What someone claims about friendship between people who once dated often reduces down to what they claim about friendships between men and women in a more general sense. If someone mistakenly thinks men and women cannot be platonic friends or cannot be friends if either party experiences sexual attraction to the other, they are likely to be suspicious of people who remain close friends after dating. Inversely, if someone realizes that men and women are capable of friendship with or without sexual attraction being involved, they are likely to be more accepting when couples become aromantic friends.
The termination of a dating relationship does not have to mean that a former couple cannot still enjoy a thriving friendship after they decide to stop meeting with romantic intentions. Friendship after dating is not only possible, but can even also be advisable when a man and woman have a a secure or promising relational connection that will not be destroyed in the transition from dating to friendship. After all, why should former dating partners abandon each other if they can handle post-dating friendship?
The evolution of an established cross-gender relationship can be far more beneficial than simply discarding it when the couple learns that dating each other is not ideal for them. Whether the dating period was brief or lasted for months, both parties might still be perfectly capable of having a mature, deep friendship despite opting to not pursue a romantic connection. Indeed, some people might forfeit potentially deep non-romantic relationships by automatically wishing to never stay active friends with someone they once dated.
It is true that some people might have a much more difficult time platonically interacting with someone they once considered in a romantic or sexual light than others. For those who cannot relate to this difficulty, though, there is no reason to not consider friendship a valid thing to pursue even with people who once dated them. To not do so is to gratuitously limit one's pool of friends and exclude candidates who might be entirely willing to invest in a relationship that does not involve dating. Unfortunately, this type of opposite gender friendship is not understood or encouraged.
It is commonly understood that friendship between men and women can sometimes lead to romantic pairings, but the fact that dating can also lead to strong friendships between men and women is usually not emphasized. However, either relationship status is capable of leading to the other. A friendship between former dating partners is not necessarily a lesser friendship, nor is it an inherent threat to the future dating relationships of either person, even if it is scoffed at by ignorant observers.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
How Western Culture Overestimates Science And Ignores Reason
Ask Westerners if they think that the earth is spherical or if vaccines can prevent major diseases, and they will likely answer "Yes" without any hesitation. There are some who insist that scientific evidence indicates the opposite, but they are not representatives of Western culture at large. Ask Westerners if the laws of logic are verifiably true, however, and many of the same people who would answer the previous question(s) in the affirmative may suddenly say they are uncertain--if they even understand what logic is in the first place.
Thoroughly asking people about their stances on epistemology and metaphysics, even if those words are never used, is all that must be done to reach these conversational results. In fact, mockery might be directed at people for simply asking questions about contemporary scientific paradigms, whereas a denial of the self-evidence of the laws of logic is often met not with laughter or refutation, but with agreement. Although the external world metaphysically relies on logic and scientific results cannot be analyzed apart from logic, the reputations of reason and science are often the inverse of what they should be.
There are three distinct errors that many people in the Western world profess to believe about science. First, they believe that science necessarily reveals mind-independent facts about the external world, when science can only inform one about one's perceived surroundings. Second, they believe that past examples of specific events consistently leading to other particular events mean that scientific correlations will not change in the future. Third, they believe that correlations prove exact causal relationships if the correlations are repeatably demonstrable.
Rather than believe anything about science that involves these three logical and epistemological errors, a rational person sees that it is logical truths, not scientific concepts, that are verifiable in an ultimate sense. Logic cannot be false, but almost any scientific idea is potentially false the moment it is taken to be a true description of how the external world operates beyond the veil of sensory perception. Nevertheless, logic and science are often treated as if the opposite was true in both cases!
That anti-vax claims are often thought of as more asinine than a denial of self-verifying logical truths illustrates just how backwards a non-rationalistic society can be. On one hand, many Westerners seem to think their culture is rational simply for accepting the heightened role scientific developments play in modern life. On the other hand, they are typically very ignorant about the nature of logic itself, either focusing on science more than on reason or dismissing logic as something that may or may not be valid. As a conversation with the average Westerner can show, denial of the nature of logic is far more serious and widespread than the denial of today's scientific ideas.
Thoroughly asking people about their stances on epistemology and metaphysics, even if those words are never used, is all that must be done to reach these conversational results. In fact, mockery might be directed at people for simply asking questions about contemporary scientific paradigms, whereas a denial of the self-evidence of the laws of logic is often met not with laughter or refutation, but with agreement. Although the external world metaphysically relies on logic and scientific results cannot be analyzed apart from logic, the reputations of reason and science are often the inverse of what they should be.
There are three distinct errors that many people in the Western world profess to believe about science. First, they believe that science necessarily reveals mind-independent facts about the external world, when science can only inform one about one's perceived surroundings. Second, they believe that past examples of specific events consistently leading to other particular events mean that scientific correlations will not change in the future. Third, they believe that correlations prove exact causal relationships if the correlations are repeatably demonstrable.
Rather than believe anything about science that involves these three logical and epistemological errors, a rational person sees that it is logical truths, not scientific concepts, that are verifiable in an ultimate sense. Logic cannot be false, but almost any scientific idea is potentially false the moment it is taken to be a true description of how the external world operates beyond the veil of sensory perception. Nevertheless, logic and science are often treated as if the opposite was true in both cases!
That anti-vax claims are often thought of as more asinine than a denial of self-verifying logical truths illustrates just how backwards a non-rationalistic society can be. On one hand, many Westerners seem to think their culture is rational simply for accepting the heightened role scientific developments play in modern life. On the other hand, they are typically very ignorant about the nature of logic itself, either focusing on science more than on reason or dismissing logic as something that may or may not be valid. As a conversation with the average Westerner can show, denial of the nature of logic is far more serious and widespread than the denial of today's scientific ideas.
Game Review--Luigi's Mansion 3 (Switch)
"Well well well! If it isn't my MOST esteemed VIP!"
--Hellen Gravely, Luigi's Mansion 3
Mario's brother Luigi, while not a completely obscure character, does not enjoy the same level of popularity as Mario himself. All the same, the Luigi's Mansion spinoff series has exemplified how Luigi can easily handle being the titular character. The newest addition to the series has Luigi, Mario, and Peach travel to The Last Resort hotel, a massive structure owned by Hellen Gravely. Of course, the stay quickly becomes a perilous one, and Luigi must once again use his ghost-hunting skills to save his brother.
Production Values
As one might expect from a first party Switch game, Luigi's Mansion 3 showcases the system's graphical power very well. The animations are smooth, the colors are vibrant, and the environments are detailed. The lack of spoken dialogue (spoken by voice actors, that is) does not stop the audible grunts and sighs from adding an extra dimension to the characters.
Gameplay
Players control Luigi as he explores The Last Resort, finds elevator buttons that allow access to new floors, and frees his companions from the paintings in which King Boo places them. Periodic ghost bosses test players' ability to adapt to specific patterns, and many of them show up near the end of one's progress through a given floor of the hotel. The variety in these floors is a key factor of the gameplay, as different areas might house different types of puzzles.
Armed with a vacuum device that lets him throw ghosts around and pull them into captivity, Luigi is able to accomplish quite a bit on his own. However, he is not alone: Gooigi, a doppelganger of Luigi made out of goo, can be summoned, controlled, or dismissed at any time past an early point in the story. Gooigi can enter certain rooms that Luigi cannot, squeezing past barriers that any completely solid being could not get past. Some puzzles require that the player use both Luigi and Gooigi (one can alternate back and forth or have two people play the game at once in co-op).
Story
Mild spoilers below!
Upon receiving an invitation from Hellen Gravely to The Last Resort Hotel, Mario, Luigi, Peach, and several Toads set out on a travel adventure. Once they arrive, it quickly becomes apparent that Helen Gravely lured her guests into a trap for King Boo. Luigi is the only visitor (other than his ghost dog) who is not trapped within paintings, and thus he begins to search for his missing friends.
Intellectual Content
Puzzles, exploration, and collectibles are integral parts of the Luigi's Mansion formula, just as they are foundational parts of Nintendo's other major intellectual properties, like Metroid and Zelda. Collectibles are not mandatory, but completionists will find that some of them are concealed in clever ways.
Conclusion
Luigi's Mansion 3 is a Switch exclusive that no Nintendo fan is likely to want to pass up. From the quality of the visuals to the construction of the "levels," its strengths make it one of the best titles on a platform already full of great games. If anything, one of the weakest aspects of this excellent sequel is its relatively short length of around 10-13 hours. Despite its comparative brevity, though, each hour is full of colorful graphics, diverse environments, and clever puzzles. This is a hotel worth visiting!
Content:
1. Violence: Luigi must use suction cups and a device that acts as a spirit vacuum to defeat a multitude of ghosts as he searches through The Last Resort.
--Hellen Gravely, Luigi's Mansion 3
Mario's brother Luigi, while not a completely obscure character, does not enjoy the same level of popularity as Mario himself. All the same, the Luigi's Mansion spinoff series has exemplified how Luigi can easily handle being the titular character. The newest addition to the series has Luigi, Mario, and Peach travel to The Last Resort hotel, a massive structure owned by Hellen Gravely. Of course, the stay quickly becomes a perilous one, and Luigi must once again use his ghost-hunting skills to save his brother.
Production Values
As one might expect from a first party Switch game, Luigi's Mansion 3 showcases the system's graphical power very well. The animations are smooth, the colors are vibrant, and the environments are detailed. The lack of spoken dialogue (spoken by voice actors, that is) does not stop the audible grunts and sighs from adding an extra dimension to the characters.
Gameplay
Players control Luigi as he explores The Last Resort, finds elevator buttons that allow access to new floors, and frees his companions from the paintings in which King Boo places them. Periodic ghost bosses test players' ability to adapt to specific patterns, and many of them show up near the end of one's progress through a given floor of the hotel. The variety in these floors is a key factor of the gameplay, as different areas might house different types of puzzles.
Armed with a vacuum device that lets him throw ghosts around and pull them into captivity, Luigi is able to accomplish quite a bit on his own. However, he is not alone: Gooigi, a doppelganger of Luigi made out of goo, can be summoned, controlled, or dismissed at any time past an early point in the story. Gooigi can enter certain rooms that Luigi cannot, squeezing past barriers that any completely solid being could not get past. Some puzzles require that the player use both Luigi and Gooigi (one can alternate back and forth or have two people play the game at once in co-op).
Story
Mild spoilers below!
Upon receiving an invitation from Hellen Gravely to The Last Resort Hotel, Mario, Luigi, Peach, and several Toads set out on a travel adventure. Once they arrive, it quickly becomes apparent that Helen Gravely lured her guests into a trap for King Boo. Luigi is the only visitor (other than his ghost dog) who is not trapped within paintings, and thus he begins to search for his missing friends.
Intellectual Content
Puzzles, exploration, and collectibles are integral parts of the Luigi's Mansion formula, just as they are foundational parts of Nintendo's other major intellectual properties, like Metroid and Zelda. Collectibles are not mandatory, but completionists will find that some of them are concealed in clever ways.
Conclusion
Luigi's Mansion 3 is a Switch exclusive that no Nintendo fan is likely to want to pass up. From the quality of the visuals to the construction of the "levels," its strengths make it one of the best titles on a platform already full of great games. If anything, one of the weakest aspects of this excellent sequel is its relatively short length of around 10-13 hours. Despite its comparative brevity, though, each hour is full of colorful graphics, diverse environments, and clever puzzles. This is a hotel worth visiting!
Content:
1. Violence: Luigi must use suction cups and a device that acts as a spirit vacuum to defeat a multitude of ghosts as he searches through The Last Resort.
Monday, December 30, 2019
Masturbating To Erotic Imagery (Part 3)
On its own, masturbation is usually aimed at one's own personal experience of pleasure, but the social dimensions of sexuality can have ramifications for certain cross-gender friendships. Masturbation is certainly not associated with all friendships between men and women, but it is affiliated with some of them. Some people might feel awkward at the thought or mention of this particular sub-issue involving masturbation, but the potential intersection of sexuality and friendship between men and women is not something to fear, much less something to ignore. There does not need to be anxiety about the matter.
It needs to be understood that masturbating to opposite gender friends, even if sexual attraction to them is present, is not an inevitable outcome of male-female friendships, no matter how subjectively attractive both parties are. Not everyone necessarily does such a thing, and it is not the case that everyone who does so masturbates to every friend of the opposite gender. It would strike many people as bizarre or disgusting to masturbate to certain opposite gender friends. Moreover, that someone masturbates to a picture or thought of an opposite gender friend does not mean they are sexually attracted to their friend [1], only that the image or thought is helpful for enabling or sustaining physiological (or psychological) arousal.
Whether or not sexual attraction is involved, however, men and women are perfectly capable of masturbating to the thought or sight of select opposite gender friends without changing their interactions with the friends in question. Neither digital communication nor face to face conversation or body language is at an inherent risk of changing as a result of the habit. Sexual pleasure and excitement do not rob people of their free will and capacity for self-control, even when associated with the intimacy or familiarity of friendship with the opposite gender. In other words, masturbating to a friend of the opposite gender does not weaken, doom, or otherwise affect the friendship by default.
Likewise, it does not have to weaken or negatively impact a relationship with one's significant other. If one's significant other admits to masturbating while thinking of a particular opposite gender friend, there is no need for alarm. It does not even necessarily indicate sexual attraction to that friend, much less that the one masturbating to their friend has betrayed their romantic partner. A romantic pairing is not threatened when either partner enjoys coupling masturbation with mental or visual imagery of a member of the opposite gender outside of the relationship, whether they are a friend, celebrity, or stranger.
Relaxation about masturbation in general is needed if Western culture is to consistently shed the remaining grip of prudery, but even people who are comfortable with talking about or engaging in masturbation may hesitate to think about or address masturbating to friends of the opposite gender. However, using thoughts or images of an opposite gender friend is not a degrading or inherently dangerous thing. Just as anxiety about other innocent sexual behaviors is unwarranted, so, too, is anxiety about masturbation in this context.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/12/masturbating-to-erotic-imagery-part-2.html
It needs to be understood that masturbating to opposite gender friends, even if sexual attraction to them is present, is not an inevitable outcome of male-female friendships, no matter how subjectively attractive both parties are. Not everyone necessarily does such a thing, and it is not the case that everyone who does so masturbates to every friend of the opposite gender. It would strike many people as bizarre or disgusting to masturbate to certain opposite gender friends. Moreover, that someone masturbates to a picture or thought of an opposite gender friend does not mean they are sexually attracted to their friend [1], only that the image or thought is helpful for enabling or sustaining physiological (or psychological) arousal.
Whether or not sexual attraction is involved, however, men and women are perfectly capable of masturbating to the thought or sight of select opposite gender friends without changing their interactions with the friends in question. Neither digital communication nor face to face conversation or body language is at an inherent risk of changing as a result of the habit. Sexual pleasure and excitement do not rob people of their free will and capacity for self-control, even when associated with the intimacy or familiarity of friendship with the opposite gender. In other words, masturbating to a friend of the opposite gender does not weaken, doom, or otherwise affect the friendship by default.
Likewise, it does not have to weaken or negatively impact a relationship with one's significant other. If one's significant other admits to masturbating while thinking of a particular opposite gender friend, there is no need for alarm. It does not even necessarily indicate sexual attraction to that friend, much less that the one masturbating to their friend has betrayed their romantic partner. A romantic pairing is not threatened when either partner enjoys coupling masturbation with mental or visual imagery of a member of the opposite gender outside of the relationship, whether they are a friend, celebrity, or stranger.
Relaxation about masturbation in general is needed if Western culture is to consistently shed the remaining grip of prudery, but even people who are comfortable with talking about or engaging in masturbation may hesitate to think about or address masturbating to friends of the opposite gender. However, using thoughts or images of an opposite gender friend is not a degrading or inherently dangerous thing. Just as anxiety about other innocent sexual behaviors is unwarranted, so, too, is anxiety about masturbation in this context.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/12/masturbating-to-erotic-imagery-part-2.html
The Vital Distinction Between Intellectual And Academic
A person is a talented intellectual if he or she engages in or emphasizes the sound use of the intellect: that is, the use of the intellect in accordance with the laws of logic. To analyze concepts, necessary truths, and one's experiences without using any non sequiturs is to possess intellectual adeptness. Because no one needs to interact with other people or their writings in order to reason, the quality of one's intellect has nothing to do with familiarity with academia or the very existence of academia.
All logical truths are accessible by all beings that can grasp reason itself, meaning that sincerely looking to academia for philosophical help is often a waste of time for two foundational reasons. First of all, published writings and lectures usually contain a plethora of fallacies and ignore many logical facts, making them useless except when they serve as examples of how not to reason. Second, looking to academia is completely gratuitous at best since consulting reason removes the need to read scholars to evaluate all foundational philosophical concepts to begin with.
Moreover, there are many important logical facts that have been completely or almost completely ignored by academia [1], often because of their admittedly esoteric and extremely precise or controversial nature. That conscience cannot reveal knowledge of morality and that one must make no assumptions in order to have an accurate and sound worldview, for instance, are extraordinarily basic facts that have been largely ignored by academia. One of the aforementioned flaws is enough to render academia a triviality at most, but the combination is devastating for academia.
Even the fact that logic allows each individual to grasp necessary truths without the need for other people alone, however, means that no one needs to be an academic to be an intellectual. There is a vital distinction that must be made between the words intellectual and academic, for there is no necessary overlap between the concepts each word refers to. Even when academia's accumulated delusions are ignored, reason completely dissolves any basis for treating academia as anything other than an unnecessary stop on the road to knowledge of logical truths.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html
All logical truths are accessible by all beings that can grasp reason itself, meaning that sincerely looking to academia for philosophical help is often a waste of time for two foundational reasons. First of all, published writings and lectures usually contain a plethora of fallacies and ignore many logical facts, making them useless except when they serve as examples of how not to reason. Second, looking to academia is completely gratuitous at best since consulting reason removes the need to read scholars to evaluate all foundational philosophical concepts to begin with.
Moreover, there are many important logical facts that have been completely or almost completely ignored by academia [1], often because of their admittedly esoteric and extremely precise or controversial nature. That conscience cannot reveal knowledge of morality and that one must make no assumptions in order to have an accurate and sound worldview, for instance, are extraordinarily basic facts that have been largely ignored by academia. One of the aforementioned flaws is enough to render academia a triviality at most, but the combination is devastating for academia.
Even the fact that logic allows each individual to grasp necessary truths without the need for other people alone, however, means that no one needs to be an academic to be an intellectual. There is a vital distinction that must be made between the words intellectual and academic, for there is no necessary overlap between the concepts each word refers to. Even when academia's accumulated delusions are ignored, reason completely dissolves any basis for treating academia as anything other than an unnecessary stop on the road to knowledge of logical truths.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html
The Subtle Pro-Life Themes Of The Mandalorian
One of the most colossal entertainment surprises of 2019, a year teeming with positive and negative surprises in entertainment, was the reveal of a baby of the same species as Yoda in the first episode of The Mandalorian. Knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally, the executives behind The Mandalorian have created a series with subtle pro-life themes woven into the core of the narrative. The reactions to the baby have exemplified a common hypocrisy that some display concerning how the unborn are regarded.
It is ironic that many viewers who adore "Baby Yoda" and disliked the scout troopers who struck it (its gender has not been specified) in the season finale would consider its wellbeing a thing of trivial or no importance if it was in the womb. After all, the child is just that--a child. The fact that its 50 year age is significant by comparison to contemporary human lifespans is irrelevant to the fact that 50 years is only the beginning of its species's respective lifespan.
The entire basis of pro-life ideology rests primarily on three logical facts: 1) all humans possess human rights, 2) unborn children in the womb are humans, and 3) arbitrary lines of age and physical development do not revoke human rights. To defend a child outside of the womb in its youth while approving of the victimization of children in the womb is to pretend like one of these arbitrary line divides amoral abortion from murder, when the same being is killed in either case.
That many people have reacted so fiercely when "Baby Yoda" has been threatened or hunted by other characters shows that at least some of them seem to understand that the child possesses the same rights as any other sentient, intelligent beings. Of course, if its rights are dictated by its age, location, and size, these rights are not truly enjoyed by all members of its species. The inevitable ramifications would be that human rights do not apply to all humans--a wholly contradictory position.
 |
| Photo credit: gameraboy on VisualHunt.com / CC BY-NC |
It is ironic that many viewers who adore "Baby Yoda" and disliked the scout troopers who struck it (its gender has not been specified) in the season finale would consider its wellbeing a thing of trivial or no importance if it was in the womb. After all, the child is just that--a child. The fact that its 50 year age is significant by comparison to contemporary human lifespans is irrelevant to the fact that 50 years is only the beginning of its species's respective lifespan.
The entire basis of pro-life ideology rests primarily on three logical facts: 1) all humans possess human rights, 2) unborn children in the womb are humans, and 3) arbitrary lines of age and physical development do not revoke human rights. To defend a child outside of the womb in its youth while approving of the victimization of children in the womb is to pretend like one of these arbitrary line divides amoral abortion from murder, when the same being is killed in either case.
That many people have reacted so fiercely when "Baby Yoda" has been threatened or hunted by other characters shows that at least some of them seem to understand that the child possesses the same rights as any other sentient, intelligent beings. Of course, if its rights are dictated by its age, location, and size, these rights are not truly enjoyed by all members of its species. The inevitable ramifications would be that human rights do not apply to all humans--a wholly contradictory position.
Sunday, December 29, 2019
An Electron's Position In Orbit
All of science is inherently probabilistic, and yet quantum physics is often consistently treated as if it is the only subcategory of science in which exact causes and future events are unknown. The behaviors of electrons are included in this fog of scientific probabilism, the location of an electron in orbit around a nucleus being of particular interest. If an electron's position cannot be truly pinpointed, is it possible to determine what radius it must be in?
Hypothetically, an electron orbiting a nucleus could be as far as miles away from the protons and neutrons of its respective nucleus. If its exact location cannot be pinpointed, then one cannot rule out any particular spot. Though it might initially seem ludicrous to say that an atom's electrons could be so distant from its core, it is a logical fact that it is possible for such a thing to be true. Moreover, this is entirely consistent with the electron cloud model of the atom.
The electron cloud model, the model that enjoys popularity today, holds that the specific location of an electron cannot be determined even though some locations are more evidentially probable than others. It does not follow that electrons are therefore in multiple places at once as some claim, even though such a thing is logically possible, for ignorance of something's location does not mean it is holding two or more spatial positions at once. It only means that the position of an electron in orbit is ultimately unknown.
Some aspects of the current models of quantum physics involve greater uncertainty than others, but one can at least prove that an unobserved electron genuinely could be anywhere in the physical cosmos, even if the probability decreases as the distance increases. Epistemologically speaking, even the very existence of atoms is uncertain [1] thanks to the probabilistic nature of all scientific evidence--logic cannot prove that all matter breaks down into a consistent class of particles. Nonetheless, predicting the location of an electron is not anything more than an exercise in probability.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-existence-of-atoms.html
Hypothetically, an electron orbiting a nucleus could be as far as miles away from the protons and neutrons of its respective nucleus. If its exact location cannot be pinpointed, then one cannot rule out any particular spot. Though it might initially seem ludicrous to say that an atom's electrons could be so distant from its core, it is a logical fact that it is possible for such a thing to be true. Moreover, this is entirely consistent with the electron cloud model of the atom.
The electron cloud model, the model that enjoys popularity today, holds that the specific location of an electron cannot be determined even though some locations are more evidentially probable than others. It does not follow that electrons are therefore in multiple places at once as some claim, even though such a thing is logically possible, for ignorance of something's location does not mean it is holding two or more spatial positions at once. It only means that the position of an electron in orbit is ultimately unknown.
Some aspects of the current models of quantum physics involve greater uncertainty than others, but one can at least prove that an unobserved electron genuinely could be anywhere in the physical cosmos, even if the probability decreases as the distance increases. Epistemologically speaking, even the very existence of atoms is uncertain [1] thanks to the probabilistic nature of all scientific evidence--logic cannot prove that all matter breaks down into a consistent class of particles. Nonetheless, predicting the location of an electron is not anything more than an exercise in probability.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-existence-of-atoms.html
Complementing One's Spouse In An Egalitarian Manner
The phrases "gender roles" and "marriage roles" have long been treated as interchangeable. As even the language used in each phrase suggests, however, the two classifications for roles are not synonymous. The ideology of gender roles entails sexist stereotypes that harm both genders very thoroughly, while the phrase marriage roles refers to roles within a specific marriage. In other words, the latter is not rooted in assumptions about men and women. There is still a complementary aspect to marriage roles, but this does not mean what complementarians think!
Spouses can still complement each other in a wholly egalitarian way: without stereotypes of sexism directed at either husbands or wives. In fact, husbands and wives complement each other one way or another. Each half of a couple can exercise their own talents and pull from their own experiences in order to benefit the lives of both members. No thoughtful egalitarian would deny this, but to affirm this is not a complementarian admission, as some conservatives might pretend. It is an individualistic one.
Because skills and personality traits are factors dictated by individuality or one's environment, some husbands will be better suited to certain "roles," and some wives will be better suited to certain "roles" in their marriages. The vital clarification is that these roles, whether they are mutually agreed upon for the long term or remain flexible, do not have anything to do with the husband being a man or the wife being a woman. They are unique to each respective person, rather than being logical or Biblical necessities rooted in gender.
Rather, the abilities of each partner and the circumstances each couple finds themselves in dictate who is most qualified to have a given "role"--that is, if spouses are even interested in having roles within their marriage in the first place. There is no need for one spouse to claim a role unless it is a mutual decision based upon genuine competency or necessity in specific areas. Either way, marriage roles are not gender roles. They are individualistic roles within a particular marriage.
Spouses can still complement each other in a wholly egalitarian way: without stereotypes of sexism directed at either husbands or wives. In fact, husbands and wives complement each other one way or another. Each half of a couple can exercise their own talents and pull from their own experiences in order to benefit the lives of both members. No thoughtful egalitarian would deny this, but to affirm this is not a complementarian admission, as some conservatives might pretend. It is an individualistic one.
Because skills and personality traits are factors dictated by individuality or one's environment, some husbands will be better suited to certain "roles," and some wives will be better suited to certain "roles" in their marriages. The vital clarification is that these roles, whether they are mutually agreed upon for the long term or remain flexible, do not have anything to do with the husband being a man or the wife being a woman. They are unique to each respective person, rather than being logical or Biblical necessities rooted in gender.
Rather, the abilities of each partner and the circumstances each couple finds themselves in dictate who is most qualified to have a given "role"--that is, if spouses are even interested in having roles within their marriage in the first place. There is no need for one spouse to claim a role unless it is a mutual decision based upon genuine competency or necessity in specific areas. Either way, marriage roles are not gender roles. They are individualistic roles within a particular marriage.
The Problem Of Evil: A Fundamentally Emotional Problem
There is pointless "distinction" that might be made between the so-called intellectual problem of evil and the emotional problem of evil in an attempt to address one of the most popular questions about theism. The intellectual problem refers to the supposed logical difficulty of affirming God's existence in a world where whatever actions the objector considers evil are carried out. In contrast, the emotional problem refers to emotional pain that might be felt in response to real or alleged evil.
No matter how emotionally upset the following claim may make some people, there is nothing logically contradictory about the simultaneous existence of a deity and the existence of evil, no matter how grievous that evil is. There is no arbitrary line past which God cannot exist if humans perform an action of specific cruelty or selfishness. Indeed, it is logically impossible for evil to exist unless a deity with a moral nature from which evil deviates also exists (not that the existence of a deity means morality must also exist, of course). If evil does not exist, there is no intellectual problem of evil; if evil exists (and conscience does not prove that it does), there is no intellectual problem of evil.
As such, there is no genuine intellectual "problem" that requires a reconciliation of contradictory elements of theism and moral realism--reconciling two opposing concepts is an impossibility and trying to do so would be a waste of time to begin with, for no truth can contradict another! There is only a need to discover and elaborate on the details of how the existence of God, whether that deity is benevolent or not, and the existence of human evil do not logically exclude each other. The only problem of evil is a problem of emotional acceptance of and comfort with the concept of God and evil coexisting.
Now, some might feel as if the mere experience of emotional discomfort with the existence of perceived evil disqualifies them from appreciation of theism. It is not as if someone morally or intellectually errs, however, by simply by struggling emotionally with certain human behaviors. Emotional difficulties are subjective trials that do not reflect poorly on the soundness of one's worldview, nor do they reflect poorly on one's moral standing. The very nature of emotion means that it can be unwanted, invasive, and in conflict with one's knowledge.
Although emotional dissatisfaction or difficulty with a logical fact might be a major personal struggle, it nonetheless has no place in determining one's worldview. Emotional problems and logical problems are completely distinct, for the latter alone can disprove ideas. If someone is deeply disturbed by the thought that an existing deity would not immediately destroy every evildoer, their inner terror has nothing to do with what is evil or with God's existence. Only when the problem of evil is recognized as a fundamentally emotional problem can one assess it in the light of reason.
No matter how emotionally upset the following claim may make some people, there is nothing logically contradictory about the simultaneous existence of a deity and the existence of evil, no matter how grievous that evil is. There is no arbitrary line past which God cannot exist if humans perform an action of specific cruelty or selfishness. Indeed, it is logically impossible for evil to exist unless a deity with a moral nature from which evil deviates also exists (not that the existence of a deity means morality must also exist, of course). If evil does not exist, there is no intellectual problem of evil; if evil exists (and conscience does not prove that it does), there is no intellectual problem of evil.
As such, there is no genuine intellectual "problem" that requires a reconciliation of contradictory elements of theism and moral realism--reconciling two opposing concepts is an impossibility and trying to do so would be a waste of time to begin with, for no truth can contradict another! There is only a need to discover and elaborate on the details of how the existence of God, whether that deity is benevolent or not, and the existence of human evil do not logically exclude each other. The only problem of evil is a problem of emotional acceptance of and comfort with the concept of God and evil coexisting.
Now, some might feel as if the mere experience of emotional discomfort with the existence of perceived evil disqualifies them from appreciation of theism. It is not as if someone morally or intellectually errs, however, by simply by struggling emotionally with certain human behaviors. Emotional difficulties are subjective trials that do not reflect poorly on the soundness of one's worldview, nor do they reflect poorly on one's moral standing. The very nature of emotion means that it can be unwanted, invasive, and in conflict with one's knowledge.
Although emotional dissatisfaction or difficulty with a logical fact might be a major personal struggle, it nonetheless has no place in determining one's worldview. Emotional problems and logical problems are completely distinct, for the latter alone can disprove ideas. If someone is deeply disturbed by the thought that an existing deity would not immediately destroy every evildoer, their inner terror has nothing to do with what is evil or with God's existence. Only when the problem of evil is recognized as a fundamentally emotional problem can one assess it in the light of reason.
Saturday, December 28, 2019
Epistemology In The Horror Genre
While none of one's daily experiences may suggest the presence of a spirit without a body in one's home, contemplating the epistemology of supernaturalism is a very fundamental part of thorough philosophy that is also a foundational aspect of the horror genre. The immaterial is at the core of all of reality and all experience due to the nature of logic and consciousness, and thus a kind of supernaturalism is at the heart of reality, even though the word supernatural is largely used in a far more limited sense. Ironically, the more limited understanding of supernaturalism is facilitated by entertainment.
Horror films often treat consciousness trapped within a body--the normal experience of human consciousness--as if it is not supernatural, in contrast to the wholly incorporeal spirits of many films. However, all consciousness is supernatural by virtue of being immaterial. Anything that is not a part of the physical cosmos, such as the laws of logic, consciousness, and the space that holds matter, are all by definition supernatural. Even though existing horror stories practically never address this, horror is still a genre that routinely and explicitly involves epistemology as a narrative element.
Without epistemological difficulties, many horror films would be far briefer. A character's personal analysis of their circumstances and possible attempts to demonstrate the supernatural nature of certain events in horror plots are deeply epistemological endeavors, and yet horror is often dismissed as a genre that has little of importance to say. Even when horror is recognized as having significant philosophical potential, that potential is usually regarded as having more to do with moralism than supernaturalism as a whole--especially supernaturalism in the consistent sense explained above.
It is always popular to mock or misrepresent the storytelling potential of whatever genre a given generation's critics might generally associate with poor production values, repetitive filmmaking techniques, and market oversaturation. Some might think horror is a dull, overfilled genre that cannot offer more than limited intellectual substance at best, but the genre itself has significant philosophical potential, even if it is ignored by many filmmakers. The artistic straw men thrown at horror aside, the epistemological aspects of key horror films collectively serve as a major example of this potential, and these aspects could still be utilized in ways that acknowledge logical facts about supernaturalism that few, if any, released horror movies draw attention to.
Horror films often treat consciousness trapped within a body--the normal experience of human consciousness--as if it is not supernatural, in contrast to the wholly incorporeal spirits of many films. However, all consciousness is supernatural by virtue of being immaterial. Anything that is not a part of the physical cosmos, such as the laws of logic, consciousness, and the space that holds matter, are all by definition supernatural. Even though existing horror stories practically never address this, horror is still a genre that routinely and explicitly involves epistemology as a narrative element.
Without epistemological difficulties, many horror films would be far briefer. A character's personal analysis of their circumstances and possible attempts to demonstrate the supernatural nature of certain events in horror plots are deeply epistemological endeavors, and yet horror is often dismissed as a genre that has little of importance to say. Even when horror is recognized as having significant philosophical potential, that potential is usually regarded as having more to do with moralism than supernaturalism as a whole--especially supernaturalism in the consistent sense explained above.
It is always popular to mock or misrepresent the storytelling potential of whatever genre a given generation's critics might generally associate with poor production values, repetitive filmmaking techniques, and market oversaturation. Some might think horror is a dull, overfilled genre that cannot offer more than limited intellectual substance at best, but the genre itself has significant philosophical potential, even if it is ignored by many filmmakers. The artistic straw men thrown at horror aside, the epistemological aspects of key horror films collectively serve as a major example of this potential, and these aspects could still be utilized in ways that acknowledge logical facts about supernaturalism that few, if any, released horror movies draw attention to.
The Parable Of The Weeds
Nestled between other parables in Matthew 13, the parable of the weeds is one of the most straightforward allegorical descriptions of the separate eschatological destinies of the saved and unsaved. It tells of good seeds and weeds that sit in the same field, the weeds unable to be removed before the harvest without also uprooting the wheat that sprouts. The owner of the field decides to let them both coexist until the harvest in light of this. However, the owner instructs his servants to collect the weeds at that time, tie them in bundles, and burn them.
Unlike the surrounding parables, the parable of the weeds is specifically explained by Jesus later in Matthew 13. The weeds are said to represent the wicked (13:38), while the wheat is said to represent those who are saved (again, see 13:38). The fire in the parable corresponds to the "blazing furnace" that the wicked will be cast into (13:40-42). In this parable, Jesus uses the clear analogy of burning weeds to describe what happens to the unsaved: weeds are burnt up, not burned without end.
No one needs to read the parables of Jesus to see that the Bible teaches annihilationism and conditional immortality. The New Testament in particular is explicitly clear when it states that eternal life is not the default state of unsaved humans (1 Timothy 6:16). Nevertheless, the parables in the gospels plainly point to annihilationism, as the language of destruction, death, and loss of life are used to convey what will happen to the unsaved--the same language used outside of the parables to more directly describe the punishment of hell.
Many analogies tend to break down at some point, but the imagery of weeds burning up does not even hint at eternal conscious torment. Nothing in other parables even slightly challenges annihilationism, moreover. A slave receiving a finite number of lashes (Luke 12:47-48) and a king killing his enemies (Luke 19:27) can hardly be said to support eternal conscious torment. Rather, these stories emphasize the limited nature of the punishments therein. They do not imply or state that the wicked deserve to be tormented without end.
There is no place traditionalists can retreat to from which they can defend the conservative theology of hell; at most, they can acknowledge that a literal reading of some verses in Revelation (such as 20:10) would hold that very specific beings will experience eternal conscious torment. No matter how obscure or renowned the verses they appeal to are, there is never any indication that the wicked are en masse destined for anything other than what happens to the weeds in the parable named after them: fiery destruction.
Unlike the surrounding parables, the parable of the weeds is specifically explained by Jesus later in Matthew 13. The weeds are said to represent the wicked (13:38), while the wheat is said to represent those who are saved (again, see 13:38). The fire in the parable corresponds to the "blazing furnace" that the wicked will be cast into (13:40-42). In this parable, Jesus uses the clear analogy of burning weeds to describe what happens to the unsaved: weeds are burnt up, not burned without end.
No one needs to read the parables of Jesus to see that the Bible teaches annihilationism and conditional immortality. The New Testament in particular is explicitly clear when it states that eternal life is not the default state of unsaved humans (1 Timothy 6:16). Nevertheless, the parables in the gospels plainly point to annihilationism, as the language of destruction, death, and loss of life are used to convey what will happen to the unsaved--the same language used outside of the parables to more directly describe the punishment of hell.
Many analogies tend to break down at some point, but the imagery of weeds burning up does not even hint at eternal conscious torment. Nothing in other parables even slightly challenges annihilationism, moreover. A slave receiving a finite number of lashes (Luke 12:47-48) and a king killing his enemies (Luke 19:27) can hardly be said to support eternal conscious torment. Rather, these stories emphasize the limited nature of the punishments therein. They do not imply or state that the wicked deserve to be tormented without end.
There is no place traditionalists can retreat to from which they can defend the conservative theology of hell; at most, they can acknowledge that a literal reading of some verses in Revelation (such as 20:10) would hold that very specific beings will experience eternal conscious torment. No matter how obscure or renowned the verses they appeal to are, there is never any indication that the wicked are en masse destined for anything other than what happens to the weeds in the parable named after them: fiery destruction.
Thursday, December 26, 2019
Psychology And Other Minds
Psychological beliefs are sound when one relies on a rational analysis of introspection, for one's mind is accessible at any time. The assertion that psychology can tell us about the mental states of other minds might seem like a valid extrapolation of self-knowledge, yet it is doomed for epistemic failure. A stubborn fact remains despite the popularity of contrary belief: no amount of time spent studying historical case studies of psychology can allow a non-telepath to gaze into another mind.
First and foremost, psychology helps one understand one's own mind, the only mind one can know. Moreover, the core of psychology is not grasped by scouring books or listening to the words of educators. It is grasped by a rationalistic analysis of phenomenology and one's personal experiences; all else is probabilistic at best. One's own thoughts, motivations, and priorities can often be understood apart from discussing them with others.
The mistake that many make even if they do come to understand themselves is extrapolating from their own motivations or thought processes to those of others. Two people may display the same behavioral characteristics, for example, but have completely different objectives and intents. The body is animated by the mind, but the mind's motivations are not directly visible to outside observers. To see a gesture or other action is not the same as seeing the thoughts of the one performing it.
It is not possible for a non-telepathic being to truly know the contents of other minds based upon behavioral observations, and thus psychology is never a direct bridge into the minds of other people--nevertheless, a thorough grasp of reason and a sound understanding of oneself can indeed help identify what others seem to be feeling or thinking. Probabilities can epistemologically justify certain reactions, but they can never justify the belief that one can know other minds apart from telepathy. Telepathy, after all, is the only way to truly confirm claims about which mental states are being experienced other beings, even if almost no one understands why this is the case.
First and foremost, psychology helps one understand one's own mind, the only mind one can know. Moreover, the core of psychology is not grasped by scouring books or listening to the words of educators. It is grasped by a rationalistic analysis of phenomenology and one's personal experiences; all else is probabilistic at best. One's own thoughts, motivations, and priorities can often be understood apart from discussing them with others.
The mistake that many make even if they do come to understand themselves is extrapolating from their own motivations or thought processes to those of others. Two people may display the same behavioral characteristics, for example, but have completely different objectives and intents. The body is animated by the mind, but the mind's motivations are not directly visible to outside observers. To see a gesture or other action is not the same as seeing the thoughts of the one performing it.
It is not possible for a non-telepathic being to truly know the contents of other minds based upon behavioral observations, and thus psychology is never a direct bridge into the minds of other people--nevertheless, a thorough grasp of reason and a sound understanding of oneself can indeed help identify what others seem to be feeling or thinking. Probabilities can epistemologically justify certain reactions, but they can never justify the belief that one can know other minds apart from telepathy. Telepathy, after all, is the only way to truly confirm claims about which mental states are being experienced other beings, even if almost no one understands why this is the case.
Wednesday, December 25, 2019
Economic Reductionism
For all the controversy over the differences between basic capitalism and communism, the adherents of each economic system can openly display the same reductionistic tendencies. This does not reflect on the philosophical legitimacy or illegitimacy of either ideology, as motivations, words, and behaviors have no connection to the truth of a concept. Nevertheless, since some of the same dangers can tempt certain followers of both systems, it is worth addressing the errors of reductionism in the economic realm, for a damaging idea is far more harmful when more people embrace it.
One can find various examples of reductionism that have gained acceptance by certain communities in Western culture--some fallaciously attempt to describe human behavior or nature as if it always reduces down to one particular thing, such as sexuality, the nervous system, or social conditioning. Since the economic aspects of life are of immediate concern to many people, it is not abnormal when humans are sometimes mistakenly treated only as a means of economic output or as recipients of material gain.
Capitalists and communists alike can exaggerate the importance of money, albeit in somewhat differing ways. The former might view money as the ultimate symbol of human achievement and importance, while the latter might view money as the solution to every injustice and human problem (money can do nothing to solve epistemological or spiritual problems, for instance). Ironically, neither of the two economic frameworks inherently have these tenets. There is no part of mere capitalism or communism that ignores other dimensions of human existence.
It is ultimately possible for subscribers to practically any economic idea to treat economic potential as the defining feature of humankind, and, although this is an erroneous stance, it does not confirm or refute the veracity of any of the systems in question. Professing allegiance to either a free market or the communal sharing of property will not stop irrational people from falling into economic reductionism, but it would also be irrational for an observer to react by straw manning the ideas hijacked by the reductionists. Capitalism and communism are often simply accepted or dismissed based upon the actions of those who identify with them, after all--a sign of intellectual deficiency that needs to be confronted.
One can find various examples of reductionism that have gained acceptance by certain communities in Western culture--some fallaciously attempt to describe human behavior or nature as if it always reduces down to one particular thing, such as sexuality, the nervous system, or social conditioning. Since the economic aspects of life are of immediate concern to many people, it is not abnormal when humans are sometimes mistakenly treated only as a means of economic output or as recipients of material gain.
Capitalists and communists alike can exaggerate the importance of money, albeit in somewhat differing ways. The former might view money as the ultimate symbol of human achievement and importance, while the latter might view money as the solution to every injustice and human problem (money can do nothing to solve epistemological or spiritual problems, for instance). Ironically, neither of the two economic frameworks inherently have these tenets. There is no part of mere capitalism or communism that ignores other dimensions of human existence.
It is ultimately possible for subscribers to practically any economic idea to treat economic potential as the defining feature of humankind, and, although this is an erroneous stance, it does not confirm or refute the veracity of any of the systems in question. Professing allegiance to either a free market or the communal sharing of property will not stop irrational people from falling into economic reductionism, but it would also be irrational for an observer to react by straw manning the ideas hijacked by the reductionists. Capitalism and communism are often simply accepted or dismissed based upon the actions of those who identify with them, after all--a sign of intellectual deficiency that needs to be confronted.
Technology In Business
Computers, online assignments, and automation are only three examples of technological developments that have become standard in the contemporary workplace across many industries. As more refined technologies with corporate potential are introduced, the managers of firms need to understand how to approach established and impending technologies moreso than ever before. A manager's approach to technology, after all, significantly impacts their mindset behind hiring, training, and development.
It needs to be clarified that, contrary to what might be expected, technological adeptness is not necessarily a prerequisite for a job that needs such a thing. It is not that businesses need to only select employees with intimate knowledge of specific softwares and hardwares, but that businesses need workers and leaders who understand the significance of broad technological trends and how these trends impact their firms. Technical information can be taught as a job demands it, but a grasp of the philosophical and corporate ramifications of technology in general must usually be developed on one's own.
Thus, there is no need for immediate alarm if a potential worker needs training before he or she is familiar enough with machinery or electronics to use them as their roles require. Unless someone is personally interested in technology or needs familiarity with it for practical reasons, they are not likely to know how to utilize it. Rational firm leaders will not react to this pessimistically by default: some technical skills can always be developed inside a company.
When possible workers do not possess technology-related qualifications that can be addressed internally, it is folly to wait when all the educational resources necessary are available to new hires in need of them. This is not to say that anyone at all should be accepted by a firm as long as informative training is offered. Rather, this means that not all technological job qualifications must be acquired prior to hiring in order for a company to succeed.
As technology evolves, the business world is likely to undergo a continued evolution of its own, but firm managers can ensure this evolution is met with competent workers one way or another. Some industries are naturally more reliant on technology than others, but as society itself becomes more deeply immersed in technology, its corporate aspects will likewise become more steeped in electronic and mechanical norms. Whether these changes are gradual and minor or abrupt and major, the landscape of business shifts to accommodate them.
It needs to be clarified that, contrary to what might be expected, technological adeptness is not necessarily a prerequisite for a job that needs such a thing. It is not that businesses need to only select employees with intimate knowledge of specific softwares and hardwares, but that businesses need workers and leaders who understand the significance of broad technological trends and how these trends impact their firms. Technical information can be taught as a job demands it, but a grasp of the philosophical and corporate ramifications of technology in general must usually be developed on one's own.
Thus, there is no need for immediate alarm if a potential worker needs training before he or she is familiar enough with machinery or electronics to use them as their roles require. Unless someone is personally interested in technology or needs familiarity with it for practical reasons, they are not likely to know how to utilize it. Rational firm leaders will not react to this pessimistically by default: some technical skills can always be developed inside a company.
When possible workers do not possess technology-related qualifications that can be addressed internally, it is folly to wait when all the educational resources necessary are available to new hires in need of them. This is not to say that anyone at all should be accepted by a firm as long as informative training is offered. Rather, this means that not all technological job qualifications must be acquired prior to hiring in order for a company to succeed.
As technology evolves, the business world is likely to undergo a continued evolution of its own, but firm managers can ensure this evolution is met with competent workers one way or another. Some industries are naturally more reliant on technology than others, but as society itself becomes more deeply immersed in technology, its corporate aspects will likewise become more steeped in electronic and mechanical norms. Whether these changes are gradual and minor or abrupt and major, the landscape of business shifts to accommodate them.
Tuesday, December 24, 2019
Is Evil Banal?
The declaration that evil is banal is one of the most senseless things a person could say about immorality. Often used as an excuse to treat evil as having a sort of metaphysical triviality, this idea has been echoed by Christian figures throughout the centuries in an attempt to redirect focus to what is good. Ironically, trivializing sin only detracts from a sound understanding of ethics!
Sin cannot be recognized as the thoroughly destructive thing that it is whenever it is dismissed as a banality. Moreover, the claim that evil is simply a dull distraction from righteousness fails on an epistemological level because of the inherent subjectivity of excitement and pleasure. Does boredom signify metaphysical or moral unimportance? Of course not! It only means that a given person is bored.
Sin is neither banal nor enticing by nature--it might seem banal or enticing to a specific person, but this perception is just a subjective mental state. Reactions to any concept or truth vary from individual to individual, and yet the truth is unaffected by the diversity and subjectivity of those reactions. This is precisely why declaring that evil has a certain nature because of purely subjective perceptions is so destructive.
Dismissing evil as banal is to dismiss the fact that neither good nor evil has an inherent appeal to a given person. Of course, whether something is objectively good or evil does not depend on any person's attitude towards it. Conscience is subjective, but any existing moral obligations are objective, having nothing to do with what any number of people find interesting or dull. It is thus ignorant and asinine to declare that evil itself is banal, no matter what respected theologians might assert.
Sin cannot be recognized as the thoroughly destructive thing that it is whenever it is dismissed as a banality. Moreover, the claim that evil is simply a dull distraction from righteousness fails on an epistemological level because of the inherent subjectivity of excitement and pleasure. Does boredom signify metaphysical or moral unimportance? Of course not! It only means that a given person is bored.
Sin is neither banal nor enticing by nature--it might seem banal or enticing to a specific person, but this perception is just a subjective mental state. Reactions to any concept or truth vary from individual to individual, and yet the truth is unaffected by the diversity and subjectivity of those reactions. This is precisely why declaring that evil has a certain nature because of purely subjective perceptions is so destructive.
Dismissing evil as banal is to dismiss the fact that neither good nor evil has an inherent appeal to a given person. Of course, whether something is objectively good or evil does not depend on any person's attitude towards it. Conscience is subjective, but any existing moral obligations are objective, having nothing to do with what any number of people find interesting or dull. It is thus ignorant and asinine to declare that evil itself is banal, no matter what respected theologians might assert.
Monday, December 23, 2019
Fear Of Death
Fear is a subjective thing: what one person fears may be welcomed or dismissed by another, and the experience of fear is unique to each individual. There may be some things that entire groups of people happen to fear, just as there may be some things that objectively deserve fear, but any experience is subjective with respect to the consciousness of the one experiencing it. The subjectivity of emotional reactions renders emotion irrelevant to matters of theological truth and falsity, and thus emotion has no authority to determine what the Bible teaches about the fate of the wicked.
It does not matter if annihilationism offends some people; it does not matter if the thought of temporary or eternal death does not bother some people. None of these things affects the fact that the Bible plainly and consistently teaches that the human soul is not able to live forever on its own and that destruction of soul and body awaits the unsaved. If someone is unwilling to consider annihilation a serious punishment for sin, the error does not rest in the doctrine of annihilationism, but it instead rests in their own desire to only carry out their Biblical moral obligations if they anticipate hell to involve perpetual torment.
Evangelicals (with perhaps a minority being the exceptions) sometimes dismiss the idea of permanent death of the mind and body as if it could not possibly be terrifying, despite eternal death excluding the pleasures and joys of eternal life--an outcome that any sincere and intelligent Christian would not take lightly. Anything short of endless torment is regarded by the evangelical world as too minor to warrant existential fear. They might even treat this supposed lack of terror as if it would invalidate the whole of the gospel if annihilationism and conditional immortality were Biblically correct.
However, the actions of almost every person, evangelicals included, suggests that they do not genuinely believe this. If death is too trivial a thing for many people to be frightened by it, then it is quite common for people to live as if they think the opposite. One can frequently see people choose some course of action because they think it will postpone their deaths, and the desire to prolong life can manifest itself in everything from the avoidance of perceived danger to the pursuit of health.
Certainly, the fear of death is not the only reason someone might or should seek eternal life [1]. Nevertheless, fear of the second death is a deserved response to the nature of the Biblical hell--not deserved in the sense that someone sins if they are not subjectively afraid of hell, but deserved in the sense that fear is not an unwarranted response to the second death (Matthew 10:28). The death of one's consciousness is no minor thing. Likewise, permanent forfeiture of eternal life is nothing to scoff at. It follows that there is nothing Biblically trivial about fearing the irrevocable loss of consciousness predicted for the unsaved.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/03/persistent-commitment-to-god.html
It does not matter if annihilationism offends some people; it does not matter if the thought of temporary or eternal death does not bother some people. None of these things affects the fact that the Bible plainly and consistently teaches that the human soul is not able to live forever on its own and that destruction of soul and body awaits the unsaved. If someone is unwilling to consider annihilation a serious punishment for sin, the error does not rest in the doctrine of annihilationism, but it instead rests in their own desire to only carry out their Biblical moral obligations if they anticipate hell to involve perpetual torment.
Evangelicals (with perhaps a minority being the exceptions) sometimes dismiss the idea of permanent death of the mind and body as if it could not possibly be terrifying, despite eternal death excluding the pleasures and joys of eternal life--an outcome that any sincere and intelligent Christian would not take lightly. Anything short of endless torment is regarded by the evangelical world as too minor to warrant existential fear. They might even treat this supposed lack of terror as if it would invalidate the whole of the gospel if annihilationism and conditional immortality were Biblically correct.
However, the actions of almost every person, evangelicals included, suggests that they do not genuinely believe this. If death is too trivial a thing for many people to be frightened by it, then it is quite common for people to live as if they think the opposite. One can frequently see people choose some course of action because they think it will postpone their deaths, and the desire to prolong life can manifest itself in everything from the avoidance of perceived danger to the pursuit of health.
Certainly, the fear of death is not the only reason someone might or should seek eternal life [1]. Nevertheless, fear of the second death is a deserved response to the nature of the Biblical hell--not deserved in the sense that someone sins if they are not subjectively afraid of hell, but deserved in the sense that fear is not an unwarranted response to the second death (Matthew 10:28). The death of one's consciousness is no minor thing. Likewise, permanent forfeiture of eternal life is nothing to scoff at. It follows that there is nothing Biblically trivial about fearing the irrevocable loss of consciousness predicted for the unsaved.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/03/persistent-commitment-to-god.html
Movie Review--The Ring
"Seven days."
--Samara, The Ring
In anticipation of the upcoming R-rated J-horror sequel to/reboot of The Grudge, set to release in early 2020, one can always revisit established J-horror classics or view them for the first time. The Ring remains one of the best. Samara has become an iconic horror figure thanks to this film, the 2002 American remake of a Japanese horror movie that is itself an adaption of a Japanese novel. More importantly, The Ring demonstrates how imagery, setting, and mystery are more fundamental building blocks of horror than jump scares or blood.
Production Values
The PG-13 rating might preclude certain arbitrary levels of violence or macabre imagery, but the rating does not have to confine directors to non-horror material. The Ring is a prime example of this. Images that would strike some people as grotesque are featured, but they are used sparingly and in service of the story--revelation and atmosphere are consistently emphasized over gore. A unique color scheme is utilized rather well to reinforce a bleak atmosphere that remains with the movie all the way to its dramatic climax.
The primary characters of The Ring are very similar to many modern characters in that the performances behind them showcase genuine skill, but there is little to no developed arc for any of them. For example, Naomi Watts (a talented actress) plays Rachel Keller very well, and Martin Henderson plays her former lover Noah well, even though their characters do not drastically change throughout the film. However, given the storyline of The Ring, this isn't particularly problematic, as not every type of movie needs clear character arcs to succeed.
Story
Some spoilers are below!
Journalist Rachel Keller's son Aidan loses his best friend when his cousin Katie dies after accurately predicting the day of her death. When Rachel learns that several of Katie's friends also died on the same night at the same time, she seeks out information about a tape that allegedly kills you seven days after you watch it, visits the cabin where Katie and her friends viewed it, and plays the tape for herself.
She then receives a phone call during which a female voice says "Seven days" before hanging up. Showing the tape to her ex Noah, Rachel desperately follows every clue available about the origin of the tape and the young girl it features. This investigation leads her to the last living member of the Morgan family, a family that once returned to their island home from a trip with an adopted daughter named Samara.
Intellectual Content
As with many other horror stories, The Ring flirts with the epistemology of supernaturalism as key characters begin to realize the circumstances they find themselves in are explicitly supernatural. Films like The Conjuring 2 do more with the practical and philosophical elements to this aspect of supernatural horror, but its inclusion in a non-forced way still benefits The Ring.
Conclusion
The Ring clearly benefits from its lead performances, unique aesthetic, and emphasis on atmosphere instead of strings of jump scares, serving as an example of how to craft horror films that make the most of the PG-13 rating. There is always a place for violent horror, but The Ring exemplifies how sound filmmaking results in a more nuanced story than violence alone ever could. In an era where horror offerings vary wildly in quality, there is always the need to acknowledge the components of well-crafted horror.
Content:
1. Violence: A finger is impaled on the infamous video Rachel watches. In other scenes, long strands of hair come out of Rachel's mouth and a man electrocutes himself in a bathtub.
2. Profanity: The PG-13 rating means that the profanity is significantly less frequent than it is in other contemporary horror movies like the Saw films, but expletives like "bitch" and "shit" are still used.
--Samara, The Ring
In anticipation of the upcoming R-rated J-horror sequel to/reboot of The Grudge, set to release in early 2020, one can always revisit established J-horror classics or view them for the first time. The Ring remains one of the best. Samara has become an iconic horror figure thanks to this film, the 2002 American remake of a Japanese horror movie that is itself an adaption of a Japanese novel. More importantly, The Ring demonstrates how imagery, setting, and mystery are more fundamental building blocks of horror than jump scares or blood.
Production Values
The PG-13 rating might preclude certain arbitrary levels of violence or macabre imagery, but the rating does not have to confine directors to non-horror material. The Ring is a prime example of this. Images that would strike some people as grotesque are featured, but they are used sparingly and in service of the story--revelation and atmosphere are consistently emphasized over gore. A unique color scheme is utilized rather well to reinforce a bleak atmosphere that remains with the movie all the way to its dramatic climax.
The primary characters of The Ring are very similar to many modern characters in that the performances behind them showcase genuine skill, but there is little to no developed arc for any of them. For example, Naomi Watts (a talented actress) plays Rachel Keller very well, and Martin Henderson plays her former lover Noah well, even though their characters do not drastically change throughout the film. However, given the storyline of The Ring, this isn't particularly problematic, as not every type of movie needs clear character arcs to succeed.
Story
Some spoilers are below!
Journalist Rachel Keller's son Aidan loses his best friend when his cousin Katie dies after accurately predicting the day of her death. When Rachel learns that several of Katie's friends also died on the same night at the same time, she seeks out information about a tape that allegedly kills you seven days after you watch it, visits the cabin where Katie and her friends viewed it, and plays the tape for herself.
She then receives a phone call during which a female voice says "Seven days" before hanging up. Showing the tape to her ex Noah, Rachel desperately follows every clue available about the origin of the tape and the young girl it features. This investigation leads her to the last living member of the Morgan family, a family that once returned to their island home from a trip with an adopted daughter named Samara.
Intellectual Content
As with many other horror stories, The Ring flirts with the epistemology of supernaturalism as key characters begin to realize the circumstances they find themselves in are explicitly supernatural. Films like The Conjuring 2 do more with the practical and philosophical elements to this aspect of supernatural horror, but its inclusion in a non-forced way still benefits The Ring.
Conclusion
The Ring clearly benefits from its lead performances, unique aesthetic, and emphasis on atmosphere instead of strings of jump scares, serving as an example of how to craft horror films that make the most of the PG-13 rating. There is always a place for violent horror, but The Ring exemplifies how sound filmmaking results in a more nuanced story than violence alone ever could. In an era where horror offerings vary wildly in quality, there is always the need to acknowledge the components of well-crafted horror.
Content:
1. Violence: A finger is impaled on the infamous video Rachel watches. In other scenes, long strands of hair come out of Rachel's mouth and a man electrocutes himself in a bathtub.
2. Profanity: The PG-13 rating means that the profanity is significantly less frequent than it is in other contemporary horror movies like the Saw films, but expletives like "bitch" and "shit" are still used.
Sunday, December 22, 2019
Myths About Erotic Media And Human Trafficking
A bold and serious charge that is brought against erotic media by people on both sides of the political spectrum is the assertion that sexual material promotes human trafficking. While this claim is just as asinine as the idea that video games cause players to commit violent acts, it remains one of the primary arguments used by those who are against erotic media as a whole. At worst, some opponents of erotic media realize that there is nothing coercive or degrading about making and publishing sexual material online in itself (given that the sexual acts displayed or written about are not sinful) and still claim that erotic media itself feeds human trafficking.
Moreover, the components of human trafficking, which start with kidnapping and may lead to the sexual exploitation or physical abuse of men and women, are explicitly condemned in Mosaic Law (see Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 22:25-27), while the creation and enjoyment of sexual media that does not promote sexual immorality is Biblically innocent (Deuteronomy 4:2). Biblically speaking, there is an enormous difference between human trafficking and mere erotic media as it is. Logically speaking, one can prove that the two are not synonymous just by realizing that one does not have to involve the other.
Erotic images and videos are not associated with abductions, rape, or other nonconsensual acts simply because they are sexual in nature. However, myths about erotic media and human trafficking go beyond insisting the opposite. It is specifically insisted that women are victimized by virtue of being featured in sexual images and videos--as if no men are ever victimized for the online amusement of others! This sexist emphasis on female victims is only one of many ways that violence and sexual assault of men is trivialized by conservative evangelicals and liberals alike.
Women and men can celebrate their physicality and sexuality in legitimate ways using erotic media, and yet it is largely women alone who are encouraged to see this as empowering. Women and men can be sexually victimized by others, and yet it is largely women alone who receive aid as victims. A truly rationalistic approach to erotic media is an egalitarian one; in turn, a genuinely egalitarian approach to erotic media disregards all stereotypes and all forms of discrimination against either gender where sexuality and visual media intersect.
Regardless of which objection someone might raise, there is nothing about erotic media that requires human trafficking. At most, human trafficking is only behind a subset of erotic materials, although conservatives and liberals have condemned the entire category of media because of the potential for some people to abuse it. Anything can be misused, sexual or otherwise, and the person intelligent enough to see this can identify slippery slope arguments as the powerless non sequiturs and red herrings they are.
Moreover, the components of human trafficking, which start with kidnapping and may lead to the sexual exploitation or physical abuse of men and women, are explicitly condemned in Mosaic Law (see Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 22:25-27), while the creation and enjoyment of sexual media that does not promote sexual immorality is Biblically innocent (Deuteronomy 4:2). Biblically speaking, there is an enormous difference between human trafficking and mere erotic media as it is. Logically speaking, one can prove that the two are not synonymous just by realizing that one does not have to involve the other.
Erotic images and videos are not associated with abductions, rape, or other nonconsensual acts simply because they are sexual in nature. However, myths about erotic media and human trafficking go beyond insisting the opposite. It is specifically insisted that women are victimized by virtue of being featured in sexual images and videos--as if no men are ever victimized for the online amusement of others! This sexist emphasis on female victims is only one of many ways that violence and sexual assault of men is trivialized by conservative evangelicals and liberals alike.
Women and men can celebrate their physicality and sexuality in legitimate ways using erotic media, and yet it is largely women alone who are encouraged to see this as empowering. Women and men can be sexually victimized by others, and yet it is largely women alone who receive aid as victims. A truly rationalistic approach to erotic media is an egalitarian one; in turn, a genuinely egalitarian approach to erotic media disregards all stereotypes and all forms of discrimination against either gender where sexuality and visual media intersect.
Regardless of which objection someone might raise, there is nothing about erotic media that requires human trafficking. At most, human trafficking is only behind a subset of erotic materials, although conservatives and liberals have condemned the entire category of media because of the potential for some people to abuse it. Anything can be misused, sexual or otherwise, and the person intelligent enough to see this can identify slippery slope arguments as the powerless non sequiturs and red herrings they are.
Friday, December 20, 2019
The Repetition Of History
History is said to repeat itself, and the familiar phrase "Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it" might be added as a warning. It is true that one might find examples of repetitive patterns at different points in recorded history, and yet the common explanation for this--the aforementioned claim about ignorance of history--is at best incomplete. If a historical pattern repeats, it is not necessarily for this reason, and even if historical ignorance is a factor, it is usually one of several.
It needs to be clarified that when I speak of history in this post, I am not referring to the events recalled in someone's memories that suggests these events occurred earlier in their life, but I am instead referring to past events of the sort that happened before one was born or outside of one's experiences while living. Memories are evidence for historical events, but only for events one has experienced, whereas history in a broader sense includes events outside of a given individual's experiences (not that a memory proves the historicity of an event [1]). Regarding the latter, how much is ignorance of historical documents to blame when an event in a person's life plays out like events of the distant past?
Ironically, blaming similar historical occurrences solely or even mostly on an alleged ignorance of history is itself thoroughly ignorant. There is only a finite number of possibilities for the outcome of a given sequence of events, and thus, given enough time, it is very likely that certain things will happen multiple times, whether or not the people involved are historically informed. The repetition of history does not prove what some lovers of history think: it does not establish that the historical record has any significance beyond its value for Christian apologetics, its subjective appeal for certain people, and its occasional convenience.
As for the convenience sometimes offered by history, familiarity with historical information on a general level does not even bring with it the same immediate convenience that familiarity with scientific information does. At least scientific information is directly relevant to the practical nature of daily activities, but awareness of the battles and rulers of past civilizations tends to have little to no relevance to how one lives, much less to how one should live. This admission is not anti-history, for it simply acknowledges that the usefulness of history is very limited. Rather, it recognizes the true place of history in philosophy and in life.
In short, the philosophical and practical value of history is often overestimated for the sake of subjective fascination. No one is doomed to repeat history simply because they have not studied records of past events outside of their lifetime; if anything, those who repeat history usually do so because only certain outcomes are even possible to begin with! The person who does not take this into consideration merely conveys their own ineptitude rather than conveying some supposedly deep truth about history.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-nuance-of-memory-and-identity.html
It needs to be clarified that when I speak of history in this post, I am not referring to the events recalled in someone's memories that suggests these events occurred earlier in their life, but I am instead referring to past events of the sort that happened before one was born or outside of one's experiences while living. Memories are evidence for historical events, but only for events one has experienced, whereas history in a broader sense includes events outside of a given individual's experiences (not that a memory proves the historicity of an event [1]). Regarding the latter, how much is ignorance of historical documents to blame when an event in a person's life plays out like events of the distant past?
Ironically, blaming similar historical occurrences solely or even mostly on an alleged ignorance of history is itself thoroughly ignorant. There is only a finite number of possibilities for the outcome of a given sequence of events, and thus, given enough time, it is very likely that certain things will happen multiple times, whether or not the people involved are historically informed. The repetition of history does not prove what some lovers of history think: it does not establish that the historical record has any significance beyond its value for Christian apologetics, its subjective appeal for certain people, and its occasional convenience.
As for the convenience sometimes offered by history, familiarity with historical information on a general level does not even bring with it the same immediate convenience that familiarity with scientific information does. At least scientific information is directly relevant to the practical nature of daily activities, but awareness of the battles and rulers of past civilizations tends to have little to no relevance to how one lives, much less to how one should live. This admission is not anti-history, for it simply acknowledges that the usefulness of history is very limited. Rather, it recognizes the true place of history in philosophy and in life.
In short, the philosophical and practical value of history is often overestimated for the sake of subjective fascination. No one is doomed to repeat history simply because they have not studied records of past events outside of their lifetime; if anything, those who repeat history usually do so because only certain outcomes are even possible to begin with! The person who does not take this into consideration merely conveys their own ineptitude rather than conveying some supposedly deep truth about history.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-nuance-of-memory-and-identity.html
Monday, December 16, 2019
Misotheism And Misanthropy
The idea that objective evil exists has often been used as an alleged basis for hostility towards theism, although the very notion of morally criticizing a deity can only be entertained on subjective grounds, as opposed to logical grounds. In light of the fact that there is an uncaused cause of some kind [1] (even if it is ultimately amoral), the basic concept of a deity thus being more than a mere hypothetical possibility, there is more of a need than there would otherwise be to clarify the hypocrisy of a certain societal reaction when a human commits what someone considers an immoral behavior [2]. Any heinous immorality on the part of a person tells us far more about the nature of that individual person than it does about the uncaused cause, and yet it is the concept of God that many have a more negative reaction to in such circumstances.
Indeed, many have a cognitively dissonant response to God and other people respectively when the latter is perceived to do something evil. Rather than serving as a basis for hatred of or irritation with the character of any deity that would allow humans to make their own free decisions, even if they voluntarily made destructive choices without any coercion from the deity, the stupidity and irresponsibility of most humans serves as a sound basis for a general misanthropy. Even so, hostile attitudes towards the very people who contribute to today's problems may very likely be seen as part of the problem rather than as a potential motivation to find solutions.
If you hate humans (with the exception of those who have not aligned themselves with the apathy, irrationality, pettiness, and heinous ideologies or acts of the majority) for carrying out the very actions they choose to enact, Western society as a whole would regard you as an evil person. If you hate the uncaused cause for creating a universe in which free beings choose to engage in evil behaviors, the majority of Western society considers you to have a just cause. Misotheism, the hatred of God (whether God is considered real or nonexistent), is tolerated despite being philosophically asinine, and appropriate misanthropy is widely considered to itself be atrocious.
It is only due to common stupidity that hatred of other people is viewed as an inherently negative thing to begin with, but it is even more telling of the unintelligence of a culture when its members are more likely to despise the concept of God because of human actions than they are to despise the people who commit the very atrocities they condemn. This is a backwards approach; if anything, it is people who fail to align themselves with reason and justice that can be legitimately hated, not a deity who does not make their choices for them.
An opposition to the hatred of any human is typically rooted in an overestimation of the significance of each individual. Rather than judge all humans to be good or evil based on the actions of a few, a rationalistic person sees that the moral excellence of the few cannot justify the condemnation of all hatred no matter who it is directed towards. The nature of hatred has been consistently slandered, and perhaps this is why the collective face of the modern world remains horrified by it. However, hatred is not an enemy of moral progress by default. It must only be aimed in the right direction and never be used as the basis for unjust words and behaviors.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[2]. Whether the act is truly immoral or just emotionally distasteful to an individual or group is not the point here.
If you hate humans (with the exception of those who have not aligned themselves with the apathy, irrationality, pettiness, and heinous ideologies or acts of the majority) for carrying out the very actions they choose to enact, Western society as a whole would regard you as an evil person. If you hate the uncaused cause for creating a universe in which free beings choose to engage in evil behaviors, the majority of Western society considers you to have a just cause. Misotheism, the hatred of God (whether God is considered real or nonexistent), is tolerated despite being philosophically asinine, and appropriate misanthropy is widely considered to itself be atrocious.
It is only due to common stupidity that hatred of other people is viewed as an inherently negative thing to begin with, but it is even more telling of the unintelligence of a culture when its members are more likely to despise the concept of God because of human actions than they are to despise the people who commit the very atrocities they condemn. This is a backwards approach; if anything, it is people who fail to align themselves with reason and justice that can be legitimately hated, not a deity who does not make their choices for them.
An opposition to the hatred of any human is typically rooted in an overestimation of the significance of each individual. Rather than judge all humans to be good or evil based on the actions of a few, a rationalistic person sees that the moral excellence of the few cannot justify the condemnation of all hatred no matter who it is directed towards. The nature of hatred has been consistently slandered, and perhaps this is why the collective face of the modern world remains horrified by it. However, hatred is not an enemy of moral progress by default. It must only be aimed in the right direction and never be used as the basis for unjust words and behaviors.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[2]. Whether the act is truly immoral or just emotionally distasteful to an individual or group is not the point here.
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Morality Comes Before Soteriology
Although they would almost certainly never describe it in this way, the typical evangelical priority of redemption over sound moralism seems to be inherently rooted in egoistic utilitarianism: the evangelicals who care more about being saved than doing the right thing for its own sake care more about escaping their deserved fate in hell [1] than they do about fulfilling the moral obligations rooted in God's nature. If someone was committed to Christianity for the sake of evidence and morality, they would not speak of their own salvation as if it is more significant than those things.
Is it any wonder that someone who is merely or mostly fixated on avoiding a certain outcome out of self-interest has only a trivial concern for the consistent, thorough pursuit of morality? This should surprise no one. If someone ignores the facts that moral failings are the entire reason why salvation is needed and that moral betterment is the entire reason why people are saved to begin with, why should it be unexpected for them to regard Biblical ethics as secondary to redemption?
Even evangelicals themselves can be selectively appalled at the moral failings of other evangelicals, and yet very few of them are willing to endorse genuine moralism. Morality is treated like its importance is tangentially derived from soteriology, when the opposite is actually the case. The importance of soteriology is derived completely from morality--there can be no capacity or need for redemption unless morality comes first, and mercy is inherently non-obligatory in the first place, making it something that does not need to be shown in any particular case.
It is clear that morality comes before soteriology in all things, to the point that to claim the opposite is to deny reason and the sequential importance of Scriptural doctrine. The inversion of these priorities inevitably leads to people who only do that which is Biblically obligatory by happenstance or by preference. To live as if one's own salvation or that of others is more significant than the moral obligations rooted in the Biblical God's character is to live as if the self is more important than the very moral fabric that gives human life significance on the Biblical worldview to begin with.
[1]. Evangelicals in general would not aclnowledge that the Bible predicts that the wicked will cease to exist in hell because death is the penalty for sin, but the point stands.
Is it any wonder that someone who is merely or mostly fixated on avoiding a certain outcome out of self-interest has only a trivial concern for the consistent, thorough pursuit of morality? This should surprise no one. If someone ignores the facts that moral failings are the entire reason why salvation is needed and that moral betterment is the entire reason why people are saved to begin with, why should it be unexpected for them to regard Biblical ethics as secondary to redemption?
Even evangelicals themselves can be selectively appalled at the moral failings of other evangelicals, and yet very few of them are willing to endorse genuine moralism. Morality is treated like its importance is tangentially derived from soteriology, when the opposite is actually the case. The importance of soteriology is derived completely from morality--there can be no capacity or need for redemption unless morality comes first, and mercy is inherently non-obligatory in the first place, making it something that does not need to be shown in any particular case.
It is clear that morality comes before soteriology in all things, to the point that to claim the opposite is to deny reason and the sequential importance of Scriptural doctrine. The inversion of these priorities inevitably leads to people who only do that which is Biblically obligatory by happenstance or by preference. To live as if one's own salvation or that of others is more significant than the moral obligations rooted in the Biblical God's character is to live as if the self is more important than the very moral fabric that gives human life significance on the Biblical worldview to begin with.
[1]. Evangelicals in general would not aclnowledge that the Bible predicts that the wicked will cease to exist in hell because death is the penalty for sin, but the point stands.
Saturday, December 14, 2019
Borrowing From Rationalism
Christian presuppositionalists assert--for the very nature of presuppositionalism is one of asinine, blind assertions--that every non-Christian must knowingly or unknowingly borrow from the Christian worldview to make any statement about metaphysics and ethics. Due to making this claim, they set themselves up for the ultimate philosophical irony. To be a presuppositionalist, one must dismiss rationalism, but to dismiss rationalism, one must borrow from it.
Indeed, all worldviews borrow in some way from rationalism, even when their adherents would fiercely and unrelentingly deny it! Even someone who despises rationalism cannot help but use reason, albeit very ineptly, in their own doomed rejection of or attack on reason. It does not matter what the attack on reason is done in the name of; whether God, self, or some assumption or preference is the priority, opposition to reason can only end one way.
It is not non-Christians that inevitably borrow from Christianity by appealing to the laws of logic (whether they think or argue in a fallacious manner or not), but non-rationalists that borrow from rationalism every time they argue against it. Even the most stubborn, fallacious presuppositionalist must use reason to reflect on what their own position is and is not--not to mention to formulate arguments for it, although those arguments are inherently unsound.
Presuppositionalism is the height of stupidity, for it entails not only blatant assumptions and a blatant, self-refuting view of the laws of reason as something less than supreme, but the assumptions that it entails are about some of the most important issues that could be contemplated. If a matter is significant, the worst possible way to arrive at its truths is through a blind leap, which is all that presuppositionalism can offer.
Indeed, all worldviews borrow in some way from rationalism, even when their adherents would fiercely and unrelentingly deny it! Even someone who despises rationalism cannot help but use reason, albeit very ineptly, in their own doomed rejection of or attack on reason. It does not matter what the attack on reason is done in the name of; whether God, self, or some assumption or preference is the priority, opposition to reason can only end one way.
It is not non-Christians that inevitably borrow from Christianity by appealing to the laws of logic (whether they think or argue in a fallacious manner or not), but non-rationalists that borrow from rationalism every time they argue against it. Even the most stubborn, fallacious presuppositionalist must use reason to reflect on what their own position is and is not--not to mention to formulate arguments for it, although those arguments are inherently unsound.
Presuppositionalism is the height of stupidity, for it entails not only blatant assumptions and a blatant, self-refuting view of the laws of reason as something less than supreme, but the assumptions that it entails are about some of the most important issues that could be contemplated. If a matter is significant, the worst possible way to arrive at its truths is through a blind leap, which is all that presuppositionalism can offer.
Evolution's Irrelevance To Theological Metaphysics
The subject of evolution is one of the first things that might come to mind when someone in the contemporary Western world begins to contemplate whether or not they believe that a deity exists. Unfortunately, this leaves many chasing after scientific and philosophical red herrings when pondering the veracity of basic theism. Even without focusing on the severe epistemological limitations of the scientific method, it is folly to think that the veracity or falsity of evolution could in any way confirm or disprove the existence of God. Evolution is irrelevant to most philosophical and theological issues, and especially to the ones that are most vital.
The logical necessity of an uncaused cause, whether or not it is the exact divine entity described in any particular religion, is unaffected by scientific and historical occurrences. If evolution occurred, there is still an uncaused cause, as logical necessities do not hinge on contingent scientific processes; if evolution did not occur, there is still an uncaused cause for the same reason there would be one if life has evolved. The subjects of abiogenesis and the development of living organisms are, of course, worth acknowledging in a theological context from time to time, but they are neither epistemologically nor metaphysically relevant to the matter of God's existence.
Those who debate the issue of evolution as if it is a foundational philosophical issue waste their breath, time, and whatever intellectual ability they might otherwise possess. Evolution is of trivial importance in almost every regard except that of scientific investigation, having nothing to do with epistemology, ultimate metaphysics, moral obligations, and so forth. Even if it was demonstrably true, there is little evolution directly offers to theism beyond relatively minor details that would only affect select background information about human development across history.
One can prove the existence of the uncaused cause while sitting on a chair at home, as logical truths are accessible to all who seek them, and yet Christians and atheists continue to treat evolution as if it is the great indicator that either theism or atheism is true. There is no need to consult the scientific ideas of any era when discovering strictly logical facts, and the existence of an uncaused cause is among them. It is evolution, not the uncaused cause, that is of small metaphysical importance; it is evolution, not the existence of the uncaused cause, that is not completely verifiable. However, if the necessity of an uncaused cause was not logically demonstrable, evolution would still be wholly irrelevant to the veracity of theism.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
The logical necessity of an uncaused cause, whether or not it is the exact divine entity described in any particular religion, is unaffected by scientific and historical occurrences. If evolution occurred, there is still an uncaused cause, as logical necessities do not hinge on contingent scientific processes; if evolution did not occur, there is still an uncaused cause for the same reason there would be one if life has evolved. The subjects of abiogenesis and the development of living organisms are, of course, worth acknowledging in a theological context from time to time, but they are neither epistemologically nor metaphysically relevant to the matter of God's existence.
Those who debate the issue of evolution as if it is a foundational philosophical issue waste their breath, time, and whatever intellectual ability they might otherwise possess. Evolution is of trivial importance in almost every regard except that of scientific investigation, having nothing to do with epistemology, ultimate metaphysics, moral obligations, and so forth. Even if it was demonstrably true, there is little evolution directly offers to theism beyond relatively minor details that would only affect select background information about human development across history.
One can prove the existence of the uncaused cause while sitting on a chair at home, as logical truths are accessible to all who seek them, and yet Christians and atheists continue to treat evolution as if it is the great indicator that either theism or atheism is true. There is no need to consult the scientific ideas of any era when discovering strictly logical facts, and the existence of an uncaused cause is among them. It is evolution, not the uncaused cause, that is of small metaphysical importance; it is evolution, not the existence of the uncaused cause, that is not completely verifiable. However, if the necessity of an uncaused cause was not logically demonstrable, evolution would still be wholly irrelevant to the veracity of theism.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
The Comparative Significance Of Marriage And Friendship
The willingness to diminish or abandon friendships upon becoming married--or upon entering a dating relationship--is one of the most destructive attitudes one could have towards one's friends. In a church and secular culture where marriage is regarded with a gratuitous reverence, merely acknowledging this fact is enough to irritate those who lean on their spouses to an unhealthy extent. In such a culture, it is very polarizing to declare that romantic relationships are not more important than platonic friendships, and in fact possess a distinctly lesser significance.
Certainly, a specific person's romantic relationship may be healthier and thus more positive than their friendships, but this only means that the romantic relationship of that person is potentially more immediately important in their life than their relatively unhealthy friendships. Otherwise, friendships (with either gender, more specifically) are more important by default because one does not need to have a romantic relationship to have social intimacy, and because romantic relationships are very often not enough to socially satisfy a couple.
Friendships are more foundational to individual flourishing than marriage could ever be except in select cases such as the one described above. Moreover, the only thing that truly distinguishes friendship from a romantic or marital relationship is the romantic and/or sexual component of the intimacy. There is no inherent need for marriage apart from a mutual commitment to a relationship that is likely to include this component, as platonic and non-marital friendship can satisfy all other social needs a person could have.
The person who approaches marriage and friendship as if the former is more important than the latter by default, in one sense, does not deserve either marriage or friendship. Thus, that someone retreats away from their friends due to romantic affection only shows how unworthy they are of having a significant other and their current friends to begin with. This might be seen as a shocking idea in a society that conditions people to get married even when they have no need or desire to do so left to themselves, but some truth or another tends to be galvanizing for the typical person of a given culture.
Certainly, a specific person's romantic relationship may be healthier and thus more positive than their friendships, but this only means that the romantic relationship of that person is potentially more immediately important in their life than their relatively unhealthy friendships. Otherwise, friendships (with either gender, more specifically) are more important by default because one does not need to have a romantic relationship to have social intimacy, and because romantic relationships are very often not enough to socially satisfy a couple.
Friendships are more foundational to individual flourishing than marriage could ever be except in select cases such as the one described above. Moreover, the only thing that truly distinguishes friendship from a romantic or marital relationship is the romantic and/or sexual component of the intimacy. There is no inherent need for marriage apart from a mutual commitment to a relationship that is likely to include this component, as platonic and non-marital friendship can satisfy all other social needs a person could have.
The person who approaches marriage and friendship as if the former is more important than the latter by default, in one sense, does not deserve either marriage or friendship. Thus, that someone retreats away from their friends due to romantic affection only shows how unworthy they are of having a significant other and their current friends to begin with. This might be seen as a shocking idea in a society that conditions people to get married even when they have no need or desire to do so left to themselves, but some truth or another tends to be galvanizing for the typical person of a given culture.
The Justice Of Harshness
The subjective offensiveness of some displays of harshness should not be taken as confirmation that the harshness in question is demeaning or unjustified. Harshness not equate to injustice or oppression by default, although theological conservatives and liberals alike only affirm this selectively at best. It is far easier to simply condone whatever harshness subjectively strikes oneself as legitimate and demonize the rest than it is to critically investigate the subject.
Although they make some people uncomfortable or offend their subjective emotions, harsh words and harsh actions are not automatically immoral; they are only immoral if they are unjust by means of either being unmerited (i.e. undeserved) or being harsher than a situation calls for (again, this would make the specific instance of harshness unjust). Harshness itself is not Biblically immoral, and the fact that people have to appeal to a misinterpretation of Jesus' teachings in order to argue the opposite reveals their inability to prove their stance.
Ironically, the Jesus of the New Testament has no objections to irately overturning the tables of corrupt sellers, fiercely condemning legalists with his words, and slaughtering the wicked upon his return. Jesus does perform acts of kindness, yes, but they are not the only acts ascribed to him in the gospels and in Revelation. To say that we should imitate the situational, supererogatory kindness of Jesus and intentionally not imitate his harshness is to forsake one aspect of Christ's behaviors while elevating another to a place it does not hold.
Kindness is not the arbiter of morality, for that role can be fulfilled by justice alone. One is Biblically obligated to defend the oppressed not because doing so is kind, but because it is just, because the status of bearing God's image entails having certain human rights (outlined in Mosaic Law). The kindness of the act is a secondary benefit at most. Indeed, the kindness of the act is irrelevant in one sense--even if doing what is just turned out to require that one do that which is unkind, an obligation to be just would not vanish.
It is thus a sign of intellectual incompetence when a person thinks that anyone who is the recipient of harshness is being wronged. The situation, motives of the one inflicting the harshness, and type of harshness being inflicted determine if someone is being mistreated. It is not as if everyone who receives harsh treatment is the victim of injustice, no matter how offended some observers might be. Rather, harshness can be a legitimate indicator of righteous anger and a just response.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
Although they make some people uncomfortable or offend their subjective emotions, harsh words and harsh actions are not automatically immoral; they are only immoral if they are unjust by means of either being unmerited (i.e. undeserved) or being harsher than a situation calls for (again, this would make the specific instance of harshness unjust). Harshness itself is not Biblically immoral, and the fact that people have to appeal to a misinterpretation of Jesus' teachings in order to argue the opposite reveals their inability to prove their stance.
Ironically, the Jesus of the New Testament has no objections to irately overturning the tables of corrupt sellers, fiercely condemning legalists with his words, and slaughtering the wicked upon his return. Jesus does perform acts of kindness, yes, but they are not the only acts ascribed to him in the gospels and in Revelation. To say that we should imitate the situational, supererogatory kindness of Jesus and intentionally not imitate his harshness is to forsake one aspect of Christ's behaviors while elevating another to a place it does not hold.
Kindness is not the arbiter of morality, for that role can be fulfilled by justice alone. One is Biblically obligated to defend the oppressed not because doing so is kind, but because it is just, because the status of bearing God's image entails having certain human rights (outlined in Mosaic Law). The kindness of the act is a secondary benefit at most. Indeed, the kindness of the act is irrelevant in one sense--even if doing what is just turned out to require that one do that which is unkind, an obligation to be just would not vanish.
It is thus a sign of intellectual incompetence when a person thinks that anyone who is the recipient of harshness is being wronged. The situation, motives of the one inflicting the harshness, and type of harshness being inflicted determine if someone is being mistreated. It is not as if everyone who receives harsh treatment is the victim of injustice, no matter how offended some observers might be. Rather, harshness can be a legitimate indicator of righteous anger and a just response.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Masturbating To Erotic Imagery (Part 2)
The process of using sensual or sexual imagery as an aid to masturbation--a process that is in no way an intrinsic part of self-pleasuring [1]--is often misunderstood on a moral and functional level. Absolutely nothing about the process is inherently degrading or objectifying to either the one stimulating himself/herself or the person being masturbated to (nor is it Biblically sinful [2]), but this is only one of the more common myths about the process. An unspoken but implied premise is that masturbating to the sight, memory, or thought of someone of the opposite gender signifies sexual attraction to them.
As one can easily learn from reason, masturbating to someone of the opposite gender in no way means that there is a desire to have sex with them. Sexual attraction is merely the experience of sexual feelings as they are drawn to a particular person, and is separate from the desire to sleep with someone. Masturbation to imagery does not necessarily mean that the one masturbating is experiencing sexual attraction to the other person. It might simply mean that the sight or thought of that person produces physiological arousal whether or not it is accompanied by the psychological state of sexual attraction. The two phenomena are completely distinct, after all, although they might appear together in some circumstances.
The image or thought of the person may or may not be sexual, as physical arousal of the genitals could be triggered in either case. Thus, erotic and nonsexual imagery alike can be used for the same purpose during masturbation--not that the human body, clothed or unclothed to any extent, is sexual (only the perceptions of it and intent behind it can be sexual). For example, a woman might masturbate to a shirtless man or a man engaged in some sexual behavior, even though the former is nonsexual, because the emphasis is first and foremost on her own arousal, not on the metaphysical nature of the man she is looking at or thinking of.
Similarly, a man might masturbate to a woman in a bikini or a woman engaged in a sexual behavior, even though the former is nonsexual, because the emphasis is on whether or not his genitalia are aroused, not on whether the imagery is genuinely sexual. Just as there is nothing sexual about a man forgoing a shirt, there is nothing sexual about a woman wearing a bikini, even though the man or woman might be exposing their bodies for sexual reasons. This distinction is simply not relevant to the impact a thought or image has on a particular person, and the goal may be nothing more than to facilitate physical sensations of sexual pleasure.
A man or woman who masturbates to mental or sensual imagery involving someone of the opposite gender might be sexually attracted to that person, but not by default. This is only one of the manifestations of the potential complexity of sexuality even when the focus is on oneself and not on the experiences of another person. One person's motivation may differ quite sharply from that of another, as is the case with other examples of sexual expression. Myths about the motivations behind sexual activities are often part of the reason why openness about sexuality is feared, and thus these myths need to be deconstructed if their power over society is to be broken.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/11/masturbating-to-erotic-imagery-part-1.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/masturbating-to-mental-imagery.html
As one can easily learn from reason, masturbating to someone of the opposite gender in no way means that there is a desire to have sex with them. Sexual attraction is merely the experience of sexual feelings as they are drawn to a particular person, and is separate from the desire to sleep with someone. Masturbation to imagery does not necessarily mean that the one masturbating is experiencing sexual attraction to the other person. It might simply mean that the sight or thought of that person produces physiological arousal whether or not it is accompanied by the psychological state of sexual attraction. The two phenomena are completely distinct, after all, although they might appear together in some circumstances.
The image or thought of the person may or may not be sexual, as physical arousal of the genitals could be triggered in either case. Thus, erotic and nonsexual imagery alike can be used for the same purpose during masturbation--not that the human body, clothed or unclothed to any extent, is sexual (only the perceptions of it and intent behind it can be sexual). For example, a woman might masturbate to a shirtless man or a man engaged in some sexual behavior, even though the former is nonsexual, because the emphasis is first and foremost on her own arousal, not on the metaphysical nature of the man she is looking at or thinking of.
Similarly, a man might masturbate to a woman in a bikini or a woman engaged in a sexual behavior, even though the former is nonsexual, because the emphasis is on whether or not his genitalia are aroused, not on whether the imagery is genuinely sexual. Just as there is nothing sexual about a man forgoing a shirt, there is nothing sexual about a woman wearing a bikini, even though the man or woman might be exposing their bodies for sexual reasons. This distinction is simply not relevant to the impact a thought or image has on a particular person, and the goal may be nothing more than to facilitate physical sensations of sexual pleasure.
A man or woman who masturbates to mental or sensual imagery involving someone of the opposite gender might be sexually attracted to that person, but not by default. This is only one of the manifestations of the potential complexity of sexuality even when the focus is on oneself and not on the experiences of another person. One person's motivation may differ quite sharply from that of another, as is the case with other examples of sexual expression. Myths about the motivations behind sexual activities are often part of the reason why openness about sexuality is feared, and thus these myths need to be deconstructed if their power over society is to be broken.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/11/masturbating-to-erotic-imagery-part-1.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/masturbating-to-mental-imagery.html
Monday, December 9, 2019
Conservatives: Delayed Liberals
The nature of conservatism generally reduces down to either objection to novelty or an emphasis on a gradual shift away from traditional norms, and looking to the past is therefore considered an admirable thing by conservatives. It thus might seem as if conservatives would scarcely ever insist on the same points made by liberals. What is ironic about their respect for tradition is that they tend to come to the same conclusions about certain issues that liberals do, only after the public has sided with the liberals of their day.
Give some vocal and proud conservatives enough time, and they will soon sound very similar to the liberals of several years or decades before--the same liberals they may have fiercely opposed at the time. They might have sparred quite vehemently at an earlier point when an issue was seen as something for non-conformist progressives to rally around (like interracial marriages), but as soon as the issue loses its cultural volatility, they are entirely willing to defend the new norm.
When a conservative does not want to endlessly preserve a certain tradition, they may simply advocate for a slow change, one that does not upset the status quo abruptly or deeply. They might openly advocate for something merely a few years after it is introduced, waiting until the broad social shift has already occurred rather than trying to champion those behind a cause as they struggle to initially assert themselves. The focus of this approach is placed on the mechanism, speed, and impact of change rather than its moral necessity.
Liberalism itself is marked by its own thorough hypocrisies and follies, but conservatives are often so fixated on demonizing liberals that they fail to recognize delayed liberal tendencies in themselves. For this reason, conservatives from one era and liberals from another might outwardly resemble each other. The genuinely conservative person reacts with selective outrage at any sudden change to the heart of their civilization, maintains their outrage as the change becomes politicized and accelerated, and then mellows towards that change once it becomes an established expectation.
Give some vocal and proud conservatives enough time, and they will soon sound very similar to the liberals of several years or decades before--the same liberals they may have fiercely opposed at the time. They might have sparred quite vehemently at an earlier point when an issue was seen as something for non-conformist progressives to rally around (like interracial marriages), but as soon as the issue loses its cultural volatility, they are entirely willing to defend the new norm.
When a conservative does not want to endlessly preserve a certain tradition, they may simply advocate for a slow change, one that does not upset the status quo abruptly or deeply. They might openly advocate for something merely a few years after it is introduced, waiting until the broad social shift has already occurred rather than trying to champion those behind a cause as they struggle to initially assert themselves. The focus of this approach is placed on the mechanism, speed, and impact of change rather than its moral necessity.
Liberalism itself is marked by its own thorough hypocrisies and follies, but conservatives are often so fixated on demonizing liberals that they fail to recognize delayed liberal tendencies in themselves. For this reason, conservatives from one era and liberals from another might outwardly resemble each other. The genuinely conservative person reacts with selective outrage at any sudden change to the heart of their civilization, maintains their outrage as the change becomes politicized and accelerated, and then mellows towards that change once it becomes an established expectation.
When Women Pursue Men
For all the progress of gender egalitarianism in America, it still is not equally common for men and women to feel the same pressure or permission to romantically pursue someone of the opposite gender. Men are still widely and unfairly expected to initiate in this regard without regard for the personalities of individual men and women. In some cases, women might be viewed as too assertive for simply asking men on dates, even though the same perception would not apply if the genders were reversed. Despite its lingering controversy, encouraging women to take the initiative with dating offers is part of the liberation of women from sexist traditions.
Women are not the only ones that benefit when females are socially permitted and encouraged to initiate dating requests, of course (all sexism towards one gender has some sort of negative impact on the other). Men, who need to be liberated from numerous examples of sexism directed towards them as well, are then able to experience the pleasure and sense of desirability that can come with being pursued. Not only can this role be just as fulfilling to men as it is to some women, but it also helps confirm to them that a relationship is genuinely mutual in that they see actual expressions of interest from their partners.
Popular fallacies promoted in the name of psychology hold that women enjoy feeling pursued and that men enjoy engaging in the process of pursuing. However, both logical analysis and social experiences refute this, and the former can be used to refute this idea even wholly independent of the latter. Men can prefer to be romantically or sexually pursued by women; women can prefer to be romantic and sexual initiators. It is logically obvious that someone of either gender could feel more comfortable in either role in their romantic relationships.
There is even a fairly popular Biblical story where a woman takes the initiative with developing a relationship with a man to the point of marriage: the story of Ruth and Boaz. Ruth goes so far as to visit Boaz at night while he sleeps and uncover his feet, a ritual that is treated in Ruth 3 as an indicator of willingness to marry. Here, as it does in other areas of life, the Bible does not oppress men and women with needless gender-based restrictions that do not fit their personalities and giftings.
When women pursue men romantically and sexually, both genders are allowed to flourish in deeper, broader ways without the artificial confinement of social constructs. There is nothing unnatural about either women taking the role of initiator or men taking a more passive role in dating, for gender roles are constructs of the ignorant to begin with. Women may now finally be able to act as romantic initiators without the same degree of backlash, but egalitarianism has not been put into practice to the point where it is perceived to be equally likely for men and women to initiate dating and marital activities.
Women are not the only ones that benefit when females are socially permitted and encouraged to initiate dating requests, of course (all sexism towards one gender has some sort of negative impact on the other). Men, who need to be liberated from numerous examples of sexism directed towards them as well, are then able to experience the pleasure and sense of desirability that can come with being pursued. Not only can this role be just as fulfilling to men as it is to some women, but it also helps confirm to them that a relationship is genuinely mutual in that they see actual expressions of interest from their partners.
Popular fallacies promoted in the name of psychology hold that women enjoy feeling pursued and that men enjoy engaging in the process of pursuing. However, both logical analysis and social experiences refute this, and the former can be used to refute this idea even wholly independent of the latter. Men can prefer to be romantically or sexually pursued by women; women can prefer to be romantic and sexual initiators. It is logically obvious that someone of either gender could feel more comfortable in either role in their romantic relationships.
There is even a fairly popular Biblical story where a woman takes the initiative with developing a relationship with a man to the point of marriage: the story of Ruth and Boaz. Ruth goes so far as to visit Boaz at night while he sleeps and uncover his feet, a ritual that is treated in Ruth 3 as an indicator of willingness to marry. Here, as it does in other areas of life, the Bible does not oppress men and women with needless gender-based restrictions that do not fit their personalities and giftings.
When women pursue men romantically and sexually, both genders are allowed to flourish in deeper, broader ways without the artificial confinement of social constructs. There is nothing unnatural about either women taking the role of initiator or men taking a more passive role in dating, for gender roles are constructs of the ignorant to begin with. Women may now finally be able to act as romantic initiators without the same degree of backlash, but egalitarianism has not been put into practice to the point where it is perceived to be equally likely for men and women to initiate dating and marital activities.
Sunday, December 8, 2019
Fundamental Particles
Contrary to popular belief, it is ultimately impossible to actually prove the existence of atoms due to the limitations of the senses. Even if one could see individual atoms by holding up and visually inspecting a given object, this would fail to do anything more than provide evidence for the existence of atoms, as seeing something does not mean that it exists outside of one's perceptions. It is thus irrational to believe anything more than that atoms are logically possible and that there is amassed scientific evidence, but not logical proof, that atoms exist [1].
The current conception of the atom presents it as a structure that breaks down into three basic subatomic particles, particles which are smaller than the atom itself. This means that atoms, according to the accepted model of today, are not fundamental (otherwise called elementary) particles. A fundamental particle cannot be broken down into underlying particles, like how an atom can be broken down into electrons, protons, and neutrons; a genuinely fundamental particle would be the end of an investigative road, as one could divide no further.
At the present time, only electrons are widely posited to be fundamental particles, as some scientists even make the (wholly unverifiable) claim that the quarks said to contribute to protons and neutrons ultimately reduce down to immaterial strings of energy, a notion referred to as string theory. However, it may come about that electrons are one day also said to reduce down to a smaller, more foundational class of particles. How could one actually demonstrate, and therefore know, that a particle is truly fundamental?
In short, even on a more "practical" level of empirical observation (as opposed to rationalistic inquiry), there is no way to guarantee that a particle is fundamental. Scientific ideas that seem to be correct are not guaranteed to reflect reality, after all. It would be a fallacious mistake to think that some new scientific discovery signifies the end of our ability to empirically explore a given subject simply because the discovery seems alien or revolutionary. Although historical evidence is of little value compared to logic, it is worth mentioning that atoms themselves were once reportedly considered fundamental particles, and now the opposite is widely considered true.
As long as there is a fixed starting point--for example, an object like a bowling ball has a specific finite shape and size--it is logically possible for a physical mass to be continually broken down into smaller material components. Size is relative, and there is no necessary point at which a particle could get no smaller. Instead of blindly asserting that science has yielded as much evidential information about the divisibility of subatomic particles as it can, a rationalistic approach to science acknowledges that any scientific discovery which is logically possible may one day be made.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-existence-of-atoms.html
The current conception of the atom presents it as a structure that breaks down into three basic subatomic particles, particles which are smaller than the atom itself. This means that atoms, according to the accepted model of today, are not fundamental (otherwise called elementary) particles. A fundamental particle cannot be broken down into underlying particles, like how an atom can be broken down into electrons, protons, and neutrons; a genuinely fundamental particle would be the end of an investigative road, as one could divide no further.
At the present time, only electrons are widely posited to be fundamental particles, as some scientists even make the (wholly unverifiable) claim that the quarks said to contribute to protons and neutrons ultimately reduce down to immaterial strings of energy, a notion referred to as string theory. However, it may come about that electrons are one day also said to reduce down to a smaller, more foundational class of particles. How could one actually demonstrate, and therefore know, that a particle is truly fundamental?
In short, even on a more "practical" level of empirical observation (as opposed to rationalistic inquiry), there is no way to guarantee that a particle is fundamental. Scientific ideas that seem to be correct are not guaranteed to reflect reality, after all. It would be a fallacious mistake to think that some new scientific discovery signifies the end of our ability to empirically explore a given subject simply because the discovery seems alien or revolutionary. Although historical evidence is of little value compared to logic, it is worth mentioning that atoms themselves were once reportedly considered fundamental particles, and now the opposite is widely considered true.
As long as there is a fixed starting point--for example, an object like a bowling ball has a specific finite shape and size--it is logically possible for a physical mass to be continually broken down into smaller material components. Size is relative, and there is no necessary point at which a particle could get no smaller. Instead of blindly asserting that science has yielded as much evidential information about the divisibility of subatomic particles as it can, a rationalistic approach to science acknowledges that any scientific discovery which is logically possible may one day be made.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-existence-of-atoms.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)