Emergent Properties: Phenomenology And Emergence

Emergence refers to the manner in which several particles, objects, or beings produce an outcome that would not be achieved without all of the units involved.  For example, a single water molecule does not possess the property of "wetness," but numerous water molecules result in wetness on other objects when they are placed together.  Wetness is an emergent property of having enough water molecules in one place.  This is an everyday example of emergence that many people take for granted, but the concept of emergence could apply in far more explicitly philosophical contexts--like the subject of consciousness.

Emergence has potential ramifications for phenomenology in particular.  If a collection of water molecules can produce an outcome that a single molecule does not, it is possible for a certain configuration of atoms to have produced initial human consciousness without explicit divine activity (of course, one can prove that it is possible even without the analogous example of water).  This hypothetical phenomenon can be referred to as emergent naturalism.  Despite the fact that it is not logically impossible for emergent naturalism to be true, however, there is no way to demonstrate that it is indeed valid.

Far too many overlook the fact that the exact origin of immaterial consciousness is irrelevant to several more important matters.  Regardless of whether God or matter creates human consciousness, there is still an uncaused cause, for instance.  Likewise, whether or not the first human consciousness was brought into existence by material causes, humans still possess free will; consciousness controls the body, not the other way around.  Furthermore, emergent naturalism for consciousness does not mean that all immaterial things are sustained by matter (logic and the very space that holds matter are not).

Consciousness very well may be the result of certain particle arrangements, but its potential emergence from matter cannot be verified or falsified because observed correlations do not confirm causation.  Acknowledging that emergent consciousness is a red herring to the issues of God's existence and free will, rather than making baseless assertions about unproven causal sequences, is the rational approach.  It is not as if emergent naturalism with regards to consciousness even slightly challenges the demonstrable veracity of basic theism and free will.

Movie Review--Ready Or Not

"At midnight, we have to play a game."
--Alex le Domas, Ready or Not


Ready or Not, with its mixture of brutal violence and spurts of comedy, is easily one of the best films of the year, succeeding on practically every level.  The film's story merges ambiguous metaphysical elements with a tale of a secretive and homocidal family in a way that takes some familiar elements and gives them a new context.  The trailers certainly withhold a great deal of information about the plot, including the philosophical and personal motivations behind the murderous behaviors of protagonist Grace's new in-laws.


Production Values

From the costumes and scenery to the dialogue and performances, Ready or Not is a production value powerhouse standing on a superb script.  The film blends very dark elements with genuine humor without having one aspect drown out the other, something that many movies fail to consistently accomplish.  There are few, if any, wasted scenes, the gravity of the story never losing momentum even during the most comedy-oriented moments.

Samara Weaving (who plays Grace), along with the other actresses and actors, is one of the biggest reasons why the execution of the jokes never contradicts the darkness of the atmosphere.  Her delivery elevates lines that already fit well into the context of the story to even greater heights.  Similarly, Mark O'Brien does an excellent job of portraying her husband, who skillfully navigates his role despite having less time onscreen.  The other members of the supporting cast handle their parts well, with several of them showing a great talent for comedic acting.


Story

Spoilers!

The le Domas family, enriched by great success in the board game industry, holds a wedding at a grand mansion.  A woman named Grace marries Alex le Domas, who attempts to inform her about some of the more abnormal family practices.  One such tradition is a family game night after weddings.  Grace selects a game by retrieving a card from an enigmatic device, but when she reveals that the game she chose is hide and seek, the family winces, preparing a variety of weapons after Grace exits the room in search of a place to hide.  She is unaware of the stakes of this game of hide and seek, just as she is unaware that Alex's family members hope to use her for an unspecified ritual.

I will not detail any more of the story because the trailers did a great job of concealing several major plot and lore elements.


Intellectual Content

At the core of Ready or Not is a family bent on preserving itself without regard for reason or morality, a fact that naturally displays the destructive consequences of making almost everything in one's life revolve around family ties.  In a refreshing contrast to the popularity of the idea that family deserves one's utmost devotion, the film highlights the obvious personal pitfalls of living for family over everything else in a much more extreme way than some people might expect, even if its creators only intended for the movie to be entertaining as a horror story.


Conclusion

Anyone looking for a new film that provides both brutality and humor should find viewing Ready or Not to be a highly satisfying experience.  At the very least, anyone looking for a horror-comedy movie will find that there is much more to the in-universe lore than the marketing suggests, which is admirable in a time when many stories have shallow plots.  Horror fans might want to give the movie a try for this reason alone.  As stated in the introductory paragraph, it's easily one of the year's best films thus far.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  This is certainly a bloody movie.  While the fights and killings leading up to the finale sometimes have more blood than the average film, a scene near the end is particularly graphic.
 2.  Profanity:  Various characters contribute to a high f-bomb count.

Science's Irrelevance To God's Existence

The confusion of science for reason is damaging on many levels, the idea that scientific premises could possibly justify belief in God being among these destructive outcomes.  Unfortunately, some of the most popular and renowned arguments for God are rooted in science, with most visible philosophers substituting premises strictly rooted in logical proofs for those supported by mere scientific evidence.  It is not just that science can never amount to anything more than a series of explanations that are never airtight and certain that renders science-based arguments for God useless, but also the fact that science has nothing to do with ultimate metaphysics.

Science is utterly incapable of establishing or falsifying metaphysical facts other than specific facts about one's sensory perceptions, and it is also always open to potential revision, while logic remains unchanged due to its inherent nature.  It follows from either one of these that basing one's metaphysics on anything unearthed by the scientific method is intellectual suicide.  Can anyone prove any of the specific scientific points the design argument for God hinges upon, for example?  Of course not!  Even if the main scientific points of the design argument were provable, it does not follow that God is responsible for them.

As if the non sequiturs of the design argument were not inept enough on their own, scientific arguments for God also set up their adherents for existential crises.  The person who pledges themselves to theism on the basis of science could always have their foundation ripped out from under their ideological legs with announcement of a single new scientific model or discovery.  After all, the first sign of new scientific data automatically brings with it the possibility of an alternate explanation for various empirical observations, and thus God's existence is never guaranteed to be relevant at any given point.  Only logic is immutable and permanent, and thus only logic can ground a sound worldview.

In light of this, it is asinine to believe in God because of unverifiable scientific concepts.  Logic alone can prove the existence of an uncaused cause [1] (as logic alone can grant absolute certainty about anything to begin with), and if human epistemological limitations meant that one could not prove the existence of God, then agnosticism would be the only legitimate stance on the issue of God's existence.  Either way, science is both epistemologically and metaphysically irrelevant to the matter, just as it is irrelevant to everything other than immediate practicality and better understanding one's perceptions of phenomena in the external world.

Theistic or Christian apologists who rely on science to ground their theism shoot themselves in the foot, crippling their own efficiency and accuracy even as they claim to represent sound demonstrations of God's existence.  A stable theist recognizes that science, considering the malleable nature of its theories, simply cannot justify any beliefs other than those about perceived connections between events in the external world.  Science is of great value for engineering solutions to practical problems and developing descriptions of how matter behaves, but it has no authority in the realm of metaphysics.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html

Parental Responsibility

One of the most unacknowledged truths about guilt is that a sense of guilt has no connection to whether or not someone has actually done something wrong.  Nevertheless, many people feel guilt over things that they do not even think are immoral at some point in their lives.  In light of this, it is not particularly surprising that parents of children who commit some surprising or extreme action sometimes feel as if they are somehow at fault for the behavior of their son or daughter (if the act is legitimately wrong), even when they realize their child is the one in error.

Some parents even experience deep guilt over the behaviors of their children when they fully recognize that they cannot possibly be responsible for the choices made by other people.  Unfortunately, there are some who truly believe that parents are responsible for particular acts of their children, as if telling a child to behave in a certain way inevitably motivates the child in question to do so!  Only a fool thinks that one autonomous being could ultimately be responsible for the misdeeds of another being with an autonomous will of its own.

If a parent makes no effort to point their child in the right direction, have they failed as a parent?  Of course.  This responsibility in no way means that they can be legitimately blamed for another person's decisions, however.  Even a parent who completely neglects his or her duties cannot rightly be said to be volitionally responsible for whatever course of action their child chose to pursue, whether positive or negative.  It is particularly ironic when Christians, who should readily point to both the metaphysical existence of free will and the Bible's affirmation of it, act as if a child's behavior says anything about the moral character of the parents!

It should take no one longer than several moments to reason out the distinction between one person and another, and only slightly longer to grasp the fact that one person's moral responsibility and will are distinct from those of another person.  Not even perfect parenting can force a child's will.  A parent's encouragement for their children to pursue rationality is never actually guaranteed to have a personal impact on their sons or daughters.  While parents are responsible for urging their children to live for matters of intellectual and moral substance, the very nature of individual freedom means that children alone are responsible for actually forming their worldviews and living accordingly.

Michal's Irrational Jealousy

One of the many stories of the Old Testament that the evangelical world overlooks can be found in 2 Samuel 6:12-23, focusing on a celebration of God's power and of the Ark of the Covenant.  During this celebration, King David dances in a way that exposes his body in front of servant girls.  Saul's daughter Michal, a wife of King David, finds herself enraged over the fact that her husband would dance in such a way.  His intentions were to celebrate Yahweh's presence, but his wife objected, thinking his self-exposure inappropriate.

Michal's indignant response is very similar to the legalistic words of modern evangelicals to women who wear bikinis or other clothing that is arbitrarily deemed "immodest."  She does not analyze the situation through a rationalistic comprehension of Yahweh's moral commands, but instead reacts out of petty emotionalism.  She despises David for his imagined offense (6:16), suggests that he is vulgar for exposing his body to members of the opposite gender (6:20), and is subsequently afflicted with barrenness (6:23).

In other words, Michal expresses outrage over her husband allowing other women to see his body and then is unable to give birth for the remainder of her life.  This is an outcome that conservative evangelicals would not almost certainly never expect!  After all, they tend to think that sexual jealousy is healthy even when there is no hint of infidelity on the level of a person's physical actions or motivations, not to mention the standard evangelical misconception that sensual displays of the human body are sexual by default (which prompts the mistaken belief that exposing one's body to the opposite gender at large is adulterous if one is already married).

Ironically, a jealous spouse often thinks being irritated when their partner's body is seen by other members of the opposite gender is a positive trait that strengthens the relationship, but it is a destructive attitude at best.  The body of a given husband or wife is not for only their spouse to see and admire, and the exposure of the human body is only situationally sexual to begin with.  Michal seemingly failed to grasp the fact that David's body was not a private possession of hers, as the very fact that she disliked that David's body was seen by other women establishes.

The personal consequences of Michal's anger at David serve as an obvious example of the fact that God is opposed to displays of jealousy that are prompted by nonsinful behaviors.  The ferocity of a person's feelings are of no relevance to the morality of another person's actions, even when the other person is a spouse and his or her actions contradict conservative sexual norms.  This aspect of 2 Samuel 6 might be commonly ignored precisely because it denies the legalism that has become entrenched in the church during its history.

The Amorality Of Corporate Monopolies

The fear that monopolies will inevitably prove to be destructive forces, like the fear that certain forms of government will always result in tyranny, is rooted in mere assumptions about the nature of power and corporate-political ethics.  It follows that the owners of genuine monopolies or near-monopolies do not act selfishly or maliciously simply by preserving the status of their companies.  Consider a hypothetical scenario where Company A has an entrenched monopoly over its main market and Company B, a creative but small business, targets the same market.

Suppose Company A has maintained almost exclusive control over the primary market it caters to (or even absolute control).  Company B, a small but successful firm that has only recently formed, is identified as a potential threat.  Recognizing the influence Company B might acquire in several years, Company A drowns out the rival's marketing with a massive marketing campaign of its own, relying on its enormous pool of resources, some of them tangible (money) and some of them intangible (an established, positive reputation).

If an actual corporation handled a threatening company in such a manner, it would not have misused its power.  Company A (or any real corporation with a mammoth grip on its markets) only errs if it uses illicit methods to preserve its power--methods like slander, deception, murder, or threats of physical violence.  All other methods are legitimate, even if they are rooted in the extreme difference in the resources and influence of the two firms--things that would certainly not be equal.

Monopolies themselves are amoral, as there is no amount of power that is immoral; it is only how a monopoly firm uses its power that can be unethical.  Of course, it is easy to stir up anti-monopoly sentiments in some circles, as large companies and very focused concentrations of power are often seen as morally suspect even when there is no evidence of actual wrongdoing.  These sentiments are the result of emotionalistic biases against a particular company or business itself.

Some businesses might use illegitimate methods to obtain their power and then use illegitimate methods to preserve it, but that does not mean that larger companies should be baselessly treated as if they are built on corporate misdeeds.  No one has sinned by constructing or running a corporate empire that monopolizes in one or more markets.  As such, it is people who assume negative things about firms with the status of near-monopolies that are in error, not the companies themselves, even if they actively thwart competition using legitimate methods that the rival firms do not have access to.

Physics And Time

To perform any physics experiment, there must first be some kind of matter to observe.  For matter to exist, there must already be space to hold it.  Furthermore, the only reason why a specific object or particle has its own identity is the laws of logic, and the only reason why scientists can have intelligible sensory experiences and contemplate their experiments is the fact that their intellects allow them to grasp those laws of logic.  For an experiment to be carried out, though, there is another key factor that needs to be acknowledged: time.

Time is required for all physical events to occur, including experiments intended to investigate the laws of physics as they are manifested in the macroworld or at the quantum level.  Nevertheless, time itself is not part of the natural world, like a plant, stone, or cloud is; it is an immaterial existent, although it is often mistakenly described as if it is something physical by many scientists.  Cosmology has been particularly distorted by people who equate time (and often space as well) with the cosmos.

Although matter cannot react or change without time, time is not made of matter because it has no tangible or visible presence and, more importantly, it could exist even if there was no matter at all.  Physics therefore cannot be the study of time, which is a strictly metaphysical endeavor: physics is the study of matter and its behaviors as they occur in time.  The observation of matter as it reacts to various events does not reveal truths about the metaphysics of time itself.  Rather, logic and immediate experiences do.  The scientific method can only reveal our perceptions of how matter behaves in a sequence of events within a given duration.

Scientific inquiries can only take place because logic, space, time, and the external world already exist (the former two exist by necessity, and the latter two exist because of the chain of events started by the uncaused cause).  None of them are demonstrated to exist by the scientific method.  Only reason can reveal its own self-evidence and then fully establish that time and matter of some sort exist.  As far as time is concerned, one must already recognize the passage of time before one can venture out into the natural world and begin the process of observing a phenomenon during measured periods of time.

The conflation of time with the physical universe is one consequence of the popular misconception that literally all aspects of reality somehow revolve around physics.  On the contrary, all aspects of reality hinge upon logic!  Physics is the ultimate science by virtue of containing cosmology, chemistry, and the physical elements of biology, but science is nonetheless inferior to reason on every level.  No matter how much further it is developed, physics can never encompass a "theory of everything" unless only everything physical is ascribed to it, as immaterial existents like logic, space, consciousness, and time must be explored in other ways.

Game Review--Titanfall 2 (Xbox One)

"Of all the things I've seen on the battlefields of the Frontier, the pilot is the true dominant force."
--Jack Cooper, Titanfall 2


While the first Titanfall delivered an excellent multiplayer experience, the absence of any significant single player functions dramatically limited the scope of the game.  Titanfall 2 improves the multiplayer, but it also features a campaign that expounds upon the franchise lore that was not thoroughly explored in its predecessor.  The campaign follows a protagonist named Jack Cooper as he aids the Frontier Militia with the assistance of a Titan ally, providing a supplement to the frenetic action of the multiplayer modes.  It also explores a particular ramification of AI technology that is only becoming more relevant to modern society.

Production Values

Despite the large scale of some of the in-game events, the frame rate and visuals work together well throughout both single player and multiplayer.  As one might expect, the Titans themselves are among the most detailed objects in the game, and the accompanying audio allows for a fairly deep exploration of the individuality of a particular Titan called BT-7274.  Voice acting is thus a much more central feature this time around, and it effectively develops the relationship between Cooper and BT-7274 throughout the campaign.  These two primary characters carry the story, which would be somewhat generic without their presence and without the execution of certain set pieces--not that the story is bad, but it is not particularly noteworthy when held up against that of other shooters.


Gameplay

The traditional Titanfall gunplay (yes, the smart pistol does return!) is just as good as it was before, but the addition of a story mode brings new elements to the game.  More specifically, the protagonist and his Titan often speak to each other.  The introduction of time-sensitive dialogue options provides players with some measure of control over certain conversations with BT-7274.  However, these choices do not impact the trajectory of the story or the ultimate development of the relationship between Cooper and his Titan.  Regardless of dialogue decisions, you get to obliterate enemy Titans during a search for a weapon of mass destruction powered by an energy source called the Ark.  As you start, your weapons are limited, but you naturally locate new Titan loudouts.

Collected at specific point in the relatively brief campaign, these various Titan loudouts allow access to diverse kinds of weaponry and abilities that can be swapped at any time during combat or between firefights.  There are other collectibles in the form of pilot helmets scattered throughout the environment, but these are accessed on foot and often require strategic acrobatics (the ability to run on walls in particular) to reach them.  The acrobatics are not just helpful in single player, though; they can be very useful in multiplayer as well.  Of course, multiplayer is the most popular aspect of the Titanfall franchise, and it makes a strong comeback in the sequel.

Multiplayer has been expanded so that even Titans themselves can be leveled up, in addition to the human pilots and the firearms they use.  One can also prestige one's XP status once the top level is reached for a pilot, Titan, or weapon respectively (similar to the prestige function in Call of Duty).  Many of the same game modes from the first Titanfall's multiplayer return, including Frontier Defense, a cooperative mode where four players defend a Harvester from five waves of increasingly powerful enemies.  The rewards system and distinct modes are deep enough to deserve dozens of hours from completionists.

Story

Minor spoilers below!

As an interplanetary corporation called the IMC plunders resources from multiple worlds, a rebel soldier named Jack Cooper trains to become a Titan pilot under an experienced veteran.  However, his mentor suffers a fatal wound, though he is able to authorize his Titan to work with Cooper shortly before his death.  Cooper subsequently develops a unique bond with the machine as the two aid the resistance in its efforts against the IMC.

Intellectual Content

Titanfall 2 is one of the only games that comes to mind where the thematic content of the story is actually executed better than the general narrative itself.  At the core of the campaign's storytelling and mechanics is the friendship between Cooper and his mentor's Titan, BT-7274.  The concept of AI companions is often associated largely with servile robots that perform utilitarian functions on behalf of humans or with sex robots, but AI has the potential to interact with humans in a much more broad manner.  Genuine human-AI friendship is far from impossible.  Moreover, this kind of friendship might be quite common in the near future, whether the robots in question are outwardly indistinguishable from humans or are massive exoskeletons with seeming or actual consciousness.


Conclusion

Titanfall 2 is a definite improvement over its predecessor, as the mere inclusion of a campaign gives it a scope that the first game clearly lacked.  To be sure, the campaign is not incredibly unique apart from the centrality of the connection between Cooper and BT-7274 and several miscellaneous, temporary gameplay mechanics, but its core theme of human-machine relationships is handled quite well.  It is the multiplayer, unsurprisingly, that carries the bulk of the Titanfall name in this sequel.  The depth of the multiplayer is what will likely draw in many players.  If you want a game comparable to Call of Duty but with some unconventional features, Titanfall 2 is a great option.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  Shooting at biological enemies and smashing them with a Titan are bloody affairs.
 2.  Profanity:  "Son of a bitch" is uttered in the campaign.

The Injustice Of Crucifixion

In experiencing death, Jesus received the wages of sin.  However, the fact that he was tortured (using several methods condemned by Deuteronomy 25:1-3) and crucified is of no soteriological relevance to his death, with the exception of one set of verses in Deuteronomy.  The verses in question (Deuteronomy 21:22-23) only permit the suspension of a corpse from a tree until night falls, clearly excluding the process of nailing a live man or woman to a tree for an agonizing death that could be prolonged for up to several days.  The only significance these verses have for the death of Jesus is the curse which Deuteronomy 21 attaches to anyone who is hung on a tree.  Nevertheless, evangelicals have popularized the idea that crucifixion is literally what each sinful person deserves.

Aside from the fact that this stance is riddled with massive logical and Biblical errors (many of which I dissect in great detail here [1]), there is another danger to it.  Any Christian stupid enough to erroneously believe that Jesus took the exact physical punishment that every human deserves must not only contradict the clear laws of criminal justice in Mosaic Law, but they might also be far more supportive of the use of unbiblical forms of torture in modern times--after all, Roman crucifixion is one of the supreme historical examples of unjust torture that the Bible condemns.  All it takes to pressure some conservative evangelicals into endorsing unbiblical forms of torture, unfortunately, is the suggestion of a threat to national security and the illusory promises of utilitarian tactics.

The thoughtless evangelicals who repeat common phrases saying that Jesus took the literal punishment deserved by sinful humans are unwittingly (or, worse, knowingly) approving of the moral monstrosities of Roman crucifixion in at least some sense.  More specifically, they approve of crucifixion in the sense that they regard it as somehow being just in the case of other crucifixions besides that of Jesus.  This is apparent from the manner in which they tend to speak about the thieves crucified with Jesus--although Mosaic Law does not even prescribe execution for theft and explicitly prohibits most tortures.  It is far from uncommon for sermons that touch on Jesus' crucifixion to include at least one comment about how it was unjust for Jesus to be crucified, the pastors implying, if they do not say so outright, that it was just for others besides Jesus to be treated in such a way.

The evangelicals who create or concur with these sermons directly or indirectly equate what the Romans did to crucifixion victims other than Jesus with justice, something that any sound Biblical ethicist would recognize as a thorough rejection of Mosaic Law on multiple levels.  When someone begins to appropriate evangelical theology, it is hardly surprising (within the context of their ideology) that they always seem to regard relatively petty sins as deserving of more attention than unjust legal penalties in the ancient and contemporary worlds.  The evangelical world is blatantly unconcerned with upholding the specifics of Biblical legal punishments for corresponding sins, and it thus settles for arbitrary legal systems that contradict the one detailed in the Bible.  After all, many of its adherents subjectively prefer the Western prison system, with all of its dehumanization, sexual violence, and misandrist sexism, to the far milder punishments demanded by God in the Torah.

A person's worldview will inevitably influence how he or she behaves.  Thus, even inconsistent or flawed moral ideas that seem far removed from everyday life can have disastrous consequences when they are eventually applied, even if they are only applied in very limited scenarios (of course, irrational ideas need to be fought even when they are never acted upon).  Even though the Roman Empire and its form of crucifixion have not persisted, unbiblical forms of torture have.  The notion that Roman crucifixion is just cannot be reconciled to the Biblical prescriptions which oppose numerous aspects of such a punishment, but it also trivializes other lesser forms of unbiblical torture that are implemented in modern times.  Evangelicals are either ignorant of or apathetic towards this, but this is hardly unusual.  Evangelicalism is already brimming over with assumptions, fallacies, and contradictions even before asinine and unjust ideas about crucifixion are considered.


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

Biblical Environmentalism

It is all too common for Christians to misunderstand Biblical ethics, which in turns leads to neglect of certain duties prescribed by the Bible.  Many key mistakes in the moral theology of Christians start with assumptions about the first few chapters of Genesis.  Assumptions are inherently unsound by virtue of falling short of actual knowledge, but false assumptions have an expanded capacity for destructive consequences.  One such assumption about Genesis is that its doctrine of human exceptionalism conflicts with environmentalism.

There is nothing exclusive about fulfilling one's Biblical obligations to other people and caring for the condition of the environment that those very people live in, of course.  In fact, someone who is concerned about the wellbeing of others and is informed about the relationship between humans and the environment will realize that treating the environment well is in humanity's best interests!  It is not as if human life can automatically flourish without respect to the condition of the very world that people inhabit.

While the Bible does at least metaphorically predict several vehement natural disasters (with supernatural causes) in Revelation, it never says that these cataclysms will lead to the complete extinction of the human race.  If the events in Revelation were to unfold literally, a specific proportion of the earth's population would die from each disaster.  Unfortunately, many Christians assume that this means that there is little to no reason to take environmental issues seriously, which in turn discourages efforts to alleviate environmental problems among Christians (especially evangelicals).

That the Bible does not promise human extinction as a result of natural causes in no way justifies mistreatment of the planet or apathy towards environmental matters.  Revelation does not describe an extinction event caused by the natural world, but the first few chapters of Genesis explicitly say that every aspect of the physical universe, as God initially created it, is good (Genesis 1:31).  It follows that the general environment, although it is of lesser value than the humans that bear God's image (Genesis 1:26-28), should not be needlessly harmed or exploited.

The command to subdue the earth is neither a command to abuse or neglect it nor permission to treat it in such a manner.  God tasked men and women with the responsibility of presiding over the planet (again, see Genesis 1:26-28), and no one who intentionally neglects what was given to them for safekeeping by a friend is a successful caretaker.  Anyone who thinks that the Bible's priority on human significance excludes concern for the environment is blatantly mistaken--and an indirect hazard to other people.  Biblical environmentalism is not an oxymoron.

Quantum Superposition

Quantum superposition, the hypothetical notion that an unobserved subatomic particle exists or could exist in multiple places at once, is one of few concepts associated with quantum physics that the public has become increasingly familiar with.  As with many other aspects of subatomic physics, there is great confusion about the ramifications of superposition.  There are two vital facts about the matter that need to be clarified.  First, nothing about quantum superposition contradicts the laws of logic, the only inherently universal and inviolable set of laws.  Second, although it has been popularized in recent years, quantum superposition is neither necesssarily true nor ultimately supportable.

Regarding the first point, only a completely erroneous understanding of quantum physics tries to pit physics against logic, as if logic could ever actually be metaphysically violated.  A particle existing in multiple locations at once blatantly deviates from our experiences at the macro-level (the scale at which we perceive the external world), but there is no contradiction involved in such a thing.  It is outright deceptive to call this phenomenon, whether or not it actually occurs, illogical--if it was illogical, it would be impossible for it to even hypothetically be true!  Even the laws of physics cannot be proven to govern anything more than one's immediate perceptions of the external world, whereas logic alone must govern all things.

Of course, while there is nothing logically impossible about a material object (like an electron) existing in multiple places simultaneously, simply not knowing where an object is does not mean it is everywhere at once until it is identified.  Just because something could be in one of several given areas does not mean it inhabits all of those area up until it is observed in one of them.  This does not stop many people from assuming that uncertainty about a particle's position somehow means that it has multiple positions.  An analogous issue that people tend to falsely regard in the same way is the thought experiment of Schrodinger's cat.  Although biological life and death are mutually exclusive states, many actually think that an unobserved cat is simultaneously alive and dead.

It should take only a few moments to recognize the stupidity of insisting that life and death can be experienced by the same being at the same moment!  It is likewise easy to at least show that a particle cannot exist and not exist at once.  The possibility of multiple simultaneous locations of a particle aside, though, the inability to pinpoint the position of an electron has significant ramifications for the very model of the atom.  Since the exact location of an electron cannot be determined, the closest one can get to knowing its position is informed probability estimates.  This is why the electron cloud model of the atom is epistemologically superior to the traditional Bohr model: no one can prove that electrons will continue to make the same circuits around their nuclei, and thus one can only predict the seeming probability of an electron being at a certain point in a "cloud" surrounding a nucleus.

The electron cloud model leaves the concept of quantum superposition open without having any relevance to evidentially supporting the notion.  In fact, no one can prove anything about unobserved phenomena except that the laws of logic apply to them by necessity, as the very act of observing something means its unobserved states cannot be known!  Quantum superposition is ultimately neither verifiable nor falsifiable using logic or science (not that science illuminates anything more than one's perceptions to begin with), but it is logically possible--although it does not follow from not knowing where a particle is that it is literally in more than one place at a given moment.  This is a pathetically obvious non sequitur fallacy, and yet it has been widely embraced in the name of a premature scientific revolution.

The Power Of Consumers

Monopolies often have negative reputations in the modern world, with many regarding companies that reach a certain size or amass a certain amount of social influence as hazards to the communities around them.  A handful of arguments might be used to defend this conclusion, although each rests on various assumptions and fallacies.  One such complaint is the charge that monopolies discourage product quality.  According to this idea, removing competition also removes key incentives to enhance products--or perhaps even to maintain their existing level of quality.

However, even a massive monopoly does not necessitate that a given firm's products will diminish in their reliability, consistency, or usefulness.  The aforementioned argument against monopolies rests on non sequitur scare tactics used by those who dislike large corporations simply because they reached some arbitrary size.  While monopolies can involve massive companies, there is nothing inherently negative about large firms, even when there is no competition to rival them.  Size does not determine whether a company will use its power as an excuse to mislead, trample on, or otherwise hurt customers, much less lower the quality of its products.

Moreover, even if a company did lower its standards (or descend into some sort of moral deficiency) because of the lack of competitors, it is not as if no one at all can challenge its power if if misuses it.  Consumers can boycott the company or otherwise pressure it to acknowledge and bow to legitimate demands for improvement.  Even when there is not an alternate company to buy from, the buyers can limit or eliminate their purchases in order to bring about some sort of corporate change.  If no one is willing to buy from a firm, whatever influence it has will inevitably erode.

Individual consumers might feel as if they have little to no genuine power to shape the corporate world despite the fact that businesses cannot function without their revenue.  Nevertheless, they wield the very power to contribute to outcomes that can elevate or destroy miscellaneous businesses, despite the significance of a single standard purchase being fairly low on its own.  However, the collective withholding of money from companies of enormous size is far from an insignificant phenomenon.  It is because of this that no monopoly can ever preserve its power by conventional means as long as it is not supported by consumers.

Monopolies might intimidate or concern some individuals, but there is nothing intrinsically problematic about a hypothetical (or actual) company either buying all of its rivals or driving them out of business.  The quality and ethical approach of the firm does not have to change as a result.  Corporations can possess a great degree of power--whether or not they have monopolized one or more markets--but the power of consumers can be comparably impressive.  Businesses cannot sustain themselves perpetually without consumer support.  Eventually, they must at least partially accommodate major demands.

Jesus' Stance On Familial Unity

It is seldom the case that a personal quest for truth results in unity, but it does often result in thorough division.  Family is not exempt from this trend.  That which is controversial is often brushed aside in order to simplify familial relationships, and challenging that status quo will likely offend people who are comfortable with relationships built purely (or largely) on arbitrary or emotional connections.  Theological conservatives tend to have a particular anxiety about criticizing one's family.

The Bible does not elevate family above all other relationships, contrary to what some might expect due to the claims of evangelicals.  In fact, Jesus explicitly said that he came to turn family members against each other, with spiritual differences being the dividing factor (Matthew 10:34-37).  This is far from the conservative idea that family deserves extreme loyalty by virtue of being family, as if even unchosen relationships have some special status as long as siblings or parents are involved.

Jesus himself regarded familial devotion as trivial by comparison to another kind of devotion: one which is oriented towards truth at the expense of human relationships.  Relationships founded on a mutual commitment to discovering and understanding truth have a superior foundation to that of relationships that lack this mutual concern for truth--even if the relationships in question are with parents or siblings.  Social harmony is ideal, but only if that harmony is not based on existential superficiality or petty assumptions.

The only kind of unity that is universally valuable on the Christian worldview is philosophical unity.  Some people may subjectively appreciate general cooperation with others (and others may even enjoy relational conflict), but there is nothing truly important about such non-ideological cooperation other than the potential for pragmatics, even when family is concerned.  Ideological siblings are more significant than biological brothers and sisters could ever be on their own.  Cultural pressures to treat parents and siblings with a default level of respect exceeding that which one is encouraged to show to the average person are irrational at best.

The Folly Of Living For One's Reputation

One of the key motivations of many legalists is the misguided desire to please others--to please those inside the church because legalists can misleasingly appear righteous to them, and to please those outside of the church because they think they can obtain an advantage in evangelism.  Regarding the latter, the drive to condemn or avoid Biblically innocent activities in order to not "hurt one's witness" and to uphold a public reputation is a terribly asinine, contra-Biblical approach to everyday decisions.  In addition to the sheer stupidity of legalism (legalistic prescriptions are always rooted in slippery slope fallacies or non sequiturs), there are two enormous ironies that legalistic Christians who revere the concept of reputation fail to acknowledge.

When describing how they want to somehow impress non-Christians by abstaining from some arbitrary list of things (like R-rated movies, alcohol, or opposite gender friendships), legalists demonstrate that they do not understand American culture.  They do not even realize that many non-Christian do not regard something like profanity, bikinis, or violent video games to be anywhere near as controversial as those inside the church often do.  In other words, legalists might try to justify their unbiblical additions to God's moral revelation with the excuse that legalism makes Christians look better in the eyes of the world, when the activities they avoid aren't always considered immoral by others to begin with.

Furthermore, they often forget that Jesus himself had no concern for mere appearances, as observers repeatedly mistook several of his actions for outright examples of sin.  Healing on the Sabbath and interacting with the Samaritan woman without a third party present were only two of the nonsinful things Jesus did that attracted gratuitous controversy, despite Mosaic Law permitting them.  How ironic it is that Jesus himself lived in a way that blatantly disregarded the selfish concern of many legalists--that is, the concern for their own reputations in the eyes of irrational people!  To base one's moral decisions on the perception of others is to reject sound moral epistemology and proper motivations.

Whether someone simply thinks another person is behaving immorally is of no importance, as moral obligations are not shaped by perception and preference.  As long as there is no sin involved in a particular activity or any sinful motives present, one is free to do whatever one wishes.  The person who makes decisions in order to appease the worthless perceptions of the average person (unless the goal is manipulation) is a slave to illusory appearances that are nothing more than red herrings to someone's true character.  A slanderous person is already guilty the moment they unjustly accuse someone of sinning when they have done nothing wrong (John 7:24), and there is no need to treat them as if their whims have any authority.

The Extent Of The Atonement

One of the components of Calvinism is the notion that the death of Jesus did not atone for the sins of anyone other than the "elect," or those who would be saved.  The extent of the atonement is a crucial soteriological matter, and yet seemingly few Christians can even show where the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus died on behalf of anyone else to begin with.  Romans 5:8 is one of the only verses that is both relevant to the issue and somewhat familiar to casual theologians.

On its own, though, Romans 5:8 does not specify the extent of the atonement.  It does not indicate whether or not the atonement applies to anyone beyond the "elect," as Paul might only be referring to present and future Christians when he says that "Christ died for us."  It is 1 John 2:2 that clarifies that the death of Jesus does not leave anyone without the potential to be saved and that no human is excluded from the possibility of redemption.

Christ died for the elect, yes; however, that he died for the sake of those who would become saved in no way means he did not die or could not have died for the world as a whole.  After all, the elect are only a subgroup of the people in the world!  Jesus could not have done anything at all on behalf of the world without also doing that work for the elect.  It is this simple fact that far too many theologians fail to acknowledge--especially Calvinists.

There is therefore nothing contradictory about saying that Christ died for the elect and for the world, just as there is nothing contradictory about saying that a given city and a specific house within that city are in the same country.  Calvinists nevertheless often treat the two groups as if they do not overlap.  Despite the widespread debate about the issue, it should not take anyone a particularly long amount of time to realize that the elect can only be a specific category contained in the world.

Nothing a Calvinist says can change the fact that Calvinism rests upon nothing but a foundation of assumptions, sophistry, and contradictions, and Calvinism's stance on the atonement is no exception.  To say that the atonement inherently excludes some people is the same as denying that God wants all people to be saved (2 Peter 3:9), something which contradicts the plain teachings of the Old Testament and New Testament alike.  Ironically, Calvinists must deny clear Biblical statements in order to embrace their illogical tenets.

A Utilitarian Objection To Annihilationism

Anytime a Christian says that anticipating total annihilation of consciousness instead of eternal conscious torment in hell would not motivate them to avoid sin, they betray a personal flaw, not a problem with the doctrine of annihilationism.  Comments like this are of no relevance to whether or not the Bible actually teaches annihilationism.  This does little to deter people from making similar comments when pressed for some sort of explanation of why they refuse to acknowledge the blatant Biblical affirmations of annihilationism.

It should not take anyone a large amount of time to realize that this says nothing about annihilationism, although it does suggest a great deal about the moral resolve of the one who admits to such a thing.  What this statement does say is that the one who makes it is unwilling to sincerely pursue righteousness if their subjective perceptions of what justice is do not match the actual nature of justice.  In other words, they do not care about morality itself, only about their own preferences.  A person like this cannot be legitimately said to have any sort of thorough concern for Biblical ethics for its own sake.

At the "intellectual" heart of their objection, which is ultimately rooted in nothing but personal psychology, is the implied premise that anything short of endless torture is not truly a punishment for sin.  Even the most staunch traditionalist on the issue of hell, though, would likely not assert that the suspension of certain privileges (like house arrest) or the infliction of limited pain (such as the floggings detailed in Deuteronomy 25:1-3) are not actual penalties.  Nevertheless, they often treat the irrevocable loss of eternal life as if it can hardly be called a punishment.

The temporality of pain does not make it a non-punishment any more than the temporality of a flogging does not make it a punishment (Deuteronomy 25:1-3, Luke 12:47-48)!  Only a fool would deny that Biblical flogging is a punishment, and yet many evangelicals would struggle to concede the obvious fact that permanent death, whether or not it is preceded by a period of anguish, is indeed a penalty at all.  Similarly, only a fool would ever pretend like the death penalty is not truly a punishment because it does not entail endless torment.

If someone truly thinks that annihilation is not a true punishment, he or she is stupid.  Moreover, if they truly would put little to no effort into avoiding sin if hell did not feature eternal conscious torment for every fallen being, they are guilty of neglecting their moral duties.  Biblical morality--which includes Biblical justice--is unaffected by someone's desires; the Bible's teachings are not dictated by what random individuals find subjectively motivating.  Annihilationism is Biblical because it corresponds to the nature of the God described by the Bible, not because of some utilitarian idea of deterrence.

Physical Effects Do Not Require Physical Causes

The expected outcome of throwing a glass object like a bottle against a wall is the object's fracture, as many people would readily affirm.  As the glass comes into contact with the wall, it breaks into pieces, losing its prior form.  Just as they would collectively predict these results, many people would say that it was the impact of the glass with the wall that caused the object to break.  However, this is only an assumption: not only can sensory observations of sequential events not establish exact causal relationships, but they also cannot even demonstrate that a given cause is physical to begin with.

The fact that the glass shatters upon colliding with another solid physical substance cannot even prove that a physical cause shattered the glass; instead, it simply establishes empirically that glass can break.  This only means that the act of hurling the glass at the wall is correlated with the physical fracture of the object.  It is comparatively simpler to realize that correlation is not identical to causation than it is to realize that common physical events do not even necessarily have physical causes!  The latter is a foreign concept to many, and yet it is entirely legitimate.

After all, it is possible, although seemingly improbable, that a strictly immaterial force or entity is responsible for the damage to the glass.  A divine or otherwise purely spiritual being with the ability to manipulate matter, for instance, could have caused the glass to break apart and yet waited until precisely when it hit the wall to do so.  That there is nothing logically impossible about this means that it is irrational to believe that correlations of physical events prove that the causes of material events are themselves physical--of course, believing that it seems as if harsh contact between glass and a wall causes the former to break is entirely sound.

Every event has some sort of cause, as nothing produces nothing, and yet repeated observation cannot even prove whether the cause of a phenomenon like the shattering of glass is physical or immaterial.  Logic proves that the effect must have a cause of some sort, even if it cannot ultimately be identified, but neither reason nor science reveals what the exact nature of that cause is.  While everyday occurrences appear to have causes located in the external world, their causes might very well be nonphysical.

The Egalitarian Approach To Orgasms

Contrary to comments that might be erroneously presented as helpful marriage advice, neither a husband's orgasm nor a wife's orgasm is more important than the other.  On one hand, those with patriarchal attitudes might be concerned with the pleasure of a man during sex at the expense of the woman's pleasure.  In response to this sexist attitude, some people commit the inverse error and encourage sexism in the opposite direction, focusing on the pleasure of the woman during sex more than on the pleasure of the man.

Both of these fallacious stances can only be put into practice within marriages when the offending husbands or wives exercise blatant selfishness.  Any approach to marital sexuality that elevates the orgasm of one spouse over the other is thoroughly antithetical to an egalitarian marriage--and to a Biblical and rationalistic one.  After all, Paul's comments on marital sex in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 acknowledge the sexualities of both parties and describe husbands and wives as having equal ownership of each other's bodies.

This does not mean that spouses always want sex at the same times, of course.  One spouse may, on a given occasion, decide to pleasure the other simply for the sake of the other's pleasure, even if he or she would otherwise forgo sexual interaction at the time.  However, in either this scenario or one where both spouses are mutually eager for sex, neither the husband nor the wife has an obligation to focus on their partner's pleasure rather than their own or to the hindrance of their own, as if their pleasure matters less because they are a man or a woman.

Biblical ethics aside, it is a logical fact that neither men nor women crave or need orgasms more than the other gender.  Likewise, neither men nor women desire sex to any particular extent because of their gender.  The only reason why some people act as if either men or women deserve more sexual attention and satisfaction is because they make assumptions about someone's sexuality based on whether they are male or female.  Although some people might be well-meaning when they perpetuate the myths behind stereotypes, they are doing something harmful and asinine.

In addition to having logical and Biblical problems, sexual stereotypes even interfere with the quality of marital sex.  Couples who consistently live out egalitarianism (unfortunately, many self-proclaimed "egalitarians" do not) have far more extensive opportunities for sexual fulfillment precisely because they do not prioritize one spouse's needs over those of the other outside of special circumstances--and because each spouse does not assume anything about their partner's sexuality or their own.  In such marriages, each partner can be satisfied without trivializing or distorting the other's desires.

Marriages of this kind are the sole way to ensure that neither the husband's sexual fulfillment nor the that of the wife is treated as if it possesses greater intrinsic importance for the health of the relationship.  The egalitarian approach to orgasms is the only one that does not involve a gender-based hierarchy of sexual needs.  A couple may prioritize one party's orgasm during specific times, but making the orgasms of one spouse a higher priority by default based upon their gender is irreconcilable to Biblical egalitarianism.

Friendship Is More Foundational Than Family

A person with deep social needs can thrive without strong family relationships.  In fact, they can even thrive without a family to begin with!  However, that person cannot live comfortably without strong friendships of some sort, though those friendships might be found within family in some circumstances.  Family does not have a monopoly on relational intimacy, and the most foundational relationships in our lives are often found outside of family (here, by family I am referring to parents, siblings, and extended family, not to spouses).

The importance of family relationships is nonetheless largely overstated by people who have been conditioned from a young age to regard family as more significant than almost anything else.  There is no logical or Biblical reason to automatically treat family members with a greater level of respect than one would show others, and there are even serious dangers associated with doing so [1].  Nevertheless, there are prominent social pressures in Western culture, especially in the church, that encourage a gratuitous focus on family.

Even the presence of these visible social pressures does not persuade people to consistently live out a family-centric lifestyle as they grow older, of course.  When facing major life problems, would the average adult talk to their friends or parents and/or siblings first?  In many cases, people would first reach out to their closest friends, even if only to let them know about the issues in question.  Furthermore, they might not even bring up their struggles to their parents, or at least not to the same extent that they do with their friends!

The friendships of many often become deeper than their relationships with biological family members, even though many people live under the same roof as their parents and siblings.  It is not rare for someone to even share very specific, personal information about their past or their true self with their friends even as they withhold that same information from actual family members.  Some people might share themselves more with their family, but whether they choose to do so or not is only a matter of personal preference or social conditioning.

When someone is not raised in a manner that pressures or directly encourages them to invest more effort into their family relationships than their friendships, he or she is quite likely to develop friendships more than relationships with their parents, brothers, or sisters (if they have any siblings).  There is no reason to view potential feelings of guilt as valid when this is the case!  Instead, those with friendships that possess depth and intimacy should celebrate those qualities of their relationships, even if their familial relationships are unspectacular or nonexistent.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/05/a-myth-about-obligation-to-family.html

Quantum Teleportation

Attaching the word "quantum" to a phrase or to another word tends to leave listeners puzzled.  Those who analyze the concepts that contemporary scientists describe using such phrases, however, will find that quantum physics is not necessarily as complicated or esoteric as general perception might suggest.  One such example of this is quantum teleportation, which, as the name implies, involves a transference of something from one place to another, although it is not a whole object that is transferred.

Quantum teleportation is not identical to the "conventional" concept of teleportation popularized by entertainment.  It is the latter that is often referred to when people discuss teleportation: the latter entails the disappearance of an object from one location in space and its reappearance in another area, while the former simply involves the transfer of a quantum state from one particle to another.  The names are similar, but the phenomena are ultimately quite distinct.

Thus, quantum teleportation is not the actual teleportation of a particle, but is a "teleportation" of some aspect of a particle's behavior to a separate particle.  The first particle remains exactly where it was, but a second particle takes on a behavioral characteristic (like rotation) as that characteristic leaves the first one.  Distance is not relevant--for example, a particle could be made to rotate from miles away, although it has neither switched locations nor been physically touched.

The connectedness of two particles can be referred to as quantum entanglement.  Particles are entangled on a quantum (subatomic) level when the quantum state of one affects or can affect the other, regardless of distance, such as in the aforementioned example.  Perhaps to the surprise of some, the most practical and valuable application of this is currently communication: two people could hypothetically communicate across vast distances by using quantum teleportation.

Of course, quantum communication is far from a commonplace occurrence, but it is certainly not impossible.  Nevertheless, it could be advantageous for members of the public to educate themselves about quantum physics in anticipation of a communicative revolution or so that they will not be adrift in confusion if the physics of the subatomic world continue to rise in popularity.  The concepts of quantum entanglement and teleportation, after all, are not as difficult to comprehend as some people (both scientists and laypeople) seem to think.

The Billy Graham Rule In Politics

The Billy Graham rule, despite its stupidity, unbiblicality, and impracticality, has not been completely abandoned by evangelicals.  This asinine principle, which involves avoiding people of the opposite gender other than one's spouse unless a third person is present, has even infiltrated the political world, with conservative politician (it's usually conservatives, if not only them, that endorse this nonsense) Mike Pence serving as a blatant example of someone who abides by it.  Often used as an alleged protection from adultery or rape accusations, the rule is riddled with logical, Biblical, and practical errors, not to mention the other grave problems with the approach of those who support the Billy Graham rule that are almost never even alluded to [1].

Given the nature of politics, as well as other occupations, people must interact with other people to perform their duties, and circumstances might call for private meetings or conversations between two people.  If a woman doesn't feel comfortable with working around or befriending men in one-on-one settings, she shouldn't be a politician.  Likewise, if a man doesn't feel comfortable with working around or befriending women in one-on-one settings, he shouldn't be a politician.  The matter is ultimately that simple!  There is no room for sexist practices in politics--especially if they are driven by personal insecurities derived from fallacious beliefs--either from a Christian standpoint or from a utilitarian one.

Biblically (and logically speaking), it is inherently problematic to discriminate against people on grounds of gender.  Men and women are metaphysical equals by virtue of bearing God's image, and one's gender does not define one's personality.  It does not matter what one's experiences with some men or some women have been like: to assume anything about a person's psychological traits because of their gender is irrational, unjust, and harmful.  Thus, to treat men or women differently by default is unjustifiable, contrary to both reason and the Bible.  The Bible itself gives examples of men and women who conversed while alone without any sexual overtones or behaviors, affirming the basic logical fact that there is nothing inherently sexual about men and women being alone together.

Men are neither sexual predators nor the aggressors in cases of abuse by default even when sexual interactions do occur, and women are neither sexual temptresses nor helpless victims by default.  It follows from the falsity of stereotypes that there is never a basis for universally refusing to be alone with someone of the opposite gender, especially in a corporate or political context.  Personal anxieties are likewise not legitimate reasons to devise impractical guidelines for one's occupational interaction with the opposite gender.  Someone like Mike Pence has no right to interfere with the political activities of women by excluding them from private interactions, just as no woman has the right to do the same thing to a man.

From a utilitarian standpoint, egalitarianism alone puts qualified people in the positions their competencies match them with, and those positions might call for one-on-one meetings with the opposite gender.  Thus, even if one sets aside both the inherent logical errors of the Billy Graham rule's sexism and its Biblical errors, gender segregation--no matter what the basis for it is--is an enemy of societal progress.  This fact is irrelevant to the deconstruction of stereotypes and to Biblical exegesis, but it is worthy of at least some attention simply because of the wasted potential sexist biases inevitably result in.  The Billy Graham rule hinders the numerous benefits of allowing individual men and women to routinely, spontaneously interact as equals and friends.

Either way, it is clear that any person who demonizes, fears, or stereotypes the opposite gender is not fit for a work environment where one must interact with other people.  To exclude men or women from the workplace is inexcusable, but to limit the roles that either gender can play in politics is especially destructive.  Even so, conservative anxieties have shaped the political arena so that the Billy Graham rule is often accepted or encouraged by the evangelical community despite its inherent stupidity and injustice.


[1].  The proponents of the Billy Graham rule almost completely ignore female-male sexual harassment and tend to blame male victims of false accusations for being alone with women, when the deceitful women themselves would be the problem.

The Irrelevance Of Church History

One might find that some Christians retreat behind church history when their theology is refuted on a logical and Biblical level, as if the consensus of Christian leaders at a particular time is of any epistemological significance whatsoever.  Church history scarcely reflects the true nature of Christianity, and yet it is often regarded as a weighty, authoritative thing.  It should only take Christians several moments to reason out the irrelevance of historical orthodoxies to the pursuit of truth.

As far as epistemology is concerned, it does not matter if the leaders of the church at a given point in history were preterists or futurists, Calvinists or Armenians, annihilationists or traditionalists (on the subject of hell), theonomists or anti-nomians, complementarians or egalitarians, or Arians or Trinitarians.  The mere fact that renowned figures hold to certain worldviews is not evidence for those worldviews, much less proof that they are correct!

Thus, whether an ideology was championed for prolonged periods of time or was proposed somewhat recently is a red herring at best.  Showing which beliefs a group of people adopted throughout history is of no relevance to proving the veracity or probability of a philosophical stance--whether the stance pertains to theology, science, or philosophy as a whole.  It is the consistency and verifiability of a claim that are of utmost importance.  Unfortunately, these are the factors that are often trivialized in favor of assumptions.

Do the conclusions of an ideology follow from their premises?  Is it logically possible for the premises to be true?  If it is possible that they are true, can they be proven?  These are the issues that sincere seekers of truth are concerned with, not whether specific theological ideas ever enjoyed popularity.  There is no reason to harbor some special degree of respect for past Christians simply because they came before us, especially in light of the fact that they developed and popularized many of the heresies and theological fallacies that have never completely left the church.

The Scope Of Rationalism

Anyone who would charge into a room devoid of all light and claim to see despite the total darkness would be scoffed at by many people.  Despite this, all but a miniscule number of people routinely act and speak as if they can obtain knowledge about a given ethical, metaphysical, or general philosophical matter without the light of reason, oblivious to or unconcerned with the epistemological darkness they reside in.  Instead of embracing the tool that sheds at least some light on all facets of reality, the majority chooses to ignore reason, which lies at the heart of all other things.

To venture through life without rationalism is a deeper mistake than any other.  Rationalistic philosophy encompasses everything from logic and epistemology to science and friendship to entertainment and sexuality--nothing is outside the domain of philosophy, and thus nothing is outside the domain of reason.  Some topics might be more significant than others, but logic governs each one of them all the same.  The universal reach of logic is the one thing that binds all of reality together.

This universal reach, thus, is what binds together all sound philosophical pursuits, for reason alone unifies all branches of philosophy into a complex, interlocking whole.  All that exists, and all that can be known, inevitably submits to the first principles that cannot be denied without being affirmed in the process.  Just as it would be entirely foolish to rush into darkness and claim to see one's surroundings, it is asinine to suppose that one can understand reality without the light of reason.  There cannot be a greater folly than this.

The person who consistently yields to reason, rather than refusing to align with it, will find a wealth of knowledge is theirs for the taking.  The diversity of the subjects that logic illuminates is immense, extending far beyond where the petty worldviews of non-rationalists end (it is only fitting that my 1,000th article celebrates the wide scope of rationalistic knowledge!).  When one is aligned with genuine rationalism, one is never in complete darkness despite the numerous epistemological limitations tied to the human condition.

Biblical Genocide

It is far from uncommon to find that someone who objects to Christianity dislikes the accounts of divinely authorized genocide contained in the Bible.  These accounts of genocide are often misunderstood, yet they are presented in a very direct manner.  Genocide on strictly racial or national grounds violates the repeated Biblical opposition to discrimination against people solely because of their ethnicity or nationality (Genesis 1:26-28, Exodus 22:21, and Leviticus 24:22, for example), but no one can read the Bible and soundly conclude that it does not condone specific mass killings.  However, even most Christians are unwilling to concede this and are usually embarrassed to even talk about the issue.

This reluctance is ultimately derived from a petty sense of moral confusion rooted in emotion.  Rather than rationalistically examine the matter of Biblical genocide, Christians (and non-Christians) tend to make moral judgments based on the arbitrary whims of conscience.  Furthermore, if God were to demonstrably call for another blatant genocide, many who identify as Christians would almost certainly not comply.  There are those who would even claim that God would never demand another genocidal event, and yet the "God of the New Testament" is synonymous with the God of the Old Testament (Malachi 3:6).  Thus, on the Christian worldview, it is folly to pretend like genocide is universally evil, as God himself blatantly authorized it--in very particular scenarios.

This establishes a significant point that is almost entirely neglected by Christians.  If God instructed his followers to carry out a genocide in the past, it necessarily follows that it is possible that he would do so again.  After all, the claim that genocide always contradicts the righteousness of God's nature (even though most Christians mistakenly think mercy is an inherent component of righteousness) conflicts with verses like James 1:17, which clearly say that God's moral nature never changes.  If God does not change, then it is inane to claim that he would never demand another genocide because of his loving character.

Any Christian who supposes that the "New Testament God" would never command humans to commit genocide again fallaciously assumes that their consciences have some ultimate authority, supposing that they can be more just than the deity their own religion claims is morally perfect.  While the divinely sanctioned genocide of the Old Testament might be subjectively disturbing to some people, though certainly not to all readers, to object to the Bible on grounds of conscience is to simply object because of emotional reasons.  People are often at least selectively against appeals to emotion when other issues are concerned (such as science), and yet appeals to emotion are the ultimate foundation of opposition to Biblical killings.

Genocide, like any other action, is not right, wrong, or amoral because an individual or group of people wills it to be so.  Moreover, its morality is not determined by the subjective feelings of conscience, no matter how many consciences scream out one way or the other.  As soon as one realizes that conscience is completely irrelevant to moral epistemology, one must be prepared to accept the possibility that even subjectively offensive things are objectively just and that seemingly innocent things are heinous.  Moral feelings are useful only for restraining one's own behaviors and for revealing one's own preferences and perceptions.  When it comes to moral epistemology and metaphysics, conscience is without any value.