Suppose that a hypothetical person was to be cloned. The duplicate would be a perfect physical copy of the original, and yet no changes to the cloning process could ever eliminate the distinction between the two. The reason the two cannot be the same goes beyond the fact that two physically separate beings cannot be the same single entity, however, as a crucial part of the distinction pertains to the phenomenological dimension of individual persons. Even if a full physical clone of a human was created, the clone would immediately develop its own cauldron of memories.
Without memory, there could be no constant, unified sense of self, as there would be nothing to bind together one's experiences. It is precisely because of memory that even complete physical clones could never be identical to the subject of the cloning on a personal level. As soon as a clone is brought to a state of consciousness, the clone and the original being would be different persons--and not only in the sense that their bodies are distinct.
From the moment that the memories of the two diverged, their personal identies would diverge as well. The metaphysical identities of a person and his or her clone are already separate by default, as the two are not the same being simply by virtue of not having the same body. This does not distinguish them on a phenomenological level, though. Memory is the only thing that distinguishes the personal nature of one from the other.
It is memory that captures the experiences of one individual and connects those experiences in a way that makes them unique. Despite being taken for granted by many, memory holds together the core of personal identity (not logical/metaphysical identity, as aforementioned) on a continual basis. The significance of memory formation for one's identity is only affirmed by the fact that not even complete physical cloning could guarantee identical memories.
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Tuesday, July 30, 2019
The Expanding Universe
When describing the universe, it is not rare for people to define space as being a part of the cosmos, despite it being immaterial, in contrast to the universe itself. The expansion of the universe prompts such people to falsely conclude that space, like matter, must have come into existence at the Big Bang, with both expanding outward. While the universe can expand to a larger size, space cannot, contrary to the claims of both scientists and Christian apologists like William Lane Craig [1].
Matter cannot exist without space to hold it, but space must exist whether or not there is matter: there cannot be such a thing as the absence of a "place" where matter could exist even if the universe vanished completely or had never been created to begin with. The universe is not expanding into nothing, as William Lane Craig suggests, nor is such a thing possible. Likewise, it is impossible for space to be expanding along with or ahead of the universe.
Space itself cannot expand because space exists independent of any mind or material object and because it is infinite by default. Since space is the dimension that holds or could hold matter, it transcends the physical universe. There is no point beyond which there is no space precisely because matter could always expand into or be placed in an area where there is no prior physical substance.
The existence of space is logically necessary whether or not there is a universe (or a God to create the universe). In light of this logical fact, the proclamations of scientists and fallacious apologists like William Lane Craig have no validity, serving only to highlight their reliance on assumptions and appeals to authority. The universe can expand, but space cannot. Proving this is a simple task, and yet many people would rather consult scientists or theologians than reason! Identifting the nature of space is a matter of strict logic rather than a matter of scientific observation or theological inquiry.
[1]. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/what-is-the-universe-expanding-into
Matter cannot exist without space to hold it, but space must exist whether or not there is matter: there cannot be such a thing as the absence of a "place" where matter could exist even if the universe vanished completely or had never been created to begin with. The universe is not expanding into nothing, as William Lane Craig suggests, nor is such a thing possible. Likewise, it is impossible for space to be expanding along with or ahead of the universe.
Space itself cannot expand because space exists independent of any mind or material object and because it is infinite by default. Since space is the dimension that holds or could hold matter, it transcends the physical universe. There is no point beyond which there is no space precisely because matter could always expand into or be placed in an area where there is no prior physical substance.
The existence of space is logically necessary whether or not there is a universe (or a God to create the universe). In light of this logical fact, the proclamations of scientists and fallacious apologists like William Lane Craig have no validity, serving only to highlight their reliance on assumptions and appeals to authority. The universe can expand, but space cannot. Proving this is a simple task, and yet many people would rather consult scientists or theologians than reason! Identifting the nature of space is a matter of strict logic rather than a matter of scientific observation or theological inquiry.
[1]. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/what-is-the-universe-expanding-into
Hourly Work Against Salaried Work
A sound and thorough grasp of logic is useful in all endeavors, not merely in investigating the deep waters of explicit metaphysics or epistemology. As such, even the more "practical" aspects of life can be approached with clarity in light of reason. There are myths, after all, about practical things like business in the same way that there are myths about the more existential, metaphysical elements of reality (not that practical beliefs and philosophical beliefs are separate, of course).
One such myth about business relates to pay structures. Hourly work is often perceived as inferior to salaried work, in large part due to the fact that salaried pay is fixed over a set period of time, whereas, while pay per hour is fixed, the hours a person works might fluctuate. After accounting for the fact that both hourly and salaried positions can come with benefits, it becomes clear that neither pay structure is inherently better in itself. One or the other can still be an objectively better fit for a particular person in a particular life context, however.
Although salaries are often regarded as inherently superior to wages, more than one variable determines which of the two is the financially superior option. Since a salary is inflexible (though bonuses or raises could be periodically applied, as with hourly pay) regardless of the amount of work done, accepting a salaried position can trap someone in a role that entails more responsibilities without pay that changes with the scope of weekly or monthly work. Furthermore, it is far from impossible to make more money from hourly wages than from a salary!
Salaried positions can also disrupt one's "work-life balance" in ways that hourly work does not, requiring an increasingly invasive amount of attention that would have otherwise been directed to matters of personal or intellectual importance. In the pursuit of corporate prestige, some people might be willing to sacrifice hobbies or the formation of new relationships. As long as a given person does not sacrifice actual obligations--such as their friendships or marriage--there is nothing wrong with being immersed in the workplace, but there are many who have no desire to permit their jobs to infringe on other parts of their life.
Some people are simply more concerned with the superficial perceptions of status that are commonly associated with salaries than they are with either work-life balance or true financial benefits. As with many other parts of modern life, the business world is full of shallowness--business itself is not shallow, but many businesspeople are. Business, like all other things, must be examined without any assumptions if one wants to understand it properly.
One such myth about business relates to pay structures. Hourly work is often perceived as inferior to salaried work, in large part due to the fact that salaried pay is fixed over a set period of time, whereas, while pay per hour is fixed, the hours a person works might fluctuate. After accounting for the fact that both hourly and salaried positions can come with benefits, it becomes clear that neither pay structure is inherently better in itself. One or the other can still be an objectively better fit for a particular person in a particular life context, however.
Although salaries are often regarded as inherently superior to wages, more than one variable determines which of the two is the financially superior option. Since a salary is inflexible (though bonuses or raises could be periodically applied, as with hourly pay) regardless of the amount of work done, accepting a salaried position can trap someone in a role that entails more responsibilities without pay that changes with the scope of weekly or monthly work. Furthermore, it is far from impossible to make more money from hourly wages than from a salary!
Salaried positions can also disrupt one's "work-life balance" in ways that hourly work does not, requiring an increasingly invasive amount of attention that would have otherwise been directed to matters of personal or intellectual importance. In the pursuit of corporate prestige, some people might be willing to sacrifice hobbies or the formation of new relationships. As long as a given person does not sacrifice actual obligations--such as their friendships or marriage--there is nothing wrong with being immersed in the workplace, but there are many who have no desire to permit their jobs to infringe on other parts of their life.
Some people are simply more concerned with the superficial perceptions of status that are commonly associated with salaries than they are with either work-life balance or true financial benefits. As with many other parts of modern life, the business world is full of shallowness--business itself is not shallow, but many businesspeople are. Business, like all other things, must be examined without any assumptions if one wants to understand it properly.
Monday, July 29, 2019
Legalistic Dating Restrictions
One aspect of the idiocy of legalism is the mere assumption that people intent on committing acts of immorality, sexual or otherwise, cannot find ways to carry them out despite additional restrictions on their behaviors. Of course, even if legalism was an effective deterrent, it still violates the commands of the Bible itself (Deuteronomy 4:2). Biblical morality is not rooted in utilitarian principles! However, legalism has no true power to make someone fulfill their actual obligations to begin with, much less the power to make them even adhere to the non-obligatory, extra-Biblical rules that are nothing but constructs of fallacious traditions.
For example, some Christians try to prohibit dating partners from seeing each other alone or for prolonged periods of time, lest they have premarital sex (not that premarital sex is sinful on its own: noncommittal sex is what Exodus 22:16-17 condemns). This asinine approach ignores many things, but its subscribers never seem to realize that it, like other forms of legalism, will not even necessarily prevent the outcome it is supposed to avert. If a couple wants to have sex prior to a formal committment, arbitrarily limiting their time together or alone to, say, an hour or less will not stop them. After all, it is certainly possible to circumvent many legalistic boundaries.
Legalism does, however, intrinsically interfere with the innocent pursuits of people who have no desire to engage in a given sinful behavior. It is inevitably motivated by a disdain for nonsinful activities, fear of outcomes that may never happen, or a desire to control others due to personal insecurities. There is no morally or logically sound motivation for legalism, and thus there is no such thing as a righteous or rational legalist. At best, legalism only makes someone appear righteous in the superficial perceptions of the ignorant. Rational people do not judge someone's moral character based on their adherance to traditions or non-obligatory rules; they instead judge someone's character based on their actions and seeming intentions.
Legalism does not accomplish anything positive, but it does often lead to suspicion of those who do not abide by constructs of the church. How many couples have evangelical Christians suspected of sleeping together without commitment simply because they regularly spend time alone? Conservative Christians are often quick to make negative assumptions about someone's character when it comes to sexual matters--not that any assumption is ever justified, of course--after observing completely amoral or nonsinful activities.
Sexuality is not all that defines interactions between men and women who harbor romantic or sexual interest in each other, but it is not the inherently dangerous, overpowering thing that conservative Christians (aka, most vocal evangelicals) treat it as. A man and woman who experience even deep sexual attraction to each other are not fated to have casual sex or merely reduce each other to instruments of sexual pleasure. Any legalist who thinks that a couple cannot choose to not act on any potential sexual feelings in a sinful way--or that either member of a given couple wants to have casual sex to begin with--is only a misguided fool.
For example, some Christians try to prohibit dating partners from seeing each other alone or for prolonged periods of time, lest they have premarital sex (not that premarital sex is sinful on its own: noncommittal sex is what Exodus 22:16-17 condemns). This asinine approach ignores many things, but its subscribers never seem to realize that it, like other forms of legalism, will not even necessarily prevent the outcome it is supposed to avert. If a couple wants to have sex prior to a formal committment, arbitrarily limiting their time together or alone to, say, an hour or less will not stop them. After all, it is certainly possible to circumvent many legalistic boundaries.
Legalism does, however, intrinsically interfere with the innocent pursuits of people who have no desire to engage in a given sinful behavior. It is inevitably motivated by a disdain for nonsinful activities, fear of outcomes that may never happen, or a desire to control others due to personal insecurities. There is no morally or logically sound motivation for legalism, and thus there is no such thing as a righteous or rational legalist. At best, legalism only makes someone appear righteous in the superficial perceptions of the ignorant. Rational people do not judge someone's moral character based on their adherance to traditions or non-obligatory rules; they instead judge someone's character based on their actions and seeming intentions.
Legalism does not accomplish anything positive, but it does often lead to suspicion of those who do not abide by constructs of the church. How many couples have evangelical Christians suspected of sleeping together without commitment simply because they regularly spend time alone? Conservative Christians are often quick to make negative assumptions about someone's character when it comes to sexual matters--not that any assumption is ever justified, of course--after observing completely amoral or nonsinful activities.
Sexuality is not all that defines interactions between men and women who harbor romantic or sexual interest in each other, but it is not the inherently dangerous, overpowering thing that conservative Christians (aka, most vocal evangelicals) treat it as. A man and woman who experience even deep sexual attraction to each other are not fated to have casual sex or merely reduce each other to instruments of sexual pleasure. Any legalist who thinks that a couple cannot choose to not act on any potential sexual feelings in a sinful way--or that either member of a given couple wants to have casual sex to begin with--is only a misguided fool.
Sunday, July 28, 2019
Does Rape Legitimize Abortion?
One of the scenarios that pro-choice proponents might cite as justification for abortion (there is one circumstance that justifies abortion, to be mentioned later) is the rape of a woman. This situation is one of the most emotionally charged for many to discuss when addressing abortion, but logic reveals that it is still a matter of simplicity. Now, there are imbeciles who group rape and incest together in a way that equates them when addressing this issue, as if incest is inherently nonconsensual or as if the male must be the abuser when it is, but the true matter at hand pertains to rape.
If rape and murder are both wrong, neither one could ever make the other permissible. One injustice cannot legitimize another, and thus not even the rape of a woman (I specify "of a woman" because the idea that only women can be or are raped is a vile myth) can justify needlessly extinguishing the life of an unborn child. If abortion is murder and if murder is immoral, it inescapably follows that abortion, like any other form of murder, is immoral. The matter is ultimately that simple.
A woman who is raped has no obligation to keep a child she did not plan for, of course, but she can ensure that she does not have to raise the child without having it killed in the womb. Offering the baby for adoption once it is born would allow her to avoid unwanted parental responsibilities while preserving the life of an innocent person. It is not as if the only possibilities are life as a reluctant parent or abortion!
There is only one situation in which abortion is justifiable. Unless a mother's life is genuinely threatened by a pregnancy [1], nothing morally distinguishes abortion from the murder of a person outside of the womb. The only reason why this scenario is an exception is because no one is obligated to sacrifice their life for that of another person, as neither "convenience" nor being victimized by an offense grants one the right to commit murder--no one can have a right to commit an evil.
While some of the subjects affiliated with abortion are more complicated than others (i.e. the reconciliation of personhood with being biologically human), the nature of abortion itself is not complex. If humans have rights due to being human, then unborn humans possess these rights by default. Thus, it is not as if rape changes the fundamental nature of what abortion is. That rape is tragic is wholly irrelevant to the moral status of abortion.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/07/abortion-in-cases-of-life-threatening.html
If rape and murder are both wrong, neither one could ever make the other permissible. One injustice cannot legitimize another, and thus not even the rape of a woman (I specify "of a woman" because the idea that only women can be or are raped is a vile myth) can justify needlessly extinguishing the life of an unborn child. If abortion is murder and if murder is immoral, it inescapably follows that abortion, like any other form of murder, is immoral. The matter is ultimately that simple.
A woman who is raped has no obligation to keep a child she did not plan for, of course, but she can ensure that she does not have to raise the child without having it killed in the womb. Offering the baby for adoption once it is born would allow her to avoid unwanted parental responsibilities while preserving the life of an innocent person. It is not as if the only possibilities are life as a reluctant parent or abortion!
There is only one situation in which abortion is justifiable. Unless a mother's life is genuinely threatened by a pregnancy [1], nothing morally distinguishes abortion from the murder of a person outside of the womb. The only reason why this scenario is an exception is because no one is obligated to sacrifice their life for that of another person, as neither "convenience" nor being victimized by an offense grants one the right to commit murder--no one can have a right to commit an evil.
While some of the subjects affiliated with abortion are more complicated than others (i.e. the reconciliation of personhood with being biologically human), the nature of abortion itself is not complex. If humans have rights due to being human, then unborn humans possess these rights by default. Thus, it is not as if rape changes the fundamental nature of what abortion is. That rape is tragic is wholly irrelevant to the moral status of abortion.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/07/abortion-in-cases-of-life-threatening.html
Saturday, July 27, 2019
Intellectual Humility
No one is truly arrogant unless they think more highly of themself than they should. As far as intellectual matters are concerned, this means that simply thinking that one is intellectually sound--or even thinking one is intellectually superior to those who wallow in fallacies--is not erroneous, given that one truly is sound. There is no arrogance in proclaiming that one knows something that one truly knows or in taking pleasure in actual knowledge! Despite this, genuine intellectual arrogance often goes unidentified, unacknowledged, and unopposed.
It is immensely arrogant to pretend or truly believe that one knows that which cannot be proven, and yet this form of arrogance infects the whole of society other than a small handful of genuine rationalists. To believe that one can ascertain truths that epistemological limitations prevent one from knowing, no matter how appealing it may be to some, is to disregard the omnipresent and immutable laws of logic, which disintegrate attempts to establish knowledge of what cannot be known. However, some might try to feign intellectual humility by committing the inverse error.
When pressed, many people might also exude a false humility by pretending like nothing can be known with absolute certainty or by acting like no one could possibly deserve hostility, mockery, or hatred for their ideological blunders. Unfortunately, this form of arrogance is quite common: after several precise questions, many people's worldviews shatter, and yet tolerance is often regarded as humble and obligatory, as if a person can somehow be better than their worldview allows them to be. Instead of following logic wherever it leads, though, many would rather deny that anything can ultimately be known at all than submit to reason or abandon tolerance, rejecting the necessary truths of logic and both contradicting and refuting themselves in the process.
Arrogance and a perverted sense of intellectual humility are far more common than epistemological accuracy, despite their blatant destructiveness. One of the reasons this is the case is that many do not even understand what intellectual humility is to begin with. Intellectual humility lies only in understanding one's epistemological limitations and refusing to believe that which cannot be proven while also acknowledging that whatever can be established by reason is knowable. Anything else, anything that strays to the left or to the right, is by necessity either only arrogance or an illusory humility.
It is immensely arrogant to pretend or truly believe that one knows that which cannot be proven, and yet this form of arrogance infects the whole of society other than a small handful of genuine rationalists. To believe that one can ascertain truths that epistemological limitations prevent one from knowing, no matter how appealing it may be to some, is to disregard the omnipresent and immutable laws of logic, which disintegrate attempts to establish knowledge of what cannot be known. However, some might try to feign intellectual humility by committing the inverse error.
When pressed, many people might also exude a false humility by pretending like nothing can be known with absolute certainty or by acting like no one could possibly deserve hostility, mockery, or hatred for their ideological blunders. Unfortunately, this form of arrogance is quite common: after several precise questions, many people's worldviews shatter, and yet tolerance is often regarded as humble and obligatory, as if a person can somehow be better than their worldview allows them to be. Instead of following logic wherever it leads, though, many would rather deny that anything can ultimately be known at all than submit to reason or abandon tolerance, rejecting the necessary truths of logic and both contradicting and refuting themselves in the process.
Arrogance and a perverted sense of intellectual humility are far more common than epistemological accuracy, despite their blatant destructiveness. One of the reasons this is the case is that many do not even understand what intellectual humility is to begin with. Intellectual humility lies only in understanding one's epistemological limitations and refusing to believe that which cannot be proven while also acknowledging that whatever can be established by reason is knowable. Anything else, anything that strays to the left or to the right, is by necessity either only arrogance or an illusory humility.
Game Review--Call Of Duty: Black Ops Zombies (Android)
". . . I'm almost out of vodka . . . I mean, no power!"
--Nikolai Belinski, Call of Duty: Black Ops Zombies
Since the introduction of Nazi Zombies in 2008's Call of Duty: World at War, zombie mode has been one of the most popular parts of the Call of Duty franchise. It is hardly surprising that Black Ops' zombie mode was eventually ported to smartphones. The hardware limitations of the smartphone platform are evident in Black Ops Zombies on the Android, especially when it comes to controls, but much of the game is executed well nonetheless. The original mobile game in the franchise, Call of Duty: Zombies (which contained maps from World at War), was never released for the Android, but Black Ops Zombies might help hold Android players over until the release of Call of Duty Mobile later this year!
Production Values
The graphics are definitely no longer at the pinnacle of smartphone visuals, and the fact that they are outdated at this point will only become more obvious with the release of new smartphone ports. Nevertheless, they effectively scale the environments of four maps from the console version of Black Ops to the much smaller screens of smartphones (or tablets). Even though the locations are not as visually impressive as they are on consoles, the map details and layouts are generally faithful to those of the initial designs.
From the weapon noises to the cries of the zombies, the sound is excellent, and it has aged far better than the graphics have. Black Ops Zombies also has secret songs in some of its maps, a holdover from their initial release on consoles. Yes, Elena Seigman's fitting song 115 is still featured as an easter egg in the Kino Der Toten map, just as it is in the original Black Ops version of the map and in its Black Ops III remaster--and a convenient glitch allows players to listen to it (and the other easter egg songs) repeatedly in one game by saving, quitting, and returning to the file!
Not all of the glitches are as favorable, though. Random freezes that stall or crash the app occur from time to time. Furthermore, the touch controls are sometimes unresponsive or difficult to use. For instance, to reload your current firearm, you have to tap the weapon icon in the upper right corner, but moving the virtual joystick that controls character movement too far makes you run, which cancels the reloading process. It is rather easy to move the joystick too far, though, and thus you sometimes have to simply stand still in order to reload without using all ammunition in a given magazine.
Gameplay
Black Ops Zombies involves the same basic gameplay elements of every Zombies outing. One must repel waves of increasingly durable zombies (though the maximum number of zombies in a wave is smaller than it is in the console games) while managing a dwindling supply of ammo, buying perks as needed, and obtaining superior weapons. Some maps require that one restore electrical power to the area before using perk machines (or traps), so exploration is a necessity for newcomers.
Players can choose from any of the four main characters from the console version of zombie mode in Black Ops, three difficulty levels, and four maps before they start killing the undead and amassing points. Kino Der Toten ("Theater of the Dead"), Ascension, Call of the Dead, and Dead Ops Arcade all return from the first Black Ops game, complete with their secrets, perks, and at least many of their weapons!
Dead Ops Arcade, in contrast to the first-person gameplay of the other maps, is played from an overhead perspective, with zombies dropping power ups and bonuses more frequently. You can acquire temporary weapons like flamethrowers and grenade launchers that provide exception firepower, yet disappear after several moments. Four coin parts must be found on various menu screens to access Dead Ops to begin with, but the hunt is very simple.
Story
There is an expansive, overarching story that spans the various Zombies maps in multiple Call of Duty games, but it is very difficult to glean details about it without already knowing how to perform key easter eggs in specific maps. Due to the highly secretive nature of the lore easter eggs, I will not spoil any plot points.
Intellectual Content
The game has no major thematic elements pertaining to anything deep, but no one can legitimately claim that Black Ops Zombies, like other versions of zombie mode, does not require strategy or skill beyond a certain point. While that point might arrive at different waves for various players, one cannot simply play without some sort of plan that is malleable enough to adapt to the increasing difficulty and still survive without a great deal of luck. Beyond this, there are secrets in each map that can be discovered by attentive exploration.
Conclusion
Black Ops Zombies might not be the best rendition of Call of Duty's massively popular zombie mode, but it is an admirable port of console Zombies maps to the Android (and IOS). Its current form is, nevertheless, not as complete as it could have been--at least one more map would have greatly augmented the value of the game. At the very least, though, its flaws do not prevent it from delivering another way to kill zombies in the increasingly elaborate Call of Duty zombie mode mythos.
Since the upcoming Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is confirmed to not have any type of zombie mode, fans of the mode will have to keep playing older content to slay Samantha's zombies, and smartphone owners might find that Black Ops Zombies helps them bide their time until another console game with the mode is announced. There is still one DLC Zombies map that has yet to be released for Black Ops 4, though--expect a review when it is finally out!
Content:
1. Violence: While the blood does not look very realistic, spurts of blood follow some shots. The heads of zombies can be blown off of their torsos, just as their legs can be torn off by grenades and monkey bombs.
--Nikolai Belinski, Call of Duty: Black Ops Zombies
Since the introduction of Nazi Zombies in 2008's Call of Duty: World at War, zombie mode has been one of the most popular parts of the Call of Duty franchise. It is hardly surprising that Black Ops' zombie mode was eventually ported to smartphones. The hardware limitations of the smartphone platform are evident in Black Ops Zombies on the Android, especially when it comes to controls, but much of the game is executed well nonetheless. The original mobile game in the franchise, Call of Duty: Zombies (which contained maps from World at War), was never released for the Android, but Black Ops Zombies might help hold Android players over until the release of Call of Duty Mobile later this year!
Production Values
The graphics are definitely no longer at the pinnacle of smartphone visuals, and the fact that they are outdated at this point will only become more obvious with the release of new smartphone ports. Nevertheless, they effectively scale the environments of four maps from the console version of Black Ops to the much smaller screens of smartphones (or tablets). Even though the locations are not as visually impressive as they are on consoles, the map details and layouts are generally faithful to those of the initial designs.
From the weapon noises to the cries of the zombies, the sound is excellent, and it has aged far better than the graphics have. Black Ops Zombies also has secret songs in some of its maps, a holdover from their initial release on consoles. Yes, Elena Seigman's fitting song 115 is still featured as an easter egg in the Kino Der Toten map, just as it is in the original Black Ops version of the map and in its Black Ops III remaster--and a convenient glitch allows players to listen to it (and the other easter egg songs) repeatedly in one game by saving, quitting, and returning to the file!
Not all of the glitches are as favorable, though. Random freezes that stall or crash the app occur from time to time. Furthermore, the touch controls are sometimes unresponsive or difficult to use. For instance, to reload your current firearm, you have to tap the weapon icon in the upper right corner, but moving the virtual joystick that controls character movement too far makes you run, which cancels the reloading process. It is rather easy to move the joystick too far, though, and thus you sometimes have to simply stand still in order to reload without using all ammunition in a given magazine.
Gameplay
Black Ops Zombies involves the same basic gameplay elements of every Zombies outing. One must repel waves of increasingly durable zombies (though the maximum number of zombies in a wave is smaller than it is in the console games) while managing a dwindling supply of ammo, buying perks as needed, and obtaining superior weapons. Some maps require that one restore electrical power to the area before using perk machines (or traps), so exploration is a necessity for newcomers.
Players can choose from any of the four main characters from the console version of zombie mode in Black Ops, three difficulty levels, and four maps before they start killing the undead and amassing points. Kino Der Toten ("Theater of the Dead"), Ascension, Call of the Dead, and Dead Ops Arcade all return from the first Black Ops game, complete with their secrets, perks, and at least many of their weapons!
Dead Ops Arcade, in contrast to the first-person gameplay of the other maps, is played from an overhead perspective, with zombies dropping power ups and bonuses more frequently. You can acquire temporary weapons like flamethrowers and grenade launchers that provide exception firepower, yet disappear after several moments. Four coin parts must be found on various menu screens to access Dead Ops to begin with, but the hunt is very simple.
Story
There is an expansive, overarching story that spans the various Zombies maps in multiple Call of Duty games, but it is very difficult to glean details about it without already knowing how to perform key easter eggs in specific maps. Due to the highly secretive nature of the lore easter eggs, I will not spoil any plot points.
Intellectual Content
The game has no major thematic elements pertaining to anything deep, but no one can legitimately claim that Black Ops Zombies, like other versions of zombie mode, does not require strategy or skill beyond a certain point. While that point might arrive at different waves for various players, one cannot simply play without some sort of plan that is malleable enough to adapt to the increasing difficulty and still survive without a great deal of luck. Beyond this, there are secrets in each map that can be discovered by attentive exploration.
Conclusion
Black Ops Zombies might not be the best rendition of Call of Duty's massively popular zombie mode, but it is an admirable port of console Zombies maps to the Android (and IOS). Its current form is, nevertheless, not as complete as it could have been--at least one more map would have greatly augmented the value of the game. At the very least, though, its flaws do not prevent it from delivering another way to kill zombies in the increasingly elaborate Call of Duty zombie mode mythos.
Since the upcoming Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is confirmed to not have any type of zombie mode, fans of the mode will have to keep playing older content to slay Samantha's zombies, and smartphone owners might find that Black Ops Zombies helps them bide their time until another console game with the mode is announced. There is still one DLC Zombies map that has yet to be released for Black Ops 4, though--expect a review when it is finally out!
Content:
1. Violence: While the blood does not look very realistic, spurts of blood follow some shots. The heads of zombies can be blown off of their torsos, just as their legs can be torn off by grenades and monkey bombs.
Friday, July 26, 2019
The Iron Throne
Power itself is not a physical thing, and yet objects can serve as demonstrations or representations of the power held by certain individuals. One of the most historically common examples of an object that is tied to political authority, of course, is a throne. It hardly surprising, then, that thrones have also signified power in fiction, including in the A Song of Ice and Fire book series and the show Game of Thrones, with the latter being derived from the former.
Game of Thrones provides a visual sign of the power associated with the status of King or Queen of the Seven Kingdoms. The Iron Throne, like Tolkien's Ring of Power, is in one sense a physical representation of the power that so many characters are eager to obtain. Whatever their intentions behind the endeavor to become ruler of the Seven Kingdoms, the characters who seek the throne ultimately seek not a mere chair comprised of swords, but the power that the chair symbolizes.
Despite the fact that many of the contenders are monstrous, their behaviors are not triggered by either the throne or the power it represents. The Iron Throne has no ability to corrupt the men and women who pursue it, for evil cannot reside in an unconscious object. Evil can only exist as long as there are evildoers: without a sentient being harboring evil intent or carrying out evil actions, evil does not exist. Those who blame power for the injustices of leaders overlook the heart of the issue. Neither power nor physical objects that represent power are problematic; it is only how and why power is pursued that can be immoral.
Many people are eager to blame power for corrupting leaders, as if humans are powerless to resist temptation, as if all people are tempted to misuse power, and as if power is inherently negative to begin with. It takes little more than a few moments to refute each of these mistaken stances. Simplistic, insufficient, fallacious ideas are always easier for the masses to grasp than accurate ones, of course--it should come as no surprise that the standard beliefs about power are asinine.
Power, even when it highly concentrated, is not itself evil, and thus a mere proximity to or the possession of political or social power is irrelevant to a person's moral character. This means that no person who finds himself or herself tempted to abuse power is fated to inevitably descend into tyranny, as the mere exercise of power is not a sinful thing, and any temptation can be ignored or resisted. It is far easier to get many people to admit these facts, though, than it is to bring them to acknowledge that not even having extraordinary power is a moral temptation to everyone.
The fault of anyone who fails to use power righteously lies with that person alone; no title, rank, crown, or throne can make a person use his or her power unjustly or selfishly. Evil resides nowhere except in the hearts of evildoers. The problem with Westeros was never the Iron Throne, but was always instead the fact that the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants, like the overwhelming majority of humans across all of recorded history, are shallow, hypocritical, and philosophically and morally incompetent.
Game of Thrones provides a visual sign of the power associated with the status of King or Queen of the Seven Kingdoms. The Iron Throne, like Tolkien's Ring of Power, is in one sense a physical representation of the power that so many characters are eager to obtain. Whatever their intentions behind the endeavor to become ruler of the Seven Kingdoms, the characters who seek the throne ultimately seek not a mere chair comprised of swords, but the power that the chair symbolizes.
Despite the fact that many of the contenders are monstrous, their behaviors are not triggered by either the throne or the power it represents. The Iron Throne has no ability to corrupt the men and women who pursue it, for evil cannot reside in an unconscious object. Evil can only exist as long as there are evildoers: without a sentient being harboring evil intent or carrying out evil actions, evil does not exist. Those who blame power for the injustices of leaders overlook the heart of the issue. Neither power nor physical objects that represent power are problematic; it is only how and why power is pursued that can be immoral.
Many people are eager to blame power for corrupting leaders, as if humans are powerless to resist temptation, as if all people are tempted to misuse power, and as if power is inherently negative to begin with. It takes little more than a few moments to refute each of these mistaken stances. Simplistic, insufficient, fallacious ideas are always easier for the masses to grasp than accurate ones, of course--it should come as no surprise that the standard beliefs about power are asinine.
Power, even when it highly concentrated, is not itself evil, and thus a mere proximity to or the possession of political or social power is irrelevant to a person's moral character. This means that no person who finds himself or herself tempted to abuse power is fated to inevitably descend into tyranny, as the mere exercise of power is not a sinful thing, and any temptation can be ignored or resisted. It is far easier to get many people to admit these facts, though, than it is to bring them to acknowledge that not even having extraordinary power is a moral temptation to everyone.
The fault of anyone who fails to use power righteously lies with that person alone; no title, rank, crown, or throne can make a person use his or her power unjustly or selfishly. Evil resides nowhere except in the hearts of evildoers. The problem with Westeros was never the Iron Throne, but was always instead the fact that the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants, like the overwhelming majority of humans across all of recorded history, are shallow, hypocritical, and philosophically and morally incompetent.
Yahweh Has No Gender
Despite the popularity of referring to God as if he is male, the Biblical God is outside the very context of gender. As a spiritual entity, the deity of the Bible is sometimes described using analogies that compare him to a father, but to understand God to literally be male distorts the meaning of the passages that use these comparisons. In fact, to call God male (or female) dramatically contradicts the plain Biblical description of Yahweh.
Yahweh is a purely immaterial being, having no corporeal shell to house his consciousness (John 4:24). Thus, Yahweh cannot have any gender at all--gender is only a category for the physical body (contrary to the myths conservatives cling to, there is no difference between men and women on a nonphysical level)! Only beings that possess bodies can be male or female, as there is no psychological component to gender/sex (contrary to the myth liberals tend to subscribe to, the words are completely interchangeable).
There is nonetheless language in the Bible that describes God as a father, but this title cannot mean that God has a gender for the aforementioned reason. Such a thing is simply impossible. Additionally, some Biblical passages describe God as if he is a mother, such as Isaiah 49:15 and Matthew 23:37. These verses are often ignored by people who mistakenly equate the shifting cultural construct of "masculinity" with men's gender/sex and also regard God as if he is a man. Do these verses mean that God is female? Of course not! In the same way, the verses that describe God as a father do not mean that he is male.
Yahweh has no gender, and therefore anyone who labels the Biblical deity "male" in any sense which implies that God is gendered only speaks out of ignorance. A mind without a body is incapable of fitting into the biological categories of male and female. The idea that God is, for all intents and purposes, a man is stupid at best, but at its worst it is a false idea that complementarians appeal to as a supposed Biblical basis for treating men and women who do not fit into their fallacious stereotypes as if they are defective. Even without the affiliated complementarian nonsense, the stupidity of the idea alone merits rejection.
Yahweh is a purely immaterial being, having no corporeal shell to house his consciousness (John 4:24). Thus, Yahweh cannot have any gender at all--gender is only a category for the physical body (contrary to the myths conservatives cling to, there is no difference between men and women on a nonphysical level)! Only beings that possess bodies can be male or female, as there is no psychological component to gender/sex (contrary to the myth liberals tend to subscribe to, the words are completely interchangeable).
There is nonetheless language in the Bible that describes God as a father, but this title cannot mean that God has a gender for the aforementioned reason. Such a thing is simply impossible. Additionally, some Biblical passages describe God as if he is a mother, such as Isaiah 49:15 and Matthew 23:37. These verses are often ignored by people who mistakenly equate the shifting cultural construct of "masculinity" with men's gender/sex and also regard God as if he is a man. Do these verses mean that God is female? Of course not! In the same way, the verses that describe God as a father do not mean that he is male.
Yahweh has no gender, and therefore anyone who labels the Biblical deity "male" in any sense which implies that God is gendered only speaks out of ignorance. A mind without a body is incapable of fitting into the biological categories of male and female. The idea that God is, for all intents and purposes, a man is stupid at best, but at its worst it is a false idea that complementarians appeal to as a supposed Biblical basis for treating men and women who do not fit into their fallacious stereotypes as if they are defective. Even without the affiliated complementarian nonsense, the stupidity of the idea alone merits rejection.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Political Stances Are Moral Stances
In light of the present societal leanings toward a superficial sense of unity and tolerance, political differences between individuals are sometimes treated as if they are irrelevant to relationships between individuals. When one realizes that political diferences are ultimately differences in values and metaphysical or epistemological stances, it becomes clear that politics is not an unimportant factor of either relationships or philosophy. Therefore, it needs to be regarded as such.
Politics is not all that there is to a person's worldview, but a given political ideology is inescapably the result of a person's metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological stances, regardless of how correct they are. In other words, an irrational political position is a symptom of potential problems with the whole of someone's worldview, not merely the political aspects of it. Beyond this, there is also the fact that the effects of political ideas are often more readily visible than the consequences of other philosophical beliefs.
It follows that politics is not a thing that should be shoved aside in order to accomodate romantic relationships, marital relationships, or friendships. Political stances are inherently moral stances (unless they are a combination of political ideas with nihilism, something that is extremely rare at best), and thus anyone who prioritizes making friendships over a commitment to moral consistency elevates their subjective fulfillment over matters of truth. Even when two people of drastically different political backgrounds are genuine friends, they are unable to share the deepest level of relational intimacy.
Moral errors are more serious than a lack of intimacy, of course. The idea that two people can politically differ without having any significant moral differences is asinine. Two people with conflicting moral stances, furthermore, cannot be moral equals as long as either one refuses to abandon any fallacious or contradictory notions. Both persons may be unjust, but they cannot both be just at the same time. Given that politics is not disconnected from metaphysics and ethics, there is no basis for regarding a person's beliefs about the former as something that should not be emphasized.
The pressure to trivialize political differences, and therefore moral differences, is simply another manifestation of Western culture's fixation on the delusions of tolerance. Politics is nothing other than the application of worldviews in the context of governance, and conflicting worldviews are inherently unequal. How can the people who unrelentingly cling to thoroughly differing worldviews be equal if the ideologies they espouse are not?
Politics is not all that there is to a person's worldview, but a given political ideology is inescapably the result of a person's metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological stances, regardless of how correct they are. In other words, an irrational political position is a symptom of potential problems with the whole of someone's worldview, not merely the political aspects of it. Beyond this, there is also the fact that the effects of political ideas are often more readily visible than the consequences of other philosophical beliefs.
It follows that politics is not a thing that should be shoved aside in order to accomodate romantic relationships, marital relationships, or friendships. Political stances are inherently moral stances (unless they are a combination of political ideas with nihilism, something that is extremely rare at best), and thus anyone who prioritizes making friendships over a commitment to moral consistency elevates their subjective fulfillment over matters of truth. Even when two people of drastically different political backgrounds are genuine friends, they are unable to share the deepest level of relational intimacy.
Moral errors are more serious than a lack of intimacy, of course. The idea that two people can politically differ without having any significant moral differences is asinine. Two people with conflicting moral stances, furthermore, cannot be moral equals as long as either one refuses to abandon any fallacious or contradictory notions. Both persons may be unjust, but they cannot both be just at the same time. Given that politics is not disconnected from metaphysics and ethics, there is no basis for regarding a person's beliefs about the former as something that should not be emphasized.
The pressure to trivialize political differences, and therefore moral differences, is simply another manifestation of Western culture's fixation on the delusions of tolerance. Politics is nothing other than the application of worldviews in the context of governance, and conflicting worldviews are inherently unequal. How can the people who unrelentingly cling to thoroughly differing worldviews be equal if the ideologies they espouse are not?
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
Intelligence And Originality
Intelligence and originality, as is the case with many other concepts or words, are usually defined in erroneous or incomplete ways. Intelligence is not a measure of one's educational status, memory accuracy, or communicative abilities; it is simply one's ability to understand and use reason. Originality is often regarded as nothing other than either the discovery of completely unacknowledged truths or manners of self-expression that have never been displayed by others, but it is broader than this description suggests, as 1) discovering truths that almost no one knows or speaks of and 2) autonomously reasoning logical facts out are also obvious manifestations of originality.
Given the sharp distinction between the two forms of originality, the relationship between intelligence and originality depends on which type of the latter is in question. Intelligence is an integral part of intellectual autonomy, the second form of originality, and yet that someone possesses intelligence does not necessarily mean that they will identify the many logical facts that no figure of prominence on the historical or contemporary stage has so much as referenced. There is an enormous difference between the two manifestations of philosophical originality.
Intelligence is inescapably required to exercise intellectual originality in the first sense (except in rare cases where someone might stumble into a newly discovered or little known truth on accident), but someone is not unintelligent merely for having not discovered the "neglected truths" [1] (there are still a few more neglected truths I did not mention in the linked post as well!). It is the second kind of originality, instead, that intelligence permits all people to exercise, even if they do not go beyond the boundary points of other thinkers, whether those thinkers are competent or incompetent (as the vast majority of historical and contemporary academics/philosophical authors have been).
One of the most unique manifestations of intelligence is certainly the ability to discover the truths that others tend to ignore or remain unaware of--or to discover truths that no one else has formally discovered or acknowledged. Nevertheless, no one needs to worry about an alleged lack of intelligence on their part if they cannot reason out the most complex or precise truths without having heard of them elsewhere! Intelligence is one's ability to grasp and wield reason, not one's ability to discover the specific truths that have gone unrecognized or unmentioned throughout human history; originality of the first sense often requires intelligence, but intelligence does not require this form of originality.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html
Given the sharp distinction between the two forms of originality, the relationship between intelligence and originality depends on which type of the latter is in question. Intelligence is an integral part of intellectual autonomy, the second form of originality, and yet that someone possesses intelligence does not necessarily mean that they will identify the many logical facts that no figure of prominence on the historical or contemporary stage has so much as referenced. There is an enormous difference between the two manifestations of philosophical originality.
Intelligence is inescapably required to exercise intellectual originality in the first sense (except in rare cases where someone might stumble into a newly discovered or little known truth on accident), but someone is not unintelligent merely for having not discovered the "neglected truths" [1] (there are still a few more neglected truths I did not mention in the linked post as well!). It is the second kind of originality, instead, that intelligence permits all people to exercise, even if they do not go beyond the boundary points of other thinkers, whether those thinkers are competent or incompetent (as the vast majority of historical and contemporary academics/philosophical authors have been).
One of the most unique manifestations of intelligence is certainly the ability to discover the truths that others tend to ignore or remain unaware of--or to discover truths that no one else has formally discovered or acknowledged. Nevertheless, no one needs to worry about an alleged lack of intelligence on their part if they cannot reason out the most complex or precise truths without having heard of them elsewhere! Intelligence is one's ability to grasp and wield reason, not one's ability to discover the specific truths that have gone unrecognized or unmentioned throughout human history; originality of the first sense often requires intelligence, but intelligence does not require this form of originality.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Male Body Image
Western society's overemphasis on the female body has a result that many often overlook. When women are praised for their appearances in ways that ignore or trivialize other aspects of their being, men's bodies are usually ignored at the same time. Conservative traditions treat men and women as opposites in ways that have nothing to do with anatomy and physiology. Consequently, an emphasis on the female body is almost always accompanied by the neglect of the male body--and the denial or dismissal of male struggles with issues concerning body image.
Men can struggle quite deeply with the acceptance of their bodies, just as women can, and yet it is more common to hear about the drastically overexaggerated capacity of women to struggle with matters related to body image. If a woman admits to struggling with the acceptance of her appearance, many would rush to affirm the beauty of her body even though the actual societal factors "pressuring" women to look a certain way are far less numerous and overt than many people pretend. Contrarily, if a man admits to struggling with the acceptance of his body, many people do not encourage him in the same way. Furthermore, the male body is often judged beautiful only within far stricter parameters than those affiliated with judgments of female beauty.
Someone is not concerned with their body's appearance simply because they are a woman, just as another person is not unconcerned with their body's appearance simply because they are a man. Instead of treating people as individuals when it comes to what they think of their body, many assume that men simply do not care about wanting to be physically attractive or do not care to the same extent that women are assumed to. The desires of men to be physically beautiful--in either a platonic or sexual way--are often completely unacknowledged even by otherwise egalitarian people. At worst, the male body is treated as a humorous, utilitarian, or largely unattractive thing, as evidenced by many jokes in popular culture.
The human body, not just the female body, is worthy of acknowledgment and admiration, and thus the idea that one gender or the other has the more beautiful body by default is a sexist myth that harms both genders. If one gender is held up as more beautiful than the other, it will be directly or indirectly encouraged to trivialize other aspects of its being, whereas the gender whose beauty is fallaciously regarded as inferior will almost inevitably have its desires for beauty disregarded. Men and women have bodies; men and women can be attractive. It follows that there is no basis for the sexist tendency to ignore men's bodies.
Men can struggle quite deeply with the acceptance of their bodies, just as women can, and yet it is more common to hear about the drastically overexaggerated capacity of women to struggle with matters related to body image. If a woman admits to struggling with the acceptance of her appearance, many would rush to affirm the beauty of her body even though the actual societal factors "pressuring" women to look a certain way are far less numerous and overt than many people pretend. Contrarily, if a man admits to struggling with the acceptance of his body, many people do not encourage him in the same way. Furthermore, the male body is often judged beautiful only within far stricter parameters than those affiliated with judgments of female beauty.
Someone is not concerned with their body's appearance simply because they are a woman, just as another person is not unconcerned with their body's appearance simply because they are a man. Instead of treating people as individuals when it comes to what they think of their body, many assume that men simply do not care about wanting to be physically attractive or do not care to the same extent that women are assumed to. The desires of men to be physically beautiful--in either a platonic or sexual way--are often completely unacknowledged even by otherwise egalitarian people. At worst, the male body is treated as a humorous, utilitarian, or largely unattractive thing, as evidenced by many jokes in popular culture.
The human body, not just the female body, is worthy of acknowledgment and admiration, and thus the idea that one gender or the other has the more beautiful body by default is a sexist myth that harms both genders. If one gender is held up as more beautiful than the other, it will be directly or indirectly encouraged to trivialize other aspects of its being, whereas the gender whose beauty is fallaciously regarded as inferior will almost inevitably have its desires for beauty disregarded. Men and women have bodies; men and women can be attractive. It follows that there is no basis for the sexist tendency to ignore men's bodies.
Monday, July 22, 2019
Free Will And Causality
One of the most fundamental facts about causality is one of the most obvious truths about it: every effect has a cause. Even when the exact cause of an effect is ultimately uncertain (as is the case with most causal relationships), one can easily prove that the event would not exist without a cause of some kind. Since a decision is an event, albeit a mental one, it, like a physical event, must have a cause. Nothing can produce nothing, and a decision is something that must be made by a decision-maker.
A free choice does have a cause, but this does not entail any sort of determinism; a free choice could have been made differently, but this does not mean free will is random. These facts only mean that a free choice requires a will to make the decision in question. A decision cannot be made in a vacuum, and yet no prior decision prevents one from choosing any options from a given set of possibilities. One choice does not negate the ability to choose one outcome from multiple options later on.
If a will is not dictated by some external force--God, the subconscious, or the laws of physics, to list several examples--there is no causal link between one decision and another. Suppose that a being with free will chooses to walk into a room in order to grab an object inside. It could, at any time, turn around and leave the room, as its former choice to enter does not force it to stay committed to any one course of action. Causality is upheld by necessity, as the being made its choice, but the causality of free will is not deterministic.
Nothing about the concept or existence of free will contradicts the necessary truths of causality. All events/effects must have a cause, but a will that is free is the architect of its own decisions. In other words, a free will is the self-guided cause of its own choices. Nothing forces its will so that it could not choose another option from the range of possible choices available to it. Without the potential to have selected a different course of action (even on a mental level), there is no volitional freedom.
A free choice does have a cause, but this does not entail any sort of determinism; a free choice could have been made differently, but this does not mean free will is random. These facts only mean that a free choice requires a will to make the decision in question. A decision cannot be made in a vacuum, and yet no prior decision prevents one from choosing any options from a given set of possibilities. One choice does not negate the ability to choose one outcome from multiple options later on.
If a will is not dictated by some external force--God, the subconscious, or the laws of physics, to list several examples--there is no causal link between one decision and another. Suppose that a being with free will chooses to walk into a room in order to grab an object inside. It could, at any time, turn around and leave the room, as its former choice to enter does not force it to stay committed to any one course of action. Causality is upheld by necessity, as the being made its choice, but the causality of free will is not deterministic.
Nothing about the concept or existence of free will contradicts the necessary truths of causality. All events/effects must have a cause, but a will that is free is the architect of its own decisions. In other words, a free will is the self-guided cause of its own choices. Nothing forces its will so that it could not choose another option from the range of possible choices available to it. Without the potential to have selected a different course of action (even on a mental level), there is no volitional freedom.
Sunday, July 21, 2019
The Soul That Sins Will Die
Traditionalists might claim that annihilationists distort the plain meaning of language when discussing the topic of hell, but it is actually traditionalists who usurp the common meanings of words. They take death and destruction to mean eternal conscious torment and eternal life to refer to a "quality" of life, after all! It is far from uncommon for them to claim that Romans 6:23, the popular verse proclaiming that the wages of sin is death, actually means that the wages of sin is perpetual torture in hell! Romans 6:23 is an overtly annihilationist verse, and yet its point can be found as far back as Old Testament verses like Ezekiel 18:4. "The soul that sins shall die" is quite clear, and yet traditionalists persist in ignoring its meaning.
Whether the soul as referred to here encompasses the physical and mental components of humanity (as some annihilationist claim) or human consciousness alone (as the word often means in contemporary usage), Ezekiel 18:4 explicitly affirms annihilationism and/or conditional immortality. Even though this verse alone does not specify if death due to sin occurs because God directly destroys someone or because sin itself brings about an inevitable state of non-existence, it clearly teaches that death, not eternal torture, is the ultimate consequence of sin. This is the inevitable conclusion of a literal reading of the text, which evangelicals might pride themselves on allegedly pursuing!
Ezekiel 18:4 foreshadows Romans 6:23 in rather blatant ways. Traditionalists laughably interpret the promise of "death" for sin in Romans 6:23 as a promise of eternal conscious torment for every fallen being, but the verse plainly describes death as the penalty for evil. Still, no one needs to read the New Testament to realize that the Bible teaches the same doctrine found in Romans 6:23 in the Old Testament. The New Testament does not suddenly introduce the concept of eternal conscious torment for every being that has sinned; instead, it continues the obvious predictions of the Old Testament that the wicked will be destroyed.
Human consciousness does not exist forever when it is cut off from God, the only being who possesses eternal life by nature (1 Timothy 6:16) and the source of life itself. The very idea that there is something inherently immortal about the human soul--which is nothing other than a heresy that defies 1 Timothy 6:16--is a pathetic myth that has been repeated so many times by Christians that many inside and outside of the church think the Bible truly teaches that humans are immortal by nature, just as God is. Ezekiel 18:4 is just one of multiple verses stating that humans will not live forever by default.
Whether the soul as referred to here encompasses the physical and mental components of humanity (as some annihilationist claim) or human consciousness alone (as the word often means in contemporary usage), Ezekiel 18:4 explicitly affirms annihilationism and/or conditional immortality. Even though this verse alone does not specify if death due to sin occurs because God directly destroys someone or because sin itself brings about an inevitable state of non-existence, it clearly teaches that death, not eternal torture, is the ultimate consequence of sin. This is the inevitable conclusion of a literal reading of the text, which evangelicals might pride themselves on allegedly pursuing!
Ezekiel 18:4 foreshadows Romans 6:23 in rather blatant ways. Traditionalists laughably interpret the promise of "death" for sin in Romans 6:23 as a promise of eternal conscious torment for every fallen being, but the verse plainly describes death as the penalty for evil. Still, no one needs to read the New Testament to realize that the Bible teaches the same doctrine found in Romans 6:23 in the Old Testament. The New Testament does not suddenly introduce the concept of eternal conscious torment for every being that has sinned; instead, it continues the obvious predictions of the Old Testament that the wicked will be destroyed.
Human consciousness does not exist forever when it is cut off from God, the only being who possesses eternal life by nature (1 Timothy 6:16) and the source of life itself. The very idea that there is something inherently immortal about the human soul--which is nothing other than a heresy that defies 1 Timothy 6:16--is a pathetic myth that has been repeated so many times by Christians that many inside and outside of the church think the Bible truly teaches that humans are immortal by nature, just as God is. Ezekiel 18:4 is just one of multiple verses stating that humans will not live forever by default.
Saturday, July 20, 2019
More Than Biological Machines
While biology itself asserts no falsehoods, many biologists, like many cosmologists and general physicists, are often quite philosophically unintelligent. They erroneously declare that the mechanistic causal relationships that govern the body leave no room for free will. In doing so, they overlook what others might find obvious: in one sense, we are consciousnesses with bodies, not bodies with consciousnesses. The human will is not a slave to biological factors beyond its control even though the body is largely at the mercy of external stimuli. In fact, biology as a whole is of no actual relevance to the epistemological and metaphysical nature of free will.
Though scientists may insist otherwise, neuroscience itself is ultimately irrelevant to the entire subject of free will. Even if free will was completely unverifiable or unfalsifiable, neuroscience would have no bearing on the epistemology of the issue [1], in part because of the inability of science to establish metaphysical facts (other than facts about our perceptions) and in part due to the distinction between consciousness and matter. Denial of this fact is one of the greatest mistakes made by modern neuroscientists and biologists at large.
Phenomenology transcends mere biology, as consciousness--the animating force possessed by all sentient life--is nonphysical, even if human consciousness would not exist without matter. Consciousness, which is a prerequisite for having a will, is an immaterial existent. Thus, the determinism that defines how the external world affects the body does not automatically mean that the will is dictated by physical events. Furthermore, the latter type of determinism can be completely falsified!
As I have emphasized multiple times before, no one has to assume that they have free will, and to propose that an assumption is epistemologically valid is asinine (an assumption might be true, but one cannot assume and know at the same time). Not only does it not follow from any biological fact about the human body that free will does not exist, but the very existence of knowledge--something that cannot exist without a mind--proves the presence of free will [2]. Unless one can freely choose one's worldview, one cannot know if an idea is true, as external forces control one's worldview formation. To deny that one can know at least some things, though, is inherently self-refuting, and thus free will's existence can be proven and not merely assumed.
Our bodies may have many processes that are wholly unaffected by our wills, but our wills inescapably govern our actions, and we can voluntarily direct the thoughts that precede those actions as we please. If I wish to raise my leg, I can; if I wish to speak or refrain from speaking, I can likewise do so. In any of these cases, it is I myself who both wills to perform these activities and subsequently carries them out, the possibility of a choice to avert each action present at all times. I am certainly a biological creature--but I am not merely a deterministic biological machine, and neither is any other being which is metaphysically equivalent to me.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/07/neuroscience-is-irrelevant-to-free-will.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/refuting-assumption-about-free-will.html
Though scientists may insist otherwise, neuroscience itself is ultimately irrelevant to the entire subject of free will. Even if free will was completely unverifiable or unfalsifiable, neuroscience would have no bearing on the epistemology of the issue [1], in part because of the inability of science to establish metaphysical facts (other than facts about our perceptions) and in part due to the distinction between consciousness and matter. Denial of this fact is one of the greatest mistakes made by modern neuroscientists and biologists at large.
Phenomenology transcends mere biology, as consciousness--the animating force possessed by all sentient life--is nonphysical, even if human consciousness would not exist without matter. Consciousness, which is a prerequisite for having a will, is an immaterial existent. Thus, the determinism that defines how the external world affects the body does not automatically mean that the will is dictated by physical events. Furthermore, the latter type of determinism can be completely falsified!
As I have emphasized multiple times before, no one has to assume that they have free will, and to propose that an assumption is epistemologically valid is asinine (an assumption might be true, but one cannot assume and know at the same time). Not only does it not follow from any biological fact about the human body that free will does not exist, but the very existence of knowledge--something that cannot exist without a mind--proves the presence of free will [2]. Unless one can freely choose one's worldview, one cannot know if an idea is true, as external forces control one's worldview formation. To deny that one can know at least some things, though, is inherently self-refuting, and thus free will's existence can be proven and not merely assumed.
Our bodies may have many processes that are wholly unaffected by our wills, but our wills inescapably govern our actions, and we can voluntarily direct the thoughts that precede those actions as we please. If I wish to raise my leg, I can; if I wish to speak or refrain from speaking, I can likewise do so. In any of these cases, it is I myself who both wills to perform these activities and subsequently carries them out, the possibility of a choice to avert each action present at all times. I am certainly a biological creature--but I am not merely a deterministic biological machine, and neither is any other being which is metaphysically equivalent to me.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/07/neuroscience-is-irrelevant-to-free-will.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/refuting-assumption-about-free-will.html
An Example Of Lingerie's Nonsexuality
Although it is easy to find examples that demonstrate that there is nothing sexual about a man walking around without a shirt or a woman wearing a bikini [1] (even though logic proves these facts on its own without examples involving actual people), examples of lingerie in explicitly nonsexual contexts are less common. Many people consequently fail to recognize the nonsexuality of lingerie. This is not because lingerie is inherently sexual, as it is itself nonsexual [2]; this is because fewer people display or wear it without sexual motives.
Nevertheless, is not impossible to find examples of lingerie in nonsexual contexts. Singer Elize Ryd, one of three vocalists for the pop-metal/deathcore band Amaranthe, wears what practically amounts to lingerie during some of her performances, and yet I doubt anyone would call the setting of her concerts sexual. There is no talk of sexuality and no sexual behaviors are engaged in. The videos below show Elize wearing lingerie-like stage costumes while singing with her band.
Of course, some men might find Elize's clothing to be sexy--meaning that they find it sexually attractive or are mentally aroused by it--but this does not mean that her costumes are sexual in nature; it only means that some men appreciate them in a sexual way or have a sexual reaction to them on a psychological level. In the same way, women might find shirtless men to be very sexy, but this has nothing to do with whether or not a man has done anything sexual by forgoing a shirt.
The truth of the matter is that lingerie is objectively nonsexual [2] in the same way that male shirtlessness or bikinis are nonsexual. Some men and women might find the collarbones, legs, abdomens, or genitalia of the opposite gender to be sexually exciting, but no part of the human body is sexual on its own, regardless of how it is showcased or exposed by clothing. The body can be displayed with sexual intent, just as certain clothing can be worn with sexual intent, and yet this intent cannot make the human body (or clothing) sexual in itself. Lingerie is no different.
That lingerie is often worn by men and women in explicitly sexual contexts--no matter what sexist nonsense is uttered by some people, there is such a thing as male lingerie and women can thoroughly appreciate it--with the intent of arousing a partner is irrelevant to whether or not it is sexual. Even if someone refuses to allow reason to illuminate the matter on its own, they should be able to at least comprehend that arousal does not indicate that a thing is sexual, as many everyday examples prove. It only takes consistent rationality to realize that even lingerie is nonsexual.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/bikinis-are-not-sexual.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/lingerie-is-not-sexual.html
Nevertheless, is not impossible to find examples of lingerie in nonsexual contexts. Singer Elize Ryd, one of three vocalists for the pop-metal/deathcore band Amaranthe, wears what practically amounts to lingerie during some of her performances, and yet I doubt anyone would call the setting of her concerts sexual. There is no talk of sexuality and no sexual behaviors are engaged in. The videos below show Elize wearing lingerie-like stage costumes while singing with her band.
Of course, some men might find Elize's clothing to be sexy--meaning that they find it sexually attractive or are mentally aroused by it--but this does not mean that her costumes are sexual in nature; it only means that some men appreciate them in a sexual way or have a sexual reaction to them on a psychological level. In the same way, women might find shirtless men to be very sexy, but this has nothing to do with whether or not a man has done anything sexual by forgoing a shirt.
The truth of the matter is that lingerie is objectively nonsexual [2] in the same way that male shirtlessness or bikinis are nonsexual. Some men and women might find the collarbones, legs, abdomens, or genitalia of the opposite gender to be sexually exciting, but no part of the human body is sexual on its own, regardless of how it is showcased or exposed by clothing. The body can be displayed with sexual intent, just as certain clothing can be worn with sexual intent, and yet this intent cannot make the human body (or clothing) sexual in itself. Lingerie is no different.
That lingerie is often worn by men and women in explicitly sexual contexts--no matter what sexist nonsense is uttered by some people, there is such a thing as male lingerie and women can thoroughly appreciate it--with the intent of arousing a partner is irrelevant to whether or not it is sexual. Even if someone refuses to allow reason to illuminate the matter on its own, they should be able to at least comprehend that arousal does not indicate that a thing is sexual, as many everyday examples prove. It only takes consistent rationality to realize that even lingerie is nonsexual.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/bikinis-are-not-sexual.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/lingerie-is-not-sexual.html
Friday, July 19, 2019
Artificial Intelligence In Business
The impact of artificial intelligence on the future of business can only be estimated, but estimations can be formed on the basis of legitimate probability, as opposed to mere assertions. While no one can prove the specifics of exactly how artificial intelligence will continue to shape and reshape the workplace, there are blatant clues suggesting which jobs will be affected the most and how they will be impacted. In particular, any task that a simulated consciousness could easily replicate is at the greatest risk for no longer needing thorough human supervision, even if that task is almost exclusively associated with human workers in the public mind. This does not mean, however, that AI will eliminate the vast majority of human jobs, much less that it would do so anytime soon.
Certain jobs, such as those related to accounting, will be threatened by the increasing prominence of softwares that can perform calculations rapidly and accurately, whether those softwares will take the form of truly sentient machines/programs or not. Other jobs, though, like those associated with upper management (CEO, CFO, and so on), are quite safe. Not only has artificial intelligence not progressed to the point where autonomous softwares have blatantly taken over every function of business, but it is also the case that no business leaders could be aware of the inner workings of their companies if they surrendered full control to AIs--even if those AIs were sentient robots!
Furthermore, for AI to even be or continue becoming an integral part of business operations, programming and technical evaluations are still necessities. Artificial intelligence may have the potential to erase the need for human involvement in many menial or repetitive tasks, but it still requires some degree of human management: someone needs to ensure that the AI is functioning as intended. Thus, programmers cannot entirely be done away with (at least for now) even as software analysis becomes more automated. This means that humans will still have a distinct role in overseeing how AI changes the workplace. Anyone who can facilitate human-AI relationships is likely to have secure job options in the near future.
There is no basis for thinking that artificial intelligence will nullify the human component of the workforce entirely, as some seem to suppose. The need for a human presence in the workplace will never entirely vanish. At the same time, certain industries and positions are more likely to be affected by the convenience of effective AI, and strategically planning one's career in a way that accounts for these seeming probabilities is ideal. The future is largely uncertain (nothing can be known about the future besides the fact that the necessary truths of logic will still apply), but the evidence of the current era provides some indication as to which direction the AI revolution will head in.
Certain jobs, such as those related to accounting, will be threatened by the increasing prominence of softwares that can perform calculations rapidly and accurately, whether those softwares will take the form of truly sentient machines/programs or not. Other jobs, though, like those associated with upper management (CEO, CFO, and so on), are quite safe. Not only has artificial intelligence not progressed to the point where autonomous softwares have blatantly taken over every function of business, but it is also the case that no business leaders could be aware of the inner workings of their companies if they surrendered full control to AIs--even if those AIs were sentient robots!
Furthermore, for AI to even be or continue becoming an integral part of business operations, programming and technical evaluations are still necessities. Artificial intelligence may have the potential to erase the need for human involvement in many menial or repetitive tasks, but it still requires some degree of human management: someone needs to ensure that the AI is functioning as intended. Thus, programmers cannot entirely be done away with (at least for now) even as software analysis becomes more automated. This means that humans will still have a distinct role in overseeing how AI changes the workplace. Anyone who can facilitate human-AI relationships is likely to have secure job options in the near future.
There is no basis for thinking that artificial intelligence will nullify the human component of the workforce entirely, as some seem to suppose. The need for a human presence in the workplace will never entirely vanish. At the same time, certain industries and positions are more likely to be affected by the convenience of effective AI, and strategically planning one's career in a way that accounts for these seeming probabilities is ideal. The future is largely uncertain (nothing can be known about the future besides the fact that the necessary truths of logic will still apply), but the evidence of the current era provides some indication as to which direction the AI revolution will head in.
Thursday, July 18, 2019
The Physics Of Object Permanence
There is not a single shred of evidence supporting the notion that object permanence is untrue: the sum of my experiences suggests that material objects continue to exist when I am not perceiving them. Of course, the only type of perception that proves the existence of matter is the sense of touch; sight and hearing do not necessarily correspond to anything outside of my consciousness [1]. Nevertheless, my collective sensory perceptions and memories together give the strong impression that material bodies continue to exist when I am not touching or seeing them.
From the standpoint of physics, an inanimate object does not move or change unless an outside force acts upon it in some way. This phenomenon is described by Newton's "First Law" of motion, which holds that objects at rest stay at rest (and that objects in motion stay in motion) while left to themselves. Newton's First Law suggests that object permanence applies to the external world, and there is no genuine evidence that this law is false. What many people fail to realize, though, is that Newton's laws, like all other scientific laws, only describe observed phenomena. In other words, no one knows if scientific laws remain constant when the external world is not being perceived.
Object permanence is not provable, as no one can actually demonstrate that matter exists unperceived. It is impossible to tell merely from observing a given material object if matter that one is not observing persists in its existence. The only facts that can be proven about that which cannot be perceived are logical facts; that is, no one needs to know if object permanence is true to know that the laws of logic govern the situation regardless (matter is always matter and non-matter is non-matter, so the necessary truths of identity are not nullified by scientific ignorance). Scientific laws are not true by necessity, and thus the veracity of object permanence is uncertain.
Some are fallacious enough to truly believe that the consistent evidence for object permanence proves its validity, while others are fallacious enough to embrace the claims of certain quantum physicists who insist that matter does not exist whatsoever without the direct perception of a conscious being. It is asinine to assume that sensory perceptions can inform one of how the external world behaves when unperceived and to assume that one can know that matter does not exist without perception. How could one perceive what one does not perceive? Such a thing is impossible!
Either way, the whole of reality does not reduce down to either consciousness or matter; logic [2] and space [3] do not depend on either mind or matter, and yet idealists and materialists alike are too stupid to admit this. These facts are often neglected in inquiries about the nature of matter. Furthermore, regardless of whether matter exists without being observed or otherwise perceived, the epistemological evidence in favor of object permanence is massive.
The physics of object permanence simply cannot be fully verified, but they certainly cannot be falsified! One cannot know from mere perceptions if object permanence is either true or illusory, and yet all of the sensory evidence available strongly suggests that an object's existence persists even when one is not gazing at or touching it. As with many other accurate philosophical positions, this stance is rather nuanced, but the complexity of nuance is far less costly than the dangers of error.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/distinguishing-dreams-from-waking.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-refutation-of-naturalism-part-2.html
From the standpoint of physics, an inanimate object does not move or change unless an outside force acts upon it in some way. This phenomenon is described by Newton's "First Law" of motion, which holds that objects at rest stay at rest (and that objects in motion stay in motion) while left to themselves. Newton's First Law suggests that object permanence applies to the external world, and there is no genuine evidence that this law is false. What many people fail to realize, though, is that Newton's laws, like all other scientific laws, only describe observed phenomena. In other words, no one knows if scientific laws remain constant when the external world is not being perceived.
Object permanence is not provable, as no one can actually demonstrate that matter exists unperceived. It is impossible to tell merely from observing a given material object if matter that one is not observing persists in its existence. The only facts that can be proven about that which cannot be perceived are logical facts; that is, no one needs to know if object permanence is true to know that the laws of logic govern the situation regardless (matter is always matter and non-matter is non-matter, so the necessary truths of identity are not nullified by scientific ignorance). Scientific laws are not true by necessity, and thus the veracity of object permanence is uncertain.
Some are fallacious enough to truly believe that the consistent evidence for object permanence proves its validity, while others are fallacious enough to embrace the claims of certain quantum physicists who insist that matter does not exist whatsoever without the direct perception of a conscious being. It is asinine to assume that sensory perceptions can inform one of how the external world behaves when unperceived and to assume that one can know that matter does not exist without perception. How could one perceive what one does not perceive? Such a thing is impossible!
Either way, the whole of reality does not reduce down to either consciousness or matter; logic [2] and space [3] do not depend on either mind or matter, and yet idealists and materialists alike are too stupid to admit this. These facts are often neglected in inquiries about the nature of matter. Furthermore, regardless of whether matter exists without being observed or otherwise perceived, the epistemological evidence in favor of object permanence is massive.
The physics of object permanence simply cannot be fully verified, but they certainly cannot be falsified! One cannot know from mere perceptions if object permanence is either true or illusory, and yet all of the sensory evidence available strongly suggests that an object's existence persists even when one is not gazing at or touching it. As with many other accurate philosophical positions, this stance is rather nuanced, but the complexity of nuance is far less costly than the dangers of error.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/distinguishing-dreams-from-waking.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-refutation-of-naturalism-part-2.html
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Deborah's Leadership
A prominent example of a woman leading men with the direct approval of God can be found in the book of Judges, waiting to be acknowledged by all who seek to understand the Bible outside of the fallacious confines of tradition. The fourth chapter, only two chapters after it is said that God himself empowered the judges (2:16-19), tells of a female judge, a woman named Deborah. A prophetess and legal authority, she oversaw the Israelites with divine backing.
In an effort to deny the obvious ramifications of Judges 4, where she is introduced, some complementarians invent a fictitious explanation for why Deborah was permitted to lead. Many of them will actually claim that God allowed a woman to lead because no men were willing to shoulder the role, and the most misandrist complementarians will even say that God did this to shame Israelite men. Only a fool would pretend like Deborah was not leading at God's behest, and yet to honestly admit this undermines one of the key tenets of complementarianism: the bias against women who lead men, especially in a religious context.
Of course, the Bible never actually says that God settled for a female judge when no men proved willing to assume responsibility, nor does it condemn men who do not have a leader's strengths. The idea is an extra-Biblical non sequitur that complementarians might appeal to when someone confronts them about Deborah's blatant leadership of men. More specifically, some of the men she leads are male soldiers (though the Bible does not teach that soldiers should be men or that men should put themselves in harm's way while women wait on the sidelines, a notion which is very disrespectful towards men).
The Bible teaches nothing that denies the egalitarian nature of competent leadership. A rational person respects a leader based on qualities like effectiveness, intelligence, and moral character. The gender of a leader is irrelevant to all of these things, as a brief analysis reveals. Men and women can be intelligent, just, and socially skilled; to assume that a person has certain talents or deficiencies simply because of their gender is blatantly illogical in any case.
No one is fit to lead simply by virtue of having certain genitalia or chromosomes. It follows from this logical fact that no one is fit only for submission by virtue of being a man or a woman. Deborah exemplifies these facts, contradicting the complementarian myth that the Bible opposes women who lead men in a military, ecclesial, or domestic setting. Complementarians may distort or add to the story of Judges 4-5, but unrepentant misinterpretation proves nothing except their own stupidity.
In an effort to deny the obvious ramifications of Judges 4, where she is introduced, some complementarians invent a fictitious explanation for why Deborah was permitted to lead. Many of them will actually claim that God allowed a woman to lead because no men were willing to shoulder the role, and the most misandrist complementarians will even say that God did this to shame Israelite men. Only a fool would pretend like Deborah was not leading at God's behest, and yet to honestly admit this undermines one of the key tenets of complementarianism: the bias against women who lead men, especially in a religious context.
Of course, the Bible never actually says that God settled for a female judge when no men proved willing to assume responsibility, nor does it condemn men who do not have a leader's strengths. The idea is an extra-Biblical non sequitur that complementarians might appeal to when someone confronts them about Deborah's blatant leadership of men. More specifically, some of the men she leads are male soldiers (though the Bible does not teach that soldiers should be men or that men should put themselves in harm's way while women wait on the sidelines, a notion which is very disrespectful towards men).
The Bible teaches nothing that denies the egalitarian nature of competent leadership. A rational person respects a leader based on qualities like effectiveness, intelligence, and moral character. The gender of a leader is irrelevant to all of these things, as a brief analysis reveals. Men and women can be intelligent, just, and socially skilled; to assume that a person has certain talents or deficiencies simply because of their gender is blatantly illogical in any case.
No one is fit to lead simply by virtue of having certain genitalia or chromosomes. It follows from this logical fact that no one is fit only for submission by virtue of being a man or a woman. Deborah exemplifies these facts, contradicting the complementarian myth that the Bible opposes women who lead men in a military, ecclesial, or domestic setting. Complementarians may distort or add to the story of Judges 4-5, but unrepentant misinterpretation proves nothing except their own stupidity.
Abortion In Cases Of Life-Threatening Pregnancy
There is an obvious distinction between abortion because a baby is regarded as sub-human or inconvenient and abortion because a pregnancy or birth threatens the life of the mother. However, some pro-lifers condemn even the consideration that abortion might be permissible in the latter scenario. The only reason why a woman would be obligated to sacrifice herself so that her unborn baby can live is if unborn children have a greater value than adults, and yet this completely contradicts the actual pro-life stance. Anyone who condemns abortion as murder should quickly see why this is the case.
A consistent pro-life position affirms that all humans have the same baseline human rights. Thus, to prioritize unborn humans over humans outside of the womb by default only commits the inverse of the error that regards unborn children as inherently less important than other humans. Pro-choice ideology trivializes or outright ignores the humanity of those within the womb, while the idea that a mother who will die if her baby is born must simply resign herself to her death trivializes the humanity of the mother.
In order to remain consistent with the fundamental tenet of pro-life philosophy, one must admit that a mother whose life is threatened by a pregnancy has the right to choose which life will be treated as the higher priority. Some mothers in such a scenario might choose their children over themselves, and others might choose themselves; neither has sinned because no mother is obligated to die so that her unborn child can live [1].
It should not take anyone more than a few moments to realize that unborn babies have human rights if being human means that one has certain rights. Likewise, it should be obvious that it is unjust to automatically prioritize either the life of an unborn baby over that of its mother if simply being human grounds human rights. No position that denies either of these logical facts is rational (they are both facts about what follows from certain premises and are not even claims about whether or not humans have rights to begin with), and yet most people deny one or the other.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-exception-to-abortions-immorality.html
A consistent pro-life position affirms that all humans have the same baseline human rights. Thus, to prioritize unborn humans over humans outside of the womb by default only commits the inverse of the error that regards unborn children as inherently less important than other humans. Pro-choice ideology trivializes or outright ignores the humanity of those within the womb, while the idea that a mother who will die if her baby is born must simply resign herself to her death trivializes the humanity of the mother.
In order to remain consistent with the fundamental tenet of pro-life philosophy, one must admit that a mother whose life is threatened by a pregnancy has the right to choose which life will be treated as the higher priority. Some mothers in such a scenario might choose their children over themselves, and others might choose themselves; neither has sinned because no mother is obligated to die so that her unborn child can live [1].
It should not take anyone more than a few moments to realize that unborn babies have human rights if being human means that one has certain rights. Likewise, it should be obvious that it is unjust to automatically prioritize either the life of an unborn baby over that of its mother if simply being human grounds human rights. No position that denies either of these logical facts is rational (they are both facts about what follows from certain premises and are not even claims about whether or not humans have rights to begin with), and yet most people deny one or the other.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-exception-to-abortions-immorality.html
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
The Bible Does Not Praise Conscience
Conscience is one of the most dangerous distractions from truth that a person could succumb to. A person is perhaps never more willing to commit immoral acts than they are when they think they have morality on their side, but many attempts to argue for one moral position or another reduce to appeals to conscience. However, anyone who truly cares about morality itself, rather than simply about their own feelings about morality, will silence and ignore conscience whenever it interferes with their pursuit of moral knowledge.
Christians often fallaciously hold conscience in a very high regard despite its inherently subjective nature and despite the Bible explicitly teaching the doctrine of theonomist moral epistemology. On one hand, they claim that objective moral obligations exist (and according to the Bible they do); on the other hand, they often defend the idea that an arbitrary set of subjective emotions that differ from one person to the next can actually inform someone of objective moral facts.
Adding to God's commands is explicitly forbidden by the Bible (Deuteronomy 4:2), for only divine laws could have legitimate moral authority (1 John 3:4), and yet there is no way to know if one is adding to its commands apart from knowing the Bible itself! According to the very framework of moral epistemology that the Bible teaches, one cannot know moral obligations through conscience, societal standards, or consensus. The Christian who argues that conscience has genuine authority contradicts the Bible he or she claims to represent. As Romans 7:7 says, one could not know what sin is apart from God's primary moral revelation in Mosaic Law (though the other books of the Bible clarify some issues as well).
Christian theology is not necessary to refute the idea that conscience is a source of legitimate moral knowledge, of course; logic accomplishes this on its own by revealing that moral emotions only inform someone about his or her perceptions and preferences, proving nothing about whether morality even exists in the first place. Conscience can be useful for encouraging oneself to act in a certain way, but it is epistemologically useless when one wants to know about morality itself.
Apart from some sort of divine revelation, moral epistemology inescapably collapses into skepticism where one can only know 1) what follows from a given moral premise and 2) one's own moral emotions and preferences, having no reason to treat one moral premise as more likely to be true than another. The only moral ideas that can be disproven by logic alone are those which contain internal contradictions. The whims of conscience are not the moral revelation many Christians mistake them for, and the Bible does not praise conscience as necessary either for knowing moral obligations or for living them out.
Christians often fallaciously hold conscience in a very high regard despite its inherently subjective nature and despite the Bible explicitly teaching the doctrine of theonomist moral epistemology. On one hand, they claim that objective moral obligations exist (and according to the Bible they do); on the other hand, they often defend the idea that an arbitrary set of subjective emotions that differ from one person to the next can actually inform someone of objective moral facts.
Adding to God's commands is explicitly forbidden by the Bible (Deuteronomy 4:2), for only divine laws could have legitimate moral authority (1 John 3:4), and yet there is no way to know if one is adding to its commands apart from knowing the Bible itself! According to the very framework of moral epistemology that the Bible teaches, one cannot know moral obligations through conscience, societal standards, or consensus. The Christian who argues that conscience has genuine authority contradicts the Bible he or she claims to represent. As Romans 7:7 says, one could not know what sin is apart from God's primary moral revelation in Mosaic Law (though the other books of the Bible clarify some issues as well).
Christian theology is not necessary to refute the idea that conscience is a source of legitimate moral knowledge, of course; logic accomplishes this on its own by revealing that moral emotions only inform someone about his or her perceptions and preferences, proving nothing about whether morality even exists in the first place. Conscience can be useful for encouraging oneself to act in a certain way, but it is epistemologically useless when one wants to know about morality itself.
Apart from some sort of divine revelation, moral epistemology inescapably collapses into skepticism where one can only know 1) what follows from a given moral premise and 2) one's own moral emotions and preferences, having no reason to treat one moral premise as more likely to be true than another. The only moral ideas that can be disproven by logic alone are those which contain internal contradictions. The whims of conscience are not the moral revelation many Christians mistake them for, and the Bible does not praise conscience as necessary either for knowing moral obligations or for living them out.
Movie Review--Crawl
"They didn't like it when I was banging on the pipes."
--Dave Keller, Crawl
Another solid film with the "woman vs. nature" premise of The Shallows, Crawl has some obvious similarities to other semi-recent movies, with the main distinction being the type of animal the protagonist faces. The animal threat uniquely comes from a different species than that of many other films. Crawl has the advantage of being one of the only horror movies to feature alligators instead of a more conventional species like sharks, and there is never is better time than hurricane season to theatrically release a film about Florida hurricane flooding accompanied by a group of alligators!
Production Values
For the majority of the movie, it falls on the realistic weather effects, alligators, and lead performances to keep the film afloat, and they are able to rise to the occasion. The artistic execution complements the effects work (the weather truly does look real and the alligators are animated well)--in fact, even the cinematography is handled rather well. There are only so many ways a camera can be manipulated in small spaces, and some of the best scenes are enhanced by skilled camera work that takes advantage of the confined areas of the house that many scenes occur in.
The script has legitimate urgency because of the combination of the catastrophic weather and the alligators: the rising floodwater provides the alligators access to more parts of the home. This allows for some clever suspense that is rooted in both environmental factors that drive the characters to higher levels and the aggression of the wild animals that find themselves in new areas. The hurricane provides a non-forced reason for the characters to have to change positions without ever being reduced to an otherwise cheap plot device. In this regard, the weather is the main catalyst for tension.
There is more to Crawl than just effects and suspense, though. Despite the deepest character moments being strategically placed to carry viewers through the less eventful parts of the film, the two lead characters, acted by Kaya Scodelario and Barry Pepper, are able to convey genuine emotion in their performances. Periods in between the alligator attacks provide them the opportunity to reconcile and affirm their love for each other. Crawl is not a character-driven story, even though the characters have some very personal scenes; they are still ultimately there to provide a human presence for the alligators to be drawn to. They keep the movie afloat in the sense that their performances are strong enough to keep the movie going from one alligator attack to the next.
Story
Mild spoilers are below!
Haley, a talented swimmer, ignores warnings about an approaching hurricane and tries to find her father, who has not acknowledged any attempts by either of his daughters to reach him. Situated in Florida, her dad's house seems vacant, although there is also seeming evidence that he has not left. Haley finds his unconscious body in a basement area--and discovers that there are already two alligators under the house.
Intellectual Content
Though there is some degree of emotional depth in Crawl, there are no grand intellectual themes. This is not ultimately detrimental to the film, as this kind of story does not actually need anything more than several scenes of sincere emotion to provide greater depth and stakes to the plight of the characters.
Conclusion
Crawl is a very competent film that favorably contrasts with the massive scale of many modern movies. The small scale and focus on only two characters help set it apart from the more mainstream cinematic stories involving events that threaten the entire world, and these features are realized with genuine talent. Crawl already stands out from other animal attack films simply for featuring alligator attacks when most movies favor other animals, but the effects and performances elevate it further. Again, there is never a more appropriate time to release (or watch) a movie like this than the summer!
Content:
1. Violence: Some of the alligator attacks and kills are fairly violent. In one scene, an alligator is killed with a shovel. In other scenes, an alligator is stabbed in one of its eyes, a man's arm is torn off, a woman and her boyfriend are attacked while they loot a gas station, and a man is torn apart by multiple alligators.
2. Profanity: As events become increasingly dangerous, Hayley and her dad drop f-bombs and say "shit."
--Dave Keller, Crawl
Another solid film with the "woman vs. nature" premise of The Shallows, Crawl has some obvious similarities to other semi-recent movies, with the main distinction being the type of animal the protagonist faces. The animal threat uniquely comes from a different species than that of many other films. Crawl has the advantage of being one of the only horror movies to feature alligators instead of a more conventional species like sharks, and there is never is better time than hurricane season to theatrically release a film about Florida hurricane flooding accompanied by a group of alligators!
Production Values
For the majority of the movie, it falls on the realistic weather effects, alligators, and lead performances to keep the film afloat, and they are able to rise to the occasion. The artistic execution complements the effects work (the weather truly does look real and the alligators are animated well)--in fact, even the cinematography is handled rather well. There are only so many ways a camera can be manipulated in small spaces, and some of the best scenes are enhanced by skilled camera work that takes advantage of the confined areas of the house that many scenes occur in.
The script has legitimate urgency because of the combination of the catastrophic weather and the alligators: the rising floodwater provides the alligators access to more parts of the home. This allows for some clever suspense that is rooted in both environmental factors that drive the characters to higher levels and the aggression of the wild animals that find themselves in new areas. The hurricane provides a non-forced reason for the characters to have to change positions without ever being reduced to an otherwise cheap plot device. In this regard, the weather is the main catalyst for tension.
There is more to Crawl than just effects and suspense, though. Despite the deepest character moments being strategically placed to carry viewers through the less eventful parts of the film, the two lead characters, acted by Kaya Scodelario and Barry Pepper, are able to convey genuine emotion in their performances. Periods in between the alligator attacks provide them the opportunity to reconcile and affirm their love for each other. Crawl is not a character-driven story, even though the characters have some very personal scenes; they are still ultimately there to provide a human presence for the alligators to be drawn to. They keep the movie afloat in the sense that their performances are strong enough to keep the movie going from one alligator attack to the next.
Story
Mild spoilers are below!
Haley, a talented swimmer, ignores warnings about an approaching hurricane and tries to find her father, who has not acknowledged any attempts by either of his daughters to reach him. Situated in Florida, her dad's house seems vacant, although there is also seeming evidence that he has not left. Haley finds his unconscious body in a basement area--and discovers that there are already two alligators under the house.
Intellectual Content
Though there is some degree of emotional depth in Crawl, there are no grand intellectual themes. This is not ultimately detrimental to the film, as this kind of story does not actually need anything more than several scenes of sincere emotion to provide greater depth and stakes to the plight of the characters.
Conclusion
Crawl is a very competent film that favorably contrasts with the massive scale of many modern movies. The small scale and focus on only two characters help set it apart from the more mainstream cinematic stories involving events that threaten the entire world, and these features are realized with genuine talent. Crawl already stands out from other animal attack films simply for featuring alligator attacks when most movies favor other animals, but the effects and performances elevate it further. Again, there is never a more appropriate time to release (or watch) a movie like this than the summer!
Content:
1. Violence: Some of the alligator attacks and kills are fairly violent. In one scene, an alligator is killed with a shovel. In other scenes, an alligator is stabbed in one of its eyes, a man's arm is torn off, a woman and her boyfriend are attacked while they loot a gas station, and a man is torn apart by multiple alligators.
2. Profanity: As events become increasingly dangerous, Hayley and her dad drop f-bombs and say "shit."
Monday, July 15, 2019
Misleading Evangelical Use Of Philosophical Phrases
Linguistic hypocrisy and the use of misleading language are not rare phenomena. Evangelical apologists and teachers, including the incredibly over-hyped and fallacious William Lane Craig, are scarcely different than the average person in this regard, as they hijack or seemingly support certain phrases while not actually agreeing with what the phrases would normally mean. Consider the following examples that resemble things evangelicals might say--or that they actually do say.
"Logical truths are necessary truths."
The popular Christian apologists would almost certainly affirm the truth of this sentence--but they also claim that logic is rooted in God's existence or character, which would mean that logical truths are not necessary truths, as they depend on something other than themselves and thus have no intrinsic veracity. Many Christian apologists ultimately define logical truths as necessary truths only to deny that there is anything inherently necessary about them when pressed, as they think both that logic depends on God's existence and that nothing at all can be known with absolute certainty!
"Belief in God's existence is rational."
Evangelicals don't mean by this proposition that the existence of God can be logically proven, although it can be as long as one defines God as an uncaused cause. When questioned thoroughly enough, they admit to meaning "rational" in the sense of "reasonable" [1]--that is, in the sense that they are subjectively persuaded by the idea that God exists, without regard for whether they know how to logically prove it or not. The existence of an uncaused cause can be proven (and without any reliance on science [2]), a fact that cannot be altered by the stupidity of many theistic and atheistic thinkers alike.
"Sexuality is a gift from God."
Evangelicals don't actually mean that basic sexuality is a theologically positive aspect of human nature, and inherently so according to the Bible, that should be celebrated and enjoyed in all of its nonsinful manifestations (inside or outside of marriage) as Deuteronomy 4:2 permits [3]. Instead, they mean that sexuality is only to be affirmed, and even then often only in an embarrassed or shallow manner, in ways that do not upset the legalistic status quo, regardless of whether the Bible condemns a given form of sexual expression or not.
Evangelicalism has little to do with actual Christianity, despite being regarded by many Christians as a largely Biblical movement. At best, evangelicalism is an incomplete set of ideologies. At worst, it inverts numerous tenets of Biblical Christianity in favor of traditions and illogical preferences (the evangelical stance on moral epistemology, the nature of logic, faith and commitment, and sexuality are obvious examples). Evangelicals might delude themselves, but their linguistic and conceptual errors are apparent to all who search for them.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/04/reasonableness-and-rationality.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/sexual-legalism.html
"Logical truths are necessary truths."
The popular Christian apologists would almost certainly affirm the truth of this sentence--but they also claim that logic is rooted in God's existence or character, which would mean that logical truths are not necessary truths, as they depend on something other than themselves and thus have no intrinsic veracity. Many Christian apologists ultimately define logical truths as necessary truths only to deny that there is anything inherently necessary about them when pressed, as they think both that logic depends on God's existence and that nothing at all can be known with absolute certainty!
"Belief in God's existence is rational."
Evangelicals don't mean by this proposition that the existence of God can be logically proven, although it can be as long as one defines God as an uncaused cause. When questioned thoroughly enough, they admit to meaning "rational" in the sense of "reasonable" [1]--that is, in the sense that they are subjectively persuaded by the idea that God exists, without regard for whether they know how to logically prove it or not. The existence of an uncaused cause can be proven (and without any reliance on science [2]), a fact that cannot be altered by the stupidity of many theistic and atheistic thinkers alike.
"Sexuality is a gift from God."
Evangelicals don't actually mean that basic sexuality is a theologically positive aspect of human nature, and inherently so according to the Bible, that should be celebrated and enjoyed in all of its nonsinful manifestations (inside or outside of marriage) as Deuteronomy 4:2 permits [3]. Instead, they mean that sexuality is only to be affirmed, and even then often only in an embarrassed or shallow manner, in ways that do not upset the legalistic status quo, regardless of whether the Bible condemns a given form of sexual expression or not.
Evangelicalism has little to do with actual Christianity, despite being regarded by many Christians as a largely Biblical movement. At best, evangelicalism is an incomplete set of ideologies. At worst, it inverts numerous tenets of Biblical Christianity in favor of traditions and illogical preferences (the evangelical stance on moral epistemology, the nature of logic, faith and commitment, and sexuality are obvious examples). Evangelicals might delude themselves, but their linguistic and conceptual errors are apparent to all who search for them.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/04/reasonableness-and-rationality.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/sexual-legalism.html
Innovation In Cinema: The Value Of Reboots
Although many people at least claim that reboot fatigue is a major problem that the entertainment industry needs to address, some recent reboots have proven to be more sophisticated and praiseworthy than the films they reimagine or replace. Ironically, they exemplify how originality can be integrated into the revival of established stories. There is nothing about one, after all, that is inherently incompatible with the other.
The reboot of Child's Play, which only just left theaters, is a prime example of this. The characters are far deeper than those of the original; the themes are stronger and more developed; the violence and comedy are both amplified. Even if some refused to watch it out of an asinine bias against reboots, Child's Play is superior to the original film in practically every way.
The 2019 reboot does more than merely improve on basic elements of film like characterization and action, though. It updates the entire foundation of the story in a way that explores bold new ideas for the franchise and touches upon significant issues relevant to modern life, including artificial intelligence and the influence of mega-corporations. While it is still a Child's Play film, it clearly does not just rely on its 2019 release date to distinguish it from the initial 1988 film.
When executed properly, as the recent Child's Play affirms, reboots can be far more than unnecessary attempts to monetize nostalgia; they can redefine the very nature of familiar stories and raise contemporary philosophical questions. The best reboots highlight how looking to past films does not need to exclude originality, as there are certainly ways to honor the first film or series to bear a franchise name while introducing explicitly new content.
Some stories are ripe for periodic updates to account for technological, political, and sociological changes in a given culture. As long as filmmakers are willing and able to distinguish reboots from their predecessors, no one can legitimately claim that they are pointless or lacking in originality. At this point, there is no story that is completely original in the sense of containing wholly new plot devices, characters, or settings, and thus reboots are just as valid as new intellectual properties as long as they are handled correctly.
The reboot of Child's Play, which only just left theaters, is a prime example of this. The characters are far deeper than those of the original; the themes are stronger and more developed; the violence and comedy are both amplified. Even if some refused to watch it out of an asinine bias against reboots, Child's Play is superior to the original film in practically every way.
The 2019 reboot does more than merely improve on basic elements of film like characterization and action, though. It updates the entire foundation of the story in a way that explores bold new ideas for the franchise and touches upon significant issues relevant to modern life, including artificial intelligence and the influence of mega-corporations. While it is still a Child's Play film, it clearly does not just rely on its 2019 release date to distinguish it from the initial 1988 film.
When executed properly, as the recent Child's Play affirms, reboots can be far more than unnecessary attempts to monetize nostalgia; they can redefine the very nature of familiar stories and raise contemporary philosophical questions. The best reboots highlight how looking to past films does not need to exclude originality, as there are certainly ways to honor the first film or series to bear a franchise name while introducing explicitly new content.
Some stories are ripe for periodic updates to account for technological, political, and sociological changes in a given culture. As long as filmmakers are willing and able to distinguish reboots from their predecessors, no one can legitimately claim that they are pointless or lacking in originality. At this point, there is no story that is completely original in the sense of containing wholly new plot devices, characters, or settings, and thus reboots are just as valid as new intellectual properties as long as they are handled correctly.
Sunday, July 14, 2019
The New Physiognomy
In the broadest sense, the fallacious discipline of physiognomy could refer to any attempt to discern someone's moral character or personality traits from his or her physical features. In the most focused sense, physiognomy refers to the notion that facial characteristics can indicate the personality or moral characteristics of a given individual. It may have declined in popularity, but it is not as if many people do not cling to any similar ideas.
The new "physiognomy," though it is new only in the sense that it survives even after the general rejection of tradition physiognomy--entails assumptions based upon gender, not assumptions based upon nose size or other facial features. This erroneous ideology has never been consistently relinquished by human societies, although few people would presently be stupid enough to suppose a connection between facial appearance and personality characteristics.
Unsurprisingly, numerous people who are intelligent enough to reject the historical forms of physiognomy are often unintelligent enough to truly believe that one's genitalia or chromosomes dictates one's aspirations, moral character, competencies, and personality traits. Those whose actual psychological traits align with gender stereotypes might even enjoy the fact that various cultural biases favor them. More importantly, these biases might be compatible with their erroneous worldviews.
Without non-physical distinctions between men and women, there can be no basis for any segregation of the genders or for numerous other sexist traditions. Many proponents of the new "physiognomy"--almost always conservatives without fail--support it because they selectively want to preserve certain forms of sexism that are deeply intertwined with their lives. They might superficially condemn the most overt cases of misandry or misogyny, but they are comfortable with others, and they do not want their false worldviews to be challenged.
There will be no end to sexist practices and the harm they bring to men and women unless every person is treated as an individual. Gender stereotypes have become less prominent in modern times, but they have yet to be completely removed from Western life. The unjust biases and assumptions that are at the heart of many social interactions and jokes about gender bring only gratuitous misery for humanity as a whole.
Unsurprisingly, numerous people who are intelligent enough to reject the historical forms of physiognomy are often unintelligent enough to truly believe that one's genitalia or chromosomes dictates one's aspirations, moral character, competencies, and personality traits. Those whose actual psychological traits align with gender stereotypes might even enjoy the fact that various cultural biases favor them. More importantly, these biases might be compatible with their erroneous worldviews.
Without non-physical distinctions between men and women, there can be no basis for any segregation of the genders or for numerous other sexist traditions. Many proponents of the new "physiognomy"--almost always conservatives without fail--support it because they selectively want to preserve certain forms of sexism that are deeply intertwined with their lives. They might superficially condemn the most overt cases of misandry or misogyny, but they are comfortable with others, and they do not want their false worldviews to be challenged.
There will be no end to sexist practices and the harm they bring to men and women unless every person is treated as an individual. Gender stereotypes have become less prominent in modern times, but they have yet to be completely removed from Western life. The unjust biases and assumptions that are at the heart of many social interactions and jokes about gender bring only gratuitous misery for humanity as a whole.
Business And Philosophy
There is no ultimate division between the "practical" and the "philosophical." This does not mean that all practical matters are intellectually rich on their own, but it does mean that all practical matters involve epistemological and metaphysical issues. Philosophy encompasses everything; to deny this fact is self-refuting. Because nothing is outside of philosophy, nature of business and the workplace is not outside of such concerns.
As several moments of thinking about the subject reveals, business is not philosophically unimportant. There is far more that a business must consider besides how to generate as much money for stockholders as possible. In particular, business is intimately connected with ethics, despite the common misperception that the two exclude each other to some extent. When a corporation prioritizes stockholder returns above all else, it is in danger of descending into habits that ironically have the potential to devastate its reputation and consumer ties--and therefore devastate its earnings--later on.
The treatment of employees [1], the environment, and consumers is of great moral significance to the daily operations of businesses (with the obvious exception of sole proprietorships in the case of managing employees, as sole proprietors have no subordinates by definition). If humans have moral obligations, then those obligations do not disappear in a corporate context, and thus neither profit nor managerial ego can justify immoral behaviors. An intelligent leader can easily recognize that a desirable objective does not mean that any method of achieving that objective is valid.
It is possible, of course, to pursue both profitability and ethics at the same time. The issue is that many people think that to grasp one they must in some way let go of the other, and thus they end up doing the very thing they mistakenly believe is inevitable. If corporate leaders want to earn enough revenue to make consistent profits and simultaneously stay within the boundaries of their moral obligations, they will see that they can seek both goals without forfeiting either. If only possibility was always accompanied by willingness!
As several moments of thinking about the subject reveals, business is not philosophically unimportant. There is far more that a business must consider besides how to generate as much money for stockholders as possible. In particular, business is intimately connected with ethics, despite the common misperception that the two exclude each other to some extent. When a corporation prioritizes stockholder returns above all else, it is in danger of descending into habits that ironically have the potential to devastate its reputation and consumer ties--and therefore devastate its earnings--later on.
The treatment of employees [1], the environment, and consumers is of great moral significance to the daily operations of businesses (with the obvious exception of sole proprietorships in the case of managing employees, as sole proprietors have no subordinates by definition). If humans have moral obligations, then those obligations do not disappear in a corporate context, and thus neither profit nor managerial ego can justify immoral behaviors. An intelligent leader can easily recognize that a desirable objective does not mean that any method of achieving that objective is valid.
It is possible, of course, to pursue both profitability and ethics at the same time. The issue is that many people think that to grasp one they must in some way let go of the other, and thus they end up doing the very thing they mistakenly believe is inevitable. If corporate leaders want to earn enough revenue to make consistent profits and simultaneously stay within the boundaries of their moral obligations, they will see that they can seek both goals without forfeiting either. If only possibility was always accompanied by willingness!
Saturday, July 13, 2019
Correlative Relationships
Only a few exact causal relationships can be fully proven--matter's existence is proven by physical sensations [1] and the verifiability of free will means that my mind controls certain thoughts and bodily gestures [2], for instance. Nevertheless, there are many correlations that can be established. These correlative relationships are displayed numerous times in a given day: lights turning on after switches are pressed, ice melting when exposed to heat, and heavier objects falling more quickly to the ground than lighter items are all examples of correlations.
Science's function is to reveal such correlations between events in the external world. None of these mere correlations establishes exact causal relationships, as logic undermines the idea that the senses can determine which causes result in specific effects in the external world. There is no way to completely demonstrate, for instance, that an object falling into water is the cause of ripples, and yet it is easy to demonstrate a chronological connection. All that is required to confirm a connection is repeatable observation.
The possibility of repetition is vital, as consistent, repeated observations can directly show that one event routinely follows another. Many correlations are firm enough to serve as the basis for predictions about what seems likely to happen in the future, as long as the predictions are not regarded as absolute certainties. This is because there is no guarantee that the correlations will persist, much less that the right causes and effects have been matched together by observers. As with many issues, the truth is more nuanced than most are willing to acknowledge!
Correlation is not necessarily causation, and yet this fact does not leave us with complete ignorance about relationship between one event and another. Discovering correlative relationships is a simple matter. Unless scientific laws were to spontaneously change--a completely legitimate possibility--consistent correlations even justify expectations about future events. At the same time, belief that correlations will remain constant in the future remains irrational.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/explaining-free-will.html
Science's function is to reveal such correlations between events in the external world. None of these mere correlations establishes exact causal relationships, as logic undermines the idea that the senses can determine which causes result in specific effects in the external world. There is no way to completely demonstrate, for instance, that an object falling into water is the cause of ripples, and yet it is easy to demonstrate a chronological connection. All that is required to confirm a connection is repeatable observation.
The possibility of repetition is vital, as consistent, repeated observations can directly show that one event routinely follows another. Many correlations are firm enough to serve as the basis for predictions about what seems likely to happen in the future, as long as the predictions are not regarded as absolute certainties. This is because there is no guarantee that the correlations will persist, much less that the right causes and effects have been matched together by observers. As with many issues, the truth is more nuanced than most are willing to acknowledge!
Correlation is not necessarily causation, and yet this fact does not leave us with complete ignorance about relationship between one event and another. Discovering correlative relationships is a simple matter. Unless scientific laws were to spontaneously change--a completely legitimate possibility--consistent correlations even justify expectations about future events. At the same time, belief that correlations will remain constant in the future remains irrational.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/explaining-free-will.html
Friday, July 12, 2019
Perfection In Design
The design argument for God's existence, despite its popularity, is as helpful as a pile of dung [1]. In actuality, one must prove that a designer exists to even demonstrate that design exists in the first place (there is still one valid proof of God's existence, though [2])! The the fact that so many theistic/Christian apologists cling to this backwards argument testifies to their elevation of perceptions of design over legitimate reasoning, but there are still points about the philosophical concept of design that must be clarified so as to avoid misrepresentation.
Even though the design argument for God's existence is based on glaring non sequiturs, there are still asinine critiques of the very idea of theological design derived from a distorted understanding of causality. For instance, some claim that imperfections of the universe or in humankind refute the notion of a perfect designer. The issue of what is meant by "perfection" aside--the word is largely used in reference to some arbitrary set of subjective preferences, after all--there are some major flaws in this position.
It does not follow that every creation of a "perfect" creator must also possess perfection. Similarly, it is not true that everything a sentient being makes must also itself be sentient. The moment analogies like this are used, the point should become clear even to those who do not initially understand that a perfect designer does not necessitate perfect design. An effect does not have to have all of the same properties as its cause. There is no need for empirical examples, ultimately, as logic proves this fact on its own.
Furthermore, it does not follow from the creation of a perfect thing that the created thing will retain its perfection. A perfect item, whatever that might mean in a particular case, could lose its status and descend into imperfection. Although human phenomenology transcends mere matter, this is especially relevant in the case of created beings with free will, a feature that humans possess [3]. No design, no matter how initially perfect it is, is guaranteed to have a permanent perfection, and this is not difficult to prove.
The design argument for God might be philosophically worthless, but imperfections in created things do nothing to demonstrate imperfection on the part of whatever created them any more than the perception of design means design is actually present. Although the existence of an uncaused cause is a brute fact (again, see [2]), the nature of the universe tells us little to nothing about the nature of this entity. Anyone who looks to natural theology to settle issues about God's moral nature or intent behind creation, whether as a Christian or as a non-Christian, is searching for truths about the matter in the wrong place.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/refuting-assumption-about-free-will.html
Even though the design argument for God's existence is based on glaring non sequiturs, there are still asinine critiques of the very idea of theological design derived from a distorted understanding of causality. For instance, some claim that imperfections of the universe or in humankind refute the notion of a perfect designer. The issue of what is meant by "perfection" aside--the word is largely used in reference to some arbitrary set of subjective preferences, after all--there are some major flaws in this position.
It does not follow that every creation of a "perfect" creator must also possess perfection. Similarly, it is not true that everything a sentient being makes must also itself be sentient. The moment analogies like this are used, the point should become clear even to those who do not initially understand that a perfect designer does not necessitate perfect design. An effect does not have to have all of the same properties as its cause. There is no need for empirical examples, ultimately, as logic proves this fact on its own.
Furthermore, it does not follow from the creation of a perfect thing that the created thing will retain its perfection. A perfect item, whatever that might mean in a particular case, could lose its status and descend into imperfection. Although human phenomenology transcends mere matter, this is especially relevant in the case of created beings with free will, a feature that humans possess [3]. No design, no matter how initially perfect it is, is guaranteed to have a permanent perfection, and this is not difficult to prove.
The design argument for God might be philosophically worthless, but imperfections in created things do nothing to demonstrate imperfection on the part of whatever created them any more than the perception of design means design is actually present. Although the existence of an uncaused cause is a brute fact (again, see [2]), the nature of the universe tells us little to nothing about the nature of this entity. Anyone who looks to natural theology to settle issues about God's moral nature or intent behind creation, whether as a Christian or as a non-Christian, is searching for truths about the matter in the wrong place.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/refuting-assumption-about-free-will.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)