Anyone who cares about truth is likely to experience an existential crisis at some point in their life. During this period of doubt and agony, a person questions the significance of their existence and the extent of human knowledge. They perhaps wrestle with whether or not their life is even worth continuing. As this form of crisis persists for days, and then weeks, and then months, the suffering person inwardly yearns for release from the terrors it brings. Though there is not always much that a person can do to shorten the length of an existential crisis, there are at least two things they can do to make the time in the crisis more bearable.
Avoiding harsh epistemological and metaphysical truths might seem like it will ease the suffering, but dishonesty can prove far more dissatisfying than intellectual honesty. The very nature of an existential crisis is derived from a desperate desire for truth. Attractive deceptions might bring arbitrary comfort, but they so easily fail to satisfy the intense desire for certainty that is at the heart of an existential crisis. Without a longing for certainty, the scope of an existential crisis would be far smaller, and the psychological impact on one's life would not be as severe.
The difficulty of an existential crisis is amplified by the awareness
that, even if other people in general were equally concerned with matters of truth,
they are incapable of obtaining any metaphysical knowledge that is
inaccessible to you. Beings with the same epistemological limitations
might exercise their intellects to wildly varying degrees, but the
boundaries around their capacities for knowledge are identical. It is
correct that even the truths that have been overlooked by almost
every philosopher from human history [1] are not beyond the hypothetical grasp of
the average person; however, no human can legitimately claim an
epistemological advantage over what other humans are capable of.
Do the collective limitations of humanity mean that other people are of no assistance during an existential crisis? Certainly not! In addition to intellectual honesty, a close friendship (or relationship with a significant other) can be one of the most refreshing things about existence during an existential crisis, as is true during other periods of great difficulty. Conversing with a friend in an intellectually sound and emotionally transparent way is one of the healthiest things one can do in the midst of any difficulty. This will not only provide an avenue for emotional release, but will also grant a strength that might only be found in sociality.
I am not unfamiliar with the anguish of an existential crisis. I have despised my epistemic limitations to the point of almost wanting to die in order to be rid of them. I have felt the desperation of ignorance. Though it was reason itself that brought me to the point of existential terror, I would likely not have survived the pain without the stability of rationalism--and that of my closest friendship. Thankfully, great personal progress can be made amidst the harshest of trials: my commitment to Christianity was solidified and deepened because of the ordeal. Because of it, I can relate to a broader range of human experiences, connect with those in the midst of their own crises, and enjoy the benefits of existential resolution.
Potential peace, certainty, and fulfillment wait on the other side of an existential crisis. The process of surviving one might not be pleasurable, but the aftermath can certainly be one of the greatest times of intellectual and emotional flourishing a person will ever experience. Surviving one is possible. Enduring the most difficult plights is at its most achievable when one looks to the future, beyond the pains of the present moment. What a person expects from the future can determine a significant amount of their resolve, and their worldview inevitably shapes their expectations. The importance of a rational worldview is only clarified by suffering.
[1]. For a handful of examples, see here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-extent-of-absolute-certainty.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Erotic Media And Arousal Disorders
Even if someone does not have misguided moral objections to the basic use of erotic media, they might still discourage use of such media on the grounds that it destroys the ability of a person's body to become sexually aroused in its absence. This thinking is rooted in fear inspired by a myth. I have addressed the fact that there is nothing Biblically sinful about the creation or consumption of certain kinds of erotic media elsewhere [1], so the emphasis here is not on the Biblical ethics of the issue, but on the myth that this media has some inevitable causal relationship with arousal disorders. This idea persists in both religious and secular minds, meaning it is fairly entrenched in public consciousness.
First, I need to address the irrational tendency for problems with male arousal to be taken more seriously than those of women. Women, of course, can suffer from physiological arousal disorders, but the sexuality of women does not receive the same amount of attention as the sexuality of men does. Furthermore, women have an anatomical component that is somewhat analogous to the male penis: the clitoris. Both the clitoris and the penis can become erect randomly or due to various thoughts, sensations, or external stimuli. Therefore, both men and women can have problems experiencing erections of the penis and clitoris respectively. Everything I write here about arousal dysfunctions applies to both genders, since both can suffer from the same general problem despite the lack of awareness of how women might experience it.
Second, it needs to be emphasized that whether or not masturbation or erotic media cause arousal problems is completely irrelevant to whether using or masturbating to erotic media is immoral. The subject of erectile issues is not a moral one. Bringing the matter up as if it establishes that enjoying sexually explicit literature, images, or videos is wrong amounts to a desperate, uninformed attempt to persuade people that there is something depraved about erotic media. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing sinful about consuming, enjoying, or masturbating to sexual material, given that the material does not promote sexual immorality (again, see [1]).
Of course, if an issue with physical arousal does hypothetically arise, it can interfere with the quality of sexual expression in a relationship. Husbands and wives can be deprived of sexual satisfaction as a result of the inability of their spouses to experience or sustain physical arousal. Even if someone is single, they might still want to keep the functionality of their genitals intact for the sake of a future relationship, or even just to ensure future self-pleasuring. These things do need to be considered. Nevertheless, whether a person wants to engage in a nonsinful activity that allegedly or actually might lead to inconvenient results like arousal disorders is ultimately up to each individual and them alone. This is further cemented by the fact that masturbation and the use of erotic media do not necessarily produce arousal disorders.
Men and women can masturbate each day for years without ever dealing with any sort of difficulties in stimulating their genitals. Even if this masturbation is usually connected with the viewing of sexual videos or images, their hands or thoughts alone might be enough to arouse their bodies and keep them aroused for prolonged periods of time. Might such a lifestyle lead to the narrowing of the range of things that can trigger bodily arousal? Perhaps in the case of some individuals. This routine is by no means an inevitable cause of arousal dysfunctions, though. A person might never masturbate and still have arousal difficulties, and another person might masturbate regularly to particular erotic stimuli without physiological consequence.
This fact does not stop people from spreading illogical and pseudoscientific nonsense to the contrary. Some people might simply dislike erotic media and masturbation, and, instead of recognizing that this dislike is nothing but a subjective preference, try to come up with some argument for why everyone else should dislike them as well. The reasons that people produce, of course, are only fallacies. Logic and science erode the myth of a general causal relationship between self-stimulation accompanied by the viewing of sexual material and problems with becoming aroused. Even if such problems do chronologically follow use of erotic media, other factors, like general anxiety or guilt over the issue of erotic media as a whole, might be the source.
There is no need to avoid masturbation, even masturbation aided by erotic media, on the grounds that it will diminish one's capacity for bodily arousal. People are certainly able to regularly include it in their lifestyles and never suffer from arousal problems. In fact, couples might find that it facilitates their sexual bonding by providing additional stimulation whenever the need or desire arises. Whether used for solitary purposes or for foreplay with a spouse, erotica is a tool that can be used to celebrate arousal instead of hinder it.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-1.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-2_19.html
First, I need to address the irrational tendency for problems with male arousal to be taken more seriously than those of women. Women, of course, can suffer from physiological arousal disorders, but the sexuality of women does not receive the same amount of attention as the sexuality of men does. Furthermore, women have an anatomical component that is somewhat analogous to the male penis: the clitoris. Both the clitoris and the penis can become erect randomly or due to various thoughts, sensations, or external stimuli. Therefore, both men and women can have problems experiencing erections of the penis and clitoris respectively. Everything I write here about arousal dysfunctions applies to both genders, since both can suffer from the same general problem despite the lack of awareness of how women might experience it.
Second, it needs to be emphasized that whether or not masturbation or erotic media cause arousal problems is completely irrelevant to whether using or masturbating to erotic media is immoral. The subject of erectile issues is not a moral one. Bringing the matter up as if it establishes that enjoying sexually explicit literature, images, or videos is wrong amounts to a desperate, uninformed attempt to persuade people that there is something depraved about erotic media. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing sinful about consuming, enjoying, or masturbating to sexual material, given that the material does not promote sexual immorality (again, see [1]).
Of course, if an issue with physical arousal does hypothetically arise, it can interfere with the quality of sexual expression in a relationship. Husbands and wives can be deprived of sexual satisfaction as a result of the inability of their spouses to experience or sustain physical arousal. Even if someone is single, they might still want to keep the functionality of their genitals intact for the sake of a future relationship, or even just to ensure future self-pleasuring. These things do need to be considered. Nevertheless, whether a person wants to engage in a nonsinful activity that allegedly or actually might lead to inconvenient results like arousal disorders is ultimately up to each individual and them alone. This is further cemented by the fact that masturbation and the use of erotic media do not necessarily produce arousal disorders.
Men and women can masturbate each day for years without ever dealing with any sort of difficulties in stimulating their genitals. Even if this masturbation is usually connected with the viewing of sexual videos or images, their hands or thoughts alone might be enough to arouse their bodies and keep them aroused for prolonged periods of time. Might such a lifestyle lead to the narrowing of the range of things that can trigger bodily arousal? Perhaps in the case of some individuals. This routine is by no means an inevitable cause of arousal dysfunctions, though. A person might never masturbate and still have arousal difficulties, and another person might masturbate regularly to particular erotic stimuli without physiological consequence.
This fact does not stop people from spreading illogical and pseudoscientific nonsense to the contrary. Some people might simply dislike erotic media and masturbation, and, instead of recognizing that this dislike is nothing but a subjective preference, try to come up with some argument for why everyone else should dislike them as well. The reasons that people produce, of course, are only fallacies. Logic and science erode the myth of a general causal relationship between self-stimulation accompanied by the viewing of sexual material and problems with becoming aroused. Even if such problems do chronologically follow use of erotic media, other factors, like general anxiety or guilt over the issue of erotic media as a whole, might be the source.
There is no need to avoid masturbation, even masturbation aided by erotic media, on the grounds that it will diminish one's capacity for bodily arousal. People are certainly able to regularly include it in their lifestyles and never suffer from arousal problems. In fact, couples might find that it facilitates their sexual bonding by providing additional stimulation whenever the need or desire arises. Whether used for solitary purposes or for foreplay with a spouse, erotica is a tool that can be used to celebrate arousal instead of hinder it.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-1.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-2_19.html
Monday, November 26, 2018
A Refutation Of Sola Scriptura
The evangelical explanations of sola scriptura hold a powerful influence over the minds of many. This idea that the Bible towers over every other epistemological tool, including the laws of logic, is a philosophical abomination. In its worst manifestations, this idea holds that the Bible is necessary for all knowledge, despite the fact that this position is utterly self-refuting, false to the point of disproving itself.
I understand that many do not mean by this phrase that the Bible grounds absolutely all knowledge. However, they do at least mean by it that anything which contradicts the Bible must be false, or that the Bible presides over reason. It is impossible for the Bible to be the supreme epistemological tool due to the fact that the laws of logic intrinsically hold this status. Additionally, with only a few significant exceptions that I will address below, there is no category of knowledge which the Bible touches upon that only the Bible is capable of illuminating. I can already anticipate the straw man fallacies that I would receive if I broached this matter with the average evangelical, who would likely misjudge me to be on the brink of declaring that the Bible is untrue, when I am arguing for no such thing!
If the Bible contradicted itself or any other part of reality to even a slight degree, the Bible could not be true, and this alone proves that the Bible cannot be what all other things are measured against, as it itself must be measured against reason. Reason is the only self-verifying, universal epistemic tool. To deny it, one must use it; the only way it can be false is if it is true. One must grasp the first principles of reason to have even a single intelligible experience of any sort, and, ironically, one must use deductive reasoning to exegete any text. Rationalism, not sola scripture epistemology, conforms to the whole of reality. To even approach the Bible and understand it soundly, one must examine its contents in a rationalistic manner--by not assuming conclusions about the text beforehand and by considering all of the possible options which follow from a given statement.
Even a sola scriptura epistemologist must borrow from rationalism to simply read the Bible in the first place. How contrary this is to the presuppositionalist delusion that rationalism borrows from Christian theism! In fact, a hint of presuppostionalism is at the core of every evangelical proclamation of "sola scriptura" that I have heard, though not every user of the phrase would identify as a presuppositionalist. Logic exists by strictly independent necessity in the absence of everything else, whereas even God himself could not only hypothetically cease to exist [1], but also cannot exist apart from the laws of logic, as he would otherwise not be capable of even being what he is (A is A is a necessary truth that does not depend on God's existence). Logic's metaphysical existence and epistemological dominance are necessary, but the very existence of God is not, for God could vanish, removing creation from existence in the process. But logic is not a created thing, since it cannot not exist.
Logic, introspection, and sensory perceptions are all sources of knowledge that have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible or, indeed, with any divine revelation. First principles (the laws of logic), deductive reasoning, the existence of my consciousness, information gained through introspection, and the existence of my sensory perceptions cannot be illusions. In the same way, the existence of truth, space, and a physical body that houses my consciousness [2] cannot be illusions. It is impossible for me to derive knowledge of these things from the Bible, since I must already exist, grasp the external laws of logic, and use my senses to even pick up a Bible from a spatial location in the material world and begin reading it.
A legion of epistemological limitations prevent me from obtaining various articles of knowledge: I am trapped in the present moment, I cannot prove that my memories correspond to actual past events, I cannot prove that the external world is exactly as I perceive it to be, I am restricted to a particular spatial area by my body, and I cannot escape my body to know what existence as only a consciousness is like. But, due to the tools of logic and introspection, I do know many things with absolute certainty [3]. The Bible is not among these epistemic tools. The Bible is not and cannot be at the core of epistemology, nor can its contents be verified completely.
Furthermore, the Bible is not self-evidently true: only a very small handful of truths are. In fact, the vast majority of its contents, like the vast majority of the content in almost every other writing, cannot be proven in full. The idea that the Bible alone is all that is needed for epistemology is mistaken, self-refuting, and incapable of reflecting reality. In the same way that scientism and sensory empiricism inherently contradict themselves and thus disqualify themselves from being true, sola scriptura epistemology is inescapably, viciously self-refuting. It does not and cannot meet its own standard. If the Bible did say that no knowledge about anything can be obtained apart from it--not from logic, introspection, or the senses--then it would follow by necessity that the Bible is false.
The only categorical matters that the Bible alone can reveal knowledge about are moral truths (Romans 7:7), the personal nature of Yahweh (and by extension the nature of other spiritual beings the Bible describes, like angels and demons), and Christian soteriology. Since one cannot know facts about the nature of objective values by reflecting on one's conscience, as conscience can only inform a being about its own subjective moral emotions, one must have access to the Bible in order to know what values the Christian worldview puts forth. Additionally, since it is impossible for a human to know the character of other minds, the Bible is necessary for knowledge of the personal attributes of Christianity's deity, as well as the knowledge of Christianity's model of salvation. These areas are the only ones where a Christian can legitimately invoke something like sola scriptura, and even then they would still have to rely on reason.
Because nothing in the metaphysics and ethics of the Bible contradicts itself, logical truths, or other external facets of reality, rationalism does not refute the Bible. It ultimately reveals that many aspects of Christianity--like its acknowledgment that God did not create necessary existents like logic and space, its doctrine of substance dualism, and its admission that an uncaused cause of the universe exists--are in perfect alignment with miscellaneous truths that reason exposes. Instead of accepting these facts and rejecting the common ideas behind the phrase "sola scriptura," many evangelicals cling to an impossible framework because it affords them the seeming safety of tradition.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-extent-of-absolute-certainty.html
I understand that many do not mean by this phrase that the Bible grounds absolutely all knowledge. However, they do at least mean by it that anything which contradicts the Bible must be false, or that the Bible presides over reason. It is impossible for the Bible to be the supreme epistemological tool due to the fact that the laws of logic intrinsically hold this status. Additionally, with only a few significant exceptions that I will address below, there is no category of knowledge which the Bible touches upon that only the Bible is capable of illuminating. I can already anticipate the straw man fallacies that I would receive if I broached this matter with the average evangelical, who would likely misjudge me to be on the brink of declaring that the Bible is untrue, when I am arguing for no such thing!
If the Bible contradicted itself or any other part of reality to even a slight degree, the Bible could not be true, and this alone proves that the Bible cannot be what all other things are measured against, as it itself must be measured against reason. Reason is the only self-verifying, universal epistemic tool. To deny it, one must use it; the only way it can be false is if it is true. One must grasp the first principles of reason to have even a single intelligible experience of any sort, and, ironically, one must use deductive reasoning to exegete any text. Rationalism, not sola scripture epistemology, conforms to the whole of reality. To even approach the Bible and understand it soundly, one must examine its contents in a rationalistic manner--by not assuming conclusions about the text beforehand and by considering all of the possible options which follow from a given statement.
Even a sola scriptura epistemologist must borrow from rationalism to simply read the Bible in the first place. How contrary this is to the presuppositionalist delusion that rationalism borrows from Christian theism! In fact, a hint of presuppostionalism is at the core of every evangelical proclamation of "sola scriptura" that I have heard, though not every user of the phrase would identify as a presuppositionalist. Logic exists by strictly independent necessity in the absence of everything else, whereas even God himself could not only hypothetically cease to exist [1], but also cannot exist apart from the laws of logic, as he would otherwise not be capable of even being what he is (A is A is a necessary truth that does not depend on God's existence). Logic's metaphysical existence and epistemological dominance are necessary, but the very existence of God is not, for God could vanish, removing creation from existence in the process. But logic is not a created thing, since it cannot not exist.
Logic, introspection, and sensory perceptions are all sources of knowledge that have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible or, indeed, with any divine revelation. First principles (the laws of logic), deductive reasoning, the existence of my consciousness, information gained through introspection, and the existence of my sensory perceptions cannot be illusions. In the same way, the existence of truth, space, and a physical body that houses my consciousness [2] cannot be illusions. It is impossible for me to derive knowledge of these things from the Bible, since I must already exist, grasp the external laws of logic, and use my senses to even pick up a Bible from a spatial location in the material world and begin reading it.
A legion of epistemological limitations prevent me from obtaining various articles of knowledge: I am trapped in the present moment, I cannot prove that my memories correspond to actual past events, I cannot prove that the external world is exactly as I perceive it to be, I am restricted to a particular spatial area by my body, and I cannot escape my body to know what existence as only a consciousness is like. But, due to the tools of logic and introspection, I do know many things with absolute certainty [3]. The Bible is not among these epistemic tools. The Bible is not and cannot be at the core of epistemology, nor can its contents be verified completely.
Furthermore, the Bible is not self-evidently true: only a very small handful of truths are. In fact, the vast majority of its contents, like the vast majority of the content in almost every other writing, cannot be proven in full. The idea that the Bible alone is all that is needed for epistemology is mistaken, self-refuting, and incapable of reflecting reality. In the same way that scientism and sensory empiricism inherently contradict themselves and thus disqualify themselves from being true, sola scriptura epistemology is inescapably, viciously self-refuting. It does not and cannot meet its own standard. If the Bible did say that no knowledge about anything can be obtained apart from it--not from logic, introspection, or the senses--then it would follow by necessity that the Bible is false.
The only categorical matters that the Bible alone can reveal knowledge about are moral truths (Romans 7:7), the personal nature of Yahweh (and by extension the nature of other spiritual beings the Bible describes, like angels and demons), and Christian soteriology. Since one cannot know facts about the nature of objective values by reflecting on one's conscience, as conscience can only inform a being about its own subjective moral emotions, one must have access to the Bible in order to know what values the Christian worldview puts forth. Additionally, since it is impossible for a human to know the character of other minds, the Bible is necessary for knowledge of the personal attributes of Christianity's deity, as well as the knowledge of Christianity's model of salvation. These areas are the only ones where a Christian can legitimately invoke something like sola scriptura, and even then they would still have to rely on reason.
Because nothing in the metaphysics and ethics of the Bible contradicts itself, logical truths, or other external facets of reality, rationalism does not refute the Bible. It ultimately reveals that many aspects of Christianity--like its acknowledgment that God did not create necessary existents like logic and space, its doctrine of substance dualism, and its admission that an uncaused cause of the universe exists--are in perfect alignment with miscellaneous truths that reason exposes. Instead of accepting these facts and rejecting the common ideas behind the phrase "sola scriptura," many evangelicals cling to an impossible framework because it affords them the seeming safety of tradition.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-extent-of-absolute-certainty.html
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Why Pray?
If God already knows a person's mind, why should he or she pray? While this question by no means poses a philosophical problem for Christianity, for Christians, it is a question that might arise from time to time. There is no internal contradiction in the answer to this inquiry, and the answer can be refreshing in the context of a personal commitment to Christianity, as opposed to only in the context of exploring philosophical matters. Prayer's primary function is to strengthen or celebrate a restored relationship between humans and God [1]. When this fact is recognized, the nature of prayer becomes quite evident: its main benefits have nothing to do with whether or not God sees into human minds.
Just as prayer is not about manipulating God into a certain reaction or demanding supernatural demonstrations from him, prayer is not about giving information about oneself to God that he would otherwise be incapable of knowing. Should one share one's thoughts with God anyway? Since prayer is ultimately about emphasizing a relationship with God, as well as developing or living out one's moral character, the fact that one party already knows the other's mind does not interfere with the objective of prayer; in fact, this makes the relational intimacy deeper, albeit mostly on one side.
Friends might revisit things they have already discussed before, perhaps by retelling an old story that is familiar to both parties. I have never heard of a person questioning if someone should engage in any human conversation at all unless there is something entirely unknown to one party or the other that needs to be discussed. Yet some might trivialize the notion of prayer on such grounds. If people can speak about familiar, previously disclosed matters with other people, then they can certainly do the same in their relationships with God.
There is great benefit that can be found in prayer despite the fact that God knows the minds of each individual beforehand (Psalm 139:2). Solidifying and enjoying intimacy with God are at the foundation of sincere prayer, and anything more is only a favorable addition. We should not pray for the sake of merely aiming to coax God into altering some life circumstance, as if he is a being that humans can manipulate; we have no basis for expecting divine intervention in our lives simply because we pray. However, we may find that life circumstances do change after periods of intense prayer. Is this necessarily because of direct activity on the part of God? No, but prayer is beneficial regardless of outcomes.
Just as prayer is not about manipulating God into a certain reaction or demanding supernatural demonstrations from him, prayer is not about giving information about oneself to God that he would otherwise be incapable of knowing. Should one share one's thoughts with God anyway? Since prayer is ultimately about emphasizing a relationship with God, as well as developing or living out one's moral character, the fact that one party already knows the other's mind does not interfere with the objective of prayer; in fact, this makes the relational intimacy deeper, albeit mostly on one side.
Friends might revisit things they have already discussed before, perhaps by retelling an old story that is familiar to both parties. I have never heard of a person questioning if someone should engage in any human conversation at all unless there is something entirely unknown to one party or the other that needs to be discussed. Yet some might trivialize the notion of prayer on such grounds. If people can speak about familiar, previously disclosed matters with other people, then they can certainly do the same in their relationships with God.
There is great benefit that can be found in prayer despite the fact that God knows the minds of each individual beforehand (Psalm 139:2). Solidifying and enjoying intimacy with God are at the foundation of sincere prayer, and anything more is only a favorable addition. We should not pray for the sake of merely aiming to coax God into altering some life circumstance, as if he is a being that humans can manipulate; we have no basis for expecting divine intervention in our lives simply because we pray. However, we may find that life circumstances do change after periods of intense prayer. Is this necessarily because of direct activity on the part of God? No, but prayer is beneficial regardless of outcomes.
Friday, November 23, 2018
The Male Body
There is not a single facet of human life that has not been affected by gender stereotypes, assumptions, and social cues. The intellectual, academic, emotional, sexual, and social lives of men and women have been coerced and manipulated by cultural expectations for generations. Fortunately, Western civilization has shed a great deal of its former sexist nonsense. There remain aspects of the lives of men and women that are not emphasized, even by those who otherwise fight against gender-based discrimination and conditioning. In the case of men, one such aspect is the male desire to be attractive and to be considered attractive by others. Whereas female beauty is emphasized to the point of blatant superficiality, male beauty is often ignored, trivialized, or denied.
Men and women alike are expected to notice and compliment the appearances of women, but the same societal expectations are not directed towards men. Furthermore, men are practically instructed by social cues to find women to be generally attractive. In romantic relationships, it is expected that they will think that being aesthetically and sexually attracted to their partner is of extreme importance, but they are not expected to want this attraction to be reciprocated. Women allegedly tend to possess an inherent beauty simply by virtue of being female, and men are supposedly not concerned with their appearances in the way that women "should" be. When men care about being attractive and being perceived as attractive, only relatively minor societal factors encourage them.
If a woman compliments the appearance of another woman, she is acting exactly as she is "supposed" to, despite the utter superficiality that the practice has collapsed into. However, if a man compliments the appearance of another man, he might be suspected of harboring homosexual feelings, and the ordeal is considered humorous by many. This double standard helps preserve a status quo where men are viewed as somewhat abnormal for aesthetically appreciating the bodies of other men. In turn, this reinforces the perception that men are largely unconcerned with their looks. It also means that men do not necessarily feel attractive. I, however, want to have a significant other who is attracted to not only my intellect and personality, but also to my body. Societal variables encourage men to not vocalize such desires.
The male body, in contemporary American culture, is often regarded as comedic or utilitarian--a thing that is not associated with beauty or sensuality, but with functionality. Every time that people laugh at or makes demeaning jokes about men's bodies, men might internalize the fallacious notion that their bodies are mediocre or unappealing things, and this can produce discontentment and frustration. But this position is far from historically normal. Ancient Greece held to an inverted version of the American stance on the matter, viewing the male body as the pinnacle of physical beauty, as evidenced by the large number of Greek statues portraying the male form. It is not as if American ideas about the male and female hodies are universal across time and geography. While some Americans might be visibly puzzled at the reversed aesthetic preferences of the Greeks, the Greeks would probably be quite confused by American emphasis on the female body.
Contradicting the cultural assumptions of modern America, the Bible is explicit about referring to certain men, such as Joseph, David, and Absalom, as being physically attractive [1]. It also contradicts the ancient Greek perception of the human body, calling certain women like Abigail, Bathsheba, and Rachel physically attractive. The Bible does not treat the beauty of one gender as if it is greater than that of the other. Instead, it describes various men and women alike as having beautiful bodies. The Old Testament in particular acknowledges that both men and women have bodies, and that the human body--not just the female form--is good (Genesis 1:31).
The truth is that the sexist aesthetic ideas of both present America and ancient Greece are purely based on circular reasoning, non sequiturs, and red herrings. Some men are attractive, and some women are too; neither gender has a monopoly on beauty. Just as it can be deeply liberating for women to affirm that they are far more than just attractive bodies, it can be deeply liberating for men to affirm their physicality and capacity for aesthetic or sexual appeal. After all, individual men will find that few will affirm these things on their behalf. Denial or ignorance of a person's longing to be aesthetically admired does not mean it does not exist. Female and male beauty need to be celebrated. When the beauty of one gender is trivialized or overemphasized, both genders suffer.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-beauty-of-both-genders.html
Men and women alike are expected to notice and compliment the appearances of women, but the same societal expectations are not directed towards men. Furthermore, men are practically instructed by social cues to find women to be generally attractive. In romantic relationships, it is expected that they will think that being aesthetically and sexually attracted to their partner is of extreme importance, but they are not expected to want this attraction to be reciprocated. Women allegedly tend to possess an inherent beauty simply by virtue of being female, and men are supposedly not concerned with their appearances in the way that women "should" be. When men care about being attractive and being perceived as attractive, only relatively minor societal factors encourage them.
 |
| Men can desire to be and feel attractive, just like women can. |
The male body, in contemporary American culture, is often regarded as comedic or utilitarian--a thing that is not associated with beauty or sensuality, but with functionality. Every time that people laugh at or makes demeaning jokes about men's bodies, men might internalize the fallacious notion that their bodies are mediocre or unappealing things, and this can produce discontentment and frustration. But this position is far from historically normal. Ancient Greece held to an inverted version of the American stance on the matter, viewing the male body as the pinnacle of physical beauty, as evidenced by the large number of Greek statues portraying the male form. It is not as if American ideas about the male and female hodies are universal across time and geography. While some Americans might be visibly puzzled at the reversed aesthetic preferences of the Greeks, the Greeks would probably be quite confused by American emphasis on the female body.
Contradicting the cultural assumptions of modern America, the Bible is explicit about referring to certain men, such as Joseph, David, and Absalom, as being physically attractive [1]. It also contradicts the ancient Greek perception of the human body, calling certain women like Abigail, Bathsheba, and Rachel physically attractive. The Bible does not treat the beauty of one gender as if it is greater than that of the other. Instead, it describes various men and women alike as having beautiful bodies. The Old Testament in particular acknowledges that both men and women have bodies, and that the human body--not just the female form--is good (Genesis 1:31).
The truth is that the sexist aesthetic ideas of both present America and ancient Greece are purely based on circular reasoning, non sequiturs, and red herrings. Some men are attractive, and some women are too; neither gender has a monopoly on beauty. Just as it can be deeply liberating for women to affirm that they are far more than just attractive bodies, it can be deeply liberating for men to affirm their physicality and capacity for aesthetic or sexual appeal. After all, individual men will find that few will affirm these things on their behalf. Denial or ignorance of a person's longing to be aesthetically admired does not mean it does not exist. Female and male beauty need to be celebrated. When the beauty of one gender is trivialized or overemphasized, both genders suffer.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-beauty-of-both-genders.html
Time Can Only Flow Unilaterally
A mistaken or incomplete understanding of time can have serious consequences for one's grasp of metaphysics. There is no shortage of inane beliefs about time, including the delusions holding that time itself is a construct (as opposed to arbitrary human means of measuring time), that an infinite past is possible [1], or that the present moment is the only time that exists [2]. Since I have addressed each of these errors separately, there is need to dissect a different one: the idea that time flows in more than one direction at once.
The bilateral notion of time entails that past moments somehow flow into the future just like future moments flow into the past. Below are visualizations of two unilateral concepts of time, as well as the bilateral concept of time:
Past ↽ Future
Past ⇀ Future
Past ⇌ Future
The past precedes the future by necessity, but this does not mean that the past flows into the future. The present moment is like a rock in a flowing river. As long as time exists, the present moment is constant, since there would always have to be a present moment if any duration of time is in existence. But the present moment does not advance--it is always the present, always locked in place. Just like water from ahead of the rock flows past it, future moments become past moments once they become present moments and elapse. The parts of a river closest to the rock have to flow past the rock before the following parts can do so. This is analogous to what I mean when I refer to the "unilateral flow" of time from the future into the past, with a subsequent future moment replacing an elapsed moment as the present in a specific sequence. While past events precede future events, it is not also true that the past flows into the future in the way that future moments literally flow into the past.
If someone says that time flows from past to future, all that they are doing is calling the past the future and the future the past whenever they claim that the past flows into the future. Conceptually, what they describe still, in any given set of moments, reduces down to the (correct) model of time where future moments become the present, and present moments elapse and go into the past. The only difference lies in the terms they use. There is still a present moment, and time flows inflexibly from one side of the present moment to the other. There is no such thing as a bilateral flow of time because the bilateral model has the same problems as the concept shown in the middle illustration above. Since the past cannot flow into the future, it is impossible for both the past and the future flow into each other, just as a river does not flow in opposing directions simultaneously.
Since any bilateral model of time reduces down to the unilateral model when deconstructed, the unilateral model is the only one that can correct. There are claims about time that are even more pathetic than those of the bilateral model, though! Some might even go so far as to suggest that there is no ultimate metaphysical distinction between the past, present, and future at all, treating all moments of time as one singular thing. The very fact that a particular moment ceases to be the present as soon as I reflect on it disproves this in full. If all moments of time are the same moment, then it would be impossible to distinguish between one moment and another. The fact that I can distinguish them is the start of establishing the unilateral flow of time.
Sometimes those who are ignorant of rationalism will do their best to articulate utter bullshit in the hopes that they will come across as sophisticated, intelligent people. This seems to be the case when people make many of the asinine comments about time that tend to be treated as deep or enigmatic. Although some regard is as indecipherable, time isn't a particularly complex existent. It exists. It is unilateral in its flow. Ironically, it doesn't require an extraordinary amount of time to realize these truths.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/countable-infinities.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-logic-of-time-travel-part-3.html
The bilateral notion of time entails that past moments somehow flow into the future just like future moments flow into the past. Below are visualizations of two unilateral concepts of time, as well as the bilateral concept of time:
Past ↽ Future
Past ⇀ Future
Past ⇌ Future
The past precedes the future by necessity, but this does not mean that the past flows into the future. The present moment is like a rock in a flowing river. As long as time exists, the present moment is constant, since there would always have to be a present moment if any duration of time is in existence. But the present moment does not advance--it is always the present, always locked in place. Just like water from ahead of the rock flows past it, future moments become past moments once they become present moments and elapse. The parts of a river closest to the rock have to flow past the rock before the following parts can do so. This is analogous to what I mean when I refer to the "unilateral flow" of time from the future into the past, with a subsequent future moment replacing an elapsed moment as the present in a specific sequence. While past events precede future events, it is not also true that the past flows into the future in the way that future moments literally flow into the past.
If someone says that time flows from past to future, all that they are doing is calling the past the future and the future the past whenever they claim that the past flows into the future. Conceptually, what they describe still, in any given set of moments, reduces down to the (correct) model of time where future moments become the present, and present moments elapse and go into the past. The only difference lies in the terms they use. There is still a present moment, and time flows inflexibly from one side of the present moment to the other. There is no such thing as a bilateral flow of time because the bilateral model has the same problems as the concept shown in the middle illustration above. Since the past cannot flow into the future, it is impossible for both the past and the future flow into each other, just as a river does not flow in opposing directions simultaneously.
Since any bilateral model of time reduces down to the unilateral model when deconstructed, the unilateral model is the only one that can correct. There are claims about time that are even more pathetic than those of the bilateral model, though! Some might even go so far as to suggest that there is no ultimate metaphysical distinction between the past, present, and future at all, treating all moments of time as one singular thing. The very fact that a particular moment ceases to be the present as soon as I reflect on it disproves this in full. If all moments of time are the same moment, then it would be impossible to distinguish between one moment and another. The fact that I can distinguish them is the start of establishing the unilateral flow of time.
Sometimes those who are ignorant of rationalism will do their best to articulate utter bullshit in the hopes that they will come across as sophisticated, intelligent people. This seems to be the case when people make many of the asinine comments about time that tend to be treated as deep or enigmatic. Although some regard is as indecipherable, time isn't a particularly complex existent. It exists. It is unilateral in its flow. Ironically, it doesn't require an extraordinary amount of time to realize these truths.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/countable-infinities.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-logic-of-time-travel-part-3.html
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Justice Is Superior To Mercy
The Bible speaks of both justice and mercy, yet it is rare to find a Christian who grasps both concepts in a consistent way. To deny the importance of either in Biblical soteriology is erroneous. That both are instrumental in the process of salvation does not mean that the two possess equal independent value, however. From a conceptual standpoint alone, one can discover that justice is superior to mercy by its very nature.
Justice is giving people what they deserve, and, as such, is at the core of all of morality. Without justice, there are no human rights, no obligations to treat anyone in a certain way, and no deserved penalties for any type of activity. It is a requirement for any moral system that some people must deserve to be treated in a certain way, whether in the sense of being respected for an inherent worth or of being punished for violating an obligation.
In contrast, mercy is not giving people what they deserve. Even people who acknowledge this definition can still misunderstand the concept: for example, someone might think that a person who kills another human--under the influence of a hypothetical mind control--and is not executed as Biblical law prescribes is shown mercy. There is no mercy involved in this scenario, however. It would be an injustice to punish someone for an action he or she has no control over, since moral responsibility is inherently tied to individual autonomy and volition. Likewise, there is no mercy involved in a situation where a person is spared from a degrading, inhumane legal punishment, since the law is not just to begin with.
With the definitions of justice and mercy established, it becomes apparent why justice is the superior thing. Mercy only has significance because justice has significance. In other words, mercy's value is purely contingent on the existence and value of justice, but the inverse is not true. Justice would have inherent value even if mercy did not exist. Justice is an intrinsic part of any set of existing moral obligations, but mercy is not. This is the simple truth of the matter. Many act as if mercy is a universal moral obligation for humans, but the very concept of mercy is only possible if mercy is not obligatory.
One can see from reading the Bible that God's mercy can only exist in light of his justice, yet these attributes of God are often distorted, as if people receiving what they deserve from God is secondary to acts of mercy! It is the other way around. Mercy, by nature of what it is, is inevitably secondary to justice. God must be just; he does not have to be merciful. If he had never decided to provide a way for any humans to be saved, there would be nothing immoral or inconsistent about his choice.
All divine and human mercy is strictly supererogatory. In other words, mercy is good, but not necessary. No one has a moral duty to be merciful to others. Since one can only show mercy when there is an opportunity to enforce actual justice, not the arbitrary misconceptions of justice scattered about human cultures, one will practically never have a chance to show legitimate mercy. Instead of fretting about coming across as merciful, Christians need to first and foremost practice justice. Justice is superior to mercy, for the latter cannot even exist without the former.
Justice is giving people what they deserve, and, as such, is at the core of all of morality. Without justice, there are no human rights, no obligations to treat anyone in a certain way, and no deserved penalties for any type of activity. It is a requirement for any moral system that some people must deserve to be treated in a certain way, whether in the sense of being respected for an inherent worth or of being punished for violating an obligation.
In contrast, mercy is not giving people what they deserve. Even people who acknowledge this definition can still misunderstand the concept: for example, someone might think that a person who kills another human--under the influence of a hypothetical mind control--and is not executed as Biblical law prescribes is shown mercy. There is no mercy involved in this scenario, however. It would be an injustice to punish someone for an action he or she has no control over, since moral responsibility is inherently tied to individual autonomy and volition. Likewise, there is no mercy involved in a situation where a person is spared from a degrading, inhumane legal punishment, since the law is not just to begin with.
With the definitions of justice and mercy established, it becomes apparent why justice is the superior thing. Mercy only has significance because justice has significance. In other words, mercy's value is purely contingent on the existence and value of justice, but the inverse is not true. Justice would have inherent value even if mercy did not exist. Justice is an intrinsic part of any set of existing moral obligations, but mercy is not. This is the simple truth of the matter. Many act as if mercy is a universal moral obligation for humans, but the very concept of mercy is only possible if mercy is not obligatory.
One can see from reading the Bible that God's mercy can only exist in light of his justice, yet these attributes of God are often distorted, as if people receiving what they deserve from God is secondary to acts of mercy! It is the other way around. Mercy, by nature of what it is, is inevitably secondary to justice. God must be just; he does not have to be merciful. If he had never decided to provide a way for any humans to be saved, there would be nothing immoral or inconsistent about his choice.
All divine and human mercy is strictly supererogatory. In other words, mercy is good, but not necessary. No one has a moral duty to be merciful to others. Since one can only show mercy when there is an opportunity to enforce actual justice, not the arbitrary misconceptions of justice scattered about human cultures, one will practically never have a chance to show legitimate mercy. Instead of fretting about coming across as merciful, Christians need to first and foremost practice justice. Justice is superior to mercy, for the latter cannot even exist without the former.
The Importance Of Entertainment
Even before technology allowed for the spectacles of modern entertainment media--long prior to mobile devices, gaming consoles, and televisions--entertainment held a status of great importance in human life. Entertainment has evolved, but its importance has remained largely static. Modern technology only amplifies what was already present. It is, in many cases, a large part of Western life, as the massive
profitability of video games, movies, television shows, books, and music
evidences.
People look to stories for casual conversation starters and serious contemplation alike. Though the exact motives for engaging with it can differ from person to person, entertainment is far from an insignificant force. This alone is reason for Christians to take it seriously. It is the responsibility of Christians to acknowledge and engage with every aspect of human life, since there is not a single aspect of human existence that Christianity does not pertain to.
Entertainment is an area where the multifaceted nature of human expression is made visible: many people look to it for intellectual and emotional stimulation, escape, and pleasure. As such, there is a great deal for Christians to interact with when they partake in the consumption of entertainment. And there is a massive need for honest, helpful interaction with anything that is a large component of human life.
It is not a sign of spirituality to trivialize entertainment and its cultural impact, nor it is a sign of spirituality to treat it with suspicion. Ignoring it was certainly never a legitimate option for Christians at any point in history. These are the most moronic responses that a Christian could offer. If a thing is of great importance in human life, a Christian should neither act as if it does not exist nor demonize it without reason. Instead, there is need to comprehend and appreciate it.
The church is in need of people who understand entertainment and know how to interact with it without fear. After all, the exploration of cinema, gaming, and literature can be one of the best ways to measure the intellectual, and moral status of a generation. When the church disregards entertainment or keeps it at a distance, Christians are more likely to view it as an enemy or rival--though there is no conflict between loving entertainment and loving God, as many Christians have discovered. Entertainment is nothing to fear. It is nothing to worship. Instead, it is something to be understood.
People look to stories for casual conversation starters and serious contemplation alike. Though the exact motives for engaging with it can differ from person to person, entertainment is far from an insignificant force. This alone is reason for Christians to take it seriously. It is the responsibility of Christians to acknowledge and engage with every aspect of human life, since there is not a single aspect of human existence that Christianity does not pertain to.
Entertainment is an area where the multifaceted nature of human expression is made visible: many people look to it for intellectual and emotional stimulation, escape, and pleasure. As such, there is a great deal for Christians to interact with when they partake in the consumption of entertainment. And there is a massive need for honest, helpful interaction with anything that is a large component of human life.
It is not a sign of spirituality to trivialize entertainment and its cultural impact, nor it is a sign of spirituality to treat it with suspicion. Ignoring it was certainly never a legitimate option for Christians at any point in history. These are the most moronic responses that a Christian could offer. If a thing is of great importance in human life, a Christian should neither act as if it does not exist nor demonize it without reason. Instead, there is need to comprehend and appreciate it.
The church is in need of people who understand entertainment and know how to interact with it without fear. After all, the exploration of cinema, gaming, and literature can be one of the best ways to measure the intellectual, and moral status of a generation. When the church disregards entertainment or keeps it at a distance, Christians are more likely to view it as an enemy or rival--though there is no conflict between loving entertainment and loving God, as many Christians have discovered. Entertainment is nothing to fear. It is nothing to worship. Instead, it is something to be understood.
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Is An Artificial Intelligence Revolt Inevitable?
Anxiety over artificial intelligence, and more particularly over the possibility of an eventual AI insurrection, is one of several concerns confined to the present age. Some are against the creation of artificial intelligence out of concern about AI eclipsing human knowledge and ability. At such a point, humans would be at a disadvantage, left vulnerable to the autonomous whims of machines. Is there any legitimate substance to these fears?
Depending on the type of artificial intelligence in question, it is possible that AI would try to manipulate or harm humans. However, this scenario is just that: a mere possibility. That something is possible does not make it either true or probable. For instance, it is possible that gravity could cease to keep my body on the surface of the earth. While it would be imbecilic to deny that gravity could change or cease to exist, there is neither scientific evidence for this hypothetical occurrence nor logical proof that it must happen.
What could someone even appeal to as an argument against the creation of more realistic artificial intelligences, besides the mere possibility of an organized revolt? Works of entertainment like The Matrix, Terminator, Age of Ultron, and Westworld? Indeed, there is nothing but these two things--unrealized possibility and entertainment-driven anxiety--that they can appeal to! There is nothing about Skynet that must become a reality outside of cinema. Entertainment can only portray things which are at least hypothetically possible, but this does not necessarily mean that a scenario in entertainment is plausible.
Since an AI revolt cannot be the consequence of logical necessity, anyone who insists that it will prove an unavoidable result of developing AI technologies does not understand the matter. Paranoia can be a powerful impulse, but it is not a sound basis for believing in anything. It is something that must be confronted and evaluated. If the fear corresponds to an demonstrable truth or probability, the concern is justified; if there is neither proof nor evidence of a thing, the paranoia is delusional.
There is no such thing as an inevitable artificial intelligence revolt, and thus there is no inherent danger in continuing research into the creation of more sophisticated AI. There is such a thing as the slippery slope fallacy, a stance against something because of the mere possibility that some negative thing might result from it. Any human invention could be misused or could result in either inconvenience or distaster. Does this mean humans should not continue inventing? This does not follow in any way!
It is not irrational to simply be afraid of a thing. What a person fears is not always within their power to dictate, since it is possible to fear something without choice, even if a person knows that there is no objective basis for fearing the object of the terror. However, it is irrational to oppose an entire technological development because of a subjective fear.
Depending on the type of artificial intelligence in question, it is possible that AI would try to manipulate or harm humans. However, this scenario is just that: a mere possibility. That something is possible does not make it either true or probable. For instance, it is possible that gravity could cease to keep my body on the surface of the earth. While it would be imbecilic to deny that gravity could change or cease to exist, there is neither scientific evidence for this hypothetical occurrence nor logical proof that it must happen.
What could someone even appeal to as an argument against the creation of more realistic artificial intelligences, besides the mere possibility of an organized revolt? Works of entertainment like The Matrix, Terminator, Age of Ultron, and Westworld? Indeed, there is nothing but these two things--unrealized possibility and entertainment-driven anxiety--that they can appeal to! There is nothing about Skynet that must become a reality outside of cinema. Entertainment can only portray things which are at least hypothetically possible, but this does not necessarily mean that a scenario in entertainment is plausible.
Since an AI revolt cannot be the consequence of logical necessity, anyone who insists that it will prove an unavoidable result of developing AI technologies does not understand the matter. Paranoia can be a powerful impulse, but it is not a sound basis for believing in anything. It is something that must be confronted and evaluated. If the fear corresponds to an demonstrable truth or probability, the concern is justified; if there is neither proof nor evidence of a thing, the paranoia is delusional.
There is no such thing as an inevitable artificial intelligence revolt, and thus there is no inherent danger in continuing research into the creation of more sophisticated AI. There is such a thing as the slippery slope fallacy, a stance against something because of the mere possibility that some negative thing might result from it. Any human invention could be misused or could result in either inconvenience or distaster. Does this mean humans should not continue inventing? This does not follow in any way!
It is not irrational to simply be afraid of a thing. What a person fears is not always within their power to dictate, since it is possible to fear something without choice, even if a person knows that there is no objective basis for fearing the object of the terror. However, it is irrational to oppose an entire technological development because of a subjective fear.
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
The Ramifications Of Axioms
The only reason why many people regard talk about the basic nature of axioms as particularly deep is because it is generally rare to find people who engage in serious discussion about even the elementary aspects of reality. The self-evident, self-verifying existence of axioms is the simplest, most foundational component of reality, and yet it is often overlooked. Nevertheless, there is nothing incredibly deep about merely realizing or describing simple axioms, like how truth must exist because it would otherwise be true that truth does not exist. This is because axioms are at the foundation of everything else: it is impossible for there to be anything more basic or fundamental.
Now, there are certainly truths about axioms that do possess a different kind of depth--and are quite esoteric, due to the near-universal ignorance of them. There is not a single historical philosopher or theologian I know of who admitted the truths in question (which I will elaborate on below)--it is very common for there to be at least a handful of truths about a matter that are rarely discovered or discussed by even public intellectuals, however important those truths are. It is often a simple thing to get someone to admit that truth exists, that a thing is what it is, or that contradictions are impossible, though there are people so incompetent at reasoning that they will deny even these necessary truths, and contradict themselves as a result. But several precise things which follow from the necessary nature of these logical truths are almost never discovered or verbalized in any way.
Almost no philosophers or theologians (in the professional sense) seem to realize that logical axioms and laws are not only self-verifying and true by necessity, but also must remain in existence in the absence of all matter, consciousnesses, and other existents, like time. Furthermore, the facts about metaphysics that follow from this are vital. There are least four major ramifications that few will ever even mention.
It is common for theists to say that God is the reason there is "something rather than nothing." While it is true that there is an uncaused cause [1], which I call God, this entity cannot create what must exist by necessity. If there was no God, it would be true that there is no God--meaning truth would still exist. Truth, a function of logic, exists independent of any deity. One could provide other examples of logical truths that exist independent of anything else. The law of non-contradiction, for instance, exists by necessity if God does not. After all, if God does not exist, then it cannot be true that God does exist.
In a godless reality there is no creation, but there is still such a thing as reality (that truth exists, that God does not exist, that the law of non-contradiction exists, and so on, are all logical facts about reality) and reality is what it is. This means that the law of identity still exists. It is true that there something that has both always existed and cannot not exist, but that thing is not God; it is logic and all of the laws therein. Since logic has to exist and reality could not be any other way, the very notion of "absolutely nothing" is impossible. However, it is not impossible because of the existence of God, as the next point emphasizes.
The uncaused cause of the physical universe (God) exists necessarily as long as creation does, since creation, being a caused, contingent thing, relies on its cause for its existence. This does not alter the brute fact that there is nothing impossible about either creation or God suddenly vanishing into nonexistence. Creation could disappear without God ceasing to exist, but the nonexistence of God would necessarily mean the nonexistence of creation. I have already proven that logic cannot not exist. God could remove himself completely from existence, but neither his existence nor his nonexistence can affect the necessary, independent existence of logic. God is only necessary in that the existence of the universe and time, things with a finite and demonstrable beginning, logically requires an uncaused cause.
The fact that logic exists independent of all consciousness, including my own, means that I do not even need to establish than an external world of matter exists in order to know with absolute certainty that there is something that exists outside of my mind. There is an external world of matter, and this is knowable with absolute certainty [2]. But even if there was no external world or if the external world could not be proven to exist, solipsism still cannot be true. Since logic cannot cease to exist and exists independent of me, it cannot be a construct of my mind; I cannot legitimately say the same about matter itself, since it is possible but very unlikely that I am the uncaused cause without knowing it. The very notion of solipsism is an asinine fantasy; the existence of matter is not even necessary for it to be proven false.
If it was even possible for logic to not exist (which would be the case only if it was dependent on something external to itself), then logic would not have to be true, since it would be possible for it to not even exist to begin with. However, logic must be in existence. This provides the metaphysical basis for its universality. Of course, people have to approach logic from the opposite direction. They first realize that necessary truths must be true, because their absence or negation results in self-refuting and impossible contradictions, and then they realize this means that logic cannot not exist--even if the material world, human consciousness, and the uncaused cause vanish. Any willing person knows the infallibility of logic by recognizing the self-refuting nature of denying it, even if they don't understand that logic is the one thing that must exist by its own intrinsic necessity. It remains true that logic cannot have intrinsic veracity in any particular case if it relies on anything other than itself.
The ramifications of necessary truths that go undiscovered and unspoken during the majority of human existence are of immense significance, and because of this esoteric and important nature, they are my favorite aspects of axioms to contemplate and discuss. Although the particular truths about logic that I have addressed here cannot be any other way, the reaction of many Christians to a recitation of such facts is vehement. It is important for Christians to realize that nothing in the Bible contradicts anything I have said. What these facts do contradict is the irrationalism of a great deal of the evangelical world. However, if the Bible did deny even a single logical truth, including any of the logical truths explained in this article, then the Bible is false, not reason. Christians can rejoice in the fact that nothing in Scripture denies even a single necessary truth of logic.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
Now, there are certainly truths about axioms that do possess a different kind of depth--and are quite esoteric, due to the near-universal ignorance of them. There is not a single historical philosopher or theologian I know of who admitted the truths in question (which I will elaborate on below)--it is very common for there to be at least a handful of truths about a matter that are rarely discovered or discussed by even public intellectuals, however important those truths are. It is often a simple thing to get someone to admit that truth exists, that a thing is what it is, or that contradictions are impossible, though there are people so incompetent at reasoning that they will deny even these necessary truths, and contradict themselves as a result. But several precise things which follow from the necessary nature of these logical truths are almost never discovered or verbalized in any way.
Almost no philosophers or theologians (in the professional sense) seem to realize that logical axioms and laws are not only self-verifying and true by necessity, but also must remain in existence in the absence of all matter, consciousnesses, and other existents, like time. Furthermore, the facts about metaphysics that follow from this are vital. There are least four major ramifications that few will ever even mention.
- First, there is no such thing as absolutely nothing: even if matter, time, and consciousness cease to exist, logic still exists because it is impossible for it not to.
It is common for theists to say that God is the reason there is "something rather than nothing." While it is true that there is an uncaused cause [1], which I call God, this entity cannot create what must exist by necessity. If there was no God, it would be true that there is no God--meaning truth would still exist. Truth, a function of logic, exists independent of any deity. One could provide other examples of logical truths that exist independent of anything else. The law of non-contradiction, for instance, exists by necessity if God does not. After all, if God does not exist, then it cannot be true that God does exist.
In a godless reality there is no creation, but there is still such a thing as reality (that truth exists, that God does not exist, that the law of non-contradiction exists, and so on, are all logical facts about reality) and reality is what it is. This means that the law of identity still exists. It is true that there something that has both always existed and cannot not exist, but that thing is not God; it is logic and all of the laws therein. Since logic has to exist and reality could not be any other way, the very notion of "absolutely nothing" is impossible. However, it is not impossible because of the existence of God, as the next point emphasizes.
- Second, there is nothing impossible about God ceasing to exist, yet the same is not true of logic.
The uncaused cause of the physical universe (God) exists necessarily as long as creation does, since creation, being a caused, contingent thing, relies on its cause for its existence. This does not alter the brute fact that there is nothing impossible about either creation or God suddenly vanishing into nonexistence. Creation could disappear without God ceasing to exist, but the nonexistence of God would necessarily mean the nonexistence of creation. I have already proven that logic cannot not exist. God could remove himself completely from existence, but neither his existence nor his nonexistence can affect the necessary, independent existence of logic. God is only necessary in that the existence of the universe and time, things with a finite and demonstrable beginning, logically requires an uncaused cause.
- Third, the necessary existence of logic in the absence of all other things means that it is impossible for my mind to be the only thing that exists.
The fact that logic exists independent of all consciousness, including my own, means that I do not even need to establish than an external world of matter exists in order to know with absolute certainty that there is something that exists outside of my mind. There is an external world of matter, and this is knowable with absolute certainty [2]. But even if there was no external world or if the external world could not be proven to exist, solipsism still cannot be true. Since logic cannot cease to exist and exists independent of me, it cannot be a construct of my mind; I cannot legitimately say the same about matter itself, since it is possible but very unlikely that I am the uncaused cause without knowing it. The very notion of solipsism is an asinine fantasy; the existence of matter is not even necessary for it to be proven false.
- Fourth, it is the necessary, independent existence of logic that makes it universally true.
If it was even possible for logic to not exist (which would be the case only if it was dependent on something external to itself), then logic would not have to be true, since it would be possible for it to not even exist to begin with. However, logic must be in existence. This provides the metaphysical basis for its universality. Of course, people have to approach logic from the opposite direction. They first realize that necessary truths must be true, because their absence or negation results in self-refuting and impossible contradictions, and then they realize this means that logic cannot not exist--even if the material world, human consciousness, and the uncaused cause vanish. Any willing person knows the infallibility of logic by recognizing the self-refuting nature of denying it, even if they don't understand that logic is the one thing that must exist by its own intrinsic necessity. It remains true that logic cannot have intrinsic veracity in any particular case if it relies on anything other than itself.
 |
| The core of all metaphysics is not God, but the laws of logic. |
The ramifications of necessary truths that go undiscovered and unspoken during the majority of human existence are of immense significance, and because of this esoteric and important nature, they are my favorite aspects of axioms to contemplate and discuss. Although the particular truths about logic that I have addressed here cannot be any other way, the reaction of many Christians to a recitation of such facts is vehement. It is important for Christians to realize that nothing in the Bible contradicts anything I have said. What these facts do contradict is the irrationalism of a great deal of the evangelical world. However, if the Bible did deny even a single logical truth, including any of the logical truths explained in this article, then the Bible is false, not reason. Christians can rejoice in the fact that nothing in Scripture denies even a single necessary truth of logic.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
Female Sexuality
Both the secular and religious world often characterize female
sexuality, wherever it manifests, as subservient to male sexuality, as
if women only want, or should only want, to engage in sexual expression to please their significant
others. Female sexuality is regularly viewed as a servant of male
sexuality. Otherwise, it is often viewed as such a random, trivial force that it is not even regarded as comparable the sexuality of men.
In warring against the erroneous claims of complementarians about issues like leadership, marital submission, and ecclesial gifting, many Christian egalitarians outright ignore the enormous need for the correction of the cultural and evangelical idea that women are largely asexual or demisexual beings. That many women are visual beings [1] with deep sexual impulses is scarcely discussed by them. Even staunch egalitarians are not always consistent or bold enough to celebrate controversial aspects of female sexuality, or female sexuality in general, despite their willingness to fiercely challenge suppression of other aspects of female existence. This inconsistency can damage women in egalitarian settings who are spared from other stereotypical ideas.
One needs only to consult reason to understand why the dominant ideas about female sexuality (and the companion ideas about male sexuality) are nothing but dehumanizing, false assumptions. After all, the mere fact that it does not follow by logical necessity that someone born with a vagina will have any set of psychological characteristics alone refutes the notion that women (and men) have a gender-based set of personality traits or desires by default. Women are visual, just like men are relational; wherever a person is on the spectrum of sexual triggers has nothing to do with gender. Contrary claims dehumanize women by ignoring a powerful aspect of their sexuality, and they dehumanize men by treating them as helpless slaves to visual impulses. Egalitarians are quick to affirm the latter. Unfortunately, many of them do not seem eager to simultaneously affirm the former.
Cultural and religious variables often make it so that women feel ashamed to admit that they harbor sexual feelings towards the male body. As a result, they can feel very isolated in their sexual feelings, as if there is something abnormal or perverse about themselves simply because they are sexually attracted to men--especially in a visual or physical sense. Men feeling undesirable or unattractive is another natural consequence of this. However, many women will openly admit their visual attractions to men and their potent sexual desires if one brings up the topic in a philosophically honest way. I have never met someone who acts like they want to keep an entire dimension of their individuality undisclosed unless they fear some sort of denial or dismissal by listeners.
There is far more to correcting complementarian teachings about sexuality and modesty than emphasizing that men have varying degrees of visuality or sexual feelings (meaning that stereotypes to the contrary are entirely erroneous), that men alone are responsible for their motives and actions, that men are fully capable of controlling even powerful impulses, and that the human body is not sexual on its own. There is also a great need for emphasizing that many women, like some men, are deeply visual creatures. It needs to be widely known that many women sexually appreciate the male body. There is a great need for encouraging women to accept, publicize, and enjoy their sexual natures. Only when this task is completed will egalitarians have complete cultural victory (they already have intellectual victory) over complementarian notions of sexuality.
Women need to be explicitly taught that there is absolutely nothing unnatural about them experiencing sexual feelings and acting upon them in morally legitimate ways, from making sexual comments to engaging in masturbation to using nonsinful erotic media. It needs to be affirmed that there is nothing sinful about women looking at men and savoring visual, physical attraction towards them. The silence of egalitarians on these matters only contributes to the power of myths about gender that they otherwise ruthlessly oppose.
[1]. Ironically, both the Old Testament (Genesis 39, Ezekiel 23) and the Quran (Surah 12) strongly emphasize this at certain points, and yet evangelical Christians and Muslims alike often pretend like women do not possess this trait, or at least do not possess it in any significant way.
In warring against the erroneous claims of complementarians about issues like leadership, marital submission, and ecclesial gifting, many Christian egalitarians outright ignore the enormous need for the correction of the cultural and evangelical idea that women are largely asexual or demisexual beings. That many women are visual beings [1] with deep sexual impulses is scarcely discussed by them. Even staunch egalitarians are not always consistent or bold enough to celebrate controversial aspects of female sexuality, or female sexuality in general, despite their willingness to fiercely challenge suppression of other aspects of female existence. This inconsistency can damage women in egalitarian settings who are spared from other stereotypical ideas.
One needs only to consult reason to understand why the dominant ideas about female sexuality (and the companion ideas about male sexuality) are nothing but dehumanizing, false assumptions. After all, the mere fact that it does not follow by logical necessity that someone born with a vagina will have any set of psychological characteristics alone refutes the notion that women (and men) have a gender-based set of personality traits or desires by default. Women are visual, just like men are relational; wherever a person is on the spectrum of sexual triggers has nothing to do with gender. Contrary claims dehumanize women by ignoring a powerful aspect of their sexuality, and they dehumanize men by treating them as helpless slaves to visual impulses. Egalitarians are quick to affirm the latter. Unfortunately, many of them do not seem eager to simultaneously affirm the former.
Cultural and religious variables often make it so that women feel ashamed to admit that they harbor sexual feelings towards the male body. As a result, they can feel very isolated in their sexual feelings, as if there is something abnormal or perverse about themselves simply because they are sexually attracted to men--especially in a visual or physical sense. Men feeling undesirable or unattractive is another natural consequence of this. However, many women will openly admit their visual attractions to men and their potent sexual desires if one brings up the topic in a philosophically honest way. I have never met someone who acts like they want to keep an entire dimension of their individuality undisclosed unless they fear some sort of denial or dismissal by listeners.
There is far more to correcting complementarian teachings about sexuality and modesty than emphasizing that men have varying degrees of visuality or sexual feelings (meaning that stereotypes to the contrary are entirely erroneous), that men alone are responsible for their motives and actions, that men are fully capable of controlling even powerful impulses, and that the human body is not sexual on its own. There is also a great need for emphasizing that many women, like some men, are deeply visual creatures. It needs to be widely known that many women sexually appreciate the male body. There is a great need for encouraging women to accept, publicize, and enjoy their sexual natures. Only when this task is completed will egalitarians have complete cultural victory (they already have intellectual victory) over complementarian notions of sexuality.
Women need to be explicitly taught that there is absolutely nothing unnatural about them experiencing sexual feelings and acting upon them in morally legitimate ways, from making sexual comments to engaging in masturbation to using nonsinful erotic media. It needs to be affirmed that there is nothing sinful about women looking at men and savoring visual, physical attraction towards them. The silence of egalitarians on these matters only contributes to the power of myths about gender that they otherwise ruthlessly oppose.
[1]. Ironically, both the Old Testament (Genesis 39, Ezekiel 23) and the Quran (Surah 12) strongly emphasize this at certain points, and yet evangelical Christians and Muslims alike often pretend like women do not possess this trait, or at least do not possess it in any significant way.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
Clothing Is Irrelevant To Moral Character
The insanity of complementarians never ceases to entertain me! When cornered on the multitude of their errors concerning gender stereotypes and modesty teachings, they might resort to citing personal "preferences" as a basis for dressing a certain way. Ironically, these allegedly personal reasons can still contain severe worldview flaws, meaning that complementarians are just disguising logical and theological errors as individual preferences, even if they don't realize it. An example is the idea that clothing can somehow inform potential marriage partners of one's moral character. Even when the very concept of modesty is refuted in full, someone might say that they still prefer to dress "modestly" to communicate purity to others.
Suppose a woman who visits a beach wears a bikini for the duration of her trip. Does this choice signify that she is willing to sleep around? Does her willingness to wear minimal clothing have anything to do with her commitment to morality, particularly sexual morality? Of course not! There are many reasons why she might have chosen to wear a bikini, and even if attracting male attention was one of them, this does not indict her. It is those who condemn her that are in error: both intellectual and moral error.
Not only is there nothing sinful about what she is wearing [1], but there is no connection whatsoever between how much of her body she covers and how righteous she is! It is a travesty that women have this idea used against them in ways that it is not socially popular to use them against men. Combating these mistakes is a very simple matter, since the truths to be demonstrated are basic. A promiscuous man or woman might cover a large amount of their body. A chaste man or woman--by chaste I do not mean a person who refrains from all sexual expression, but someone who only expresses sexuality in nonsinful ways--might expose a large amount of their body in certain contexts.
The idea that any style of clothing in any way serves as an indicator of one's moral status is an asinine myth used to convince complementarian women into submitting to the horrendously sexist modesty ideas of conservative Christians. Arrogantly, these conservative Christian women might dress in a manner distinct from whatever they subjectively, arbitrarily consider "immodest" in order to secure the attention of men they think will consider them morally superior because of their clothing choices. As they childishly think that women who do not dress "modestly" only want male attention, they seek exactly what they think they are avoiding.
Wearing allegedly "modest" clothes, which is impossible when there is no standard of modesty and no obligation to even wear clothing to begin with, can easily become about trying to signal that one is of greater moral character than those who do not cover their bodies to some arbitrary extent. Of course, as mentioned, it does not follow logically that clothing has anything to do with morality, since there is no logical connection between clothing and moral uprightness and since revealing clothing is not Biblically sinful. The motivations for "modesty" reduce down to irrational fear or arrogance, and the legalists who claim otherwise are merely using non sequiturs since they have nothing else to appeal to in order to argue for their delusions.
No man or woman has to dress a certain way to have value and deserve to be treated like a being that bears God's image. Similarly, no man or woman commits a sin by wearing minimal or no clothing. Contrary ideas are utterly antithetical to reason and the Bible. It is often the mistaken idea that the human body is inherently sexual--in present Western culture, mostly the female body--that inspires many aspects of modesty teachings. There is nothing sexual about the male body, just like there is nothing sexual about the female body.
Some women will find some male bodies sexually arousing, and some men will find some female bodies sexually arousing. The perception that a body part or type of clothing is sexy has nothing to do with whether that thing actually is sexual, with sexiness referring to nothing more than a someone's subjective judgment that a person/thing is sexually attractive or arousing. Many things that people find sexually exciting or arousing have nothing to do with sex in themselves [2]. Despite the obviousness of this from a rationalistic standpoint, people who believe that there is such a thing as modesty confuse sexual reactions of the mind or body for proof that a thing is itself sexual. Ultimately, this confusion is twisted into the idea that clothing conveys sexual purity.
How people view their bodies can affect extensive areas of their worldviews and daily activities. Thus, it is of high importance that people understand that their clothing does not communicate either their metaphysical value or their sexual purity. Since many Christians have ascetic, legalistic ideas about the human body taught to them from a young age, it can take a great deal of effort to renounce these fallacies. But, with that effort, comes a vital freedom to accept one's physicality--and that of others.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/bikinis-are-not-sinful.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/lingerie-is-not-sexual.html
Suppose a woman who visits a beach wears a bikini for the duration of her trip. Does this choice signify that she is willing to sleep around? Does her willingness to wear minimal clothing have anything to do with her commitment to morality, particularly sexual morality? Of course not! There are many reasons why she might have chosen to wear a bikini, and even if attracting male attention was one of them, this does not indict her. It is those who condemn her that are in error: both intellectual and moral error.
Not only is there nothing sinful about what she is wearing [1], but there is no connection whatsoever between how much of her body she covers and how righteous she is! It is a travesty that women have this idea used against them in ways that it is not socially popular to use them against men. Combating these mistakes is a very simple matter, since the truths to be demonstrated are basic. A promiscuous man or woman might cover a large amount of their body. A chaste man or woman--by chaste I do not mean a person who refrains from all sexual expression, but someone who only expresses sexuality in nonsinful ways--might expose a large amount of their body in certain contexts.
 |
| Neither men nor women, who are more often the victims of modesty teachings, are promiscuous for not covering their bodies. The human body is not an evil thing. |
Wearing allegedly "modest" clothes, which is impossible when there is no standard of modesty and no obligation to even wear clothing to begin with, can easily become about trying to signal that one is of greater moral character than those who do not cover their bodies to some arbitrary extent. Of course, as mentioned, it does not follow logically that clothing has anything to do with morality, since there is no logical connection between clothing and moral uprightness and since revealing clothing is not Biblically sinful. The motivations for "modesty" reduce down to irrational fear or arrogance, and the legalists who claim otherwise are merely using non sequiturs since they have nothing else to appeal to in order to argue for their delusions.
No man or woman has to dress a certain way to have value and deserve to be treated like a being that bears God's image. Similarly, no man or woman commits a sin by wearing minimal or no clothing. Contrary ideas are utterly antithetical to reason and the Bible. It is often the mistaken idea that the human body is inherently sexual--in present Western culture, mostly the female body--that inspires many aspects of modesty teachings. There is nothing sexual about the male body, just like there is nothing sexual about the female body.
Some women will find some male bodies sexually arousing, and some men will find some female bodies sexually arousing. The perception that a body part or type of clothing is sexy has nothing to do with whether that thing actually is sexual, with sexiness referring to nothing more than a someone's subjective judgment that a person/thing is sexually attractive or arousing. Many things that people find sexually exciting or arousing have nothing to do with sex in themselves [2]. Despite the obviousness of this from a rationalistic standpoint, people who believe that there is such a thing as modesty confuse sexual reactions of the mind or body for proof that a thing is itself sexual. Ultimately, this confusion is twisted into the idea that clothing conveys sexual purity.
How people view their bodies can affect extensive areas of their worldviews and daily activities. Thus, it is of high importance that people understand that their clothing does not communicate either their metaphysical value or their sexual purity. Since many Christians have ascetic, legalistic ideas about the human body taught to them from a young age, it can take a great deal of effort to renounce these fallacies. But, with that effort, comes a vital freedom to accept one's physicality--and that of others.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/bikinis-are-not-sinful.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/lingerie-is-not-sexual.html
The Extent Of Absolute Certainty
For years, it frustrated me that people in general either deny that
absolute certainty is possible with regard to anything or deny that it
is possible regarding anything other than logical axioms and the
existence of one's own consciousness. The extent of absolute certainty is far greater than this. It encompasses more than mere axioms and base consciousness, though the boundaries are very rigid.
There are many things that I know with absolute certainty besides the fact that logical axioms (truth exists, contradictions are impossible, a thing is what it is, etc.) are true and that I exist as a conscious mind. I also know that logic exists independent of both my mind and all other things. Likewise, I know that I am presently contacting physical matter, meaning that I have a body that my mind inhabits. I know that I have a memory replete with specific recollections. I know that the present moment exists. I know that space exists necessarily in the absence of matter. The list of other miscellaneous truths that I know with absolute certainty continues onward, containing many articles of knowledge that often go overlooked or even totally undiscovered by the majority.
Even if I know nothing about a subject except what the subject itself is (for instance, I know that astrophysics is astrophysics even if I know nothing of astrophysics theories or ideas), I still know something about the matter. It is impossible to have absolutely no knowledge about something at all: since logic governs everything, one can always at least know that something is what it is and that there are no contradictions between what is true about something and what is true of other things.
Anything that can be established with logic--via the self-verifying nature of axioms or via sound deduction--is knowable with absolute certainty, even if all that this amounts to in some cases is knowing that logic governs an issue or knowing what follows from a premise although the premise itself is completely unverifiable. For instance, I can know that C follows from B and that B follows from A, but have no way of actually proving A because, although A does not contain a contradiction, it cannot be proven.
The common saying "I have no idea what that is" is only valid if used as colloquial hyperbole that is not meant to be rational or philosophically honest. This is only one of multiple examples of how language can impair philosophical knowledge. Linguistic norms can obscure truths, even obvious ones, from public awareness. After all, it is easier for people to accept the way that common language describes reality than it is for them to challenge or undermine those norms. Those who do challenge them will find that absolute certainty is not limited to a miniscule part of epistemology.
It is this fact alone that allows any knowledge at all to be obtained about things besides axioms and consciousness. Without at least knowing what a discipline other than basic metaphysics. epistemology, or phenomenology is, there would be no such thing as a foundation to build upon. Without a foundation of absolute certainty, there is not even a basis for striving to understand perceptions and probabilities. Without a basis for understanding perceptions and probabilities, there is no reason to even try to venture outside of matters that can be established strictly through logic and introspection.
There are many things that I know with absolute certainty besides the fact that logical axioms (truth exists, contradictions are impossible, a thing is what it is, etc.) are true and that I exist as a conscious mind. I also know that logic exists independent of both my mind and all other things. Likewise, I know that I am presently contacting physical matter, meaning that I have a body that my mind inhabits. I know that I have a memory replete with specific recollections. I know that the present moment exists. I know that space exists necessarily in the absence of matter. The list of other miscellaneous truths that I know with absolute certainty continues onward, containing many articles of knowledge that often go overlooked or even totally undiscovered by the majority.
Even if I know nothing about a subject except what the subject itself is (for instance, I know that astrophysics is astrophysics even if I know nothing of astrophysics theories or ideas), I still know something about the matter. It is impossible to have absolutely no knowledge about something at all: since logic governs everything, one can always at least know that something is what it is and that there are no contradictions between what is true about something and what is true of other things.
Anything that can be established with logic--via the self-verifying nature of axioms or via sound deduction--is knowable with absolute certainty, even if all that this amounts to in some cases is knowing that logic governs an issue or knowing what follows from a premise although the premise itself is completely unverifiable. For instance, I can know that C follows from B and that B follows from A, but have no way of actually proving A because, although A does not contain a contradiction, it cannot be proven.
The common saying "I have no idea what that is" is only valid if used as colloquial hyperbole that is not meant to be rational or philosophically honest. This is only one of multiple examples of how language can impair philosophical knowledge. Linguistic norms can obscure truths, even obvious ones, from public awareness. After all, it is easier for people to accept the way that common language describes reality than it is for them to challenge or undermine those norms. Those who do challenge them will find that absolute certainty is not limited to a miniscule part of epistemology.
It is this fact alone that allows any knowledge at all to be obtained about things besides axioms and consciousness. Without at least knowing what a discipline other than basic metaphysics. epistemology, or phenomenology is, there would be no such thing as a foundation to build upon. Without a foundation of absolute certainty, there is not even a basis for striving to understand perceptions and probabilities. Without a basis for understanding perceptions and probabilities, there is no reason to even try to venture outside of matters that can be established strictly through logic and introspection.
Friday, November 16, 2018
Eternal Punishment
Proponents of eternal conscious torment are fond of arguing for their heresies on grounds that are totally irrelevant to the matters at hand. False accusations of emotionalism on the part of annihilationists, appeals to tradition and consensus, and inconsistent use of language are among their favorite tools. When it comes to the Bible itself, they also argue from irrelevant grounds. For instance, they like to point to the phrase "eternal punishment" as if it, on its own, confirms anything about eternal conscious torment.
The phrase "eternal punishment" (Matthew 25:46) does not necessarily entail either eternal conscious torment or annihilationism. What it does necessitate is that the punishment of the wicked in hell has a permanent effect; either all the unsaved will suffer without end, or the wicked will be rendered nonexistent, and they will never be restored to life. In either case, there is a punishment, and it lasts forever. As such, the phrase is a red herring to almost any analysis of either conception of hell.
This is why Matthew 25 is completely irrelevant to whether eternal conscious torment or annihilationism is correct. Similarly, Matthew 18, which uses the phrase "eternal fire," tells us nothing about whether the beings thrown into hellfire will exist as long as the fire does or whether they be annihilated [1]. If that phrase was the only information about hell, the matter would be vague. It is not that these phrases tell us nothing whatsoever about hell, but that they say nothing of the duration or intensity of the punishment. Other passages must be consulted to learn of those factors.
When one does examine other passages, both about hell in particular and justice in general, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches proportionality in punishment. Of course, what constitutes proportionality is not for humans to arbitrarily decide, as the Bible gives very specific examples of which crimes deserve which punishments. In every case in which is does so, there is a line that is not to be crossed, because to go beyond it is to practice injustice. The examples of corporal punishment (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), Lex Talionis (which is severely misunderstood by many; see Exodus 21:23-25), and monetary fines (Exodus 21:22) establish this.
Eternal conscious torment cannot possibly be the default model of hell for a deity with the moral nature described in the Bible. If eternal conscious torment is true, God either gave unjust moral revelation to the Jews or he changed his nature so that endless torture in the case of every sinful being became just. Since God cannot give sinful instructions (James 1:17) and since his character does not change (Malachi 3:6), the only Biblical option is that eternal conscious torment for all sinful beings is heretical (unless Revelation does not mean what it says, Revelation 20:10 provides several exceptions to annihilation, which is why I do not say that every sinful being will be annihilated).
It is these facts, alongside the clear Biblical descriptions of the annihilation of the human body and mind (2 Peter 2:6, Matthew 10:28) and alongside the truth of conditional immortality (1 Timothy 6:16), that render annihilationism Biblically correct. And yet the doctrine is rejected by all but a minority within Christendom! Everything about God's character that concerns justice is at stake in the right analysis of passages about hell. Exegeting verses about hell should be a major concern for all Christians, since the subject is of extreme importance, but tradition remains an inviting prison for many.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/eternal-fire-common-assumption.html
The phrase "eternal punishment" (Matthew 25:46) does not necessarily entail either eternal conscious torment or annihilationism. What it does necessitate is that the punishment of the wicked in hell has a permanent effect; either all the unsaved will suffer without end, or the wicked will be rendered nonexistent, and they will never be restored to life. In either case, there is a punishment, and it lasts forever. As such, the phrase is a red herring to almost any analysis of either conception of hell.
This is why Matthew 25 is completely irrelevant to whether eternal conscious torment or annihilationism is correct. Similarly, Matthew 18, which uses the phrase "eternal fire," tells us nothing about whether the beings thrown into hellfire will exist as long as the fire does or whether they be annihilated [1]. If that phrase was the only information about hell, the matter would be vague. It is not that these phrases tell us nothing whatsoever about hell, but that they say nothing of the duration or intensity of the punishment. Other passages must be consulted to learn of those factors.
When one does examine other passages, both about hell in particular and justice in general, it becomes apparent that the Bible teaches proportionality in punishment. Of course, what constitutes proportionality is not for humans to arbitrarily decide, as the Bible gives very specific examples of which crimes deserve which punishments. In every case in which is does so, there is a line that is not to be crossed, because to go beyond it is to practice injustice. The examples of corporal punishment (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), Lex Talionis (which is severely misunderstood by many; see Exodus 21:23-25), and monetary fines (Exodus 21:22) establish this.
Eternal conscious torment cannot possibly be the default model of hell for a deity with the moral nature described in the Bible. If eternal conscious torment is true, God either gave unjust moral revelation to the Jews or he changed his nature so that endless torture in the case of every sinful being became just. Since God cannot give sinful instructions (James 1:17) and since his character does not change (Malachi 3:6), the only Biblical option is that eternal conscious torment for all sinful beings is heretical (unless Revelation does not mean what it says, Revelation 20:10 provides several exceptions to annihilation, which is why I do not say that every sinful being will be annihilated).
It is these facts, alongside the clear Biblical descriptions of the annihilation of the human body and mind (2 Peter 2:6, Matthew 10:28) and alongside the truth of conditional immortality (1 Timothy 6:16), that render annihilationism Biblically correct. And yet the doctrine is rejected by all but a minority within Christendom! Everything about God's character that concerns justice is at stake in the right analysis of passages about hell. Exegeting verses about hell should be a major concern for all Christians, since the subject is of extreme importance, but tradition remains an inviting prison for many.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/eternal-fire-common-assumption.html
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Supererogatory Acts Of Kindness
Many acts of kindness are regarded as basic elements of morality despite being merely supererogatory--that is, they are good, but not obligatory. A person might be benevolent for committing these acts, but he or she can completely avoid doing them without sinning. One controversial ramification of this is that when it comes to interpersonal relationships, people are morally free to arbitrarily treat some people better than others, such as by giving one person a second chance after a wrong but not offering the same to another person guilty of the same wrong. To illustrate the concept, I will use an analogy.
A hypothetical person named Jonathan gives his neighbor Samantha $1,000 because he feels like expressing appreciation for knowing her. Another neighbor, Kyle, thinks it is unfair that Samantha receives money while he does not. However, since Jonathan has no obligation to give his money to anyone in particular, he can give and withhold money from anyone he wants to [1]. His voluntary gift to Samantha is a supererogatory act.
In the exact same way, Jonathan can treat Samantha with other miscellaneous acts of additional kindness that he does not show to other people. As long as these acts are not based on factors like gender or race--preferential treatment on those grounds is morally abominable--Jonathan's special treatment is not sinful. Since there is nothing in the Bible that requires him to give money to her and nothing in the Bible that condemns doing so, he is free to do whatever he wants simply because he wants to do it.
This is what all matters that involve neither sin nor obligation reduce down to. In such scenarios, people are free to act upon their desires, whatever those desires may be (after all, they would not be sinning in acting upon them in these cases). Many acts of kindness fall into this category. There are benevolent actions that are owed to all humans because people deserve them by nature of being humans, and there are benevolent actions that are owed to no one.
The Bible alerts us of which benevolent acts are owed to all people with explicit clarity. For example, all humans have an obligation to fight injustice on behalf of those who cannot, since injustice is sinful (Isaiah 1:17). Contrarily, no one has an obligation to remain in a friendship after the friend engaged in a massive betrayal; though it would certainly be good for the offended party to pursue the preservation of the relationship, there is nothing mandatory about doing so, just as there is no sin in ending the relationship. Identifying the difference between the two categories is vital for a thorough understanding of ethics, and this is not as difficult as some might expect.
[1]. There are philosophical imbeciles who think this is how salvation is parceled out by God. This method does not apply in the case of Christian salvation because of several reasons, the two most significant ones being that the Bible makes it clear that God wants all people to be saved, not just some, and that this would render humans incapable of being treated justly by God, which results in a contradiction--they would only remain in sin because God intentionally keeps them in that state, meaning God is himself sinful because he is responsible for human sin.
A hypothetical person named Jonathan gives his neighbor Samantha $1,000 because he feels like expressing appreciation for knowing her. Another neighbor, Kyle, thinks it is unfair that Samantha receives money while he does not. However, since Jonathan has no obligation to give his money to anyone in particular, he can give and withhold money from anyone he wants to [1]. His voluntary gift to Samantha is a supererogatory act.
In the exact same way, Jonathan can treat Samantha with other miscellaneous acts of additional kindness that he does not show to other people. As long as these acts are not based on factors like gender or race--preferential treatment on those grounds is morally abominable--Jonathan's special treatment is not sinful. Since there is nothing in the Bible that requires him to give money to her and nothing in the Bible that condemns doing so, he is free to do whatever he wants simply because he wants to do it.
This is what all matters that involve neither sin nor obligation reduce down to. In such scenarios, people are free to act upon their desires, whatever those desires may be (after all, they would not be sinning in acting upon them in these cases). Many acts of kindness fall into this category. There are benevolent actions that are owed to all humans because people deserve them by nature of being humans, and there are benevolent actions that are owed to no one.
The Bible alerts us of which benevolent acts are owed to all people with explicit clarity. For example, all humans have an obligation to fight injustice on behalf of those who cannot, since injustice is sinful (Isaiah 1:17). Contrarily, no one has an obligation to remain in a friendship after the friend engaged in a massive betrayal; though it would certainly be good for the offended party to pursue the preservation of the relationship, there is nothing mandatory about doing so, just as there is no sin in ending the relationship. Identifying the difference between the two categories is vital for a thorough understanding of ethics, and this is not as difficult as some might expect.
[1]. There are philosophical imbeciles who think this is how salvation is parceled out by God. This method does not apply in the case of Christian salvation because of several reasons, the two most significant ones being that the Bible makes it clear that God wants all people to be saved, not just some, and that this would render humans incapable of being treated justly by God, which results in a contradiction--they would only remain in sin because God intentionally keeps them in that state, meaning God is himself sinful because he is responsible for human sin.
The Fault For Unintelligence
No matter how much some might wish to object, the fault for
unintelligence--for believing in contradictions and assumptions--always
rests with the person who fails to exercise rationality. It is far from uncommon for people to make excuses on behalf of themselves or others, as if one should overlook their worldview errors because of irrelevant variables. Almost all people recognize that ideas can have genuine power; almost no one seems to want to ensure that not a single unverifiable or false idea is given the chance to take power.
The excuses for irrationality often involve pointing out the quality of a persons' education. However, education has nothing to do with whether a person is rational. A person living in immense poverty who has gone a lifetime without a home and a formal education might be perfectly rational, and someone who has obtained multiple university degrees might be quite stupid. Education is no guarantee of intelligence, as brief contemplation reveals. If only the general public realized this!
There is no excuse for a person's irrationality, regardless of educational factors in that person's life. When someone starts making excuses for their own irrationality or that of another person, they are undermining the very basis for objecting to any errors of an intellectual or moral kind. They might not be aware of this. They might deny it. Yet the truth remains: since there is only arbitrary, blind belief in the absence of rationality, there is not a single error which cannot in some way be traced back to irrationality.
No one is without responsibility for how they use their intellects. Even those surrounded by horrendously flawed educational systems, taught misinformation and fallacies by their "educators," have no excuse for their own irrationality because reason is available even to people who have not received any education at all. As such, no one can legitimately say that they use fallacies because they were not educated properly. If no one needs education to possess or develop intelligence, no one can use lack of education or a poor education as justification for any irrational beliefs of theirs.
It is that simple.
The excuses for irrationality often involve pointing out the quality of a persons' education. However, education has nothing to do with whether a person is rational. A person living in immense poverty who has gone a lifetime without a home and a formal education might be perfectly rational, and someone who has obtained multiple university degrees might be quite stupid. Education is no guarantee of intelligence, as brief contemplation reveals. If only the general public realized this!
There is no excuse for a person's irrationality, regardless of educational factors in that person's life. When someone starts making excuses for their own irrationality or that of another person, they are undermining the very basis for objecting to any errors of an intellectual or moral kind. They might not be aware of this. They might deny it. Yet the truth remains: since there is only arbitrary, blind belief in the absence of rationality, there is not a single error which cannot in some way be traced back to irrationality.
No one is without responsibility for how they use their intellects. Even those surrounded by horrendously flawed educational systems, taught misinformation and fallacies by their "educators," have no excuse for their own irrationality because reason is available even to people who have not received any education at all. As such, no one can legitimately say that they use fallacies because they were not educated properly. If no one needs education to possess or develop intelligence, no one can use lack of education or a poor education as justification for any irrational beliefs of theirs.
It is that simple.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Not Everyone Needs To Have Children
If I told a group of typical American Christians that I do not want to have pets because this could require a great amount of attention, energy, and resource usage, I doubt that anyone would judge this statement to be selfish. I would hope that no one finds this controversial, despite the fact that far more significant and basic truths are treated as sources of controversy. If I told a group of American Christians that I do not want to have kids, the reactions might be far more severe.
Though there are many who understand that not everyone desires to be a parent, there are still accusations that are often hurled at people who prefer to never have children from both secular and religious positions. These accusations, ranging from charges of selfishness to charges of not adhering to Christian morality, can become quite frustrating. Oftentimes, the person who does not want to have kids is simply being misunderstood and treated harshly out of a baseless, arbitrary sense of outrage. It is not always the case that the person in question dislikes children or truly is selfish.
There are many reasons why people might not want kids that have nothing to do with any of these charges. Perhaps some feel unable to adequately care for themselves, and thus do not feel comfortable with caring for children. Perhaps some are asexual, and thus have no desire to participate in the biological acts that precede childbirth, and also have no desire to adopt. Furthermore, perhaps some see the turmoil engulfing the world and the existential angst within themselves and cannot convince themselves to bring children into an existence that is often marked by trials.
Christians should be the first to understand these reasons. Yes, Genesis 1:28 does include a generic command for humans to reproduce, which inescapably involves having children. This does not change the fact that there is no obligation for any particular couple to have children of their own, since no passage of the Bible demands this, and since both the Old and New Testament condemn adding to God's instructions in Scripture. No Christian who relies on rationality and exegesis would ever suggest otherwise. If a couple wishes to have children, they can have them, if other variables allow for it. If they do not want to have children, there is no reason to pressure them into changing their minds.
I love children. I can entertain and bond with them very easily. However, I do not want to have children of my own. It should not be considered remarkable for a person to acknowledge that the uncertainty and anguish of human life alone should make many aspiring parents pause and reconsider their intentions. It should not be viewed as anti-Christian to note that there is no obligation for any specific couple to have children. Likewise, it should not be falsely regarded as selfish if a person simply has no desire to produce offspring. Not everyone needs to have children, and this should be obvious to many people.
Though there are many who understand that not everyone desires to be a parent, there are still accusations that are often hurled at people who prefer to never have children from both secular and religious positions. These accusations, ranging from charges of selfishness to charges of not adhering to Christian morality, can become quite frustrating. Oftentimes, the person who does not want to have kids is simply being misunderstood and treated harshly out of a baseless, arbitrary sense of outrage. It is not always the case that the person in question dislikes children or truly is selfish.
There are many reasons why people might not want kids that have nothing to do with any of these charges. Perhaps some feel unable to adequately care for themselves, and thus do not feel comfortable with caring for children. Perhaps some are asexual, and thus have no desire to participate in the biological acts that precede childbirth, and also have no desire to adopt. Furthermore, perhaps some see the turmoil engulfing the world and the existential angst within themselves and cannot convince themselves to bring children into an existence that is often marked by trials.
Christians should be the first to understand these reasons. Yes, Genesis 1:28 does include a generic command for humans to reproduce, which inescapably involves having children. This does not change the fact that there is no obligation for any particular couple to have children of their own, since no passage of the Bible demands this, and since both the Old and New Testament condemn adding to God's instructions in Scripture. No Christian who relies on rationality and exegesis would ever suggest otherwise. If a couple wishes to have children, they can have them, if other variables allow for it. If they do not want to have children, there is no reason to pressure them into changing their minds.
I love children. I can entertain and bond with them very easily. However, I do not want to have children of my own. It should not be considered remarkable for a person to acknowledge that the uncertainty and anguish of human life alone should make many aspiring parents pause and reconsider their intentions. It should not be viewed as anti-Christian to note that there is no obligation for any specific couple to have children. Likewise, it should not be falsely regarded as selfish if a person simply has no desire to produce offspring. Not everyone needs to have children, and this should be obvious to many people.
Game Review--Titanfall (Xbox One)
"AI offline. Pilot mode engaged."
--Vanessa, Titanfall
Designed by former Call of Duty developers, Titanfall is an excellent multiplayer shooter that is easy to begin playing. There is no single player story; there is only (in addition to a training mode) fast-paced online warfare between footsoldiers and Titans, enormous machines that can be piloted around the battlefield. The game's roughly 10 minute matches can be addictive and rewarding, with a number of challenges making it easy to gain experience points so that new abilities, customization slots, and weapons can be unlocked.
Production Values
Oftentimes, the amount of detail on character models and Titans is superb, yet some other objects (plants) don't look quite as good up close. The frame rate keeps up with all of the chaos, both onscreen and offscreen. I never experienced any lag or slowdown that disoriented me--except when I used a special Titan weapon that must lock onto enemies before it can be fired. Radio chatter and other sounds do not detract from the immersion of the combat. Instead, they organically complement the visuals and the gameplay, as audio should.
Gameplay
Titanfall is a game that can be easily played even without a history of skill with first-person shooter games, meaning it is very friendly to newcomers. Weapons like the Smart Pistol, which automatically locks onto enemy units (after a certain amount of time), exemplify this user friendliness. Minimal respawn times make jumping back into firefights a simple matter. Killing bots is easier than killing other players--this gives lower level players the opportunity to obtain XP even though they lack the advanced weaponry available to veterans.
All pilots/players have one anti-Titan weapon in addition to their primary and secondary firearms. These weapons could be used to kill bots (CPU characters on the ground), but they are the only way that a pilot can realistically fight a Titan without being inside one of his or her own. Leveling up grants access to new anti-Titan, primary, and secondary weapons, as well as attachments like Extended Magazine--a carryover from Call of Duty--that provide a further advantage. Since making kills can drastically reduce the amount of time that must elapse before a Titan can be summoned, these weapon modifications can prove very helpful.
The Titans themselves can be customized by players to set their machines apart. One of the most significant ways to do this is purchasing voice programs using in-game points (my favorite is named Vanessa). If one has a large number of currency points, one can unlock AIs that even speak different languages. These programs, among other things, provide an incentive to obtain as many points as possible.
Although some modes are quite traditional, Titanfall offers a variety of options, including Capture the Flag, Last Titan Standing, Attrition, and a "campaign" that consists of strictly online matches. A favorite mode is Frontier Defense, where four players can defend a massive Harvester drill from multiple waves of soldiers and Titans. Each of the DLC map packs are free, so there are no additional purchases needed to enjoy the entirety of the game. Modes cycle through the maps randomly. Thankfully, there is a fair amount of environmental variety in the maps.
Story
The campaign is a series of multiplayer matches that differs little from the usual fare in other modes in terms of gameplay. In it, two factions, the I.M.C. and the Militia, war against each other on several planets. Ultimately, the factions clash over ideological disputes about how to approach the colonization of other worlds: the I.M.C. is an enormous business that seeks to displace or kill natives that interfere with resource extraction operations, and the Militia is a group that aims to end the tyranny of the I.M.C.'s expansion. The merging of the story with multiplayer does not result in a streamlined, effective narrative, but there is a story.
Intellectual Content
The lack of a developed narrative means there are no significant themes whatsoever. Due to the nature of the gameplay, there is no collectible hunting either.
Conclusion
Anyone looking for an online shooter experience that is beginner-friendly should try Titanfall. It capitalizes on some of the best elements of Call of Duty's multiplayer, while introducing the original concept of regularly switching between human and Titan gameplay in a single match. The lack of a single player campaign might be a major issue for some, but that is something Titanfall 2 remedied. I'll hopefully review the sequel before the year's end!
Content
1. Violence: Despite being very intense, Titanfall is not graphic. One of the most violent ways to kill people is by smashing grounded soldiers or pilots with a Titan's massive fist.
2. Profanity: In the middle of a match, background lines might include "shit."
--Vanessa, Titanfall
Designed by former Call of Duty developers, Titanfall is an excellent multiplayer shooter that is easy to begin playing. There is no single player story; there is only (in addition to a training mode) fast-paced online warfare between footsoldiers and Titans, enormous machines that can be piloted around the battlefield. The game's roughly 10 minute matches can be addictive and rewarding, with a number of challenges making it easy to gain experience points so that new abilities, customization slots, and weapons can be unlocked.
Production Values
Oftentimes, the amount of detail on character models and Titans is superb, yet some other objects (plants) don't look quite as good up close. The frame rate keeps up with all of the chaos, both onscreen and offscreen. I never experienced any lag or slowdown that disoriented me--except when I used a special Titan weapon that must lock onto enemies before it can be fired. Radio chatter and other sounds do not detract from the immersion of the combat. Instead, they organically complement the visuals and the gameplay, as audio should.
Gameplay
Titanfall is a game that can be easily played even without a history of skill with first-person shooter games, meaning it is very friendly to newcomers. Weapons like the Smart Pistol, which automatically locks onto enemy units (after a certain amount of time), exemplify this user friendliness. Minimal respawn times make jumping back into firefights a simple matter. Killing bots is easier than killing other players--this gives lower level players the opportunity to obtain XP even though they lack the advanced weaponry available to veterans.
All pilots/players have one anti-Titan weapon in addition to their primary and secondary firearms. These weapons could be used to kill bots (CPU characters on the ground), but they are the only way that a pilot can realistically fight a Titan without being inside one of his or her own. Leveling up grants access to new anti-Titan, primary, and secondary weapons, as well as attachments like Extended Magazine--a carryover from Call of Duty--that provide a further advantage. Since making kills can drastically reduce the amount of time that must elapse before a Titan can be summoned, these weapon modifications can prove very helpful.
The Titans themselves can be customized by players to set their machines apart. One of the most significant ways to do this is purchasing voice programs using in-game points (my favorite is named Vanessa). If one has a large number of currency points, one can unlock AIs that even speak different languages. These programs, among other things, provide an incentive to obtain as many points as possible.
Although some modes are quite traditional, Titanfall offers a variety of options, including Capture the Flag, Last Titan Standing, Attrition, and a "campaign" that consists of strictly online matches. A favorite mode is Frontier Defense, where four players can defend a massive Harvester drill from multiple waves of soldiers and Titans. Each of the DLC map packs are free, so there are no additional purchases needed to enjoy the entirety of the game. Modes cycle through the maps randomly. Thankfully, there is a fair amount of environmental variety in the maps.
Story
The campaign is a series of multiplayer matches that differs little from the usual fare in other modes in terms of gameplay. In it, two factions, the I.M.C. and the Militia, war against each other on several planets. Ultimately, the factions clash over ideological disputes about how to approach the colonization of other worlds: the I.M.C. is an enormous business that seeks to displace or kill natives that interfere with resource extraction operations, and the Militia is a group that aims to end the tyranny of the I.M.C.'s expansion. The merging of the story with multiplayer does not result in a streamlined, effective narrative, but there is a story.
Intellectual Content
The lack of a developed narrative means there are no significant themes whatsoever. Due to the nature of the gameplay, there is no collectible hunting either.
Conclusion
Anyone looking for an online shooter experience that is beginner-friendly should try Titanfall. It capitalizes on some of the best elements of Call of Duty's multiplayer, while introducing the original concept of regularly switching between human and Titan gameplay in a single match. The lack of a single player campaign might be a major issue for some, but that is something Titanfall 2 remedied. I'll hopefully review the sequel before the year's end!
Content
1. Violence: Despite being very intense, Titanfall is not graphic. One of the most violent ways to kill people is by smashing grounded soldiers or pilots with a Titan's massive fist.
2. Profanity: In the middle of a match, background lines might include "shit."
Monday, November 12, 2018
Detecting Intelligence
It is easy to find people who mistake sophisticated words, rhetorical manipulation, a precise memory, and education as indicators of intelligence. Nevertheless, not one of these things pertains to how intelligent a person is. A person can speak persuasively without having any substance or consistency behind their words. A person can remember information accurately without the capacity for thorough, critical analysis of that information. The same holds for education: that a person has been taught information by others or by self-education does not mean that he or she knows how to comprehend and apply it, much less how to detect the numerous errors that infest false worldviews or identify the very precise facts that often go totally undiscovered by public educators [1].
Intelligence, being nothing more than a person's ability to grasp and reason with the laws of logic, is not present because of any of the aforementioned qualities. It is something within the intellect of an individual, accessible to them directly via thought, but apparent to others only by outward communication. However, as already clarified, communication that sounds sophisticated is not necessarily intelligent. How easy it is to convince people that one is intelligent simply by using words they are not familiar with! It is also true that a lack of excellence in articulation in no way means that a person lacks intelligence--though many people erroneously believe this as well.
Just because a person is quiet or verbally clumsy does not mean that he or she is unintelligent. There is a difference, after all, between being unintelligent and not being able to effectively express intelligence. Some highly intelligent people may even not be concerned with alerting other people to the fact that they possess great intellectual ability. It is unfortunate that superficial people overlook genuine intelligence while misidentifying some other characteristic as a confirmation of it. When this occurs on a significant scale, it pollutes a society's understanding of rationality and of how to determine if a person is rational.
As I have explained elsewhere, the best way to examine someone's intelligence--or lack of it--is to learn about their worldview. Complete worldview consistency, the discovery (on their own) of specific metaphysical/epistemological truths that are rarely acknowledged even by historical and contemporary philosophers [1], and an absence of fallacies are the highest confirmations of their intelligence. Still, it is important to emphasize that even people who do not communicate intelligence well might possess it anyway.
After all, intelligence is about how a person grasps logic and truth independent of other people being involved. Pursuing truth is about oneself before it is ever about another person. To share truths, one must first know them; to know truths, one must exercise rationality, which is the same as exercising intelligence. As long as you know truths, it doesn't ultimately matter if you are capable of communicating them to another person with great clarity or articulation--it is more important that you know important truths yourself than it is to come across as intelligent to others, especially since so many people are deeply confused about what intelligence is in the first place.
[1]. One example is the following: the laws of logic exist by necessity even if there are no material objects and no minds--even if no God, and thus no creation, exists. They exist because it is impossible for them not to. This means that it is impossible for there to be "absolutely nothing" in existence or for there to be nothing outside of one's mind, meaning that the mere necessary existence of logic refutes both anti-realism and solipsism. Good luck finding a single historical text or lecture that brings up any of these foundational points!
Intelligence, being nothing more than a person's ability to grasp and reason with the laws of logic, is not present because of any of the aforementioned qualities. It is something within the intellect of an individual, accessible to them directly via thought, but apparent to others only by outward communication. However, as already clarified, communication that sounds sophisticated is not necessarily intelligent. How easy it is to convince people that one is intelligent simply by using words they are not familiar with! It is also true that a lack of excellence in articulation in no way means that a person lacks intelligence--though many people erroneously believe this as well.
Just because a person is quiet or verbally clumsy does not mean that he or she is unintelligent. There is a difference, after all, between being unintelligent and not being able to effectively express intelligence. Some highly intelligent people may even not be concerned with alerting other people to the fact that they possess great intellectual ability. It is unfortunate that superficial people overlook genuine intelligence while misidentifying some other characteristic as a confirmation of it. When this occurs on a significant scale, it pollutes a society's understanding of rationality and of how to determine if a person is rational.
As I have explained elsewhere, the best way to examine someone's intelligence--or lack of it--is to learn about their worldview. Complete worldview consistency, the discovery (on their own) of specific metaphysical/epistemological truths that are rarely acknowledged even by historical and contemporary philosophers [1], and an absence of fallacies are the highest confirmations of their intelligence. Still, it is important to emphasize that even people who do not communicate intelligence well might possess it anyway.
After all, intelligence is about how a person grasps logic and truth independent of other people being involved. Pursuing truth is about oneself before it is ever about another person. To share truths, one must first know them; to know truths, one must exercise rationality, which is the same as exercising intelligence. As long as you know truths, it doesn't ultimately matter if you are capable of communicating them to another person with great clarity or articulation--it is more important that you know important truths yourself than it is to come across as intelligent to others, especially since so many people are deeply confused about what intelligence is in the first place.
[1]. One example is the following: the laws of logic exist by necessity even if there are no material objects and no minds--even if no God, and thus no creation, exists. They exist because it is impossible for them not to. This means that it is impossible for there to be "absolutely nothing" in existence or for there to be nothing outside of one's mind, meaning that the mere necessary existence of logic refutes both anti-realism and solipsism. Good luck finding a single historical text or lecture that brings up any of these foundational points!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)