anyone sincerely pursuing knowledge, consistency, thoroughness, and justice will find many churches not only unhelpful when it comes to pursuing these things, but will also likely find it to be counterproductive.  The deepest conversations, bonding of souls, and spiritual growth will likely occur in one-on-one relationships as they are conducted outside of a church building (or in small groups of close people).  It is with a small handful of close friends that I find myself spiritually rejuvenated and free to share intellectual discoveries, many of which are too controversial or precise for most churchgoers to either understand or care about.  It is with these friends that I can talk openly about important issues without the possibility of the average churchgoer overhearing and objecting.

If you want to find intellectual and spiritual growth of the deepest kind, you will almost certainly not find anything like them in churches.  Instead, look to intimate relationships with close Christian friends who take rationality, exegesis, and honesty seriously.  The deepest Christian growth involving anything of a social nature will very likely result from such relationships.  Friendships like these can be rare because the people worthy of them are rare; the people necessary for them to exist are by no means common, yet relationships with them are often the mechanisms by which the deepest spiritual growth occurs.  In a world of shallow sociality, these friendships blatantly stand out.

Identifying Sin

How does one go about proving that eating biscuits is or is not sinful according to Christianity?  There are only two possible methodologies, and only one of them can be correct.  The first possibility is that God has to encourage, command, or otherwise specifically permit something for it to be nonsinful, with everything else being immoral or at least suspect; the second is that something is only sinful if God specifically condemns it or if it follows from some other Biblical command that it is wrong, with every other thing being nonsinful in itself.

The second is clearly what the Bible teaches, and what logic can prove even apart from divine revelation.  If a desire or action is not morally wrong, then it cannot be wrong to indulge in it, regardless of how uncomfortable the thought of it makes other people feel.  If eating biscuits is not condemned by God, then it is not sinful to eat biscuits.  That the Bible teaches this is clear:


Deuteronomy 4:2--"Do not add to what I command you . . ."

Matthew 15:3-7--"Jesus replied, 'Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?  For God said, "Honor you father and mother" and "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."  But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God," he is not to "honor his father" with it.  Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.  You hypocrites!'"

Romans 7:7--". . . Indeed I would not have known what sin is except through the law."

1 John 3:4--"Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness."


Since the Bible itself defines sin as anything which contradicts God’s moral revelation provided in Mosaic Law (and by extension the words of Jesus and New Testament writings), Christians can know exactly which of the two frameworks of moral epistemology the Bible uses.  The Bible does not leave this point unclear, and one can also deduce, apart from any knowledge of the Bible whatsoever, that if a thing is not morally wrong, then it is intellectually and morally erroneous to treat it as if it is evil.  What reason cannot reveal on its own, however, are which things themselves are actually right or wrong.

It is not that eating biscuits is sinful unless God says otherwise or directly tells someone to eat biscuits; it is that eating biscuits is only sinful if God condemns it explicitly or because of the logical extension of an explicit condemnation.  Since the Bible does not condemn eating biscuits but does demand that people not add to its commands, all while identifying sin as only that which is condemned by God's moral revelation (which corresponds to his moral nature), eating biscuits cannot be sinful on the Christian worldview.  It follows that the person who demands that another person not eat biscuits sins by elevating his or her preferences above the only moral obligations that exist on the Christian worldview.

There are many controversial things (at least controversial in some Christian circles) that one can apply this to, like profanity, polyandry, erotic media, public nudity, alcohol use, or the viewing of entertainment that features miscellaneous sins: one could substitute any of these things, or other things, for the eating of biscuits.  None of them are sinful on their own because they do not contradict anything about God's nature or will, and they are consequently not condemned by Mosaic Law, Jesus, or any New Testament epistles.  What all three of these aspects of Scripture--Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 4:2), the words of Jesus (Matthew 15:3-9), and the New Testament epistles (Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4)--unanimously say is that there is no sin where God has not condemned a thing.

Liberating people from unnecessary guilt, false ideas, and suffocating restrictions is a thing of no minor importance!  When people have a right understanding of their ethical obligations, they can serve God in the most thorough way possible, for incorrect moral beliefs held up in God’s name do not glorify God in any way.  On the contrary, they disregard what God has said.  Jesus reacted vehemently at times when people distorted, misapplied, or ignored God’s actual commands while replacing them with non-obligatory rules of human origin.  Identifying what is and is not sinful is a matter of great significance, and the exact methodology described by the Bible is blatant.

Platonic Admiration Of The Human Body

Seeing the human body can be a very exciting experience, and can even be spiritual, introspective, and empowering.  Aesthetic experiences can bring existential matters to the forefront of a person's mind because aesthetics, like existential issues, pertains to the nature of reality.  This is one of the reasons why artistic expression through visible mediums can unlock such powerful reactions.  Just like art, the human body can evoke deep admiration.  And Christians have largely failed to emphasize the goodness and spirituality of platonic admiration of the human body.

Aesthetic attraction or admiration is not identical to sexual attraction or admiration, and though the former is exclusively visual by nature, the latter is not.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with explicitly sexual displays of the human body or sexual appreciation of the human body (Deuteronomy 4:2), so I am not implying that any such thing is immoral.  But it can be deeply liberating and refreshing for someone to see or engage in admiration of the bodies of men and women without invoking the fallacies of a culture that perceives nonsexual things as sexual.

Platonic admiration of the human body signifies an intellectually mature understanding of the metaphysical nature of the human body--it is objectively nonsexual in itself.  Accepting that other people have bodies, and in turn accepting that corporeal shells are a significant part of the way God created humans, can produce a peace about our bodies in the midst of legalistic, ascetic traditions of the modern church, which can consequently enable a deeper embracing of the fact that we are both spiritual and physical beings.

As logic easily proves, platonic admiration of one’s own gender is not impossible as well.  Yet American culture holds up a sexist double standard here.  It is asinine that men are often perceived as possessing homosexual inclinations just for making positive aesthetic judgments about other male bodies, since aesthetic appreciation in itself is totally divorced from sexual admiration, and since women are outright expected to comment on each other's appearances regularly.  This gender-based expectation is nothing but a byproduct of arbitrary cultural constructs and sexist stereotypes, none of which have anything to do with reality.

American culture elevates female beauty over male beauty, with men not expected to be anywhere near as concerned about their appearances as women are.  This is to the detriment of both genders: the male body is often trivialized or ignored, while physical appearance is often treated like one of the most defining features of being a woman.  Both of these sexist ideas have harmful results.  Men are taught subtly and overtly that their bodies are not particularly attractive, and women are taught that attractiveness is an integral part of what it means to be a woman.

These ideas about men and women are thoroughly untrue, and can have injurious, lasting effects on both genders.  Women are not beautiful just because they are women, and they do not deserve to be called beautiful just because they are women.  Male beauty does not deserve to be denied or trivialized just because it belongs to men.  Other cultures, to the contrary, reversed some of these ideas (as with the ancient Greeks).  Americans often ignore this, of course--it's inconvenient for their assumptions, after all.

Celebrating the beauty of both genders in a nonsexual way is entirely Biblical [1]!  When brothers and sisters in Christ as a whole find peace with their own bodies and the bodies of those around them, the ripple effects are enormous.  There is no small impact on our lives when we embrace our physicality as the metaphysically good thing that it is, and platonic admiration of the bodies of other people can serve as an effective reminder of this.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/beauty-of-both-genders.html

Frank Turek’s Fallacious Stance On Hypocrisy

Frank Turek has a specific response whenever non-Christians are repulsed by hypocrisy among Christians--he says that everyone is a hypocrite, so there's room in Christendom for one more.  One can easily find this claim on YouTube; unfortunately, I came upon a video where he said this years ago.  This diagnosis may sound appealing to some listeners, but is it true?  Are all people hypocrites, and, if they are, is it impossible for them to shed their hypocrisy?

It's not surprising, though frustrating to rational people, that people like Turek do not get challenged for their obvious fallacies when they utter phrases like this.  After all, it's easy to see why people might like not challenging him here: they can both thoughtlessly agree with a popular apologist and convince themselves that any actual hypocrisy in their lives is an inescapable thing that they cannot defeat.  They don't call out the blatant fallacy of composition, non sequitur, and instance of begging the question in Turek's soundbite-like response, and they can even feel better for it.

Just because one person is a hypocrite doesn't mean that all people are.  To assume anything about the moral character of all people based upon the failings of a handful fallaciously extrapolates from part of humanity to all of humanity.  Besides, since there is no instance where someone sins by logical necessity--meaning that they could not have avoided sinning--moral perfection can be achieved by Christians [1].  No one has to sin.  Even if all people were hypocrites, none of them have to remain in their hypocrisy at all.

Frank Turek, like most Christian apologists, uses extensive sophistry at times (his moral epistemology is shit too; it's mostly an emotion-based appeal to conscience).  The fact that his mistaken belief about hypocrisy is so compact and easy to sell to audiences does not make it correct, though the slow-minded can be deceived by easily-repeatable phrases.  Hypocrisy is not something all people are necessarily guilty of because there is no sin that all people have to commit.  Absolute consistency--both intellectually and morally--is by no means impossible, and all it takes to realize this is a logical analysis of consistency.

Christian apologists can be some of the most amusing pseudo-intellectuals of the modern era.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/05/sinlessness-is-logically-possible.html

Hate The Sin, Hate The Sinner?

“Hate the sin, love the sinner” is incomplete advice at best, and emotivistic nonsense at worst.  Yes, of course one should hate sin and love sinners; to deny this is to deny obvious Biblical facts.  But what is often implied when people use this phrase is that in loving sinners we cannot or should not hate any of them.  Hatred is just as Biblical as love (Psalm 5:5-6, 11:5, Proverbs 3:32, 11:20, Leviticus 20:23, and so on), though it remains a highly unpopular feature of Christian theology.  Separating sinners from their sins quickly devolves into viciously irrational thinking.

Sin has no existence apart from a sinner.  Stupidity and evil acts can literally have no existence apart from beings who are stupid and evil.  To even attempt to distinguish between them in a way that treats the former as not existing solely due to the latter is asinine, a fallacious attempt to distance people deserving of criticism from their own deeds, motivations, and ideas, when evil only exists because of evil beings and stupid ideas only have power because stupid people treat them as if they do.  Treating evil people as if they are only innocent minds taken hostage by a force that deprives them of their rationality and free will is abominable.

The evangelical myth that love is more intrinsically powerful than hatred also needs to be confronted.  Neither love nor hatred is, in itself, stronger than the other.  Different people might find one or the other more subjectively empowering.  Thus, holding up love as if it is the strongest motivating force is misleading at best.  For myself, I find hatred to unquestionably be the more powerful, energizing motivator.  There has never been a competition between the two concerning which is the mightier impulse within me, with only my love for select individuals exceeding my hatred for the majority of people I have met.

This does not mean that love and hatred, even for the same person, cannot coexist, for nothing about the presence of one logically excludes the other.  Love and apathy, hatred and apathy, love and malice--these things displace each other.  For apathy or malice to exist within a person’s mind, it must occupy a mental space to the exclusion of love.  Hatred, being only an intense dislike, is, on its own, totally divorced from malice, and it is certainly not apathy.

It is explicitly clear that Yahweh is described as outright hating some people (again, see Psalm 5:5-6, 11:5).  But Yahweh is not apathetic towards any person, wanting all to become saved (2 Peter 3:8-9).  Since Yahweh’s nature is the standard for morality, human hatred is not sinful as long as it is not unjust or uncoupled with love.  We are commanded to be like God (Ephesians 5:1), and this extends to more than just imitating God’s love for all fallen beings.  One can resent a person for his or her shallowness, selfishness, or hypocrisy while still caring deeply for that person’s ultimate wellbeing.

And there’s nothing sinful about that.  It only takes intelligence to come to this realization--not that most people have anything more than a minute amount of intelligence.  No wonder most evangelicals don’t understand these points!

The Metaphysics Of Logic

In recent discussions with a friend, the issue of logic's necessary, beginningless existence has surfaced multiple times.  To illuminate the exact truths of this matter, I will explain every crucial point relevant to this subject.  Since John 1 has been quoted by some when I explain to them that logic cannot be a created thing because logic cannot not exist, I will first dissect what the passage actually says about creation.

John 1 plainly does not say that God created all things.  John 1:3 credits God with creating all created things, as it says that apart from the Word (later equated with the figure of Jesus in John 1:14) "nothing was made that has been made."  First of all, if it did describe such a thing as occurring, then it would be the Bible, and not logic, which is false.  Second, even theists who pretend like the nonexistence of logic is even possible and who think that God somehow created logic do not actually think that God created everything, for they still posit that God has always existed without a beginning.  Third, this verse does not even mean that Yahweh or Christ (the "Word") created every thing that has come into existence, only every category of created thing--matter itself, human consciousness, animal consciousness, angelic consciousness, and so on.  If I create a sculpture, I made it, not God.  However, God created the initial matter itself.

For God to even be what he is prior to creating the universe, the law of identity must exist.  Of course, even if no uncaused cause existed, and thus no creation as well, logic would still exist: there would still be a way reality is (reality would simply not feature matter or consciousness of any kind), reality would still be what it is, and sound conclusions still follow from their premises.  Even if no matter exists, it is still true that if a tree exists then matter exists, for example.  Even if no consciousnesses exist, then it is still true that if a thing perceives then it exists as a conscious mind.  Even if no matter and consciousness exist, seven plus two always equals nine.  Logic cannot not exist.  To show the importance of this, however, I will describe what would follow if logic was a created thing.

If logic was created, it would not exist by pure necessity.  If it does not exist by pure necessity, then it is not and cannot be necessary, and as a result there are no necessary truths.  If logic is not necessary, then it cannot be known to be true, since logic itself would be contingent on something else and not self-sufficient.  Consequently, nothing can be known, since nothing about either self-evident logical axioms or the laws of deductive reasoning have to be true.  To deny knowledge is to affirm it, a self-refuting endeavor.

Logic is true.  It is self-verifying, self-evident, and necessary.  To argue against it one must wield it, meaning that logic can only be false if it is true.  Thus, logical truths are necessary truths, irrespective of other truths, which are contingent.  Contingent truths include variables like scientific laws and the existence of matter.  The very nature of logic makes it impossible for even a single logical truth to be any different than it is.

Logic must be universal to be true.  To be universal, it must have no beginning; it must transcend space, matter, and time.  To have no beginning, it must be an uncreated thing.  All of this follows from the fact that logic exists and is inherently true, its intrinsic veracity and necessary existence having nothing to do with any mind, including the mind of God.

Logic, people.  It is very damn helpful, and it cannot be false, regardless of what you prefer or believe.

Socrates The Sophist

Socrates, in spite of his numerous epistemological and metaphysical errors, is often held up as one of history's brilliant intellects.  What an undeserved reputation!  Many people, especially those who are pseudo-intellectuals, seem to respect him as if he actually did anything to earn the reputation beyond asking people questions without providing sound answers to his own inquiries.  Many people I know at my university laud Socrates as a champion of philosophy, but that is only because they know about as little about logic and reality as Socrates did (I scarcely pass up an opportunity to call out the sheer stupidity of many people at HBU).

In the surviving Plato dialogues, Socrates often fills his arguments with fallacies, all while allegedly pursuing genuine knowledge and forsaking the follies of the sophists, a group of people who, for money, would give people fallacious explanations.  In modern times, a demagogue or deceiver might be still be said to use sophistry, with sophistry referring to the use of fallacies to appeal to an audience.  Socrates relied heavily on sophistry as a rhetorical tool, though he did not receive money for his rhetoric.  His arbitrary division of the soul into three parts (Republic), insistence that the mathematical knowledge of a slave is confirmation of reincarnation (Meno), belief in unverifiable forms corresponding to moral ideas, and assumptions about values are just a few examples of his numerous fallacious beliefs.  The non sequiturs, red herrings, question begging premises, and circular reasoning Socrates used do not disappear just because many people speak of him positively.

It is ironic that, near end of his life, he suddenly denied that he claimed to know anything he cannot know (Apology)--yet many parts of his worldview beforehand involved claims about concepts that, even if they were true, could not be known by any human.  Throughout his other dialogues he had been claiming to know things that no human can prove, while speaking as if Platonic forms actually exist or can be known.  Whether he finally identified his actual epistemological limitations by the time of his trial or was merely contradicting himself, his general philosophy was a disgrace to true rationality.

Socrates was a sophist, apart from the receiving of money, because he extensively used sophistry.  He may have had the right questions and the right goals in mind, but many aspects of his answers fall woefully short of logicality.  Answers, not questions, form a worldview.  Despite having a reputation as a person intelligent and passionate enough to verbally combat the sophists, Socrates was just like them in a key way--not in title, but in the fact that he too offered fallacies instead of legitimate, demonstrable explanations.

The Insignificance Of Scholarship

The words of a scholar are of no more innate significance than the words of a young child; it is the words of whoever is rational and correct that are of greater significance than those of other people.  It does not matter how popular or educated someone is--these things, on their own, are not intelligence.  They do not guarantee that someone is rational, consistent, or correct.

When people trust in an academic figure, they leave themselves at the mercy of another person's potential fallacies, either hoping that they are not being deceived or blindly embracing the person's statements without regard to actual proof.  Reason erodes trust in an authority figure, refuting the very basis for having trust in anyone at all; it does not build it up.  No scholar can earn the right for others to assume he or she is correct.  No reputation will ever bring it about that an assumption is rational, for assumptions are the very antithesis of rationality.

If an "authority" is correct, then they will be able to establish every point they make with logic.  If an authority figure's claim can be verified through reason, then that figure can be legitimately praised, but if the opposite is the case, then that figure cannot be defended through any legitimate means.  Thoroughly intelligent people, of course, look to reason for verdicts, not the words of another person.  They only hold the claims of others in high regard if the claims are demonstrably true.

Whether or not a position “has scholarship behind it” is entirely irrelevant to its veracity or falsity, for popularity or perceived academic authority does not, and cannot, make a concept true.  Academia itself is not intrinsically useless.  Having intelligent, informed people to represent true ideas to the public is a valuable thing.  Educators are important figures precisely because self-education is so rare.  That's the purpose of my blog, after all: to educate!  It is that some people will not entertain, investigate, or embrace an idea unless some figure they look up to endorses it that I am criticizing, as well as the tendency of many to respect a position more from a distance because scholars claim it.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful, and it is true whether or not someone admits it.

Defining Adultery

There is an error about the nature of adultery that I have seen from time to time.  This position holds, contrary to reason and the Bible, that adultery occurs when a wife has sex with someone other than her husband, yet a husband does not commit adultery if he has sex with someone other than his wife.  It is unfortunately true that evangelical, conservative Christians are thoroughly mistaken about almost every detail of Biblical sexual ethics, but this area is one where they are correct.

In Mosaic Law, the case laws prescribing the just punishment for adultery might use the example of a man having sex with another man's wife (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22), but Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18 plainly do not restrict adultery to only an act involving extramarital sex on the part of a wife.  Just as Exodus 21:18-19 condemns, by logical extension, all instances of the unjust striking of a person, though the case law provided deals only with a man assaulting a man, passages like Deuteronomy 22:22, in light of Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18, do not define adultery in a way that involves a sexist double standard.

Polyamorous marriages are not sinful [1], and a couple can have sex prior to marriage without sinning [2], but the Bible clearly condemns any extramarital intercourse that a married person could engage in.  Either spouse in a couple having multiple other spouses is not immoral, but either spouse in a marriage having sex with other people to whom they are not also married remains morally illegitimate (this is one of the few cases where evangelical Christians get sexual morality right).

In many cases, the genders used in Biblical case laws have nothing to do with the moral obligations or principles being illustrated.  Of course adultery occurs when either a wife or a husband has extramarital sex!  To teach that the adultery laws in the Bible inconsistently target women is to teach an unsound delusion.  The sole ways--and a way that is contrary to exegesis and rationality--to represent the Bible as condemning only a wife's extramarital sex are to isolate the case laws from other verses about adultery and distort the concept of sin into a gender-specific thing.

Neither of those things is Biblical, much less logical.  Adultery is, inevitably, the act of engaging in extramarital intercourse when one is married--irrespective of the gender of the person having extramarital sex.  It is nothing more, and it is nothing less.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/polygamy-and-polyandry.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-exodus-2216-17.html

Consoling The Suicidal

Grim honesty can be much more refreshing than appealing lies, even in a time of great suffering.  Fables can easily lead to more suffering, however benevolent they may be--and thus they can amplify someone's pain rather than diminish it.  When suicidal people are routinely told that "It will get better," they are being promised something that no human can predict with certainty.  Because of this, such a statement is not only fallacious, but it can also rightfully strike people as hollow, simplistic, and unhelpful, especially if they've heard it many times and never had the statement prove accurate.  If they have been told this on numerous occasions and yet never experienced any relief, their sense of despair might be dramatically heightened.

Paradoxically, the most productive conversations one can have with people struggling with suicidal impulses can be conversations where both parties (or however many are involved) acknowledge that there is nothing inherently attractive to all people about life.  This does not mean that there is nothing meaningful about or in life, only that people will not all perceive it as an enjoyable, fulfilling, or rewarding thing.  One person may cherish existence and be puzzled by someone's indifference towards or hatred for life, while another person may resent existence and be puzzled by someone's enjoyment of life.

When each party elevates expressing honesty over mindlessly repeating cliches, they can actually get to the root of the issue more quickly, understand it better, and work towards a solution.  Honest questions and honest answers are what people need, whether or not they want them.  An outsider who has never thought of suicide as desirable or as a positive form of release might be the most unequipped type of person to discuss the topic with someone who is actively considering suicide.  Of course, someone who has never contemplated killing himself or herself can perfectly comprehend the issue itself (intellectually, though not experientially), just as someone who has never been married does not need to get married to perfectly comprehend the subject of marriage.  But people who have never struggled deeply with trials--and all of the emotional, intellectual, and existential aspects of them--might find the notion of desiring death as something unconscionable and thus be ineffective at helping someone else talk through it.

The pain or preferences of a person might lead them to genuinely favor nonexistence over existence.  For those who cannot relate to this, the best course of action is to not trivialize such a preference, or to dismiss whatever intense suffering may have led to it, but to listen to, empathize with, and honestly interact with what a suicidal person says.  Thankfully, encouragement and honesty are not exclusive.  One does not need to displace the other.  Encouragement rooted in dishonesty or an incomplete appraisal of life circumstances, however, can be very damaging indeed, and well-meaning people sometimes need to be told of this.

There are two components of the problem that need to be addressed when someone considers suicide: the personal aspects of the ordeal and the worldview aspects of it.  Both need to be sincerely, directly confronted if healing is to occur--and even confronting them is no guarantee that a person will be cured of suicidal urges.  But to leave either unaddressed is to neglect a major dimension of such a trial, or, indeed, of any significant trial.  If Christians want to truly be prepared to offer legitimate help, and thus more than empty words uttered from an experiential distance, then they must be ready to face both components.  Ignoring either overlooks a crucial dimension of the problem.

The Appeal Of Complex Characters

Since what people like about entertainment is subjective, there is not necessarily anything universally enjoyed about a movie or video game by ever viewer/player.  At the same time, something I tend to hear a majority of people praise about works of entertainment is complexity of characterization.  While, of course, different people might have different reasons for appreciating the same aspects of a film or game, there is a very specific reason why people might be drawn to complicated characters.

As I have written about before, entertainment can provide us with a way to indirectly experience things foreign to our daily lives, but it can also hold up a mirror that shows us what it is like to be human and to be individuals [1].  In entertainment we can see aspects of ourselves.  And, since our existences are by no means simple, it is no surprise to me that simple characters might be criticized for being largely unrealistic.

People can appreciate complex characters in entertainment because they see genuine complexity when they look within themselves.  Humans are not naturally shallow, simplistic beings--yes, many people are shallow, but it is often by choice and not merely because of their metaphysical nature.  Instead, humans are naturally complex beings, with a variety of emotional, intellectual, sexual, spiritual, moral, phenomenological, and biological variables shaping their identities.  We can relate to complicated characters because our very natures are complicated.

One of my favorite examples of a work of entertainment that masterfully captures this complexity is HBO's Game of Thrones.  Almost every single person I have spoken with who is also a lover of Game of Thrones has said that the characters are definitely among the most well-executed aspects of the show.  It is the realistic portrayals of diverse motivations, worldviews, and life experiences that make the characters so rich.  The slow burn start of the series pays off as the layers of characterization become even more multi-faceted.  Characters like Cersei, Tyrion, Jaime, and Brienne certainly cannot be legitimately called simple!  The depth of the development and arcs of many characters in Game of Thrones testifies to the objective George R.R. Martin had in writing A Song of Ice and Fire: to give an honest depiction of the human heart at war with itself.

To trivialize the complexity of our personalities and longings is to trivialize human nature itself.  They are, after all, significant components of human existence.  From its inception, entertainment has been one of the most effective ways to communicate this complexity to other people, and that has not changed despite all the ways that various mediums of entertainment have evolved.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-profits-of-stories.html

Unique Discoveries (Part Two)

Intelligence is scarce enough as it is, but even many otherwise intelligent people throughout history have failed to secure the details of many aspects of reality.  The first post in this miniseries was intended, as is this one, to celebrate the now two years of my blog's existence by emphasizing how intellectual originality and uniqueness are certainly not nonexistent things.  In it I listed eight specific things that I have discovered--strictly through private deduction--that no historical or living philosopher, theologian, or other author I know of has realized or admitted.  As a follow-up, I will provide seven more miscellaneous examples of particular truths that have gone either unrecognized or unacknowledged by almost everyone throughout recorded history.

I love to highlight and applaud the similar discoveries of other people, so, once again, if any readers have discovered specific truths that few or no other people have acknowledged throughout human history, I invite them to share their findings in the comments!

As specified before, if a statement is underlined that means I have not dissected the point in its own respective article.  You can find the start to this miniseries here:

https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/07/unique-discoveries-part-1.html


9.  Time is immaterial [1]

Time is not contingent by necessity upon the external world, and it is purely nonphysical, although its elapsing is accompanied by events that occur in the external world.  It is intangible, a thing not comprised of matter.  It is, in one sense, perhaps odd that this fact goes unacknowledged by many, as it is one of the most obvious truths about time and can be easily deduced from one's immediate experiences.


10.  Men and women who are sexually attracted to each other can still be deep friends [2]

The idea that men and women cannot or should not be friends is a vastly destructive, fallacious, unbiblical one.  When internalized, this idea limits friendship to one part of humanity by misrepresenting the other part.  Mistaken beliefs about friendship and gender have had a devastating effect on gender relations throughout history.  A person who truly thinks a genuine, intimate friendship between a man and woman is impossible is unintelligent.  But it is also extremely irrational to think that sexual attraction renders two people unable to relate as friends.  Indeed, realizing that it does not render them able to be friends can be liberating thing.  Men and women who are sexually attracted to each other can still be genuine friends, however the attraction affects the relationship's romantic status.  To teach otherwise is to represent sexual attraction as a dehumanizing, overpowering thing, which puts forth a horrifically distorted understanding of sexual feelings, free will, and human relationships (of both marriages and friendships where sexual attraction is present).

11.  The Bible does not teach Trinitarianism [3]

Almost all Christians consider non-Trinitarianism some sort of heresy.  This does not change the fact that the Bible never equates Jesus with Yahweh, or Yahweh with the Holy Spirit, or Jesus with the Holy Spirit.  If it did, then the only possibilities would be that any hypothetical verses proposing Trinitarianism can't be true (due to the logical impossibility of three distinct beings with their own minds being one single being) or that God merely appears in different ways like the same person might wear three sets of clothing.  Instead of teaching something logically impossible or teaching that the three members of the alleged Trinity are identical, the Bible constantly distinguishes between Yahweh, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, whose nature is far more enigmatic than evangelicals like to admit--which means many claims about the Holy Spirit are unverifiable and unfalsifiable at best, and thus should not be made to begin with.


12.  The Bible does not say the thieves crucified with Jesus deserved crucifixion [4]

Only very limited, specific kinds of tortures are prescribed by the Bible, meaning that any contexts or methods of torture beyond or besides them are intrinsically unjust on the Christian worldview.  Crucifixion, much less Roman crucifixion, is never among them, violating numerous commands in Mosaic Law.  Note what many evangelicals say about the story of Jesus' death, especially when they reference the unbiblical idea that Jesus took a literal cross each person deserves or mention the equally unbiblical idea that the thieves crucified alongside Jesus deserved their crucifixions.  In many cases either or both of these ideas will be stated outright or heavily implied.  Many evangelicals will encourage "loving" behaviors in daily life while believing in the background that one of the most sadistic, degrading, and cruel processes of historical torture was somehow just.  The cognitive dissonance, much less the illogicality and unbiblicality, is enormous.  That evangelicals rarely call out unjust/unbiblical form of torture on sound Biblical and logical grounds shows how misguided their moral priorities often are.


13.  Erotic media is not sinful unless it features immoral sexual activities (rape, adultery, bestiality, etc.) AND is intended to arouse people or make them take pleasure in sinful behaviors [5]

Not everyone has the desire to consume erotic media of any form, though evangelicals are often stupid enough to think everyone has sexual impulses to begin with, or that all people are drawn to the same expressions of sexuality.  Christians, especially women (since Christians are conditioned to perceive that women are generally either asexual or demisexual beings by many evangelical teachers), might feel deeply ashamed of any desires they have to view erotic media, as well as the fact that erotic media can stimulate physical and mental pleasure.  Confusion about the definition of lust in the Bible, a misunderstanding of sexual objectification, prudish asceticism, years of tradition, and fallacious cultural beliefs about the nature of erotic media all contribute to the fear or hatred many Christians have for erotic media.  Yet there is nothing about erotic media whatsoever--apart from depictions of defined sexual sins which are intended to arouse viewers/readers--that is sinful.  There is nothing immoral about creating or consuming erotic media alone, using it with a spouse, using it with friends, or masturbating to it.  Deuteronomy 4:2 and Romans 7:7 make this clear.


14.  Using drugs for recreational, non-medical purposes is not always sinful

Alcohol use is not condemned by the Bible; drunkenness is.  Yet many Christians do not consistently extend the same Biblical principles to drug use, although identical moral principles would govern the use of drugs and alcohol alike, since both are things that can alter mental states to the point of "intoxication."  There is nothing wrong with using a substance to intentionally alter mental states for pleasure or comfort, given that the substance does not inevitably result in addiction and that the user does not abuse it by getting high.  For some reason, this is a far more controversial thing than making the same claims about alcohol, despite the obvious parallels!


15.  The Quran does not condemn many things Muslims often consider sinful, and often these things are involve the human body, sexuality, or gender relations--including public nudity, bikinis, sexual attraction, and opposite gender friendships

Crucial parts of Islam are objectively false because they contain logical or historical errors, but the Quran teaches theonomist ethics and theonomist moral epistemology just as the Bible does.  Like the Bible, the Quran does not condemn many activities often perceived to be morally wrong, which by its own standard means that these things are not sinful.  Compare Deuteronomy 4:2 to Surah 16:116-117; both the Bible and Quran condemn adding to their commands.  In part, this is not surprising at all, since the Quran claims to be revelation from the God of Moses.  What is also not surprising is that Muslim teachers have treated things that are not sinful on the Islamic worldview as if they are immoral, just as most Christians have treated things that are not sinful on the Christian worldview as immoral throughout history.  Since the Torah does not condemn things like nudity, sexual attraction, profanity, drug use without intoxication, and opposite gender friendships, all while saying to not add to its commands (Deuteronomy 4:2), the Quran would have to not condemn these things in order to remain consistent with Abrahamic and Mosaic revelation.  Of course, the Quran is not consistent with other aspects of Biblical ethics (with criminal justice; see Exodus 22:1-3 and Surah 5:38 for just one example of an inconsistency), and this is the only argument against Islam that can refute it in full, since it is based strictly in logic and not in matters of history or science, which are incapable of proving almost anything at all in an ultimate sense.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-immateriality-of-time.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/flirtatious-friendships.html

[3].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/a-refutation-of-trinitarianism-part-1.html
  B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/a-refutation-of-trinitarianism-part-2.html
  C.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-refutation-of-trinitarianism-part-3.html

[4].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/we-are-getting-what-our-deeds-deserve.html

[5].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-1.html
  B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-2_19.html
  C.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-3.html

Movie Review--Captain America: The Winter Soldier

"For as long as I can remember, I just wanted to do what was right.  I guess I'm not quite sure what that is anymore."
--Steve Rogers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier

"Hydra was founded on the belief that humanity could not be trusted with its own freedom."
--Arnim Zola, Captain America: The Winter Soldier


Sometimes called the Dark Knight of the MCU, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is by far the most competently made movie in its trilogy, and perhaps the most competently made movie of all of the films in the MCU's Phase Two.  Touching upon a very significant subject, the story has more gravity than Captain America: The First Avenger, its plot radically altering the world inside the MCU as a whole--by the end the in-universe world is very different than it is at the beginning.

Photo credit: theglobalpanorama on

 Visual hunt  /  CC BY-SA

Production Values

Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansson offer some of their absolute best Marvel performances here, and, though Samuel L. Jackson's sarcastic Nick Fury and other actors and actresses often steal their scenes, the movie is ultimately about Captain America (Steve Rogers) and Black Widow (Natasha Romanoff).  The comedic and serious sides of their personalities are on full display here.  I love how Steve and Natasha are portrayed as friends--it can be deeply refreshing to see two attractive members of either gender develop a cinematic relationship with each other than has nothing to do with romance or sexuality.  The only obstacle to their relationship is not unrequited romantic or sexual attraction, but the fact that the circumstances call for suspicion and skepticism.  Robert Redford, Sebastian Stan, Cobie Smulders, and Anthony Mackie all deliver excellent performances as well, though they are background/supporting characters for the most part.  The visuals are spectacular, even after four years.  They complement the story, characters, and scope of the movie very well, holding up superbly thus far.  Even though some of the set pieces are large and dramatic, this never undermines the effectiveness of the intimate, character-driven moments that appear all throughout the plot.


Story

Spoilers are below!

Steve Rogers, still adjusting to the modern world after decades of being frozen following his fight with Red Skull, meets Sam Wilson, who is soon to become the Falcon.  As the world becomes more chaotic, the threats to its social health become fiercer, with Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D. overseeing Project Insight: a project intended to preemptively kill threatening individuals.  Fury finds himself pursued openly--on the streets--by people trying to take his life, and he is introduced to the powerful but elusive Winter Soldier, an enigmatic Hydra assassin.

A second assassination attempt seemingly kills him, Captain America and Black Widow hunting the truth about the situation.  In an abandoned S.H.I.E.L.D. office, they discover that Hydra, a malevolent organization that worked with the Nazis, has survived into the present day and deeply infiltrated S.H.I.E.L.D.  The consciousness of a scientist who helped Red Skull, Arnim Zola, was somehow uploaded to a computer system, from which Zola explains to Steve and Natasha how Hydra has been controlling the information seen by the public and injecting disorder into global affairs.  The objective is minimizing the autonomy of individuals by generating so much chaos that people willingly surrender their freedom, as Hydra is strongly anti-liberty, for its founding members thought that humans cannot handle their own freedom.

Fury did not actually die, and Steve and Natasha reunite with him to form a plan to stop Project Insight.  In a massive set piece involving multiple Helicarriers, Steve successfully prevents Project Insight from leading to the deaths of numerous people, yet he is forced to confront the Winter Soldier, a brainwashed Bucky Barnes--Steve's closest friend from the 1940s who seemingly died in action.  Though the heroes dismantle the bulk of Hydra's presence in S.H.I.E.L.D., they also destroy a great part of S.H.I.E.L.D. itself.  This leaves the world even more vulnerable than it was before the Hydra infiltration came to light, setting the stage for Age of Ultron.


Intellectual Content

At the core of the conflict in Winter Soldier is the subject of individual autonomy.  Is personal freedom good?  Is it possible to have both freedom and the security that protects that freedom at once?  A government should never involve itself in activities that go beyond its obligations to its citizens (this is the foundation of political libertarianism: all unjust or unnecessary laws should be abolished), and monitoring most or all aspects of its citizens' lives is not something any government has an obligation to do.  Winter Soldier is a story about how Steve Rogers shifts from the predominantly conservative mindset prevalent in his youth to a more libertarian one.  Steve comes to realize just how invasive a non-libertarian government can become, his allegiances changing as the political landscape around him does.  The corrupted S.H.I.E.L.D. goes beyond the obligation to protect citizens from actual threats by seeking to exterminate anticipated threats before they can even become troublesome, and Steve does not tolerate this.  Punishing people before they commit an offense, as opposed to after, using the right methods is the only just way to manage a society.

Conclusion

One of the more unique MCU movies out of the 20 that have been released, Winter Soldier still maintains its own identity in a time when many Marvel films suffer from the protagonists having bland, interchangeable personalities--a problem distinctly absent from the film.  The characterization is strong, the plot serpentine, and the thematic tone dark without descending to the wonderful bleakness of a story like that of Logan.  It is one of the MCU's most balanced, well-crafted offerings, developing its characters while drawing attention to a rather serious issue that the modern world has found increasingly relevant to politics, and it still stands taller than many of its siblings.

Photo credit: The_JIFF on VisualHunt.com /

  CC BY

Content:
1. Violence:  Like many other MCU films, very little about Winter Soldier is portrayed in a brutal way, although many of the fighting moves in it would shatter bones.
2. Profanity:  Though fairly infrequent, some profanity does appear.

The Abrahamic Covenant

The Abrahamic covenant is the second covenant God made with a specific person that held ramifications for other people to come, the first being the Noahic covenant (Genesis 9); it precedes the existence of Israel as a society in a covenant with God.  It predicts the formation of the Jewish theocracy, as well as the advent of Christ.  Is understanding the Abrahamic covenant vital to understanding Christian theology as a whole?  No.  Key Biblical knowledge about ethics, soteriology, and God’s nature does not hinge on understanding this covenant at all.  Grasping the Abrahamic covenant can, however, deepen one’s appreciation for the broader narrative of Scripture as a whole.  For this reason, it can still be quite profitable to become familiar with this covenant.

When God made his covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12, he promised several things: 1) Abraham’s descendants would one day form a great nation, 2) God would bless people who bless him, and 3) God would curse those who curse him.  Though it is not immediately clear whether God means that he will bless or curse those who respectively bless or curse Abraham himself, his general descendants, or both, later divine actions in the Bible suggest the third option.  There are two primary ways that Abraham's descendants would bless others--the Messiah would emerge from a Jewish bloodline, and the later moral revelation to the Jews that would accompany the Mosaic covenant was intended for other nations to follow, since it is intrinsically just (Deuteronomy 4:8).

Later, in Genesis 15, God specifies the land that Abraham's line would receive, adding that although his descendants would serve a foreign nation as slaves for a time, they would "come out with great possessions" (the Exodus is clearly foreshadowed in Genesis 15:12-16).  In Genesis 17, God mandates that the sign of the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision.  For this sign to be visible to others, public male nudity would be necessary [1].  It is no surprise that conservative theologians either fail to recognize this or do not make this fact known.  These subsequent details provide clearer information about the outcome brought about by the Abrahamic covenant and about the means by which Jewish males were expected to demonstrate they were a part of Yahweh's society.

There is an important thing that the Abrahamic covenant can illuminate, though it is even more evident from other passages.  Because of the fact that God would later focus on relating to a particular social-ethnic group, Yahweh is described by some as racist or xenophobic.  It is odd that people would claim that God choosing Israel as the focal point of his eventual theocracy is racist, since the objective of the Abrahamic covenant was to bless all other nations through the lineage that would become Israel.  Yahweh never consigned all non-Jews to damnation or extermination simply for not being Jews.  On the contrary, all Gentiles who wanted to align themselves with Yahweh could do so (Isaiah 56:3).  From the beginning, the Abrahamic covenant was about restoring representatives of all peoples to God.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-fact-about-circumcision.html

Unique Discoveries (Part 1)

For my 600th post, in honor of the fact that my blog has been active for around two years, I would like to highlight some of the exceptionally unique truths that I have discovered and, in many cases, thoroughly explored in my writings.  Original discoveries are not impossible to achieve, though some will pretend like there are not massive philosophical truths or specific aspects of various topics that are not acknowledged by almost any author, philosopher, or theologian.  After all, long-time readers can see that many things I elaborate upon in my articles go unspoken or undiscovered by many people.  But the criteria for a truth to be highlighted in this series is twofold: 1) almost all people there are records of, living and dead, must not have ever publicly recognized it, and 2) I must have discovered it entirely alone.

Each of these discoveries marked a significant victory in my personal and intellectual life, for without each piece of knowledge numerous truths which follow from them would not be knowable.  I will publish a second part where I will list more examples of truths I have discovered that are (to my awareness), with only a few exceptions, absolutely unheard of throughout history and literature.  For clarity's sake, I want to explain something here before I release the second part of the series--when I underline a statement in bold, this means that I have yet to devote an article to elaborating upon the specific subject in question.

If any readers have discovered separate truths that, like these, are practically neglected in full by most people across time and geography (by philosophers, theologians, scientists, or anyone else), I would love to hear about them in comments!  Intellectual originality is something to be celebrated wherever it appears.  It is not a nonexistent thing!


1.  Logic exists independent of consciousness and matter [1]

Logic is the one thing that exists even if absolutely nothing else does--though space and the uncaused cause also cannot not exist, logic would exist in their hypothetical absence, whereas they could not exist without logic to govern them.  No mind or material object is responsible for the existence and nature of logic; it is and it cannot be any other way.  This reveals multiple facts about logic: it is immaterial, it does not depend on God, and it is universally necessary (if logic was tied to something that is not perfectly static by necessity, like the material world, there could be no necessary truths).


2.  Far more things than just logical axioms and one's own consciousness can be known with absolute certainty [2]

Since articles of knowledge that can be proven in full, which is the criterion for absolute certainty, are extremely precise, it is best to explain what absolute certainty is before providing a few key examples.  Absolute certainty means something cannot be false or mistaken.  Often, people will either deny absolute certainty is attainable regarding anything at all or will say that only one's own existence is absolutely certain.  To even know that I exist, I must grasp other absolute certainties--that truth exists, that a thing is what it is, and that some things follow from others (that perception necessitates a conscious subject).  These facts I have just mentioned cannot be illusory.  The only way they could be false is if they are true, so it is intrinsically impossible for them to not be infallibly correct.  Once logical axioms and my own consciousness are recognized, I can realize that other various absolute certainties exist: that I have senses reporting specific perceptions, that the present moment exists, that men and women can be nonromantic friends, and so on.  But there are far more dramatic things that I know with absolute certainty (which almost no one acknowledges), and some of the following items in the list are other examples of things I know with absolute certainty that are far beyond simply knowing logical truths or the existence of my own consciousness.


3.  How to prove to yourself that you are not dreaming [3]

If I cannot prove to myself that I am awake at a given moment, then I cannot even know if an external world of matter exists, since an external world would be outside of my mind and thus outside of a dream.  All experiences occur to a consciousness, but this does not mean that all experiences occur exclusively within a consciousness--which is the nature of a dream, for in a dream nothing happens in the external world.  In a dream events only occur within a mind.  Physical experiences, therefore, indicate that my consciousness is perceiving external, material stimuli, meaning that I am not locked within a dream whenever I have them.

The next item in this list is closely related.


4.  How to prove that you have a body [4]

Many likely assume they have a body just because they look down and see one or consider whether or not they have a body something that cannot be verified.  If I experience even slight physical sensations, then it follows by necessity that my consciousness is housed in some sort of physical body.  Perhaps my body has a vastly different appearance than I perceive it to have--but I do have a body.  The fact that I have a body is not a self-evident truth; apart from the exact proof I have described here, I cannot know if there is more to my nature than just that of a self-aware, rational consciousness.


5.  How to prove that your memory is reliable [5]

Memory, being necessary for the storing of all knowledge that is not immediately grasped in the present moment, is a crucial epistemological tool.  It is significant that many people assume things about memory that either can or cannot be proven, when proof is superior to mere belief and when it is inherently irrational to believe in something that has not been proven.  If my memory was not reliable, I would be adrift in constant confusion and would likely die within 24 hours.  The very fact that I am not confused and disoriented by almost everything I perceive or think is infallible proof that my memory is feeding me reliable information about myself, my perceptions, and my recalled experiences.  This does not mean that my memories of past events actually correspond to past events, but it does mean that my memory feeds me true information about the placement of locations, how various objects function, and miscellaneous information about other things.


6.  Moral skepticism [6]

Left to himself or herself, a human is utterly incapable of knowing moral truths, since conscience proves nothing about morality itself beyond one's feelings.  Moral obligations do not have to exist; nothing about moral ideas makes them true by necessity as the laws of logic are.  Many people survey the subjectivity of conscience and the enormous moral disagreements people have and either conclude that morality is relative or that moral obligations do not exist.  Neither follows, and the former is logically impossible.  Moral skepticism, that morality requires a deity to serve as its metaphysical anchor, and that moral obligations would have to be revealed to humans by this deity are all that logic alone reveals about morality.  Now, there is vast amount of evidence for Christianity, and for Christian ethics by extension.  That evidence justifies commitment to abiding by Christian ethics.  If Christianity is true then we should behave as the Bible instructs us, however subjectively uncomfortable its commands might make us.  In an ultimate sense, though, no being with my limitations can prove the existence of any particular moral values or obligations.


7.  Moral superiority is metaphysical superiority [7]

If morality exists, then some actions and mindsets are objectively good and others are objectively inferior.  It follows by necessity that people who actively choose to live in a manner that reflects any moral truths are superior to those who do not, since the way they have chosen to live is intrinsically superior to that of the morally inferior.  A person who does the right thing with correct motives is metaphysically superior to a person who consistently refuses to act in a righteous manner.  Moral superiority, therefore, is metaphysical superiority.  In a world where moral obligations exist, righteous people literally have more value than people who actively are bent towards evil.  This metaphysical superiority inescapably accompanies any set of moral ideas, though it is almost never pointed out.


8.  Sexualization, no matter how explicit, is not objectification [8]

Engaging in or taking pleasure in a sexualized display of the human body (the human body is objectively nonsexual on its own, of course) inescapably involves some degree of sexuality; however, many people mistake sexualization, whether subtle or overt, for objectification.  This is a destructive confusion of concepts and terminology.  Thinking of someone in a sexual way does not reduce them to only their sexuality or treat them as if they are nothing more than their sexuality, which is the depraved, irrational nature of sexual objectification.  This holds enormous ramifications for sexual ethics, since a great many activities or mental states have been condemned by religious and secular people alike because they are falsely claimed to involve or result in objectification, and since it is often extremely controversial to refute these misconceptions.  For instance, erotic pictures and videos in themselves have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual objectification, and neither does deeply enjoying them in an explicitly sexual way.


[1].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-immateriality-of-logic.html
  B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-impossibility-of-absolutely-nothing.html

[2].  Though I address many things that can be known with absolute certainty elsewhere, in this post I talk specifically about what things can be known to exist with absolute certainty, and not just what concepts are true: https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/metaphysics-and-absolute-certainty.html

[3].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
  B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/distinguishing-dreams-from-waking.html

[4].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html

[5].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-reliability-of-memory.html

[6].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-myths-about-moral-agreement.html

[7].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/people-are-not-morally-equal.html

[8].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/05/sexualization-is-not-objectification.html
  B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-1.html

Establishing Lasting Marriages

Many Christians lament divorce, yet, in their blind zeal to pressure people into not ending marriages, do not place anywhere near enough emphasis on the correct formation of relationships.  If marital relationships will last, and, more importantly, thrive, because of anything other than mere chance, they must form and develop properly.  There are many things Christians might neglect at the beginning of a relationship--ensuring that a couple has truly compatible personalities and matching people with similar libidos are just two examples--but a key matter that they often do not place appropriate emphasis on is the overlap of worldviews.

The way that they go about encouraging marriages, ironically, shows a disregard for the goal of securing lasting, strong marriages.  If Christians are convinced that a couple "loves Jesus"--whatever the hell they mean by that in a particular instance, since it is often undefined and vague--they sometimes trivialize other things needed for an effective relationship.  What about rationality, without which one has no knowledge and no basis for any element of any worldview?  What about a thoroughly sound, Biblical ethical system that is shared between spouses, without which a couple will hold to conflicting values?  These things can get pushed aside by well-meaning but incredibly ignorant Christians.  Anyone who cares more about a relationship than about truth trivializes one of the only things that could possibly be intrinsically significant in order to pursue a sense of subjective fulfillment.

As if "loving Jesus" is all there is to the Christian worldview and reality, and as if people can love Jesus without knowing and obeying him--which requires intellectual capacity and moral character!  There is much more to life than just claiming to love God.  There is much more to a correct worldview or strong marriage than a feeling of closeness to God.  The way to establish a lasting marriage is to ensure that both partners (or more than two, since, as I have explained elsewhere, polyamory is not sinful) share the same correct values, a thoroughly rational mindset, compatible personalities, strong communication skills, and a bond of transparency.  To remove any of these things weakens a marriage dramatically, but the presence of each allows for the deepest marital intimacy.

There are many benefits to marrying someone with an identical or near-identical worldview--a shared sense of intellectual peace that results from being able to honestly talk about matters of importance, an eagerness to leave nothing about one's worldview hidden from a spouse, and greater relational unity--but no benefits whatsoever to marrying someone who does not have a shared worldview.  That such an obvious truth with such great marital consequences is so often ignored is a travesty.

The Existence Of Color

My sense of sight is assaulted by colors as long as my eyes are not closed.  Colors from an extensive, vibrant spectrum appear wherever I look, unique to each object I perceive.  Does color actually exist beyond my consciousness, or is color nothing more than a perception-based phenomenon?

That color is perceived subjectively is evident by the fact that some people disagree about what color an item is.  The same object might be perceived to have differing shades of the same color by two or more people, or might even be perceived to have two different colors entirely.  Nonetheless, it remains true that I truly do perceive different shades that I refer to as "blue," "red," "green," and so on.  That colors manifest themselves in perception is not uncertain.  What is uncertain, instead, is if experiences of color mean that color actually exists as an objective property of matter.

Perceptions of color are subjective, but this alone does not mean that an object does not objectively have specific color(s) independent of subjective observation.  But I cannot escape my perceptions of colors in order to discover if objects actually possess them.  Perception of color is a key feature of my sensory experiences, yet color may not have any mind-independent existence.  Color might not exist in any form outside of visual perceptions; the material world could be entirely absent of the distinct colors my sense of sight reports to my mind.

It is entirely possible that there are no colors outside of my consciousness, or at least that all existing material objects display a single universal color.  Though they could be true, these possibilities are impossible to verify or falsify, since doing do would require a different metaphysical and epistemological status than the one I presently have.

The presence of color still haunts my everyday experiences, persisting despite its enigmatic nature.  In this regard it is like many other epistemological issues.  Limitations do not remove aspects of reality from a state of being true, but they do affect which aspects of reality I can know.

Quantum Physics And Logic

My consciousness is confined to a single location because my body can only occupy one spatial area at a time.  Is the same spatial limitation of my body also a limitation for matter in the subatomic world, the subject of study in quantum physics?  Since the observation of quantum particles is far removed from the scope of ordinary human experiences, most people would not be able to actually know if quantum particles truly do occupy two locations at once.  At most they could accept the words of scientists who have allegedly observed quantum events, but this would be fallacious.  However, no one needs to be a scientists on any level to grasp logic and demonstrate that nothing about the quantum world could violate logic--as some claim is the case with reported particle activity.

Nothing about quantum physics violates logic,
or else the quantum realm could not exist, since
contradictions cannot exist.

A particle cannot exist in some form and not exist in any form at all simultaneously.  A particle cannot occupy only one space and only another space simultaneously.  However, there is no logical fact necessitating that a particle must be confined to a single spatial location at once.  Only existing exclusively in a single location and existing exclusively in another location is impossible.  The difference between these things is stark, clear, and easily proven.

That the quantum world behaves differently than the matter we directly perceive, in actuality, should not surprise rationalists at all, since 1) there is nothing necessary about any set of scientific laws (they could all change or could have been different) and 2) believing that the quantum level must resemble "normal" natural phenomena commits the fallacy of composition.  Quantum physics might be an additional killing blow to scientific uniformitarianism--the idea that scientific laws are or must be uniform across all of time and space, an idea that logic alone undermines--but to conclude that it defies logic reveals a deep ignorance of both logic and quantum physics.  Nothing can be incompatible with logic, or else that thing would not be a component of reality.

A thing, immaterial or material, can only be what it is.  If a particle is not what it is, then it is something else: but then that something else is what it is!  The laws of logic cannot be violated because they cannot be false.  If a particle exists, then it cannot simultaneously not exist.  It will always follow from the existence of a single particle, however small, that matter exists.  But a particle could certainly, at least in a hypothetical sense, be in two places at once.

Why, then, do people think it is logically impossible for a subatomic particle to appear in multiple spatial areas?  A simple examination of the concept proves that there is nothing impossible about this at all, whereas it is objectively impossible for a particle to both exist and not exist simultaneously.  This involves contradiction; the former does not.  Some people have at tendency to label foreign ideas or facts "irrational," despite the stupidity of doing so.  Nothing is or can be irrational.  Phenomena in the natural world, contrarily, could take any form that is not logically impossible, even if it means particles at the subatomic level existing in multiple locations at once.

Science And The External World

Science, by its very nature, can only deal with repeatable observations of the natural world: the external world of matter outside of my mind.  A significant issue arises when one tries to use science to verify the existence of the external world, however.  To even conduct scientific experiments to begin with, there must already be an external world to observe.  Knowledge that an external world exists must by necessity precede application of the scientific method, or at least someone must act as if there is one to conduct science.

The scientific method cannot demonstrate that the external world exists, much less that my perceptions of the external world represent the world of matter as it actually is.  The limitations of the scientific method are numerous, severe, and foundational.  Does this mean we are without ability to verify the very existence of an external world?  No, this is not the case.  The irrational folly of scientism is not and cannot be our epistemic savior here, or, indeed, anywhere else.

Logic and immediate experience with my sense of touch, not a scientific experiment, prove to me that something physical exists outside of my body.  My sense of touch registers physical sensations, and logic proves that I cannot experience physical sensations apart from the existence of some sort of matter.  It follows, necessarily, that wherever I experience physical sensations there is matter outside of my consciousness.  It is this fact that enables me to identify when I am awake and not dreaming, for dreams themselves can only involve the interior of my consciousness [1].  Since this knowledge of the external world’s existence is more foundational than the limited knowledge obtainable through the scientific method, since the latter rests completely upon the former, without it the entirety of science is an exercise in futility.

Science can be subjectively fascinating, and we can certainly appreciate the technological results it affords us.  But does it--can it--tell us anything at all about reality besides the fact that in the present we perceive certain phenomena in the natural world?  No.  It cannot even prove that the external world exists!  Many western delusions would vanish if this truth was acknowledged more universally.

Logic (and its numeric extension mathematics) and introspection are beyond the borders of science, as are linguistics, history, ethics, aesthetics, and much of metaphysics and theology.  It is not that these things are currently beyond the reach of science but will one day be illuminated by the scientific method.  Many of them, including the metaphysics of the external world, are inherently outside of science and must be verified using other methods.  There will never be a day when the scientific method itself can verify the existence of matter; the existence of matter is a prerequisite to using the scientific method.


[1].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
  B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/distinguishing-dreams-from-waking.html