Yes, Humans Are Animals

While not all animals share the same biological or seeming phenomenological components--for an example of the former, sea sponges do not reportedly have any neurons [1], unlike humans, and for an example of the latter, sharks have electroreception, unlike humans--all biological creatures are animals.  This includes people.  We have stomachs and excretory systems like dogs and bears, we have eyes and hands as do chimpanzees (which are supposed to share almost 99% of the same genes with us) and gorillas (with which share slightly less generic overlap), and we consume food and water to survive as do lions and ants.  None of these examples of similarities are necessary to realize that humans are animals because any bodily creature would have to be one.

Some people are fiercely offended by the fact that being different from other animals does not mean we are not animals ourselves.  Not that dissatisfaction or dislike would make it true or false, the concept they might hold to instead denies the massive overlap between humans and the creatures of the land, air, or sea.  We are heterotrophic (we eat other organisms for food rather than producing our own through photosynthesis like plants or chemosynthesis like some deep ocean life), we reproduce sexually as most animals do, and we have organs like lungs and a heart that can also be found in many other creatures.  We eat, drink, and can die as they do.  We pass on and inherit genes.  We can succumb to sickness.

The exact physical differences between humans and other animals depend on which animal is in question, for some are far more like us in form than others.  Humans have nonetheless outwardly dominated the planet by civilization and technology, though the natural world can still easily render us incredibly vulnerable, and though it is really the capacity for intelligence, despite many people never becoming rationalists and thus never truly being rational, that has enabled the doability of these things.  Of course I still cannot know just how phenomenologically similar other animals are to me as opposed to how similar they seem, for not even the minds of other humans can be known by a non-telepathic/omniscient being to exist or to be experiencing specific things at a given time!

It is at its core mostly on the basis of religious or other spiritualistic metaphysical philosophies that some people think humans are not animals instead of being unique animals, although there is nothing logically contradictory about being an animal and, say, having an afterlife of some kind or being created or guided by God for a higher purpose; none of this contradicts logical axioms, so it is possible and thus could have been true even if certain aspects are not.  It also possible that other animals either do or do not have afterlives but not humans, for humans to have or not have afterlives but not other creatures, or for all, some, or no individuals from each species to have one.  There is nothing about being human that has to entail this sort of nature to the exclusion of other animals sharing the same.

We are mental beings with physical bodies.  Our bodies, as far as scientific evidence from microscope observation suggests, are themselves made of cells that in turn contain genetic material, as is the case with animals.  Humans do not have to be as distinct as possible from other animals to be different from them, but, again, being different does not necessitate that humans are not animals.  As established already, people could only be animals.  It in part, besides misconceptions about the logical consistency between spirituality, certain specific religions, and this fact, a passive neglect of looking past words to ideas could make this idea unpopular.  Words cannot force anyone to believe in fallacies and errors.  Even so, common references to other creatures as animals without using the same word for people could lead to assumptions by some that humans must not be animals.  It all would depend on what is intended by the words as to whether someone errs by referring to people and animals using different collective terms.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-sea-sponge.html

The Potential Of Every Genre

The potential of every genre for ideological and artistic quality might be denied from time to time when a particular genre or subgenre takes over the entertainment world, angering those who are not participating, or when someone's subjective preferences gravitate away from certain types of storytelling.  Horror, action, comedy, and superhero stories (though the last of these can be entries in other genres that happen to feature such characters) can be neglected or slandered on these grounds, and it often takes concrete examples of quality projects to silence certain detractors although they could have already known their errors from reason alone--it does not follow from belonging to a certain genre that a work is awful.

Sometimes a more sustained trend helps a storytelling category be taken more seriously as it merits.  In recent years, a great deal of horror content with a more explicit philosophical bent has been created, from Saw films to The VVitch to Get Out to Alien: Covenant to Us.  Some of these films have been assigned the phrase "elevated horror," referring to a category that is about artistic excellence and thematic depth as much as or more than it is about base horror.  Of course, horror, like every other genre, can be executed in philosophically weighty or trivial ways, and there are far older horror tales that aim at existential and epistemological issues, like the stories of H.P. Lovecraft.  It would not surprise a rational person that horror is not devoid of potential for addressing reality.

They would not even have to rely on these examples to prompt them to realize this.  For now, a renaissance of horror, in cinema particularly, has produced more examples of philosophical horror that reach for more than just cheap jumpscares or a profitable opening weekend.  Other genres are also sometimes misunderstood as being incapable of artistic excellence and the metaphysical or epistemological elements that are overt in the best of entertainment.  In spite of such fallacious criticism, being an action, superhero, or visual effects-heavy work does not exclude a strong story, deep characterization, and exploration of grand philosophical issues.  Any genre can be executed well or poorly and on all levels.

Terribly constructed, thematically shallow, and greed-motivated entertainment does not make it logically impossible for any particular overarching genre to be utilized in a way that honors or at least tries to align with something more foundational and significant than hollowness and monetary success.  It is possible for there to be superb and abysmal action films (or games, and so on).  It is possible for there to be deep stories about superheroes and pathetically inept tales across mediums about the same type of characters.  Like with drama, horror, and more, the execution determines if a given work is of high or low quality (or mediocre), and even terrible or lackluster execution does not mean a storytelling concept is itself the problem.

Do Not Even Eat With Such People

1 Corinthians 5 sees Paul confront the church at Corinth for a kind of sexual immorality he says not even the surrounding pagans of the day tolerated: a man having sex with his father's wife.  Sexual immorality is not whatever someone's personal feelings or cultural zeitgeist approves of.  The specific type of incest in question is a man having sex with his father's wife (Leviticus 18:6, 8, 20:11), which could be distinct from the independently sinful act of a man having sex with his mother (18:7; or by extension, a woman having sex with her father) because having multiple spouses is not condemned (Exodus 21:10-11, Leviticus 18:18, Deuteronomy 21:15-17, and so on).  It is not the case that all sexual expression outside of marriage or sexual expression within marriage that is directed towards the thought of other people is sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32).  When Paul speaks of sexual immorality here, he only means what the Torah directly or by logical extension condemns.  Nonetheless, Paul culminates the chapter of 1 Corinthians by saying to not even eat with such a person as the incestuous man and to expel all like him from the church.

God did not command such things as never eating with sinners in the Torah, so this, like anything else that neither is prescribed by Yahweh in Mosaic Law or elsewhere or that follows logically from what is prescribed, is a permissible option in some situations although it might to some come across in isolation like a universal command.  Tolerance is not righteous, and it cannot possibly be even if Christianity is false and some other moral system is true [1], and Paul is certainly emphasizing the error of thinking that one can trivialize the sins of other people, and particularly people who claim to be an ideological brother or sister.  To clarify, he is not violating Mosaic Law by proposing an excommunication of sorts here instead of execution.  The very sin he is highlighting is one only specified in the Torah, and he does not push back against God's demand to kill such a person as the man who has his father's wife (Leviticus 20:11).

Any person is indeed free to show mercy as long as it is not on the basis of fallacious assumptions that mercy is required or owed to anyone, though the default is to impose justice at the expense of all conscience or social objections; people are obligated to follow God's justice and justice alone (Deuteronomy 16:20), purging evil from among them (Deuteronomy 24:7, which Paul paraphrases in 1 Corinthians 5:13) and showing no pity (Deuteronomy 17:7, 12, 25:11-12), with no special respect given to the rich or poor (Exodus 23:3, 6, Leviticus 19:15), the native-born and the foreigner (Exodus 23:9, Leviticus 19:33-34, 24:22, and many more), or men and women (Exodus 21:17, 26-27, 28-32, and many more).  Paul does not object to any of this, and indeed, he would have been in violation of the Law to have the offender killed apart from two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15) or by someone other than judges/an assembly serving Yahweh (Deuteronomy 17:6-11, 25:1), for he was not a judge.  Thus, aside from all of the other related non sequiturs and reasons why nothing about 1 Corinthians 5 contradicts strict theonomy, Paul is not acting contrary to Mosaic Law in demanding expulsion rather than execution in this particular case.

Now, is what Paul calls for here contrary not to the Law, but to the actions of Jesus, who nonetheless fully endorsed Yahweh's Torah laws (Matthew 5:17-19, 15:1-20, 18:15-16, and so on)?  After all, Christ eats with sinners and is condemned by the Pharisees for it (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 5:27-32).  The distinction is that Jesus eats with people who are in need of a spiritual physician, as he puts it in these passages; he says it is the sick and not the healthy who need a doctor.  The sinners he dines with are people newly devoted to true righteousness or who are not pretending to be genuine and/or thorough followers of Yahweh.  The Pharisees who object to him are those who are in reality not abiding by Mosaic Law as it is (Matthew 23:1-3, Mark 7:1-13).  By contrast with Jesus, Paul addresses the severity of overlooking a brother's or sister's sins, or those of a supposed brother or sister, and insists on not even eating with such people, instead saying that the unrepentantly immoral (sexually or otherwise) man or woman be expelled from the church (1 Corinthians 5:11-13).  He actually distinguishes between those allegiant to God (or allegedly so) and those who are not, pointing out that to truly avoid all the wicked, one could not inhabit this world at all (1 Corinthians 5:9-10).

Yes, even the morally "sick" within the church need a physician, but the context of Christ's meals with wayward or recently repentant people is not the same as that which Paul is speaking of.  The apostle states elsewhere (Ephesians 5), in full accordance with the logically necessary ramifications of how if something is good or evil, actual toleration of the latter is itself evil, that we are not to be partners with those who are not only unrepentantly sexually immoral, but also greedy or in any way impure--an even broader direct scope of sins than those mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5.  Something which follows from the ideas put forth in both chapters, though, is that spouses, and not just pastors, would be included among those who are not to be partners with unrepentant sinners or not even eat with them if they claim to be in allegiance to God and all that this entails.

It could not be the case that this is true of everything except being marriage partners with such persons, a potentially even more intimate relationship.  Without the word being used or the specific context of marriage being brought up, Paul addresses how there is basis for divorce over sins other than sexual immorality.  Like Exodus 21:10-11, 21:26-27, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, and 24:1-4 from Mosaic Law in all of their ramifications, Paul's stance ultimately requires that divorce is permissible for any sin whatsoever.  If this is what is allowed or situationally necessary in marriages, which could not in context possibly be exempt from what Paul speaks of, then of course relationships between non-spouses in the church, in business, and so forth would be permitted to be broken and even tossed aside in certain cases for any unrepentant sin, especially of grievous kinds!  Sin is not to be tolerated one way or another.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-senselessness-of-tolerance.html

The Importance Of Deuteronomy 22:6-7

Deuteronomy 22:6-7--"If you come across a bird's nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young.  You may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go, so that it may go well with you and you may have a long life."

Returning lost domestic animals is in part about restoring another human's property, yes, and it also benefits the animals, which might be endangered or confused (Deuteronomy 22:1-3).  Furthermore, helping an animal to its feet is certainly about the animal's benefit and not just it's owner's (Deuteronomy 22:4).  Plowing with animals of different sizes and corresponding strength is also condemned, something, while it is listed among other prohibitions of mixing particular things within a category, also for the wellbeing of the animals involved (Deuteronomy 22:10).  Although bestiality is sinful in part for other reasons (it is not heterosexual human intercourse), it is the rape of an animal, which Deuteronomy reiterates is evil (27:21; see also Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, and 20:15-16).  Along with each of these commands pertinent to the treatment of animals in the book of Deuteronomy is the instruction to not take away a mother bird with her eggs or hatched children in 22:6-7.

Animal Life

It is not only humans that the Bible says possess the breath of life (Genesis 2:7); as if it is not clear from Genesis 2 that the breath of life is consciousness or gives rise to it, and thus that any conscious being in a physical body would on the Biblical worldview have the breath of life, Genesis 7:20-23 mentions animals perishing in the flood of Noah's day and that everything on land with the breath of life died except for Noah and his family.  They are not people, yet they are presented as conscious beings God made.  Among the early Torah prescriptions is that of Exodus 23:4-5, where even an animal belonging to one's enemy must be returned or helped if it struggles under its load.  Expanding on Exodus 23:10-11, Leviticus 25:1-7 lists wild animals along with male and female servants, hired workers, and foreign travelers as those who are to be fed from what the land yields during its Sabbath years.

Verses in the prophetic writings such as Habakkuk 2:17 and Jonah 4:10-11 reinforce that the destruction of animals is a serious matter as it is with that of people--but many other passages clarify that the needless killing of animals, or any other mistreatment against them, is not as weighty as when the same sins are committed against humans.  In Genesis 1:26-28, God creates human men and women to rule over lesser animals as the only beings specifically said to be made in the divine image (see also Genesis 5:1-2).  Despite how animals are also living creatures that God created, and as such are a "very good" part of reality left of themselves (Genesis 1:31), they are metaphysically inferior to humans, and God goes as far as to say that he will Genesis 9:5 demand an accounting of our lifeblood from every animal as is the case between persons.

Lesser Than Humans

While animals are also divinely created things that have the breath of life and moral value on the Christian worldview, it is a distinctively lesser value than any human possesses.  The laws Yahweh prescribes for human societies emphasize this over and over.  Leviticus 24 says that killing an animal merits restitution, but killing a person unjustly deserves execution.  Stealing an animal deserves repayment at specific ratios (Exodus 21:1, 4); kidnapping a person deserves death (Exodus 21:16).  The domestic animal that kills a man, woman, or child, including a male or female slave because they too are human, must be itself killed without exception (Exodus 21:28-32).  Though the exact wording of the laws on this scenario deal with an ox, the moral concept would be relevant to any situation where an animal kills a human, particularly a domestic farming animal or a pet.

It is not inherently evil to take the mother bird's children for consumption, as long as they are of a kosher species (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14), but to go out and take a human mother's or father's child for any such purpose would be the capital sin of kidnapping (Exodus 21:16 and Deuteronomy 24:7).  If even adult birds a person stumbles upon in the wild have the right to not be taken with their children, then people are all the more valuable as beings bearing God's image.  Of course, humans having a higher moral and broader metaphysical status than animals does not mean that it is possible to know what the precise obligations towards other people do and do not entail from conscience or culture.  The obligations that exist according to Christianity can only be known from the Bible itself, with reason being necessary to know the Bible to begin with [1], as well as to know what a particular moral concept logically necessitates even if the text does not mention every ramification.

The Promise of Long Life

Deuteronomy 11:18-21 does say that those who fixate on the words of Yahweh's laws may live long, yet it does not simultaneously say that things may go well with those who do this.  Deuteronomy 12:20-28 does say that obeying its command to not eat blood when consuming a kosher animal can make it go well for you and your children after you, albeit without specifying a prolonged life.  This alone does not mean that both would not be the case. In contrast, Deuteronomy 22:7 ends with the statement that things will go well with the person who obeys the command in question, to the point that they might enjoy a significantly longer lifespan.  This entails that Deuteronomy 22:6-7 parallels the commandment to honor one's father and mother.  First stated in Exodus 20:12 and restated in Deuteronomy 5:16 in Moses's paraphrasing of the Ten Commandments, there is the explicit mention that it may go well with someone who honors their parents and that they may have a long life.  

Twice in Deuteronomy, therefore, is this potential for two-fold reward brought up regarding those who submit to particular moral obligations, one of which is a reaffirmation of something already taught in Exodus 20.  As for the promise of long life, Paul points out in Ephesians 6:1-2 that the command to honor one's parents is the first commandment with any promise whatsoever, and the same general promise is made to those who do what is righteous by not taking the mother bird and her children.  Ultimately, though, all sin makes the sinner deserve death (literal death, not eternal torment), and true righteousness deserves eternal life, which is not achieved in this present life (Daniel 12:2, Romans 6:23).  This is in accordance with what God promises in the covenant curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy for sin and righteousness (such as in Deuteronomy 30:11-20): he sets the choices of life and death before the Israelites starkly.  How people treat animals like birds is not irrelevant to this even though the treatment of humans is more crucial.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/a-refutation-of-sola-scriptura.html

Relational Healing

It might be with one's biological brother or sister, one's mother or father, a longtime friend, a spouse, or a coworker, but it is very likely that at some point in life, there will be relational conflict of a legitimate or irrational kind.  This could arise from miscommunication, limited perceptions of what other minds might really be thinking (for one can only know the existence and contents of one's own mind [1]), malice, apathy, or confusion and delusion born of selfishness and irrationalism.  In some cases, it would be sheer stupidity and sin that would be the root.  In others, it could be everything from obliviousness to neglect to poor willingness or ability to convey what one thinks or experiences.

It is of course not communication that is the ultimate determinant of the life, longevity (in a context that would actually be valid), and worthwhile nature of, say, a marriage.  No, only rationality possibly could have such a status: reason is inherently true, making it the sole and intrinsic metaphysical thing on which all else hinges and the grasp of it vital to all holistically, thoroughly healthy relationships.  However, most people are not rational, and thus in many relationships there will only be peace because one or both parties are too stupid or uninvested to actually want anything more than a fallacy-based, emotionalistic, egoistic connection without any real justification for its existence other than meaningless subjective fulfillment.

When one or both persons becomes a source of internal tragedy for the relationship, it is not logically inevitable that it is damned to end or to be marked by gratuitous suffering for the rest of its duration.  Just because a relationship has been or is positive does not necessitate that it will stay that way--and vice versa.  To salvage the relationship or perhaps establish it on solid ground for the first time, both people must be rational, willing, and resolute.  One person cannot carry a relationship to its fullest extent even if they are desperately trying to because a relationship requires two beings.  The irrational beliefs or actions of one party can ruin the friendship or marriage (or any lesser kind of relationship) as a whole, but for the bond to truly flourish and in a valid philosophical context, both people have to participate in this way.

Otherwise, while it might take time to reach this point if it was not already there, it would cease to be a friendship, which by necessity is about varying degrees of mutuality, or to be a marriage or workplace arrangement worthy of continuation.  Both people need to be rational and they need to do their best to also communicate the truth to each other.  Short of this, a relationship is at best afloat on pointless fallacies or emotionalism or intentionally clung to despite whatever grievous toxicity has become a part of it.  Relational healing is logically possible for any human relationship no matter how much it might feel impossible, as feelings only require that the feelings exist, not that whatever they are aimed at is even consistent with logical axioms (and thus it could only be false).

How relieving and empowering it can be when a flailing or deeply wounded relationship, marital or not, is saved!  Unfortunately, many people hold to the assumptions and egoism that thwart healing with their companions or that initiate the problem to begin with.  It takes one to damage a relationship that might have been perfect without their mistakes(s).  It takes two to both mend and/or preserve a friendship or marriage or other relational connection that is going to last as anything more than a disproportionately desired shackle.  Avoiding any irrationality or moral error that devastates a relationship is entirely possible.  So is healing it afterward.  This does not mean there would be a swift or pleasant process as or before the recovery happens.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-gulf-between-minds.html

The Tree Of Life

The tree of life is seldom mentioned in the Bible, only in Genesis and Revelation.  Its unique metaphysical properties are mostly left unmentioned other than that eating from it can grant immortality.  Genesis 2:9 says this tree of life was alongside the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, a truly strange kind of tree, and it can according to words attributed to God enable people to live forever.  This detail is not even provided prior to the introduction of human sin in Genesis 3, for Genesis 2 only mentions the location of the tree, its name, and the other tree that was beside it.  That the tree could lead to eternal life is of soteriological significance, and the matter is more nuanced than it might seem.  Whether the tree itself grants life or is it a secondary manifestation of divine power is rarely addressed.

God indeed specifies that Adam and Eve need to be kept from the tree of life because they might eat from its fruit and genuinely live forever in their fallen state (Genesis 3:22-24), so its properties are rather extraordinary--while a deity could banish them from existence by merely thinking about it, whether or not they have eaten from any tree, this statement indicates that the Biblical tree of life really was more than just an ordinary tree, even though its metaphysical nature is tied to and subordinate to God's.  Like God's statement in Genesis 11 about how humans actually could make a tower to heaven, whatever is meant by heaven in that case, the comment about protecting the tree of life from now-fallen humans is one of many things that people tend to completely overlook in Genesis (other examples would be the obvious pro-nudity philosophy and the possibility of billions of years elapsing between the events of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2).  The tree of life is quite literally presented as being able to offer eternal life to whoever eats from it.

Of course, even such a tree could only exist due to other things in existence, namely the laws of logic that dictate all possibility and necessity, the otherwise empty space that holds matter, and the uncaused cause who directly or indirectly brings matter into existence.  It is God, as the uncaused cause of the cosmos, that is the true source of eternal life even over the tree of life, which is merely one of his Edenic creations.  Genesis already establishes that in Biblical theology, God created the universe and the tree of life within it, but 1 Timothy 6:16 does later state that God is the only being that can exist forever due to its own nature, something that on its own excludes the idea that eternal life in hell is the default fate of all the unsaved.  Even in an unspoiled Eden, eternal life would have only been contingent on divine willingness to share the metaphysical longevity of the uncaused cause with the beings created in its image.

Genesis eventually moves away from the tree of life after the disobedience of the first humans, with the last mention of it in that book saying that God placed cherubim to guard the tree once humans had been expelled from the garden.  Revelation 2:7 refers to it next: Jesus promises the church in Ephesus the opportunity to eat from the tree of life that is in "the paradise of God" if they are victorious.  Revelation 22, however, goes into more specifics of its new placement.  It describes the tree of life as sprouting up on both sides of a river in New Jerusalem just before Revelation 22:3 says that there will not longer be any curse, almost certainly referring to the curses placed on humankind in Genesis 3.  The tree of life and the removal of the "curse" might be related more deeply beyond both pertaining to New Jerusalem.

The leaves of the tree of life, after all, are said to be for the "healing" of the nations (Revelation 22:2).  Despite its fairly important eschatological role and its connection to the initial Edenic state, the Bible is silent about this abnormal creation between Genesis 3 and Revelation 2.  The tree of life is nonetheless something associated with paradise in both the very first and last book of the Bible, making it a somewhat inseparable part of some of the most central events in Biblical theology.  As unusual and potent as the tree of life is presented as being, its ability to impart immortality and healing would still ultimately be metaphysically derived from that of God.

Justice Is Not Maximal Severity

Annihilationists who think that eternal death, i.e. nonexistence of the soul, must be more severe than eternal torture just because the Bible teaches annihilationism are insane.  Annihilationism is obviously Biblical, as anyone who does not make assumptions can see very quickly from all sorts of verses such as Matthew 10:28 and 2 Peter 2:6.  The wages of sin is death (Romans 1:32, 6:23, Ezekiel 18:4).  The soul without eternal life, found only in a right relationship with God, is to perish (John 3:16).  Because a second, irrevocable death is justice, torture that never ends, even if the torture was on its own mild (like a petty annoyance), would be inherently unjust.  Aside from Biblical doctrines, if morality exists at all, endless torture for supposed "justice" would by logical necessity be immoral because it would exceed the nature of any amount of finite sins.

Some annihilationists believe the error that people must die in hell because the alternative would be emotionally devastating or terrifying.  Others believe that if God will kill the wicked forever, there could be nothing worse than this destiny.  Bodies and souls are killed in hell according to the Bible, yes, but reason and morality do not depend on what anyone wants.  Logic is true in itself and thus not even God can change it; morality is grounded in God, if he has a moral nature, and thus human preferences are irrelevant.  Either way, what makes something just is not that it is maximally severe.  Justice is not the worst thing that could be inflicted on someone.  Being physically beaten or sexually abused for eternity is objectively far worse than ceasing to exist, and only an utter fool would believe anything remotely to the contrary.  The latter is also exclusively a sin to be punished by non-Lex Talionis means (Deuteronomy 22:25-27, 25:11-12) rather than a righteous penalty for any sinners.

It not only does not logically follow that maximum severity is what makes something just, but it is also true that it is impossible for justice to be maximally severe for two reasons: eternal torture for limited sins of any duration is inherently disproportionate and there is no such thing as physical or psychological pain that could not be worse.  Since physical pain still requires a conscious mind to subjectively experience it, and since psychological pain is objectively subjective in one sense, the fear or agony a suffering individual has could always be at least slightly worse, even if the outward manifestations of the punishment (like flogging) were the same.  A person could not experience logically contradictory states of mind like an absence of pain and the presence of pain.  Regardless, there is no actual intrinsic limit to the degree of pleasure or suffering that could be hypothetically experienced.

Something like murder, adultery, sorcery, or kidnapping could never deserve a fate worse than murder as its penalty, which eternal torture plainly is.  Something like rape or many physical/sexual abuses are or at least can be even far, far worse than murder.  Perpetual suffering in Yahweh's hell (or any other allegedly moralistic afterlife) would be worse than these singular acts of abuse that far eclipse the likes of theft or murder simply by nature of being unending.  There is no escape from the standard evangelical hell by serving one's sentence or by repentance.  The Bible teaches that limited suffering before permanent death without resurrection is what will befall the unrepentant wicked (Luke 12:47-48, Revelation 20:15, Malachi 4:1-3, 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10).  There is no eternal torment of the resurrected, sinful masses by a deity who demands that no one receives more than 40 lashes (Deuteronomy 25:1-3).  Things far less severe than endless torture are condemned in Mosaic Law that reflects Yahweh's nature.

Company Scrip

To strive for an illusory sense of unity or loyalty, or to simply facilitate the economic and psychological exploitation of workers, select companies of the past paid workers in alternative currencies like metal tokens.  Functioning as a type of coin not endorsed by an official government, scrip like this could be exchanged at company stores for everyday necessities or other items as if it was the standard dollar.  Isolated workplace settings would have been the easiest to implement scrip in due to the relative privacy, which in turn could put someone at the mercy of their employer in a manifestation of oppressive corporatism/corporatocracy (sometimes each term might be used), a system where a business directly acts as or like a government.

The company using scrip could control almost every aspect of a person's practical life, supplying food, water, medical resources, luxury items, and more through its corporate currency. Since the scrip would not be accepted by other companies or by non-corporate governments--for companies are still governments of a sort--the workers could easily become trapped into dependence on a company even if it exploits them, knowing they have few achievable options for escaping.  A worker above another could physically, sexually, or verbally abuse those beneath him or her and the victim would have little choice but to leave for an often highly uncertain future (though the future is always uncertain) or simply endure abuse or neglect since their financial standing is tied to their particular company.

A business practicing corporatism in this way could easily treat its workers like literal slaves who are backed into a corner by their employer.  In this way, workplace exploitation could be perpetuated by a form of exploitation that would extend past the workday and into the purchasing freedom of employees.  Although it is not true that a company scrip would have to be used with these intentions in mind, there would still be little a worker could do in the event that an injustice arises.  Now, this is similar to the position of a poor or otherwise powerless citizen in some non-corporate governments, and any political or business system that is neutral or even good in itself could always suddenly be run in a predatory manner.  Company-issued currency, like businesses themselves, could be used in all kinds of ways, and despite how many contemporary workers cannot relate to using it, some of the more sinister motivations are still present in other ways.

Company scrip might not be an open, regular part of compensation in the modern workplace, but some companies still do what they can to manipulate artificial loyalty and micromanage even the aspects of a worker's life that have nothing to do with their occupation.  Depending on their profession, a person might have to avoid doing innocent activities in the public eye if they wish to not be terminated.  Certain employers might pressure people to attend optional, uncompensated work-related meetings to foster a pointless, shallow, or emotionalistic sense of "family" at their companies.  Aside from this, a specific kind of employer still wants desperate, submissive workers to work for as little as possible or in suboptimal conditions in order to profit at their expense.  Company scrip is not the only way to physically or psychologically entrap workers despite them being free to purchase things elsewhere.

Surah 2:282--"If One Of The Two Women Should Forget"

In the words of Numbers 35:30, "'Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses.  But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness."  Two or three witnesses is not a maximum, but a minimum.  The phrase itself is used in a separate book of the Torah.  Later, in Deuteronomy 17:6, just after saying that a man or woman who worships pagan entities or the natural world should be stoned to death (17:2-5), it is emphasized that no one is to be executed without at least two or three witnesses, rather than a single accuser/witness.  Right before prescribing the penalty for a perjurer of whatever the falsely accused would have received under Yahweh's commands (19:16-21), what was once only mentioned in the context of capital punishment is affirmed for all criminal charges and punishments: all criminals can only be punished on the testimony of at least two or three witnesses (19:15).

The Bible does not say that these witnesses must be men or women or comment on anything related to their cultural background, economic status, marital status, race, nationality, age, and so on with any other irrelevant factors.  Ultimately, they could include the surviving victim or the perpetrator of a crime and perhaps even additional evidences that are not the hearsay of people, or else certain laws could not be consistent with this requirement [1].  The Quran allegedly is from the same deity who gave the Torah where Deuteronomy is found.  Surah 2:53 says God gave Moses revelation to distinguish moral right and wrong. Surah 3:3-4 says that the Torah and the Gospel originated from God.  Moreover, Surah 5:46 says that Jesus, the son of Mary, was sent to confirm the Torah, which is actually consistent with Matthew 5:17-20 and Luke 16:16-17.  The obligations mentioned in Mosaic Law are Yahweh's universal, unchanging moral revelation which is never annulled (Romans 7:7).  The Quran, like the New Testament, hinges on the Torah and whether it is morally valid.

At least with one particular case, defying how the book of Genesis it affirms says that men and women are metaphysical equals (Genesis 1:26-27), the Quran presents women as an inferior option for witnesses.  Speaking of a contract for debt, Surah 2:282, which is long enough of a verse to be its own paragraph, says to summon two witnesses as the debt is accurately recorded.  The default is described as two male witnesses, however, and if two men are not available, one man and two women are prescribed, with one woman, according to the text, being present to remind the other if she forgets.  Women are thus stereotyped as having lesser memories at best or at worst as perhaps being less honest than men without someone else to remind them to do otherwise.  For this particular scenario at least, the Quran prescribes one male and two female witnesses as a last resort if two men cannot be found, while the Bible simply demands at least two or three witnesses of any gender, age, nationality, or race.

This major difference between the Bible and Quran does not mean that the Bible is true just because it treats women and men as equals in their capacity to grasp reason, to remember, to testify against sinful deeds, and so forth.  After all, if the Bible said that women are morally free to kill or rape men as they please, but men sin if they defend themselves, this would be better for women in one sense than if the genders were reversed, but it would not be rational or just.  Consistency would be lacking, conflicting with two transcendent logical truths.  If something is good or evil and one's literal genitalia or (physical, of course) secondary sex characteristics do not have anything to do with it, one has no obligation one way or another based on gender, including to avoid rape or murder or to love one's neighbor.  Also, if either men or women are valuable because of their humanity, as Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2 combined with 1:31 teach very explicitly, then the opposite gender must have the same rights and obligations except where actually genitalia is involved (as with male circumcision, an easy example).  Surah 2:282 contradicts both the parts of the Bible it calls divinely revealed and logical necessity.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-testimony-of-two-or-three-witnesses.html

Divine Wrath

Romans 2:5-8 describes the unrepentant as storing up divine wrath against themselves that worsens in its intensity, meted out in accordance with their ideology, deeds, and motives.  Those who seek righteousness and immortality can receive eternal life (2:7), which they would not otherwise possess since the destiny of the unsaved is to literally die, to perish (Ezekiel 18:4), with God being the only being that is by nature immortal (1 Timothy 6:16).  Even if it was the only verse to clarify a little more about the wrath of God, Psalm 30:5 says that "his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime."  God's wrath is contrasted with a positive disposition that people cannot outlive.  Now, this verse does not actually specify anything about the duration, severity, or manifestation of the wrath in store.  Even if other passages did not directly address these exact issues about the nature of Yahweh's wrath, a verse like Psalm 30 that is not obviously referencing only the Biblical afterlife would still have some relevance.

God's anger, or wrath, lasts only a moment compared to the favor that he bestows for a lifetime, it says.  Before Christ, there is the occasional mention in the Old Testament of the eternal life in store for the righteous/saved, such as in Job 19:25-27 or Daniel 12:2, the latter of which distinguishes it from the eternal shame of the damned--something that neither logically requires eternal existence on their part nor would be consistent with a plethora of verses from both testaments.  From the more vague or sparsely detailed Old Testament verses like these, it is still clear that there are at least hints that God's favor would extend to the righteous (or the pardoned) in a glorious afterlife, as well as that the unrepentant wicked would come to an end as conscious beings.  God's wrath is presented like a drop in the ocean compared to his love even as both of them stem from his justice.

For humans consigned to what is ultimately the death of the soul as more clear verses affirm (Matthew 10:28, John 3:16, and many more), perhaps following a limited time of torment, this wrath would be satisfied by the annihilation of evildoers and the ultimate end of their sins.  As they perish, those people who committed to God in repentance and faithfulness live forever in something beyond the Edenic state, beyond the greatest nonsinful pleasures (of which there are many, many more than evangelical legalists believe!) of life on Earth.  The wrath of God, tied to his proportionate and perfect penalties for sin, is appeased as death itself is expelled from reality (1 Corinthians 15:26), no longer able to gorge itself on victims.  That Christ dies and returns to life only reflects how it is death that is the final consequence of collective human sin and that it is resurrection to God's side that nullifies this fate of death.

This is justice and not mercy.  To go past the relatively tame punishments of Mosaic Law to the desired cruelties that conscience and cultural traditions would have so many people support is evil.  This is to practice or horrifically abusive, undeserved things for the supposed sake of justice.  Why would a deity whose nature grounds the justice of these specific terrestrial punishments and whose just wrath lasts "only a moment" compared to eternity be as brutal as many fallen people who practically do not know their left hand from their right hand?  It is death, not eternal life in agony, that the masses of unrepentant humans deserve according to Christian philosophy.  To deny this is to deny what is indirectly or directly taught from Genesis to Revelation.  The Biblical God is slandered every time someone believes or says that his wrath demands anything beyond our potential finite torment and our eventual exclusion from eternal life.

Jesus On Practicality

The abstract logical truths that govern all things and ground truth and knowledge themselves can be deeply understood without any resulting hatred or shirking of more practical matters.  After all, the situations, needs, and desires that contribute to practicality can only be part of reality if they are logically possible, with only things that do not contradict logical axioms and what follows from the being possible, and practical affairs and solutions can only be understood because of reason.  However, it is often practicality that drives people to embrace the irrationality of assumptions and contradictions: it is easier to just assume than to approach, dwell on, and align with the necessary truths of logic.  Practicality remains a part of human life despite how irrational people misunderstand or misuse it, though practicality is by necessity a lesser thing than logical axioms, consciousness, morality, and the rest of metaphysics and epistemology in all their broadness and details.

In Matthew 6:25-34, Jesus addresses practical needs and desires directly after mentioning how earthly possessions can be damaged.  He realizes that concerns about what one will eat, drink, or wear could be a very personally alarming, extensive part of some people's lives, whether this concern is because of natural anxiety (natural for that individual's personality), a specific situation, or even a person's worldview.  What Jesus emphasizes early on in this part of the chapter is that God cares so much more about human needs than those of animals (Matthew 6:26) even as he points to how worry does not resolve problems in its own and can do nothing to extend someone's life (6:27).  Never does Jesus either dismiss these needs or pretend like they have the same centrality as matters of morality, service to God, or even life itself in general (and by extension logic, epistemology, and the other philosophical truths or concepts that even these matters reduce down to).  It is the pagans, he says, that chase after these things in ways that erroneously treat them as if they are the most foundational part of reality or more than a means to a very limited end that is far from all-important (6:31-32).

Jesus acknowledges that the Christian God does not ignore or belittle the human reliance on things like food or clothing, though clothing is only a necessity for relative protection from nature and to more easily fit into societies that already normalize clothes, as there is nothing morally necessary about wearing clothing at all on the Christian worldview and nothing inherently necessary in a practical sense about wearing clothing besides degrees of protection from rough environments or temperatures.  The more practical needs of human life are not things Christians are to treat as wholly unimportant or unrelated to Christian theology; it just is not rational to pretend they are anything more than issues of convenience or survival, which can have no significance except in light of other things.  Practicality is of course utterly irrelevant to whether philosophical ideas are true or whether one can logically prove them, but practicality in the sense of merely fulfilling the physical needs Jesus mentions is not opposed to either rationalism or Christianity.

The only idiocy a person could reach for here lies in confusing practical needs with the heart of reality, something they are absolutely distant from (only logical axioms and their ramifications, followed by things like the existence and nature of the uncaused cause, could have this status), or in directly knowing practicality is only about convenience and/or subjective satisfaction and then pursuing it with irrationalistic priorities that treat it as the most foundational, vital thing of all.  Practicality encompasses the objectively least abstract and deep aspects of life, even if it has a somewhat special nature by simply facilitating survival and flourishing.  Appreciating or enjoying practicality, though, is not irrational in itself, and on the Christian worldview, recognizing and being grateful for what it is can even refresh someone as they contrast God's concern for them as individual humans with their needs.

The Inherent Folly Of Trust

Trust, in the sense of what many people seem to mean by the word, is never rational, and thus it can never be morally good, much less obligatory, whether directed towards other people or something else.  This is because there can be nothing that is true which contradicts logical necessity, and since it can only be the case that nothing short of logical necessity (not intuition, not scientific observation, not hearsay, not literature, not group perception, not emotional preference) can prove anything, trust could not be logically and thus morally valid.  Morality, if it exists, after all, would have to be consistent with reason.  This is why, among other things, a moral system on which all killing is immoral that also entails the permissibility of self-defense is impossible.

Things besides reason only prove that an experience is being experienced.  This, too, is only true because it is logically necessary that a thing is what it is and that one's mental states are directly known with absolute certainty, so if one perceives something, it does not follow that what is perceived is real beyond the purely mental experience itself.  In their folly, non-rationalists will make assumptions based upon mere experience and passively or actively stoop to trust, such as trusting that someone loves you and would never seek to harm you.  Expecting to be safe with someone on the basis of there being no evidence for them being unsafe and positive evidence to the contrary, for instance, is not the same as believing that another person really will not deceive, use, or hurt you maliciously.

In this definition, it could never possibly be rational or good or praiseworthy to trust.  This is not commitment to something on probabilistic evidential grounds in the absence of knowing if an unverifiable logical possibility is true, but the making of assumptions, faith in something unknowable for beings bound to human limitations.  It does not matter what the object of trust is.  Since trust itself is the problem, it does not matter if it is in God (the Bible says plenty that is consistent with this even if misunderstood, such as what is explored here [1]), a human government, the scientific method, a hypothetical afterlife, friends, or spouses; for beings with human limitations, there is only rationalistic awareness of what can and cannot be known by a person light of logical necessity and the delusion that anything beyond this can be known despite the lack of absolute logical certainty or, sometimes, the lack of any fallible evidence at all.

While many memories with a person can provide evidence that one can rationally expect (without assuming) a certain outcome with a cherished friend or spouse, for example, there is no more basis for trusting them than there is for a total stranger.  It is not about the relationship to the person or to how comfortable one feels.  The very nature of trust is that it is always irrational if belief in an unproven/unprovable thing is what is meant.  If you actually see into their minds and know with absolute certainty that this perception is not an illusion, you would not need to or be able to trust them.  The same is true of other matters.  Whether God loves me, whether the perceived laws of physics will remain constant, whether a primary historical source is accurate, or whether it is immoral to, say, murder someone can only be believed by someone with my epistemological limitations on faith, on assumptions.

It is not irrational to recognize these things are all logically possible and that some of them are even probable, but there is absolutely no logical necessity and therefore nothing more than illusory certainty that these things are true (it is not illusory that there is objectively evidence in favor of them, and that they might still be false).  You do not have to trust that you exist, for to wonder if you exist or to reject this, you would have to already exist as a consciousness.  More foundationally than this, you do not have to trust that there is such a thing as truth, for if this was not so, it would be true that there is no truth, and thus it would still be the case that there is truth (this self-necessity and self-verification is something all logical axioms share).  Anything which logically follows from the likes of these is also absolutely certain.  Anything else can only be trusted, not rationally believed.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-evangelical-misconception-of-john.html

The Macroscopic World

When glancing out at the world, there is not any sort of epistemological hint of bacterial life, chemical structures and their covalent or ionic bonds, atoms, including ions and isotopes, or subatomic particles like electrons and quarks.  You could never tell from basic sensory experiences that quarks seem to comprise protons and neutrons, or that many natural surfaces, such as the human body, teem with microbes.  The macroscopic world is all that we can perceive unaided as far as the external world is concerned.  We can look up to the sky and see distant celestial bodies like the moon and stars, and we can see all sorts of creatures and environments around us, yet only microscope technology allows people to see certain things invisible to the mere eye, and even then, there are supposed to be particles smaller than this.

Upon watching a stick burn, one can observe the macroscopic physical transformation of the wood to ashes, but one cannot see the chemical transformation at a molecular level, only the consequential macroscopic events that correspond to them.  One can see a topical abrasion on one's skin and notice that it and the surrounding area have become red.  Still, one cannot naturally see the bacteria on one's skin that can enter the internal body through a cut and bring about infection.  A smartphone screen or light switch is visible macroscopically, not the virus that might be resting on it.  It is not that nothing smaller than what can be ordinarily seen cannot ever be perceived when microscope technology is utilized; it is that there are additional epistemological uncertainties with this over regular sensory experience (for not even seeing something as large as oneself proves it exists physically beyond the conscious mind).

Limitations of observational technology, along with the already present limitations of the senses, mean that even on the level of unverifiable perceptions, it is up in the air as to whether a specific evidentially-fortified or strictly hypothetical particle (not that being evidentially supported is the same as being logically proven) is at the end of the chain.  Perhaps an otherwise fundamental particle could be artificially divided, making something even smaller though it is not naturally occuring.  Even so, one could never know if something like the electron is truly fundamental or if there is an even smaller unit.  Democritus proposed atoms themselves as indivisible, fundamental (in the sense of contemporary physics) units of matter.  However, aside from the seeming existence of subatomic particles like electrons, protons, and neutrons, it is splitting an atom that releases the energy for the atomic bomb or subsequent nuclear weaponry--the division of the nucleus being referred to as nuclear fission.

Unlike the atomic nucleus, the macroscopic world is before our eyes.  While it alone cannot provide any sort of direct evidence for cells, atoms, quantum energy, and so on, what we do experience is consistent with the notion of many microscopic or smaller phenomena, and technological advancements on the visible level can provide more and more fallible evidences of certain structures and events at smaller scales of matter.  What is macroscopic would be ultimately comprised on current paradigms of units too small to see left to ourselves, and this is taken for granted by non-rationalists who either assume the likes of subatomic particles exist and do not contemplate the nature and ramifications of them or who, maybe more prone to thought on the subject but still slaves to assumptions, sincerely take the hearsay claims of scientists on faith, the only basis for epistemological belief in matter smaller than the senses can see with or without technological assistance.

The Accessibility Of Evidence For Animal Consciousness

Long before camera-enhanced observation of the natural world and its resident creatures, anyone--given that they lived near animals--with a functioning sense of sight could witness a variety of non-human creatures.  More than this, it is clear from the outward behaviors of animals as perceived by human onlookers that they appear to be conscious.  The evidence for this is largely the same as it is for other humans being conscious, despite how I can only know the existence and contents of my own mind as far as phenomenology goes.  They move their heads and limbs, react to things like noises and environmental factors, and engage in other actions that would suggest if performed by humans that they have their own interior, immaterial minds.

For all the controlled studies or technology-fortified examinations of the modern era pertaining to animal behaviors, the evidence for animal consciousness was accessible at all times that humans have lived alongside other macroscopic beings.  From ants to squids to salmon to vultures to bears, many animals regularly display external indicators that very strongly suggest, but do not logically prove, that they perceive and think.  Some cooperate with up to thousands of fellow creatures, such as bees, and others can employ color and texture mimicry to conceal themselves amidst their surroundings, like the mimic octopus--which can even imitate the waving motion of seaweed alongside matching the color and texture.

Science never epistemologically goes beyond mere perception and thus potential illusion.  It can at most provide evidence, based on fallible sensory experiences, of things that seem to be true but might not be, as it does not logically follow that what one perceives is really the case beyond one's own mind unless there is logical necessity.  However, there is evidence entirely outside the context of formally documented scientific endeavors that animals have perception and are not automatons without minds.  This evidence still hinges on sensory observation, but it does not have to be arbitrarily elaborate, prolonged, or socially conducted.  Anyone who has seen any insect, dog, bird, or any other non-human organism perform actions, particularly reactive ones, can avoid assumptions and realize that while it is possible for these behaviors to be illusory when it comes to pointing towards animal consciousness, it truly seems otherwise.

The unknowable nature of whether one's sensory perceptions correspond to something real in the external world of matter (with one category of exceptions [1]) does not dispel this evidence.  Other than something like organized human speech, there is often the same amount of evidence for animals being conscious as there is for other people being conscious.  Can one know from another person speaking or eating or walking really has mental awareness?  No, one cannot know given human limitations if other minds of any kind actually exist, yet they absolutely seem to.  This is not so simply for humans.  A plethora of animals, which do appear to have either a lesser mental of physical status than that of people, nonetheless by all appearances likely are animated by genuine consciousness just as I am.

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

The Benefits Of Cohabitation

While it might be used by some as an excuse for casual sex or to ironically put off deeper commitment, cohabitation is a way for unmarried (in the legal sense) romantic partners to become more familiar with each other in wholly nonsexual ways, to express daily respect and love for each other, and to see how a lifelong relationship would look for individuals with their personalities.  Leaping into cohabitation without at least learning of a person's valid worldview and their psychological compatibility as a partner is certainly asinine.  This is absolutely true.  At the same time, living with one's romantic partner if the shared bond and one's circumstances permit it has its objective advantages that are there for rational and sincere partners.

There is more of a chance for any subjective annoyances, personality conflicts, or even worldview divergences to come up for people who need lots of regular time together to open up.  Yes, all of these things can be pinpointed entirely apart from cohabitation, and some of them would have to already be brought up for cohabitation to even be rational, yet living together before legal marriage--which can be the same as living together in sincere, lifelong commitment for rational, morally valid reasons--makes it more likely that a partner will not postpone bringing up important problems in the relationship or that he or she will not remain silent about important ideological or personality details.  Seeing what daily, informal life would be like together could accelerate their willingness to communicate things that they might otherwise be content to leave to the side indefinitely or for a time.

This is the greatest benefit that cohabitation in particular allows for: things that a couple might be more likely to otherwise forget about or not bring up could come to mutual attention sooner or with greater frequency.  Bonding that could occur in a more staggered manner outside of cohabitation could also be quickened.  Saving time on deepening a holistic connection, each member of a couple living together could realize more swiftly if a lifelong relationship based on rationality, mutuality, transparency, and affection can be sustainably enjoyed with their partner.  Cohabitation could be misused like anything else, but it does not lack pragmatically beneficial aspects that are there for any willing partners living together to receive.

All of these potential benefits of cohabitation, though, are not what makes it Biblically permissible.  It does not contradict God's moral nature and thus is neither condemned directly or by logical extension of other commands, making it objectively nonsinful for everyone who does not use it as an opportunity to practice something else that is immoral (Deuteronomy 4:2).  There is far more to cohabitation as a philosophical issue than whether people will have sex, which is decided by them and not in any way by their living situation, and which is not necessarily sinful to begin with (Exodus 22:16-17 opposes noncommittal sex, not sex before legal marriage, which is inherently a social construct unlike whatever moral obligations exist).  A rationalistic, righteous couple could have much to gain from living together, even if only the joy of celebrating the bond that they had already cultivated outside of cohabitation.

Game Review--Dementium: The Ward (Switch)

"My Sweet Amanda, I am sorry I can not be there for you . . . he did not harm me.  I was already gone when he found me."

--Note, Dementium: The Ward

For the third time, the original Dementium game debuts on a Nintendo handheld (or hybrid) system.  Is it at its best?  Unfortunately, this is far from it.  The DS was extremely restricted in its technical capabilities.  Dementium was one of the somewhat rare first-person shooters on this vastly underpowered platform.  The 3DS allowed for better graphics, with the respawning enemies being taken care of as well.  On the Switch, especially when played in docked mode, Dementium's visual limitations as a game--not the system it is on, but the game itself--have not been addressed.  This is a step backwards, and not just visually.  As you can see from the screenshots, especially compared to the ones I took of the 3DS remaster years ago, the graphics do not look great whatsoever.  Why the capabilities of the Switch were not better used for this of all things is an enormous waste of potential.  It reflects the general quality of the game's third version on the most advanced platform of any release: nothing has been seriously improved, if at all, and the game is in fact worse than Dementium Remastered for the 3DS.

Production Values

The graphics are distinctively less impressive than ever on one level--the Switch is the most powerful system Dementium has released for, and the larger screen combined with the ability to play it on a TV are not kind to the very retro-style graphics.  This way, the un-updated aesthetic is on full display, showcasing just how little was improved for this second re-release.  What music there is can work thematically for the setting and themes, but there is a very limited tracklist.  The narrow boundaries on the kind of horror experience offered here have never been more glaring due to the greater power of the Switch over Nintendo's prior handhelds.

Gameplay

Puzzles must be solved that require things like counting the eyes on corpses in a particular room or pressing piano keys in a certain sequence.  These often range from overly simple to rather vague.  Mingled with the item hunts or other puzzles is combat, something very, very basic.  Since the DS was so restricted in its visual power, the NPC attack patterns are extremely simple.  There is literally one way for the common enemies to fight you.  To see them, you need to be very close or have the flashlight turned on.  Unlike in Dementium II, the flashlight cannot be active while a weapon is equipped.  The player has to manually switch between a flashlight and firearms or melee weapons like the baton or electric buzzsaw and let the darkness ensue.

A very unusual--and not in a creative or positive way--item problem is also present.  The entire function of the notebook mechanic from the DS and 3DS versions of the game is removed, yet the notebook itself is not, as one cannot use the Switch touch screen or any buttons to input actual notes.  The book sits there useless in the player inventory.  One can take screenshots using the button on the left Switch Joy-Con, which is even better for taking notes for puzzles and navigation, but this does not make it any less gratuitous, if not stupid, for the notebook to still be obtained and displayed in the inventory along with items that truly are usable.  Dementium was designed for the dual screens of the DS/3DS and the developers of the Switch port did not modify this mechanic to fit the sole screen of the subsequent platform.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

The player character wakes up after perceptions of being rolled by wheelchair inside a building full of strange humanoids.  Upon regaining sensory awareness, he finds clues about his seeming past as the murderer of his wife.  He also obtains various weapons and tools that help him navigate around the floors of a hospital inhabited by monstrous beings.  With time, more clues about his potential crime come to light.

Intellectual Content

The metaphysics and epistemology of perception as they relate to neuroscience and phenomenology are used more as undeveloped plot points than philosophical themes testifying to what can be known (such as that one's sensory perceptions exist and can be known to with absolute certainty, whereas one cannot know if what one sees or hears reflects the actual external world).  The ending does strongly imply that William only dreamed his trek through the hospital and the creatures therein when the Doctor is shown operating on him, but the buildup never does much to explore any of this.  This is especially unfortunate because the isolation or desperation of protagonist William Redmoor could have been used in conjunction with a deeper, rationalistic look at mind-body dualism, the epistemology of the senses, and the individualistic impact of guilt on people.  Too aimless and tame to rise to the level of the best Silent Hill games, which it was initially pitched to Konami as, Dementium: The Ward does not do its own subject matter justice.

Conclusion

The Switch has become a haven for ports, remasters, and remakes from many console generations across different systems.  It is where one can play everything from the definitive editions from the early Darksiders series to Agony's unrated version (it just is not called that on the eShop!) to Metroid Prime Remastered and the remake of Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door.  Not every game ported to or remastered for the Switch is going to be excellent, whether because of the game itself, the technical limitations of the platform, or poor porting/remastering on the developer side of things.  Dementium: The Ward is not one of the better arrivals among them.  If you have access to the 3DS remaster, it is a better game simply for having its aesthetic integrity retained more than on the Switch and for actually utilizing its touch screen as originally intended for the initial DS release.  This is one hell of a lackluster resurgence for Dementium--how unfortunate it is that we keep only getting the first game resurrected as well.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  There is blood when enemies are attacked or killed.  The humanoid enemies have nails driven into their eye sockets.

Stupidity Is Rarely Alone

All truths are connected to other truths, either because they are necessary truths that dictate contingent truths or because they are contingent truths that stand on necessary truths.  There is no such thing as a truth that is wholly disconnected from the core of reality, logical axioms.  Even if someone was to recognize the basic epistemological self-evidence and necessary nature of logical axioms, in believing some other thing through assumptions or inconsistency, he or she might not just believe in the one error.  This is quite uncommon in rationalists.  In fact, it is uncommon to find a fully devoted rationalist who seems to believe in anything because of assumptions, but in a non-rationalist's worldview, one will almost never find just a single contradiction or fallacy.

One error is almost never isolated.  Stupidity is rarely alone, and when irrationality actually is isolated, it is ironically likely that it is a rationalist who has for some reason embraced a very specific error or made an assumption.  Irrationalists are not even trying to avoid errors except perhaps in bursts of incomplete, misguided motivations or in the context of ideas they have only assumed to be true.  If someone is a misogynist, they are almost inevitably a misandrist as well, even if neither they nor others realizes it.  If someone is a relativist, there cannot be just one thing they are wrong about.  If someone is an adherent of scientism, fitheism, anti-realism, or one of many other false philosophies, they have already ignored more than just one truth.

While logic governs truths about everything, truly rational people do not systematically allow sensory experiences, emotional appeal, subjective persuasion, epistemological faith, hearsay (especially of a historical or scientific kind), or cultural norms lure them away from alignment with reason into assumptions or contradictory beliefs.  A perfectly rational person does not allow these things to shape their beliefs at all except when it comes to recognizing perceptions or probabilities secondary to purely logical truths.  Some rationalists might lapse in certain ways or for a time, uncharacteristically lowering their philosophical accuracy, but not only can they catch themselves without the need for someone else to prompt them, but this does not reflect on them as a philosopher in other areas.  Non-rationalists, to the contrary, are defined by their stupidity no matter what they happen to dwell on or acknowledge, for they lack an awareness of or submission to the logical axioms that all things hinge on.

Now, truth is correct and verifiable things are verifiable no matter how many errors someone believes.  It is not that people need to avoid irrationalism because they might otherwise slip into an even greater, more fallacious irrationalism or as if there is some arbitrary number of errors which only then make a person irrationalistic.  There is no justification for believing in anything false or assumed, for to assume even something trivial is to believe without logical proof and to deny or disregard the laws of logic is the ultimate betrayal of reality.  All the same, errors are seldom believed alone, and the more someone believes in irrational metaphysics or epistemology, the more likely they are to be open to even more irrationality, if not to outright diving into more of it.

Slaves To Philosophy

Some try in vain to "distinguish" philosophy from science or theology, as Stephen Hawking did in his book The Grand Design.  Here, he stupidly declared that philosophy is dead and that science has taken its place.  Philosophy is about the nature of reality, and scientific concepts and religions are by logical necessity, which is the true arbiter of all things, true or false, since they pertain to the nature of reality.  It is reason that governs all rather than God or the cosmos.  If anyone is not a rationalist, at best they are a passive fool neglecting what is self-evident and necessarily true, and at worst, they are an utter hypocrite.  Rationalism is inherently true since reason's falsity would still require its veracity.  Now, someone could reject reason without rejecting all forms of philosophy (as in, irrationalistic philosophy of one kind or another), but philosophy cannot be "rejected" without rejecting reason.

This irrational and therefore necessarily false philosophy is that philosophy is irrelevant or untrue, when there is no single philosophical concept to begin with (and thus some are true and some are false, independent of verifiability), and everything about reality, including every person's beliefs, is inherently philosophical in nature.  There is no exception for religions or scientific paradigms like those proposed by Hawking, as these are just philosophical ideas or systems with particular foundations or an emphasis on certain aspects of or ideas about reality.  All of them are true or false, possible or impossible, and verifiable or unverifiable in accordance with what is dictated by the necessary truths of logic, not customs, beliefs, or subjective preferences, emotional appeal, or persuasion.

We are one and all slaves to philosophy, and the very idea that this is not true contradicts itself, being a philosophical one.  It is just that being a slave to philosophy does not mean that the philosophy in question is true or even logically possible.  It also does not mean that this slavery is a state the person is aware of or intentionally celebrating.  Some go about their lives never beginning to intentionally comprehend logical necessity or anything more abstract than their immediate emotionalistic preference or lifestyle pragmatism.  Others might think themselves more in alignment with reality, as did Hawking by all appearances, despite holding to contradictions as the very core of their worldview.  Only logical necessity is true in itself, and thus only logical necessity could validly be the core of anyone's worldview--yet this transcends and undergirds any scientific or religious concept.

Only when someone refuses to submit to what is true independent of all other things (the laws of logic) would they ever even seriously entertain for more than a moment the idea that philosophy is wholly false or irrelevant to reality.  After all, it is reason's inherent truth, objective in every supreme sense, that makes contradictions impossible to begin with.  Everyone is a slave to philosophy of some kind.  Being a slave to rationalistic philosophy can only be brought about by choice since it involves the active, voluntary, thorough rejection of assumptions and a clinging to logical axioms.  Of course, then someone would not dare think that anything but reason could be the heart of reality and what all else depends upon.  As simple as it is, since there could be nothing more foundational than what cannot be false because then it would still be true, rationalism is too abstract for the petty minds of the masses to naturally seek out.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful, and it is true in itself whether you like it or not.