The Unscientific Nature Of Appeals To Scientific Authority

Appeals to scientific authority are some of the most entrenched, popular kinds of appeal to authority even though they are used in favor of claims it would be utterly impossible for a typical person to even look into beyond a conceptual level.  For instance, a Western person with an ordinary life has no way to observe black holes, the Mariana Trench, or the quantum world, but there is no shortage of people eager to agree with whatever information a subjectively respected scientist offers.  The point is not that the claims of scientists about such things are false, whether the claims are empirical or theoretical in nature, but that they are epistemologically untenable.

All of the logical fallacies (non sequiturs) involved in believing that science provides knowledge about objective reality beyond perceptions aside, it is still irrational to believe someone else's words at face value unless they are making a strictly logical claim that can be immediately verified by reasoning out abstract truths.  However, it is also unscientific to accept a scientific figure's claims at face value: the scientific method is about direct sensory observations, not about believing scientific hearsay from distant people.  While learning of reported discoveries can be helpful and stimulating, this is not what it means to practice a pursuit of science on its own.

One must be willing to analyze one's own experiences with the laws of nature (scientific laws) if one is to apply the scientific method to applicable matters in one's life.  To merely assume that the predominant scientific paradigms of one's era are true is logically invalid, but it also shows a disregard for true science.  Someone who thinks accepting consensus is somehow rational is loyal to popularity and to the thoughts of others rather than to science itself.  This, as any rational person can see (at least if the issue is brought up by someone else), does nothing but trivialize scientific information.

The Western world has come to view scientific frameworks as requiring consensus and the affirmation of others in order to be evidentially supportable, when this is simply not the case.  Science is never about consensus; it is about understanding one's perceptions of the laws of nature, which can be harnessed for the sake of curiosity and practicality.  Other people can suggest scientific information that might be otherwise inaccessible, but they are neither necessary parts of the scientific method nor capable of proving their claims about whatever scientific processes are behind directly observable phenomena.

Experiencing a subjective sense of fascination and excitement is not irrational or unscientific (irrationality encompasses a far broader range of errors than "unscientific" does), but there is no philosophical basis for accepting hearsay about experiments that may never have happened at all even when one does not look beyond the thoroughly limited scientific method.  Personally, intentionally making observations is epistemologically superior to waiting to believe reports from others that one cannot test for oneself.  It is the scientific equivalent of the difference between consulting others about more foundational metaphysical beliefs with the intention of accepting whatever they say by default and consulting reason itself before judging the claims of others.

Movie Review--Sinister 2

"There are fragments, references to Bughuul . . . the bogeyman, across all cultures over the centuries."
--Dr. Stomberg, Sinister 2


Sinister 2 had the opportunity to build upon a very strong foundation set by its predecessor, but it falls short compared to the original in almost every way.  Where Sinister showed restraint in scenes that many other films would have used to assault audiences with cheap, clearly telegraphed jumpscares, Sinister 2 replaces macabre imagery with macabre (but now less unfamiliar) imagery with loud musical cues and sound jolts.  While Sinister was pushed forward by a primary performance from Ethan Hawke, Sinister 2 offers multiple main protagonists that fail to match Hawke's screen presence and intensity even combined.


Production Values

The first scene honors the original film by opening with the same style (viewers of the first Sinister may recall its own starting scene), but the writing, execution, and even the acting are all weaker.  This is not to say that the acting is poor, only that it lacks the same sincerity as, say, Ethan Hawke's from the first film.  Shannon Sossamon plays Courtney Collins, a single mother, who becomes one of the new leads.  A returning character, the deputy from the first film, is played by James Ransone, and he is possibly the strongest character here.  Secondary characters include Courtney's abusive former husband, who is also played fairly well.  Yes, adding human antagonists was a natural way to avoid retreading the singular focus on Bughuul, and the kills on the film reels are more inventive this time, but these are perhaps the only aspects of Sinister 2 that in any way improve on or evolve the elements of the former movie.


Story

Some spoilers are below.

Single mother Courtney Collins is aware that her current property is connected to graphic murders, but she has intentionally chosen her home for its remoteness: she wants to stay away from an abusive former partner.  However, the area is far from safe.  Mysterious children appear to her son Dylan each night and encourage or threaten him to privately watch tapes showing the murder of other families.  Eventually, Dylan's abusive brother becomes even more blatantly egoistic, pitting the family members against each other as they endure the presence of Bughuul.


Intellectual Content

There is little to say about the intellectual aspects of Sinister 2 that cannot be said about the first Sinister, but it does at least acknowledge that children can be just as selfish and cruel as adults.  Dylan's brother exemplifies this, contradicting the popular notion that children are naturally selfless, kind, or empathetic.  Of course, it is also not true that children are naturally selfish or that they will abuse others (of their own age or older) once they have the opportunity.  Only an individual's particular worldview, personality, and reactions to circumstances will confirm what kinds of actions they will take, and only an individual can decide if he or she will act on various desires.  This is as true of children as it is of everyone else.


Conclusion

Unlike the best horror sequels, Sinister 2 does almost nothing to make the most of the worldbuilding and themes set up at the beginning of the series.  The replacement of Scott Derickson as a director has noticeably affected the quality of how even basic aspects of the movie are handled.  There are far worse contemporary and older horror movies, but that does not change the fact that Sinister 2 is not a competent film.  Other than the heightened complexity and creativity of the kills shown in the iconic videos, it is mediocre at its best.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  One video shows an alligator attack a family hanging upside down over a river.  In another video, rats placed on immobile victims claw their way through human torsos when heated objects are put on metal bowls trapping them against the human bodies.
 2.  Profanity:  "Fuck" or variations of is uttered multiple times.

Minimal Intelligence

The extent to which humans are collectively referred to as intelligent has been greatly exaggerated.  Yes, intelligence is nothing other than comprehending the laws of logic, and it takes some degree of rationality to realize on any level, even on a very vague and philosophically unexamined one, that some concepts follow from others and that one must exist when one perceives anything at all; nevertheless, none of this counts as actual philosophical knowledge because there has not even been an attempt to avoid assumptions, much less systematically understand one's existence.  A lack of active reasoning about philosophy beyond the practicalities of life many people do not even realize are philosophical [1] is an absence of potential intelligence.

No one can deserve credit for a baseline level of intelligence that they have no control over and that they have made no effort to understand or develop, and thus saying that all humans are "intelligent" can be a far more trivial statement than some imagine--depending on what is meant by it, of course.  All humans have the capacity for abstract, autonomous reasoning and deep introspection in the sense that it is logically possible for anyone to put some effort into explicitly rational thought and self-awareness even when it is not natural for some people.  However, not all people ever thoroughly analyze anything beyond how they can adapt to the values of their culture and how they can live practically.

The person who vaguely recognizes the laws of logic and the inescapable nature of their own consciousness has done nothing more than perceive that which it is impossible for a conscious being to not be forced to realize at least on an imprecise level.  It is one thing for random people to know on some level that a reality exists and that their own minds exist, but intentionally grasping, contemplating, and analyzing the basic logical facts that govern deduction and one's own consciousness is another thing completely.  Only the latter is worth applauding for its reflection of an individual's intellect.

It is no intellectual triumph when a person grasps the self-evident nature of reason and consciousness without consciously, purposefully recognizing their self-evidence when they have gone years without using any of the daily opportunities to contemplate even basic parts of philosophy.  Indeed, it is a waste.  Neglecting sound epistemology and metaphysics for so long cannot legitimately be said to be a mark of intelligence!  The truth that follows is that very few people seem to put any effort at all into justifying anything about their worldviews and existences, but many people are quick to nod or express agreement when someone else complains about how "crazy" the masses are.  Without at least a grasp of intelligence, no one could understand that they are even thinking or having any other experience, but there is nothing to consider impressive about failing to go further than this.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/07/philosophy-lies-beneath-practicality.html

One Issue Voters

Having little to no regard for whatever problems they must ignore or create in order to focus on the arbitrary issue they care about most, one issue voters are a significant contributing factor to the madness of contemporary politics.  It is often the case that, since the two dominant political parties in America usually have such conflicting stances on popular topics, one issue voters are also one party voters, which only compounds their stupidity.  Allegiance to any political party for its own sake or for the sake of any one issue is asinine; allegiance to reason and morality are all that can matter.

Moreover, the single issues many such voters focus on--like abortion, taxation, and homosexual marriage--are hardly the most important issues facing Western society one way or other.  Neither supporting conservatism nor supporting liberalism will consistently rectify any of the true problems surrounding these subjects as it is, but intellectual insects continue to associate their own wellbeing with a hypocritical party built on philosophical assumptions and inconsistencies.  Politics is one of the more socially acceptable ways to express emotionalism under the guise of pseudo-moralism.

Emotionalism is precisely the thing that generates and preserves political problems, however!  If everyone suddenly became a rationalist, many political issues would cease to exist immediately, and those which were left would be far easier to permanently erase.  One issue voting is just one of many ways that political emotionalism can poison a country, not that democracy or democratic processes are rational or morally required in the first place [1].  Arrogant, fallacious, and reeking of even moral stupidity, it will keep people from solving the very problems they care about unless they solve them by accident.

Utilitarianism is the only kind of framework that "one issue voting" is even philosophically consistent with--but this undermines the entire point of caring so much about any issue at all, as a moral issue must matter in itself, without regard for consequences or feelings, if it is objectively obligatory in the first place!  Ironically, many people who overvalue one political issue to the point of ignoring all others might endorse utilitarianism when their issue would be changed as they desire, but they often do think that the issue is objectively important in a moral sense.

If anyone truly wants to deliver a country from a crisis of ignorance, injustice, and philosophical apathy, voting for whoever has a certain stance on any single point of controversy is one of the worst ways to attempt doing so.  Neither major political party is philosophically sound, and no issue these factions clash over is worth embracing the follies, hypocrisies, and fallacies of either conservatism or liberalism.  When democracy itself is invalid due to treating matters of truth and political policy as if consensus dictates reality, a democracy full of voters that take nothing into consideration other than one (usually arbitrary) moral concern rots itself all the more.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/06/democracys-error.html

Is Jesus The Most Historically Supported Figure?

The historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is not nonexistent, trivial, or irrelevant to modern life.  Two of the more prominently discussed primary sources (historical accounts of an event other than those written later on in order to compile or react to the works of other historians) include Tacitus's Annals and Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, yet there are other documents referencing him.  Somehow, this was distorted into grounds for the claim that there is no historical figure as evidentially supported as Jesus.  Significant evidence is not the same as a higher amount of evidence, even though a large amount of evidence can be significant.

There is not even necessarily more evidence for the existence of Jesus than any other historical figure, however.  To say otherwise moves beyond the actual analysis of historical references to Jesus, focusing on something that is actually irrelevant to whether there is evidence for him as a historical figure.  No one needs to know if there are more primary texts (other texts might occasionally be helpful for understanding primary texts, but citing a contemporary historian's words as "evidence" for the occurrence of the American Civil War is asinine) talking about Jesus than primary texts addressing anyone else, but it is hardly difficult to demonstrate that the works of Josephus and Tacitus, among others, clearly refer to Jesus.

There is even evidence that it is not the case that Jesus is the most thoroughly documented historical figure.  After all, are there really more direct historical references (in primary sources) to Jesus than there are references to Julius Caesar, George Washington, or Adolf Hitler?  Even if this was true, many of the Christians who would support this idea have likely never counted the primary sources that mention any of these figures, others, or Jesus.  They are simply passing on an appealing claim they almost certainly did not even think of on their own and that they have never attempted to independently verify for the sake of truth.

Of course, whether someone heard the claim prior to thinking about it or came up with it on their own does not make it true, but it does mean that some people who affirm the notion have no real idea if it is even probably true--and it is the type of claim that almost no one would ever make or think of left to themselves with nothing but reason and historical texts.  At that point, it becomes a propaganda tool for the kind of irrationalistic or pseudo-"rational" apologetics put forth by those like William Lane Craig who are merely concerned with persuasion instead of proof.

The manipulation of historical information and sources is certainly something that interferes with sound Christian apologetics.  To make a historically unsupportable claim is irrational, and therefore untruthful, which contradicts Biblical ethics on multiple levels.  Moreover, it is simply unnecessary.  Anyone willing to assess historical documents without making assumptions and without looking to modern historians rather than the texts they claim to represent can easily discover that there are indeed direct references to a first-century Jew named Jesus without ever making red herring claims about the number of sources.

The Possible Impermanence Of God's Existence

Christians tend to use blatantly arbitrary or vague definitions of the word "God," ranging from the incredibly ambiguous phrase "the ultimate being" to red herrings like "the only being that knows everything" (both are definitions of God I have encountered).  The problem is not just limited to Christians, of course.  When asked for a clear definition of the word, few people of any ideological position can supply one.

The concept of a true deity is far simpler than many of the offered definitions.  God is the uncaused cause, an existent which never had a beginning and has the power to bring other things into existence.  Some would go further and claim that this entity must exist--not in the sense that something with the ability to create other things had to start the causal chain that resulted in the present moment, but instead in the sense that it is logically impossible for a divine being to cease to exist.

Upon a rationalistic investigation of the issue, it should be clear that nothing about the nature of an uncaused cause requires that it be incapable of ceasing to exist; its nature only means it never began to exist.  Even if something existed without end, that does not mean it is utterly impossible for it to stop existing.  This would only establish that it did not stop remaining in existence.

There is only one thing that could not cease to exist because of its own nature, and it is not the material world or the divine mind.  Only the necessary laws of logic dictating what must be true at a minimum (logical axioms) and what follows or does not follow from certain concepts have always existed and could not cease to exist because of their own intrinsic nature--not because of a dependence on any other thing.

It must still be clarified that it does not follow from the fact that God does not logically have to remain in existence that he does not deserve human worship.  On the contrary, nothing about permanent or impermanent existence makes a being worthy of other beings' love, allegiance, and respect.  On the Christian worldview, humans owe God worship because his nature is goodness, not because he might permanently continue existing.

Autonomy In Gaming

Out of every form of entertainment, only one requires actual input beyond physically turning pages or briefly using a remote.  Only one requires more than a basic understanding of a language in order to maximize enjoyment.  Moreover, anyone who has played a video game with core mechanics built around puzzles, exploration, and careful observation has directly experienced how video games are a way to express intellectual autonomy of sorts.  After all, an independent player generally solves puzzles, locates collectibles, and navigates new environments alone.

Some puzzles, collectibles, or environmental features are associated with clues so vague that either a walkthrough or an accidental discovery is usually necessary to decipher/find them, but this is not the case with many puzzles and collectibles.  Numerous video games offer contextual hints that a careful observer can use to discover a secret or solve a minor or major puzzle.  In this regard, playing a video game by only looking to a rational analysis of the information provided onscreen is an exercise in autonomy not unlike looking to reason rather than others to navigate both philosophy and everyday life.

Playing exploration or puzzle-based video games that offer some degree of challenge is an easy way to either develop or enjoy the ability to adapt to new information on one's own, the ability to reason out sound probabilistic judgments, and the ability to make autonomous choices.  Moreso than other forms of media like books or films, video games encourage the utilization of independent thinking.  Reading a book or following a cinematic story does require at least some minimal grasp of reason, but video games require a more active intellectual input, one that more directly allows for expressions of intellectual independence.

Solving virtual puzzles on one's own certainly does not possess quite the same importance as the ability to prove various logical/philosophical truths to oneself without any input from others or privately analyzing claims put forth by others, but it can be a fulfilling manifestation of autonomous thought all the same.  Despite this, gaming is often considered a lazy pastime that cannot be used to express any significant level of philosophical skill, yet it does not match this description.  Many aspects of human life offer chances to exercise autonomous thinking even though they are not necessarily known first and foremost for granting these opportunities.

Images Of Lingerie Are Not Erotic Media

In order for something to qualify as erotic media, it must be erotic in some way.  In other words, it must be sexual.  A video of a man and woman sexually fondling each other's bodies is an example of erotic media, as is a written story about a person's self-pleasuring or sexual introspection if it is intended to sexually excite readers.  A video of an attractive, shirtless man that emphasizes his body does not fall within the category of erotic media, as is the case of an image of a beautiful, nude man or woman.  The factor that determines if something is erotic media is not its perceived sexiness, but its actual nature.

Parts of Western culture confuse sexiness for a confirmation that something is sexual, despite personality traits, everyday clothing, and facial and other bodily features being objectively nonsexual in nature.  However, it is not just everyday clothing that men and women wear in public which is nonsexual; lingerie itself, clothing socially associated with and sometimes worn during periods of sexual expression, is not itself erotic.  Thus, it is in one sense unsurprising that pictures or videos of models simply standing or walking around in lingerie are often treated as "erotic media."

Just as pictures of shirtless men or women wearing bikinis are not erotic media whatsoever (except in very specific potential cases where they involve sexual contexts or intentions), no matter how sexy they might be to viewers of the opposite gender, pictures of women or men in lingerie are not erotic media by default.  Looking at pictures or videos of models of the opposite gender in lingerie is not an inherently sexual activity in part because there is nothing erotic about mere imagery of the opposite gender in lingerie, even if the models are very attractive and in highly revealing clothing designed for sensual impact on observers.

Looking at mere images of the opposite gender in lingerie is not necessarily the same as looking at erotica.  Even if the models intended or hoped for viewers of the opposite gender to respond with sexual excitement, the images themselves, if they only depict models standing or posing the way "normally" clothed models would, have no logical connection to sexuality.  Of course, some members of one gender are very likely to find some lingerie-clad bodies of the opposite gender sexually exciting, but this is also true in the same of personalities, emotional connections, and clothing that the general public does not associate with sexuality and sexiness.

Ultimately, lingerie is perceived to be inherently sexual for the same reasons opposite gender friendships, flirtation, bikinis, female breasts, male shirtlessness, and nudity are perceived by many to be sexual: stupidity and cultural conditioning.  Some people find these things sexually attractive or arousing in some, most, or all cases, and they fail to distinguish between the subjective experience of "sexiness" and the logical nature of certain behaviors, clothing, and body parts.  It is not irrational to sexually enjoy clothing or the bodies of the specific members of the opposite gender one might be attracted to, but it is irrational to consider something sexual because it is subjectively arousing.

Corporate Mask Policies

In response to COVID-19, many businesses have imposed new policies that require all people over a fairly young age without exempting medical complications to wear masks to help lower the probability of somehow giving others the virus.  The controversy of this has been enormous, with liberals tending to make positive assumptions about the usefulness of masks in preventing the spread of the virus (all assumptions are irrational because they are not knowledge) and conservatives tending to view mask mandates as tyrannical.  Liberal emotionalism is quick to surface in a crisis, but conservative hypocrisy contradicts the internal claims that conservatism is more rational than liberalism (neither ultimately is rational).

It is not true that it is logically or morally valid for a business to refuse consumers on any basis whatsoever--telling a customer to leave the premises because they are a man, woman, white, or black is irrational and unjust, for instance.  Beyond matters like this, however, a business has not necessarily done anything irrational or immoral by refusing service to people who, say, will not wear masks despite having no medical issues that would exempt them from needing to wear a mask anyway.  There is no grounds for complaining about a mask requirement policy as long as medical exceptions are allowed and the reasons for the policy are not because of any fallacious beliefs about masks or disease.

For companies managed by rational leaders, encouraging or requiring that customers wear masks is not about thinking that a virus can be utterly, completely kept at bay by any safety precautions, nor is it about believing that science is about appeals to authority from subjectively respected scientists.  It is about nothing more than protecting vulnerable people from COVID-19 and pragmatically discouraging panic.  Conspiracy theories and the mere assumptions that are part of conservatism are what drive the conservative pushback against policies that prioritize masks.

The hypocrisy of conservatives can be seen by contrasting their response to mask policies with how they treat private businesses.  Conservatives are notorious for having very authoritarian attitudes towards how children should interact with their parents, holding that children should obey their parents almost universally while living in the same house even though this is an asinine, contradictory stance to hold [1].  They are also generally strong proponents of corporate autonomy from the government and of allowing businesses to regulate themselves.  Ironically, they then object loudly when businesses refuse clients on amoral grounds, all while saying that their children should obey their parents regardless of what they are told to do.  They hold to distinct double standards of authoritarianism when enforcing their own arbitrary preferences that lack objective authority all while demanding that a business not require mask use during a pandemic!

The hypocrisy of the conservative reaction to authority figures flares up as soon as different authority figures are mentioned!  Selective authoritarianism (or authoritarianism of any kind) is a guise of stupidity, not of rationality.  Conservatives use appeals to authority to support submission to arbitrarily specific leaders and then disregard their own arguments in other contexts.  When reason and justice are the only things that motivate people to submit to a given authority figure, however, authority figures of any kind--in the family, business world, government, or education system--are recognized as having no epistemological or moral authority if they do not align themselves with the truth.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/02/legalistic-parenting.html

The Errors Of Mere Christianity (Part 7)

At last, we come to the part of Mere Christianity where C.S. Lewis specifically discusses sexual morality.  Admittedly, there are some points on which he is more sound than many modern Christians have ever been, but the incomplete and erroneous claims he makes about sexuality and Christian theology are all the more blatant because of it.  One case of the former is that he does not even attempt to shy away from the fact that Christian/Biblical morality does not condemn the exposure of the body even to the point that someone is wearing almost nothing at all.  He actually gives a hypothetical example that would shock many evangelicals even today!  How ironic it is that one of the only things Lewis gets completely right is that there is no Biblical command for all people to cover themselves to a certain extent:


"We must now consider Christian morality as regards sex, what Christians call the virtue of chastity.  The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of 'modesty' (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency.  The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed . . . while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes.  A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally 'modest', proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies . . ." (94)


At least Lewis does not prescribe a standard of "modest" clothing, and he is right to distinguish social norms from Biblical obligations.  Modesty is a social construct that has nothing to do with Biblical morality [1].  It follows that modesty is therefore not obligatory or of any moral concern to a rational person, and Lewis still treats it as if arbitrary, conflicting social constructs need to be heeded for morality's sake.  Of course, he predictably uses only a woman as an example here, which is perfectly consistent with his almost exclusively male examples of individuals who experience sexual desires--as if the male body is not an object of beauty just like the female body and as if women are not visually attracted to the male body!

1 Timothy 2:9-10 addresses showing opulence in clothing with illicit motives, something which is sinful for both men and women, so it is irrelevant to the actual stances of legalists who insist that the human body--or sometimes just the female body--be covered to some random degree.  Deuteronomy 4:2 says not to add to Yahweh's moral commands, and modesty teachings do exactly that: the Bible does not oppose even the intentionally sensual display of the male or female body in scant clothing or a state of total nudity.  Moreover, Biblical theology is directly, inescapably contrary to prudery (Genesis 2:25, Isaiah 20:1-6).

C.S. Lewis comes far closer to realizing or admitting these things than many other evangelicals, and it is a rare occurrence for any other Christian apologist to elaborate on the issue of modesty at all.  This is one of the few times where I will commend Lewis.  All the same, if the above quote signifies as far as he went regarding modesty, he did not go nearly far enough.  He even fails to affirm the vile nature of sexual legalism and the Biblically innocent nature of many types of sexual thoughts and behaviors.  Just on the page after he mentions modesty in particular, he conveys the typically distorted evangelical summary of Biblical sexual ethics.  Not once does he clarify what the Bible actually does or does not say, much less refer to any particular verses from the Bible:


"Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues.  There is no getting away from it; the Christian rule is, 'Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.'  Now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong." (95)


What Lewis does not acknowledge, and predictably so, is that there are far more Biblically valid ways to experience and express sexuality than monogamous marriage.  Yes, acts like adultery, incest, prostitution, rape, bestiality (which is itself a subset of rape), and homosexual behaviors are condemned [2], and sinful interpersonal sex acts are often capital offenses in Mosaic Law.  Lust--coveting a married person [3]--is also sinful (Matthew 5:28), but this does not at all refer to mere sexual attraction or fantasizing!  Everything from sexual introspection to simple masturbation to masturbating while looking at or thinking of specific, attractive members of the opposite gender is nonsinful unless it is somehow tainted by the aforementioned kinds of sexual immorality, not that masturbating to someone of the opposite gender is necessarily motivated by sexual attraction in the first place.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-2_19.html

[3].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-impossibility-of-lusting-after.html

A Misrepresentation Of Skepticism

Rationalism inevitably involves skepticism about a large number of things, but it refutes total skepticism (total skepticism is self-refuting and logical facts are fully provable).  Somehow, this has been mistaken for something else entirely.  Skepticism is a word often associated with a belief that an ideology is false rather than a belief that something is unknowable or a stance that does not make assumptions about a matter.  In discussions and debates, misunderstanding this can spawn hosts of other misunderstandings or avoidable communication difficulties.

A rationalistic skeptic would not say that a claim of a modern miracle performed by God is false, for example!  They would only acknowledge that there is no way to know if a story of divine interference with nature is true, whether or not there is evidence for it beyond a single isolated testimony.  A rationalistic skeptic is capable of knowing logical facts about the concept of miracles and theism that cannot be false, but this is far from knowing if the content of a specific claim about a miracle occuring is accurate.  However, skeptics would not insist the miracle claims are false.

True skepticism means one neither affirms nor denies that which is not knowable.  Thus, a rational skeptic does not either assume or pretend to know that an idea is false, and doing so would merely expose someone's lack of concern for true rationality.  This contradicts and therefore falsifies the type of "skeptic" sometimes referred to by Christian apologists and everyday people.  For example, a religious skeptic might be mischaracterized as a person who tries to explain away a theological event by appealing to science (which is not even the same as logic to begin with), when a skeptic would rightfully claim an ultimate position of uncertainty about at least several key details.  The straw man caricature accepted as a true skeptic bears little resemblance to the genuine adherent of rationalistic skepticism.

Skepticism is neutrality when it comes to believing that a particular idea is true or false and nothing more.  It is not the same as embracing the most likely explanation for something that cannot be directly known, nor is it the same as siding with science over some sort of theological ideology.  Authentic, sound skepticism is merely a refusal to believe that one knows what one cannot know.  The irrelevant trappings associated with the popular misconception of skepticism are irrational, but they easily lead to assumptions about the nature of thorough epistemology that almost inevitably lead to further errors.

Movie Review--Sinister

". . . Bughuul eats children.  Now the fragments of stories that have survived, they all revolve around him needing the souls of human children to survive."
--Professor Jonas, Sinister


Scott Derrickson, better known in some circles as the director of the later film Doctor Strange, is no stranger to the horror genre.  As a Christian, his affiliation with horror is more controversial to some, but as a filmmaker, he is right at home with the genre.  Sinister showcases his mastery of execution by sidestepping common genre pitfalls like having jolting musical cues every few minutes to accompany horror imagery.  At its best, the movie exemplifies exactly how horror can be more psychologically penetrating when restraint, subtlety, and characterization are the foundation.


Production Values

One of the financially valuable aspects of horror films is that certain stories do not require any elaborate CGI and yet they can earn multiple times whatever money was invested into them.  Sinister is yet another film that needs little more than a talented cast, practical effects, and a clever idea.  It falls on Ethan Hawke to carry much of the film, a task he performs with the aid of an atmosphere that consistently avoids the jumpscares of lesser films.  There are several scenes centering on Hawke's character that even a film in The Conjuring series would likely have peppered with jumpscares, but Scott Derrickson competently navigates viewers through such scenes solely by using smooth camerawork, strong performances, and the natural development of the plot.


Story

Some spoilers are below.

A crime author moves his family into a new home as he prepares to write a new book, intentionally picking a home associated with the murder of previous residents.  He discovers a set of film reels that reveal various murders connected by a strange symbol, a tendency for the killer to avoid physically strenuous murder methods, and a strange, potentially supernatural figure.  As he investigates the killings, a professor he consults with suggests that the symbol is related to a pagan deity called Bughuul (a deity contrived for the film's story that has nothing to do with a historically documented ideology).


Intellectual Content

As is the norm with many horror stories, the characters of Sinister brush up against epistemological and metaphysical issues they are often prepared to grapple with.  In one scene, the lead character openly admits his disbelief in the supernatural (which is asinine when one realizes that supernatural merely means immaterial and therefore nonphysical, as is the case with logic, consciousness, and the space that matter resides in) despite the increasingly suspicious events occurring in his house far into the movie.  Another character who professes to believe in the kind of supernaturalism that entails disembodied spirits tries to explain away his experiences as having nothing to do with demonic entities or ghosts, ironically confirming that neither character consistently lives out their worldviews!


Conclusion

Sinister is not crafted so that its core story stands apart from that of almost every other horror movie.  In this regard, it is not The Autopsy of Jane Doe or Saw.  Despite its superficial similarities to other horror stories, its acting, execution, and emphasis on atmospheric substance over jumpscares still certainly distinguish it from many mainstream horror efforts.  After all, there are only so many kinds of stories to tell, but quality filmmaking will always be necessary if a movie is to have technical soundness.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  Several murders are shown onscreen, though rarely is the film graphic.

The Haunting Of Bly Manor: Memory Binds The Self

"She would wake.  And she would walk . . . As if woken from a nightmare, she would walk back to her home, feeling each time that it was a dream . . . How many nights, how many walks?  She could no longer count . . . She would sleep, and as happens when one dreams, she would forget.  And having forgotten, she would wake.  She would walk . . . She would sleep, forget, and forget, and forget."

--Narrator, The Haunting of Bly Manor

Cheap jolts scarcely begin to approach the potential depth of the horror genre when it comes to exploring the existential impact that fear and other experiences can have on the human soul.  Even if contemporary cinema and television do not fully mine the depths the genre offers as consistently as they could, the obvious exception does surface from time to time.  The Haunting of Bly Manor is one such exception.  The recently released season of Netflix's anthology series specifically highlights the terror that forgetfulness can bring, erasing the sense of self and fulfillment until only a hollow shell of a person remains.  Both the reason behind the haunting and other parts of the story--ones that have little to do with the haunting itself--embrace this theme rather than subtly, vaguely hint at it.

There are multiple ways in which The Haunting of Bly Manor accomplishes this, one of which involves a character who later speaks at length on the struggles of caring for a parent with dementia as he waits for her to die.  The consuming forgetfulness displayed by his mother prompts him to assess the very certainty of keeping one's current knowledge and personality for an entire lifetime (yes, he mistakenly refers to dementia as eroding a person's consciousness away instead of eroding memories within their consciousness, but otherwise the scene was quite philosophically valid).  While his emotional memories of his mother's decline push him to insist that the past and the future cannot be relied on, revelations about the manor's past directly tie the past to the present.

In the penultimate episode, one of the most existentially charged explanations of a fictional haunting one might ever come across occupies almost all of the screen time.  The narrator describes how Viola Bly, the "Lady of the Lake" at the titular Bly Manor, descended from a fiery woman to a spirit devoid of its memories.  Viola once owned the manor, but a lasting sickness and eventual murder at the hands of a resident led to her soul becoming trapped in a "gravity well" of her own making.  As more people died on the property, her spiritual gravity well contained their own souls on the premises--and then she and the others began to psychologically waste away, losing the recollection of their motives and hopes.

Viola exemplifies just how aimless and empty conscious existence would be without the memory that binds recalled experiences, and thus perceptions of one's own mind across multiple moments, together.  To lose one's collective memory is to lose all awareness of self beyond whatever limited, immediate perceptions one has.  One's grasp of reason and self would be so vastly diminished that it could never progress beyond the most minimal kind of awareness.  The "Lady of the Lake" walks the estate without any evident trace of her former self breaking through.  Her very face fades away in a visible indication that her conscious perceptions hold none of their former intentions.

The intellect is the most foundational part of any consciousness, as the lack of the faculty that grasps logic leaves a being without the ability to understand even the self-evident, immediate logical axioms that govern all things.  After this, the most foundational part of consciousness is memory, a feature of consciousness so integral to many aspects of epistemology and everyday life alike that only experiences in the present moment could be understood without it.  There could be no stable motivations or deeper reflection on one's own experiences without memory to hold one's focus from one moment to another.

People can realize this without ever watching a work of entertainment that intentionally calls attention to the nature of memory in forming and preserving personal identity.  It still helps to have something like The Haunting of Bly Manor available to those who might not gravitate towards existential contemplation on their own, as it has both mainstream and philosophical appeal.  The capacity of horror to cast light on issues of existentialism and personhood that many viewers might otherwise remain ignorant of for a lifetime is of no small thematic and cinematic importance.  There was always more to the genre than hollow scares and invariable conceptual repetition, and both The Haunting of Bly Manor and its predecessor season serve as recent examples of how personal and existential horror can be.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/memory-defines-self_4.html

The Errors Of Mere Christianity (Part 6)

There is nothing to gain from admiring fallacious Christian apologists and authors--which includes most Christian apologists--other than an irrelevant sense of respect for tradition and perhaps a sense of contentment or relief at being in agreement with random figures of "authority."  In many cases, the more popular Christian "authorities" are guilty of more fallacies, errors, and heresies than others.  C.S. Lewis does not disappoint in this regard (and I mean that in a completely ironic way, for he will be quite disappointing to a rationalistic Christian).

Moving further into his chapters on Christian ethics in Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis eventually reveals the nature of his virtue ethics, an approach to morality that emphasizes attitudes, intentions, and personal growth more than actions themselves.  It is well into the book that Lewis directly describes part of his welcoming stance towards virtue ethics:


"We might think that, provided you did the right thing, it did not matter how or why you did it--whether you did it willingly or unwillingly, sulkily or cheerfully, through fear of public opinion or for its own sake.  But the truth is that right actions done for the wrong reason do not help to build up the internal quality or character called a 'virtue', and it is this quality or character that really matters." (80)


It is true that acting justly without any concern for morality itself renders a person unjust and wicked, but what follows is not that an inner mindset or character is what matters most.  A person's moral status is inevitably reflected in what the believe and what they do.  Of course it is morally necessary to have valid motives for living rightly; however, actions matter more than attitudes ever could.  One dangerous ramification of thinking the inverse is that a society full of people who hold to virtue ethics, as did C.S. Lewis, will trivialize random acts of injustice or stupidity in favor of calling for the cultivation of inward character.

This is why evangelical Christians are more likely to condemn a misunderstood definition of lust than rape and why they are more likely to shun hatred (when hatred isn't sinful by default) than unbiblical forms of torture.  An emphasis on inward attitudes over outward action easily leads to a culture of tolerance or atrocities, and God never prescribes legal punishments for mere attitudes.  It should be obvious to any Christian that adultery is worse than lust, that physical assault is worse than even unjust hatred, and that blasphemy is worse than prioritizing material things over spiritual things.  After all, Yahweh does not merely condemn the latter in all three cases: he demands specific punishments for them.

A statement that shortly follows confirms that Lewis is more focused on subjective attitudes than actually carrying out the commands of the Bible or, inversely, not practicing that which it condemns:


"We might think that God wanted simply obedience to a set of rules: whereas He really wants people of a particular sort." (80)


There is no contradiction between saying that the Biblical God wants obedience to specific moral obligations and people of a particular sort.  In fact, to be the kind of person that God wants, one must be willing to obey him.  Jesus himself says in John 14:15 that those who love him will keep his commands.  It is impossible to truly develop virtuous character without acknowledging and carrying out God's revealed instructions.  Moreover, Biblical ethics is not primarily about developing virtue, as one is by definition obligated to do that whatever is obligatory no matter what one feels, wants, or experiences.  Thus, on the Christian worldview, living in accordance with Mosaic Law and the words of Jesus is a requirement in it's own sake.  Paul even admits that this is the whole reason people are saved to begin with in Romans 6.

The Penalty For False Prophecy

One of the more overlooked capital offenses of Deuteronomy is making false predictions in the name of God, a sin that goes beyond ordinary lies to others about comparatively minor matters into outright delusion.  Even one false prophecy proclaimed by someone is an offense against reason and truth, but there are professing Christians who, from time to time, discuss someone else's supposedly "prophetic dreams" or extra-Biblical predictions of specific eschatological events as if there was even a possibility of them being Biblically sound.  Perhaps if they understood the prescribed penalty for a counterfeit or ignorant prophecy on God's behalf, they would be far more hesitant to consider these predictions in a positive light.

The Biblical reaction to someone who makes a false prediction of an event they specifically claim God told them would happen, whether about eschatological matters or something far more trivial, is quite simple: execute them.  Deuteronomy 18:20-22 outlines the only kind of evidence that would support a claim that someone predicts the future on God's behalf.  If the prediction is accurate, the prophet may certainly have only been correct by accident or because the prophecy originated somewhere other than from God, but a prediction that does not occur cannot be from God.

Making a prediction in the name of other deities automatically merits execution whether or not the claim is true, as Deuteronomy 18:20 mentions.  Speaking in Yahweh's name based on assumptions or deceit is the conditional offense.  Of course it is logically possible for a divine being to grant someone either special information about future events that is otherwise inaccessible or the ability to see into the future themselves (even though a person with genuine foresight is still epistemologically unable to prove to himself or herself that they have it given the nature of human limitations), but it would be relatively easy to show whether there is evidence that such a prophecy is true or false.

If professing Christians realized this, how many miscellaneous people would make claims that God revealed extra-Biblical information through a dream, emotional reactions, or "the Holy Spirit," as if it is possible to even confirm the presence of the Holy Spirit as it is?  How many asinine assertions about eschatological circumstances the Bible never even mentions would be avoided?  It is likely that many of the casual comments about God's alleged personal revelations would cease.  No Christian who cares about their life and their worldview would insist that such nonsense be tolerated.

God is clearly said to not take people who fallaciously or deceptively ascribe messages to him that he did not send lightly.  Those who are genuinely committed to Biblical Christianity would not make random, assumed claims of private knowledge about the future from God in the first place, with or without the threat of death, but Deuteronomy 18:20 would probably bother people who sincerely but irrationally believe that they have somehow gained predictive powers of this type from God.  The Bible does not oppose all prophecies that are said to come from God--but many claims about the future from various Christians have nothing to do with reason or the Bible, elevating non sequiturs over Biblical commands.

Why Political Science Is A Misleading Phrase

Political science refers to the study of political regimes in a conceptual and historical sense, yet the word "science" in the phrase suggests that these matters fall under the scope of science or that science is the optimal way to approach them.  Conceptual philosophy precedes all science, and history is outside the scope of scientific observations to begin with, as any being trapped in the present moment cannot see into the past; political ideas themselves are understood by rational reflection.  The scientific method, the investigation of the physical world by means of sensory observation (which still requires reason to be understood and contemplated), only brushes up against politics on occasion.  Politics is, after all, about the interaction of different groups of people and their worldviews, not the interaction of physical particles.

Politics inevitably reduces down to worldviews and motivations as they are represented in the actions, laws, and values of a society (or a smaller part of that society).  This means that contemplating political systems is not an issue of scientific observation, for it is not the empirical gathering of data on how the (seemingly inanimate) physical world behaves.  Even observing which political regimes rise and fall is not a scientific endeavor: it is one rooted in the psychology of the individuals in power and the ones being governed as they live out their respective worldviews, however consistent or inconsistent they may live them out.

Yes, other people might have physical bodies that can be observed with the senses (not that visually perceiving other bodies logically establishes that they exist outside of the perceptions), but there is no outwardly manifested psychological, spiritual, or existential aspect of stones, cliffsides, or rain droplets as they are carefully observed.  With humans, however, this is not the case; a government and the community that government presides over are composed of living beings that have their own thoughts and wills (at least other people seem to by all appearances).  There is far more to human life and society than the laws of physics!

Some political decisions certainly pertain to scientific matters, such as those faced in the current pandemic.  Without scientific observations, there would be nothing for one to reason out about a virus other than the fact that no possible aspect of reality, virus or otherwise, is not subject to the laws of logic. However, politics and science are inherently separate aspects of philosophy and life, with the former having to do with human laws, justice, and social psychology, and the latter having to do with the investigation of how various configurations of matter behave.  Science is relevant to some policy decisions, but it remains wholly outside the scope of moral epistemology, evaluations of logical consistency, an introspective motivation.

Broader philosophy encompasses the whole of politics even past the relatively small portion of it connected with science.  Whereas science at most addresses a small territory within philosophy as a whole, politics overlaps with numerous different aspects of philosophical importance.  Politics simply is not science.  Even psychology and sociology cannot legitimately be called subsets of science like they are sometimes deemed, as they are not connected to physics--which all science reduces down to--in any direct way.  Psychology is first and foremost about personal phenomenology, and sociology is about how different people choose to interact with each other.  When metaphysics, core epistemology, ethics, and individual and sociological psychology all are beyond the reach of mere science, it is foolish to think contemplating or studying politics is thoroughly scientific.

Male Nudity In Entertainment

When male nudity is either not shown in entertainment at all or not shown in a positive light, men can feel as if there is something unattractive about their bodies simply because they have male bodies.  It should be obvious how this can impact the psychological state of many men, especially when it comes to romantic relationships.  Women are presented as possessing a default beauty when this is not the case whatsoever, and this alone is enough to reinforce degrading notions about the male body when there is no accompanying emphasis on male beauty.

If a film or video game has nudity, it is more often a depiction of the naked female body than the naked male body.  Moreover, it is more likely that female bodies will be shown in a way that seems intended to emphasize their sensuality and sex appeal.  Even though many women enjoy seeing the male body and many men wish to be regarded as attractive, male nudity is seldom used in entertainment, much less used to create a sensual atmosphere, whereas exposure of the female nudity is expected in many stories.

American culture as a whole takes mockery of the female body seriously to the point of defending practically all body types women have, while the male body is often only mentioned in public settings or entertainment in order to elicit laughter.  The male body is certainly afforded some appreciation inside and outside of entertainment, but it is far more common for this to not be the case.  This is one of numerous double standards that promote sexist ideas about men.  As with other stereorypes related to gender, this double standard is normalized in media.

Of course, a rational person would look to reason instead of tropes in entertainment for illumination of reality.  Many people are nevertheless not rational, and thus the way that certain concepts and norms are presented in entertainment across numerous works is very influential on the society around it.  Since the female body is treated as an object of beauty (to the point of downplaying other attributes other women) by default in a great number of video games, movies, and TV or streaming shows and the male body is usually treated as an object of revulsion or humor, many people internalize these sexist ideas.

The influence of the ideas absorbed into entertainment on comsumers who lack consistent intellectual autonomy unfortunately means that the male body will likely continue to be associated with disgust or comedy until there is a shift in how it is portrayed in media.  It is not as if male bodied are unattractive because they are male or as if female bodies are attractive because they are female.  Male nudity can be used to enhance the sex appeal of actors for women, just as female nudity can be used to enhance the sex appeal of actresses for men.  Male nudity needs to be used in entertainment to refute and overturn the negative ideas about men's bodies that have been endorsed for so long.

The Ultimate Being

Many people, theists and non-theists, confuse the concept of an ultimate being with the concept of an ultimate existent.  In other words, God is often mistaken for the one thing that presides over the whole of reality when he is actually just the being above all material objects, time, and other minds.  In order to be God, the uncaused cause only has to have never come into existence by virtue of being uncaused.  This nature does not involve power over every aspect of reality, something which is impossible for any being to possess.

Nothing about the concept of mere theism entails that God is the ultimate thing in all of existence, as if he could alter the laws of logic in any way.  Rather, he is the supreme consciousness, the being without which created or contingent beings would not exist.  This is quite distinct from all things being subject to God's whims.  God could restructure the entire physical world, remove all other minds from existence, or create anything not in existence which does not have logically impossible properties, but he cannot change the nature of reason or make it cease to exist.

In this way, God can have a power that entirely supercedes that of any created thing without ever having power over reason itself.  Reason does confine God, along with all other things, in the sense that he can do nothing which would contradict it and in the sense that God could not exist if his existence violated the laws of logic.  Reason is therefore more fundamental and necessary than even God's existence, even though any values tied to God's nature rely on God for their existence and not on logic alone (the existence of logic does not necessitate the existence of values).

The ultimate being is not above reason.  However, God, the uncaused cause and ultimate being, is above everything that he has created.  The necessary truths of logic are not created things; it is by necessity that they have always existed.  It is true that an uncaused cause (God) exists by necessity and never began to exist, but this is a different kind of necessity.  Again, even God's existence requires conformity with the laws of logic in order to even be possible.  Logic, though, does not need God in order to exist.  It is the only thing in existence that both has to exist and exists only because of its own self-rooted necessity.

The Importance Of Physics

Knowing one's epistemological limitations does not remove them, and thus one must live without being aware of certain truths.  Even though I cannot know if many of my sensory perceptions are accurate (though the sense of touch does prove that physical matter exists [1]), I must still live in a world of numerous sensory details.  This much is unavoidable as long as one experiences human life.  Indeed, sensory perceptions are a major part of everyday life.  It would be irrational to ignore them or to dismiss them as irrelevant to human existence, even though they are at least partly matters of subjectivity and contingency that logic towers over.

Since the external world, whether certain aspects of it are real or merely perceived (with the perceptions themselves being real), is a world of physical environments and objects, any consistent behaviors of its matter falls under the domain of physics.  The laws of physics are epistemological inferior and metaphysically limited by comparison to the abstract laws of logic, but they are still integral to human life all the same.  The difference is that the perceived laws of physics are useful for little other than satisfying curiosity or enjoying mere practicality.

In other words, beyond learning about one's sensory perceptions without actually knowing to what extent they are accurate and beyond satisfying a subjective sense of interest (as well as clarifying popular misconceptions), convenience is the only serious point to investigating physics.  There is the fact that the laws of physics, however constant or universal they might ultimately be, are what all empirical matters (in the sense of repeatable sensory phenomena) reduce down to in scientific terms, but the inability to prove that the laws of physics we perceive correspond to anything other than our perceptions renders science one of the lowest categories of philosophy.

Still, physics pertains to numerous events we observe every day, with scientific laws like gravity playing integral roles in making the most basic physical activities possible.  The importance of physics in practical sense is that understanding our perceptions of scientific laws can aid in matters of safety, survival, and problem solving (in applicable contexts).  Truths about metaphysics are revealed by reason, but physics provides no small amount of experiential and theoretical subject matter to reason about.

Physics also has numerous practical applications and ramifications for human life.  That some objects and materials slide on certain surfaces more easily than others, withstand the elements more easily than others, or have other particular qualities is of no small relevance to how we live in spite of the epistemological limitations associated with our senses.  Everything from watching leaves fall from trees to starting cars to using electronics is a matter of physics, and some of these things are vital parts of normal life in many modern societies.

Practicality is not an unimportant pursuit as long as one does not exalt it above the more abstract, central parts of philosophy.  Science is not unimportant except when it comes to the core of rationalism, epistemology, and ultimate metaphysics.  Analyzing the explicitly scientific aspects of everyday sensory experiences, as opposed to the rationalistic and existential aspects of them, can provide both objective convenience in performing or understanding certain tasks and subjective satisfaction.  In order to understand the scientific side of daily experience, one must be willing to at least contemplate the most blatant laws of physics that can be observed by anyone at all with functioning senses.


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

Game Review--Child Of Light (Switch)

"In this world, for ill or good, we live together, not alone."
--Aurora, Child of Light


Child of Light is not a game that some might expect from Ubisoft, the firm behind the Prince of Persia and Assassin's Creed games, but its illustration-like art style and its unique rhyme-based dialogue set it apart from many other mainstream RPGs.  It tells the story of a young girl named Aurora as she is mysteriously brought to a strange land called Lemuria some time after her mother dies.  She discovers that she must recover the sun, moon, and stars of Lemuria, which have been removed from their places by the wicked Queen Umbra, if she wants to return to her own land.

Production Values

The art style suits both the side-scrolling exploration mode and the combat mode well, and the environments and characters have the consistent appearance of moving illustrations.  Fittingly, the vast majority of the lines in the game are delivered through onscreen text, with select cutscenes being narrated aloud.  Most of the dialogue, if not all of it, literally forms rhymes even when two or more characters are speaking.  This is perhaps the most unique of the design choices in Child of Light, but practically everything about the production values was handled with excellence.

Gameplay

The gameplay is split between a side-scrolling landscape--where Aurora can walk around, find collectibles, and open chests--and a combat landscape where up to two player-controlled characters and three enemies take turns exchanging attacks or using defensive/healing items.  Characters in a battle move along a meter at speeds that vary depending on individual stats and equipped items, and an enemy can be sent to an earlier point on the spectrum if they are successfully attacked within the "casting" portion at the end of the meter.

As with many other RPGs, some types of attacks inflict elemental damage that is especially weak or effective against enemies associated with certain other elements (for example, water-based enemies are particularly vulnerable to attacks enhanced by lightning damage).  These advantages are at their most helpful during fights with boss creatures, so it is usually better to flee a boss battle that is triggered by a cutscene and rearrange the oculi slots that can grant such powers and restart the fight than it is to face the boss while underpowered.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

A young princess named Aurora dies after her father falls in love with and marries an evil queen.  The new queen secretly schemes to kill Aurora's father and rule as a tyrant.  The despairing child finds herself in another realm she thinks is a dream, but the mysterious Lady of the Forest tells her it is not within her mind, speaking of a queen of light who was replaced by the usurper queen Umbra.  Umbra soon attacks Aurora, only to find that a special crown given to her by the Lady of the Forest protects her from Umbra's magic, but Aurora's sister Nox becomes a thorn in the princess's side.


Intellectual Content

Child of Light's emphasis on the mutual love between a daughter and her father is never used as an excuse for softening Aurora's attitudes towards the evil queen and her deceitful sister Nox.  While themes of family are central to the story, the distinction between healthy and destructive family members is made with explicit clarity, and no one is said to have a special obligation to be kind to family members in arbitrary ways simply because they are family.  The game does not specifically clarify these points through dialogue, but it is still very evident from the events in the story that family relationships are not being presented as inherently positive or negative.


Conclusion

From its rhyming dialogue to its story to its blend of side-scrolling exploration and RPG combat, Child of Light is brimming with quality that shows Ubisoft still has some ideas for original games.  Its short length is its greatest limitation, but the journey to the conclusion was not thoughtlessly assembled.  The Switch port even includes a handful of minor DLC costumes and bonus items.  Lemuria is well worth experiencing on the Switch for those who appreciate artistic flair and RPGs, at least if they never heard of or played Child of Light upon its initial release.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  Combat involves turned-based attack animations that feature no blood or gore.  In fact, physical contact between the player's characters and enemies is rare even in battles.  Aurora, her allies, and her opponents often slash at each other or unleash magic attacks from opposite ends of the screen.

Cognitive Dissonance And Erotic Media

Technology has broadened the availability and scope of erotic media in recent decades, allowing for people to display their bodies with sexual intentions (as the body, naked or clothed, is itself nonsexual) and admire the bodies of certain individuals more easily than before.  Erotic media remains a controversial topic both inside and outside of the church, even though it is clear that the Bible does not oppose all erotic media [1] and that secular attitudes towards it tend to be inconsistent.  One example of a hypocritical attitude in the secular world is the tendency for some to specifically praise women who intentionally expose their bodies for the sexual pleasure of men and shun the men who sexually appreciate them.

Of course, men can and need to be prominently featured in erotic media for the sake of acknowledging women's visuality and men's physical sensuality, but the average person seems to equate "sex work" with women profiting from male attraction to their bodies.  In light of this, people who falsely mistake male attraction to women as degrading, objectifying, or otherwise destructive might regard women who generate income by exposing their bodies with sexual intentions (either in person or online) as embracing their sexualities and men who enjoy their work as disgusting.  The cognitive dissonance is obvious to anyone who looks for it.

It is thoroughly hypocritical to encourage women who enjoy earning an income by displaying their bodies or by participating in the making of erotic videos or pictures (which excludes merely sensual images or videos of swimsuits) and then demonize any men who masturbate to them or sexually fantasize about them--or vice versa in the case of men who earn money from women who are sexually attracted to them.  If it is not inherently immoral for a person to expose their body for the sexual appreciation of the opposite gender in exchange for payment, it is not morally wrong for members of the opposite gender to savor sexual thoughts about them.

Praising women in particular for showing their bodies in a sexual, professional context while condemning the men who would make their work economically possible is an idea borne out of an arbitrary focus on women over men instead of true feminism: the affirmation of total gender equality in a metaphysical, moral, social, and legal sense.  Gender egalitarianism is not about treating men or women as special for having certain occupations, no matter how controversial or culturally important it might be.  There is nothing about the morality or psychology of a person offering sensual images of their own body for money that depends on their gender.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-2_19.html

"Male And Female He Created Them"

Yahweh is plainly referred to with male language throughout the Old and New Testaments, but even complemetarian delusions about the nature of gender do not lead to the conclusion that God is specifically male.  In fact, if true, they would lead to a conclusion that would likely unsettle or offend practically any sincere complementarian.  The Genesis creation account describes God as creating men and women in his own image, meaning that, if God had created masculinity and femininity, both would have come from him.

Even if masculinity and femininity were not purely social constructs, it would not follow that God is "masculine" because words like "he" and "him" are used in the Bible to refer to him.  It would rather be the case that God, having created both men and women, is the source of the positive characteristics associated with both genders.  If God had somehow created men and women with their own respective psychological and moral traits, meaning gender would encompass more than just the body, it would still be erroneous to call him male!

Of course, the Bible does not teach gender stereotypes and often contradicts stereotypes of men and women in positive and negative ways.  More importantly, logic itself reveals that gender is a physical thing completely unrelated to psychological characteristics and that nothing other than social conditioning, non sequitur fallacies, and various assumptions is responsible for gender stereotypes.  Complementarian ideology in all of its forms is asinine and antithetical to reason, experience, and the Bible, but complementarians often fail to even see what truly does follow from their ideas.

God, a strictly nonphysical being (John 4:24), has no gender because gender has no immaterial component.  The very notion of the uncaused cause being male or female is an impossibility, as matter did not exist until God created it.  Moreover, psychological characteristics are individualistic factors, having no connection with physical gender, and thus God can also be neither "masculine" nor "feminine."  All the same, if masculinity and femininity did exist, they would originate from God, and neither one would necessarily reflect more of his character than the other.

The Errors Of Mere Christianity (Part 5)

By the point that someone reading Mere Christianity from start to finish has reached page 57, C.S. Lewis has started addressing distinctly Christian theology, as opposed to the broader philosophical theology he focused on closer to the book's beginning.  He has elaborated on the distinction between a divine creator and its creation before bringing up theological dualism and Satan as the evil but lesser counterpart of God between the excerpts this post will focus on and the excerpts from previous posts in this series.  At page 57, he makes yet another statement that is worth refuting while talking about the transformation within individuals that God can bring:


"He lends us a little of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His love into us and that is how we love one another.  When you teach a child writing, you hold its hand while it forms the letters: that is, it forms the letters because you are forming them.  We love and reason because God loves and reasons and holds our hand while we so it." (57)


If Lewis meant that all other beings besides the uncaused cause (God) could cease to exist if God willed it to come about, then he would not have said anything irrational in this case, but the context is completely different.  He seems to say that humans are incapable of properly reasoning or of truly loving other people without direct assistance from God.  This is logically erroneous because a divine investment in someone's life has no inherent connection to whether or not they are rational or loving.  Ironically, he writes this shortly after describing why free will is a necessary part of human existence on the Christian worldview, and yet he still fails to see that free will allows for humans to do these things without any activity on God's part beyond whatever efforts keep them in existence!

Several pages later, Lewis openly concedes that he bases the vast majority of his beliefs on persuasion and appeals to authority, which consequently undermines even many parts of his worldview that he has not already outlined in Mere Christianity.  He does not attempt to hide this:


"And it seems plain as a matter of history that He taught His followers that the new life was communicated in this way.  In other words, I believe it on His authority.  Do not be scared by the word authority.  Believing things on authority only means believing them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy.  Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority.  I believe there is such a place as New York.  I have not seen it myself.  I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place.  I believe it because reliable people have told me so.  The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of blood on authority--because the scientists say so." (62)


Like many other popular Christian apologists, Lewis is both aware of how necessary appeals to authority are to his epistemology and fallacious enough to think they are logically valid.  An appeal to authority at most only proves that there is evidence that an authority said something, and this only makes it hearsay.  One cannot even know if other minds exist in the first place as well as if their claims that involve epistemological mechanisms other than pure reason and introspection are true.  This goes for all matters logic alone cannot establish, from the claim that the Civil War occurred to the claim that electrons and quarks exist to the claim that someone else is feeling inwardly upset.

How "trustworthy" would an authority need to be before their words "justify" a belief?  If anyone means that anything short of absolute trustworthiness is necessary, they really mean that whatever they find appealing and persuasive is worth believing, as absolute trustworthiness is absolute certainty, and absolute certainty is a total absence of trust in the first place.  At this point, belief in things logic cannot prove by itself becomes a matter of sheer subjective persuasion, and this contradicts every claim to objective knowledge based on appeals to authority.  Even aside from this question, the non sequiturs involved make it obvious that only logically demonstrable facts are truly knowable.

There is no rationality in believing that China exists if you live in America, but it is rational to believe that there is evidence, and consistent, strong evidence at that, for China's existence.  The difference between the two is of tremendous importance.  Moreover, living as if China exists is not the same as believing in its existence!  It is impossible for me to know if China is a real country, but I still speak as if it is for the sake of convenience and because there is evidence for it.  Nothing about this contradicts pure rationalism.  Appeals to authority are inherently, entirely antithetical with a rational worldview, for the only rational worldview is a rationalistic one.