Revelation 20 And Annihilationism

Does the description of hell in Revelation 20 threaten or refute annihilationism, the position that unsaved humans will not be tortured endlessly in hell but will eventually be vaporized?  Recent thoughts on annihilationism have led me to think about this chapter of Revelation and the argument based on it that believers in eternal conscious torment use to support their conclusions.

The first verse from Revelation 20 to be mentioned here is below:

Revelation 20:10--"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown.  They will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

Four verses later the following is written:

Revelation 20:14-15--"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.  The lake of fire is the second death.  If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

Believers in eternal conscious torment sometimes reference Revelation 20 as if it refuted the whole of annihilationism.  But even though the beast and false prophet are clearly said to suffer eternal conscious torment in Revelation 20:10, nowhere does the text say that OTHER unsaved humans (I say other humans although some believe that the beast and false prophet are not even human figures) will receive the same fate.  It does not say that they will be tormented forever.  As described frequently elsewhere in the Bible (Matthew 10:28, Romans 6:23, Ezekiel 18:4, John 3:16, Psalm 37:20, etc), they are ultimately destined for destruction, a total cessation of existence in any form.  The fallacy of composition is committed by those who assume that because the beast and the false prophet will be tormented "day and night forever and ever", all unsaved humans will be tormented endlessly also; what is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole.

If the beast and false prophet are indeed evil humans and not malevolent spiritual entities, as premillennialists believe, then why are they tormented forever while other humans are not?  To answer, first let me compare their destiny to that of Satan and his demonic cohorts.  In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus twice states that hell was prepared for the devil and his angels, with Jesus mentioning in Matthew 18:8 that hell is "eternal fire" (though it does not in any way follow that humans--at least other than the beast and false prophet--will suffer consciously forever [1]).  Hell was not even intended for humans to begin with!  It seems that Satan and his demons will indeed suffer eternally, yet the Bible teaches the opposite about unsaved humans (with the possible exception of the two besides Satan mentioned in Revelation 20:10).  See the link at the bottom of this post if you need to see proof that the Bible teaches that ultimately destruction, not eternal conscious torment, awaits wicked men and women.  The reason that Satan and demons will/might be tormented endlessly could involve one of two factors or both: 1) they are ontologically different beings than humans are and are not said to be made in God's image as humans are (Genesis 1:26-27), and 2) their rebellion against God was entirely due to their own pride whereas humans sinned after being tempted by Satan.  Now, if Satan and his demons will be tormented forever because of one or either of these two facts, then perhaps the beast and false prophet can be placed in a category like theirs, or, if the two are spiritual and not human beings as some suggest, they could be in the same categories as Satan and his demons anyway.

If this seems too complex or complicated an answer to explain the two (possibly human) exceptions to the annihilation of wicked humans, remember that other passages in the Bible undeniably say that the wicked will be vaporized.  For instance, 2 Peter 2:6 says that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and burned them into ashes, adding that God will do the same to the wicked.  Are Sodom and Gomorrah still on fire?  Hell no (couldn't resist)!  Verses like this prove that unsaved humans will indeed be annihilated and not tormented perpetually, so I am not assuming annihilationism and then manipulating Revelation 20 to conform to that position; I can prove that the Bible says the wicked will be annihilated (again, if the beast and false prophet are humans they are the only two human exceptions mentioned) and thus I am not twisting Revelation 20:10-15 in a way that contradicts that truth.

So, does Revelation 20 teach that unsaved humans will be tormented day and night endlessly?  At most, this chapter says this about Satan and his two assistants called the beast and the false prophet, who may not even be fully human entities.  Nothing is said about how the people judged before God's throne and the book of life in verses 11-15 will suffer eternal conscious torment--this is because the Bible elsewhere says that their fate is destruction, permanent death of the soul (Ezekiel 18:4, Matthew 10:28), and to become ashes (2 Peter 2:6).  They will perish (John 3:16), not be tortured forever.  Revelation 20 does not contradict or threaten this doctrine that is explicitly taught elsewhere in the Bible.

[1].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-annihilationism.html

Foreknowledge Is Not Predestination

If I were a telepath like Charles Xavier, I could bring someone to a restaurant and, reading my companion's thoughts, know what he or she plans on choosing to eat.  Now, the fact that I knew that my friend would order a particular meal does not mean that I caused that decision--I merely knew about it in advance.  I did not somehow negate the free will of my friend by choosing a meal for him or her in advance and leaving my friend with only the illusion of free will.

If some people understood that this is how God's foreknowledge works, I think much needless theological controversy would be quelled.  It is crucial, after all, for people to know the distinction between foreknowledge and predestination.  Foreknowledge is just knowledge of what will happen in the future, while predestination is causally determining something to unavoidably happen in the future.  An immense difference between the two exists--the two are in no way synonymous!

In Milton's Paradise Lost, this fact is highlighted extensively and very logically.  The purpose of the poem stated at beginning is to justify the ways of God to man, and a significant way that this objective is carried out is by continually emphasizing the fact that human sin is a result of misuse of free will and that God's foreknowledge of the Fall does not mean he caused it.  All throughout the poem these two facts are illuminated.  And it is not just Paradise Lost, but the Bible that promotes this position.

To help demonstrate the difference between predestination and foreknowledge, let me demonstrate the inevitable logical results if God had predestined certain things instead of foreknowing them.  Allow me to show several verses:


John 3:16--"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

2 Peter 3:9--"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness.  He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

1 Timothy 2:3-4--"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."


These verses emphasize the desired universality of salvation--that is, God does not only want some people to be saved.  But the belief that God appoints some people to salvation and others to damnation by himself and himself alone contradicts the clear meaning of these verses.  In fact, if God predestines the salvation of everyone in the sense of denying them free will in the choice of salvation, then 1) God does not have a free, mutual relationship with Christians and 2) God is the sole obstacle between the unsaved and salvation.  This would even make God responsible for at least certain evil actions of human beings, for rebellion against God is a sin and only through salvation in Christ do we come out of a state of ontological rebellion (Ephesians 2:1-5) into a restorative relationship with God.  It would also signify that God will punish and ultimately annihilate people in hell [1] for a choice that they could never make.

Also, the fact that God is outside of time allows him to grant humans knowledge about the future through what we call prophecy.  Here is one prophesy in the Bible about the fall of Babylon:


Isaiah 13:15-16--"Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword.  Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished."


If God merely foreknew these actions and yet allows humans to make their evil choices of their own volition--because God cannot seek a free and loving relationship with humans if he also forces them to act in certain ways--then these passages are examples of God's foreknowledge.  However, if God predestined these events, that means that he caused, for instance, rape, something that in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 he prescribed the death penalty for and called a grievous sin equal in depravity to murder.  Do you see the difference?  Whether or not God predestines such events or has foreknowledge of them makes a huge difference as to his own nature and character!

I hope that readers understand why it is so crucial to distinguish between foreknowledge and predestination and why God is a distinctly different deity depending on which he operates with.  The ramifications of saying that God "predestines" someone's salvation or an act of evil are not minor, nor can hyper-Calvinists simply dismiss them.  Foreknowledge is not synonymous with predestination--and much is at stake depending on which one is true.  Thankfully, God foreknows without interrupting the free volition he imbued into humans, merely observing the future from his atemporal perspective.


[1].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-annihilationism.html

The Nature Of Conscience

Conscience is a thing which many people do not seem to understand.  The word itself is the term referring to the sense of moral outrage or relief seated in our moral feelings; it is our sense of right and wrong.  Rightly so, the Bible describes it highly, as it was implanted in humanity by God.  Romans 2:14-15 describes it as causing us to perceive ourselves to be justified or condemned according to our actions:

"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"

What is the nature of conscience, its significance, and its fatal weakness?  Is it sufficient grounds upon which to believe in the existence of morality?  Is it reliable?  Is it sacred?

Conscience seems innate in most people--by this I mean that many claim to possess and act as if have moral feelings or preferences that are not learned by societal conditioning.  I know that I myself have had moral ideas not obtained from my culture or family because they disagreed with what my family and culture actually taught.  However, I do not mean by this, as some Christian apologists state or imply, that we can have any certain moral knowledge from our conscience or that we can "just know" that a moral claim is true.  A written example of people claiming that certain moral truths are self-evident would be the Declaration of Independence, which declares that the following content of the document is held to be "self-evident" by its authors and contributors, including the moral judgments made against the king of England at that time and the moral rights credited to all humans.  But something is not self-evident because it strikes someone as seemingly obvious or because most or all people agree upon it; something is self-evident if its denial brings the denier into contradiction.  For instance, someone who denies that truth exists, that some knowledge is possible, or that logic is reliable contradicts himself or herself as soon as he or she articulates or thinks such a thing, because such truths as the ones being denied are unavoidable, necessary, and self-verifying.  Moral claims do not have this property and thus are not self-evident.

This has not stopped apologists like William Lane Craig from acting like moral truths are self-evident or telling people (at the very least, strongly implying to people) that they can trust their moral intuitions and emotions in and of themselves.  Of course, these apologists rarely acknowledge the dramatic differences in moral beliefs across societies or how subjective conscience really is.  As shocking as it may seem to some people, conscience did not prevent the ancient Spartans from practicing state-authorized infanticide of babies with birth defects; it did not keep the Nazis from experimenting upon, scapegoating, discriminating against, abducting, and gassing Jews; it did not stop the Romans from normalizing war rape, torturing people to death for up to weeks, or denying natural/Biblical rights to non-citizens; it did not keep the Assyrians from taking pleasure in flaying the skin from captives in military campaigns.  Since conscience is an emotive and malleable thing, even cultures which share similar values like justice or patriotism have such wildly differing specifics that their moral philosophies are irreconcilable, far from being similar in any comforting sense.  Because of the subjectivity of conscience someone's moral sense can easily be rerouted, deadened, and changed by societal conditioning.  This is why countries with allegedly the same values have engaged in such different moral practices and held such opposing moral beliefs past a superficial level.  Just because humans generally have an innate moral sense does not mean that those moral feelings or senses agree on any extensive level.

The error of some in secular society is to conclude that because people and societies do not ultimately have the same moral practices and beliefs, therefore there are no moral truths.  Of course individuals and cultures disagree wildly about morality!  But that has nothing to do with whether or not objective moral truths exist.  Objective morality simply means that some things are right or wrong regardless of the context, culture, era, intentions, etc.  Obviously, no amount of disagreement on ethics or hopefulness that moral responsibilities do not exist will ever affect any existing moral obligations, as they would exist independent of human preference, perception, and awareness.  To believe that no moral truths exist because people disagree is to base one's belief in the nonexistence of morality on a major non sequitur fallacy, for it does not follow from disputes about morals that therefore moral truths do not exist; appealing to moral disagreement is grounds for moral skepticism, not moral nihilism.

With the definition of conscience and an explanation of why moral truths are not self-evident presented, now I can explain the usefulness of conscience.  Conscience is subjective, thus unreliable as a source of moral epistemology.  This is demonstrated by its sometimes arbitrary conclusions and by the astonishing lack of consensus between cultures, eras, and individuals about what the specifics of morality are.  I am not saying that morality is subjective but that without special divine revelation everyone is at best lost in subjective moral views with no way to determine who is correct.  However, precisely because conscience is so intimate and subjective, it therefore can restrain the the actions of individuals although it is an unsound foundation for an actual moral system.  Guilt can serve as such a strong emotion or sensation that it will prevent people from doing things they feel are wrong even though no one is around--or they may feel terrible about things they have done in complete solitude, with no way to be found out by others.  Indeed, conscience can be very subjectively compelling, but it never can amount to a reliable basis even for belief in morality, as it does not follow from the fact that I have a conscience that there is even such a thing as morality itself.  But if we inhabit a moral universe, any conscience at all is better than no conscience, so despite its subjectivity, it can at least offer some moral motivation and perspective.

If God did not exist, there would be no such thing as a moral authority in the universe.  There would be nothing to imbue a moral dimension into human existence and humans would merely have arbitrary, malleable, shifting moral emotions or perceptions that they either inherited from a particular society or that they happen to subjectively experience on their own.  This allows for things like murder, adultery, perjury, injustice, bestiality, robbery, racism, and the slave trade to be inherently wrong and for things like giving to the poor, kindness, justice, and honesty to be inherently good, as God's existence provides an actual ontological justification for moral truths.  If God does not exist, there is no philosophical anchor for morality.

It is the facts that 1) morality cannot exist unless God exists and 2) conscience is unreliable which mean that, since morality is tied to the existence and nature of God, God must reveal morality to us for us to have any actual moral knowledge.  Left to myself, I can know that I strongly dislike rape, kidnapping, and racism, but in order for me to actually know that those behaviors are morally wrong I must have God specifically reveal moral ontology to me--and know that I have correctly judged these moral ideas to come from God.  That is, I cannot simply select a religious text at random and say that I "have faith" in it, I must actually have consistent and verifiable [1] reasons why I believe that this divine revelation is true.  Likewise, I cannot legitimately assume a religion is true and then say that anyone who believes in logic at all has to also assume along with me that my specific religion is true to have a basis for believing in logic; this is the error of Christian presuppositionalists, who believe that one is justified in simply presupposing Christianity (but not Islam, Mormonism, Judaism, or Wicca, though!) and that any logical or moral claim operates within a philosophical framework borrowed from Christianity, consciously or unknowingly.  Instead of presupposing either Christianity or the truth of my moral preferences, I can provide extensive evidence for Christianity as a worldview and then point to particular verses in the Bible as grounds for condemnation of certain actions.

As a Christian I cannot just point to Romans 2 and say, "See!  Every person knows morality deep down inside!"  This is obviously false considering the information I have presented.  Just because most people have some loose moral principles that they find themselves compelled by their hearts to act upon does not mean that they actually know the details or ontology of morality.  So when Christians read Romans 2 and ignore these facts, they arrive at the belief that conscience is a sufficient basis for moral beliefs when they are in reality in grave error.  Conscience can be compelling, it can be moving, it can be powerful--but it is not inherently reliable.


Summary of observations:
1. Most people have innate moral intuitions, feelings, or preferences.
2. These moral intuitions, feelings, and preferences are subjective and thus by themselves do not serve as an adequate basis for moral knowledge.
3. Moral truths are not self-evident.
4. Conscience can restrain the actions of individuals even though it is only a subjective and sometimes arbitrary impulse.
5. Morality does not exist if God does not exist.
6. Actual moral knowledge, as opposed to moral feelings or perceptions, must be revealed by God.


[1].  In this context I mean verifiable in the sense that I can verify it to the best of my ability considering my epistemic limitations.  For instance, I cannot verify in the truest sense the existence of atoms no matter how many scientific experiments I run and monitor, but I can verify using my experiences that unless the world is different than I perceive atoms do exist.  There is a sharp division between things I can prove and know with absolute certainty (meaning there is no way I could be incorrect) and things which seem true based on my experience but could still be false.  While I can prove that an uncaused caused that I call God exists, I cannot prove that it is the Christian God, and so I am left with the ability to make an excellent case for Christianity based on the world as it appears to me (history, science, etc).

A Critique Of My College Education

Certain aspects of my college education at HBU have been demanding my attention--and unfortunately not because I find them engaging, enlightening, and beneficial!  After almost two years in the HBU honors college, it is time for me to formally criticize it.  The goal of education is to instill knowledge in students; this is the end of schools and universities.  But, as educators should know, there are legitimate and illegitimate ways to teach if the objective is to enable or encourage students to find and seek truth.

The format of the HBU honors college that I will critique is as follows: students read excerpts from or the entirety of various classical works--starting in my case with The Iliad and The Odyssey and moving to works by Plato, Augustine, Calvin, Shakespeare, etc--and then discuss the contents twice a week in sessions lasting two hours and five minutes.  There is nothing intrinsically flawed with using this format to educate, yet it is applied in a terribly inefficient way if the goal is to actually find truth about God, Christianity, and objective reality.

Here I will outline six problems with the honors college's approach to education about theology and philosophy and highlight why they are obstacles to an impactful education.

Honors college students and faculty have habits of:


1).  Reading books too quickly.

First of all, the professors seem to expect us to spend more than two hours per book for two books a week when other classes and familial and personal obligations also exist in our lives.  Second, they expect students to read and understand these books within just a few days before they move on to the next book.  If these texts are truly so insightful, why not spend more time focusing on one and actually learning to understand it instead of constantly cycling through books at such a rate that it is perhaps impossible to absorb the contents of everything that we are assigned to read?  But instead, students move from book to book at a speed that likely hinders a deeper appreciation or contemplation of some works--and in the process they even read poetry collections from poets like Petrarch, which are sometimes completely out of place among the philosophical works we read.  Overall, we read up to around 20 books for this class alone, in addition to all of our other textbooks.  It seems very irrational to expect all students to remember or care about the contents of each book read in the honors college when some of them might scarcely have time to even keep up with the reading as it comes.


2).  Paying lip service to logic and reason while selectively living according to them.

Those inside the honors college enjoy telling people who say "I feel . . ." that they should instead say "I think . . .", as if everyone who uses the word feel instead of think literally mean that they are ruled by emotion.  Sometimes people just use the word feel but mean that they are thinking something.  Anyway, the real irony is that almost all of the people I have met inside this group base their core moral beliefs around natural law, otherwise known as conscience (in and of itself nothing but subjective, malleable emotion), and believe in God at least in part due to subjective experiences/sensations.  So they want to imply that people who use the word "feel" are in some sort of intrinsic error as the very foundations of their worldviews are drenched in subjective feelings, assumptions, and emotional preferences?  Oh, the irony!

Now, let me describe a more recent problem.  In the honors college I have met people who astoundingly denied self-evident truths, including the reliability of logic and their own existences as conscious, thinking minds.  Remember that by self-evident I do not mean arbitrary beliefs that subjectively strike me as obvious or preferable; I mean truths that cannot be denied without immediate contradiction.  Some of the students have criticized me for attacking the logical fallacies of Socrates and then turned around later only to tell me that nothing is knowable at all, including logic, meaning they cannot know if they or Socrates are right, in turn meaning these students have no grounds to oppose my epistemology on.  One student, within the same 24 hours, went from directly telling me that I cannot know with absolute certainty if I exist or am thinking to telling me that people who deny consciousness are irrational, because even if everything around me is an illusion my consciousness cannot be, or I couldn't perceive the illusion to begin with.  Hilariously, she told me I can't know if my mind exists and then told me that to deny my consciousness (and therefore my existence) is stupid just a day later!  At least some of these people honor reason with their words before arbitrarily using and ignoring it, telling me I cannot trust logic as they use logic to argue with me.


3).  Focusing on just how to tell what texts say instead of how to verify or falsify truth claims.

There is extremely little emphasis in class on actually using logic to verify or falsify claims, as most of the focus is invested into relentlessly scouring various passages and debating their intended meaning.  But what good is knowing Locke was an empiricist if you won't invest time into demonstrating that empiricism is or isn't true?  Reading about Plato's forms and reincarnation (recollection) theory of knowledge, Descartes' rationalism, and Locke's empiricism without actually examining who was factually and verifiably correct can lead to great anxiety and even despair in the lives of students who do not know how to verify or falsify a claim properly.  After all, Plato, Descartes, and Locke cannot all be right simultaneously about what the starting point of knowledge is.  If all that philosophy classes amount to is a perpetual comparison of ideas, then no knowledge about reality is necessarily gained, only knowledge about what various conflicting ideologies say about reality.  There is an enormous difference.

Also, intelligence can have absolutely nothing to do with one's knowledge of Shakespeare, Plato, or Augustine--knowledge of these authors is a sign of education, not intelligence, critical thinking, or rationality [1].  Just because someone knows about Socrates and Shakespeare does not make that person intelligent, as no amount of stored information about famous dead people alone will ever indicate the presence of a rational mind.  I fear that some honors college students are unaware of this.  No, I don't need to read the "classics" to be or become more intelligent, and no one else needs to either.  I just need to grasp and utilize logic well to be intelligent.


4).  Pursuing irrelevant or unanswerable questions instead of relevant or answerable ones.

Questions like "What lies between heaven and earth in Hamlet?" are asked by the professors in class--as if that question has any relevance to our lives or actual epistemology or spirituality.  Now, this question has a simple answer.  In Hamlet purgatory seems to be between heaven and earth, as the alleged ghost of Claudius hints.  But that was not enough.  Usually, as in this case, answering questions using logic and an example from the book being discussed only results in people denying or dismissing the obvious, hunting around the book for tangents, and trying to out-speculate each other with unverifiable hypotheticals in the name of the pursuit of knowledge!  In this case, my class literally spent two hours searching for miscellaneous references to the words "heaven" and "earth" in Hamlet.  A fellow honors college student that I trust has told me of a professor spending an entire class period (two hours and five minutes in this class) speculating why Shakespeare used the words "Hence, hence, hence" altogether in a triple usage of the word hence.  How is this useful?  How is this profitable?  How does this qualify as intellectually stimulating, spiritually motivating, or a wise use of our time?  Many of the questions class sessions are oriented around are either irrelevant or simply unanswerable, as any answer proposed will rest on unverifiable and unfalsifiable speculation and not actual knowledge of truth.

As someone who has deeply struggled intellectually and personally with the limitations of epistemology, the weight of selecting a worldview, and absurdism (the belief that meaning cannot be verified or falsified and thus human existence is absurd), I know how frustrating, embittering, and frightening it would have been for me to have relied on the teachings of the honors college professors to illuminate spiritual and metaphysical truths to me during such times.  When someone who earnestly seeks after truth does not have understanding of the answers to crucial questions, despair is the often outcome of this ignorance.  The professors of the HBU honors college may denounce my culture's postmodernism (while straw manning it and implicitly equating it with relativism [2]!), but their relentless comparison of ideas and epistemologies rarely, if ever, accompany actual proof or refutation of those ideas and thus they are subtly, perhaps even unconsciously, encouraging illegitimate types of skepticism and lack of ideological commitment.  I am no longer surprised that I have encountered people in this environment who have both embraced the honors college mentality and denied that they can have absolute knowledge of anything--including the existence of the self and the reliability of logic.


5).  Implying that most authors have concealed secret, esoteric knowledge into many of their sentences.

If an author is very difficult to understand all of the time because most of his or her sentences require intense examination, then that author is a deplorable communicator.  Likewise, an author who intentionally uses ambiguous language is not making the purpose of his or her writings accessible to readers.  If someone's books are as esoteric as the honors college sometimes acts, then I have no reason to believe that we even have any ability to discover the meaning.  Jesus did use allegorical and esoteric language in some of his parables--but he often clarified and defined terms and meaning so that his listeners (and readers) would not have to speculate and invent nonexistent meanings for his words, like in the case of the parable of the sower.


6).  Elevating philosophers and authors who were wildly irrational to high statuses just because of their impact on history.

For instance, Socrates and Plato are held in very high regard by many people in the HBU honors college, yet the beliefs and explanations of Socrates are full of logical fallacies, especially non sequiturs, a fallacy meaning a conclusion does not follow from a premise.  One example is how in Meno Socrates sees a slave solve a math problem and concludes that this demonstrates that the slave is recollecting information from a past life--Socrates thought that a slave's ability to perform mathematical calculations verified his own beliefs about reincarnation and the recollection of knowledge from previous lives, when this does not follow at all!  Yet, in Apology, alleged record of the trial of Socrates before his death, Socrates says he does not believe what he cannot know and claims that no one knows what comes after death, both of which completely contradict his claims in Meno.  Another example of fallacious reasoning is in Meditations on First Philosophy when Descartes posits that God is not malicious and would never deceive him, a very question begging conclusion which deductive reasoning and natural theology alone cannot support.  If I am a logical person, I will call out these fallacies and refute them, yet students and professors I am around have defended these absurd assertions.

No, I won't accept a proposition because of the renown or impact its proposer had; that would be to commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.  No, it is not rational or intelligent to view people highly just for the sake of continuing an inherited scholarly tradition of honoring these people (appeal to tradition).  No, the prominence of someone's books is not a reason for me to respect someone or care about their conclusions.  No, a text is not "great" just because it had an impact on society.  Richard Dawkins has had an impact on my culture, and no rational person would classify his books as "great works".


These are all things that either communicate to me that the HBU honors college faculty do not prioritize the pursuit of demonstrable truth or they do a very poor general job of applying their goals into the classrooms.  The presence of these things seems to indicate that mere education is being emphasized over development of actual intelligence or verifiable knowledge (again, see [1]), much less spiritual renewal or the bringing of people directly to God.  I hope that other philosophical Christian circles avoid these same mistakes!


[1].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-difference-between-intelligence-and.html

[2].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/postmodernism-clarifying-straw-man.html

The Difference Between Intelligence And Education

Education alone does not make someone intelligent.

As I sat in some of my college courses earlier this week, I began thinking about what distinguishes mere education from true intelligence.  It seems to me that people sometimes interchangeably use the terms "intelligent" and "educated" without understanding the explicit distinction between the two.  Though there may not seem to be a difference, allow me to define and separate both words.

Intelligence is the ability to understand and utilize logic; education is the process of being taught about certain information.  You could easily have one without the other.  Someone can be educated without being intelligent or intelligent without being educated.  Just knowing information about history, science, or literature does not make someone intelligent, it only makes that person knowledgable.  I have seen people confuse the two when they call someone "smart" just for recalling some historical fact or for knowing the contents of a classic book.  Likewise, intelligence is not marked by articulate speech, although this may be present in the life of someone who is intelligent.  Signs of intelligence include questioning beliefs, noticing the logical deficiencies of claims, and wanting to not just know information but know if that information is true or false.

It is important to be aware that someone educated will not necessarily use reason extensively or carefully.  I sometimes get the impression that people I am around at the HBU honors college mistake their increasing knowledge of classical literature, history, different theological beliefs, and awareness of various philosophies for signs of great intelligence.  Intelligence can indeed grow, however.  While it seems that people are born with differing levels of tendency to employ logic and different immediate capacities to comprehend it, people can definitely increase their fluency with using logic.  Thus, with intelligence defined as the ability to understand and use logic, this means that people can voluntarily increase their intelligence.

This news can serve as great comfort to people who want to become more intelligent!  After all, it reveals that we do not have to remain stuck at the same level of intelligence for the duration of our entire lives.  This process will require consistent dedication and intentionality, though--it won't simply occur on its own!  But do not think that this goal is unattainable.

Examples Of Fallacies (Part 3)

No True Scotsman

"You're not a true man.  A true man does not pass up an opportunity like this."

"A true American would never not set off fireworks on the Fourth of July."


Hopefully the fallacy here seems apparent.  The no true Scotsman fallacy often deals with claims that someone is not a "true" or "real" something unless he or she acts in accordance with some arbitrary preference or social custom; it is an easy and invalid way for someone to ignore examples of people who contradict their stereotypes or expectations.  The name is derived from the scenario of someone who, upon hearing that someone born in Scotland puts sugar in his porridge, claims that "no true Scotsman" would ever do such a thing.  Consider the examples above.  If someone was born with a penis, he is a "true man" independent of whatever arbitrary cultural constructs or petty judgments he is held against.  A true American is just someone either born in America or who received legitimate citizenship through some other avenue.  The status as a "true American" has nothing to do with whether or not someone buys vehicles manufactured in America, votes for a particular candidate, has strong patriotic feelings or tendencies, views Americans as superior to foreigners, or has American flags around his or her house or neighborhood.


Circular Reasoning

"I know that the government is telling me the truth because the president said it is."

"You know why I believe the Bible is God's word?  Because 2 Timothy 3:16 says so."


Circular reasoning occurs when somebody uses what would be the conclusion of a syllogism as a premise or cites something as being true because it is true.  The law of identity is NOT circular reasoning, and neither is using logic to demonstrate the necessary reliability of logic.  Logic is self-evident; that is, to deny or doubt its existence or veracity one must be in contradiction.  But this is not the case with the reliability of the Bible or a government's leadership.  No one is in contradiction if he or she entertains the possibility that these sources are not accurate.  To verify them, one must search for additional evidence external to the source itself.


Anecdotal Fallacy

"There are just innate differences between men and women, and I have seen this in how the minds of my mom and dad worked differently."

"The way I know that Christianity is true is that I feel the Holy Spirit's presence when I pray to God or read the Bible."


Duh, the minds of a mother and father will probably work differently--they're different individuals!  When pressed to defend beliefs about things like non-biological or non-anatomical differences between men and women, people will inevitably retreat behind some subjective experience or conditioned response that not everyone else shares.  The anecdotal fallacy calls this out, as subjective experiences are often not a suitable basis for believing in conclusions about reality.  As highlighted in the second example I provided, it is not uncommon for many people who believe in God (Christians and other theists) to cite examples of times they have felt God's presence or experienced some subjective conviction they believe originated from God.  Sometimes this is even used to attempt to persuade people outside of a particular religion to adopt that theology.  However, these feelings or experiences are nothing more than subjective anecdotes that hold no ultimate value in rational discourse (as a Christian, I am not denying that these experiences exist or are very impactful, just that they have any value for apologetics or as evidence for a belief about God or morality).


Fallacy Fallacy

"Your conclusion is false because the argument you used to reach it had so many fallacies."


If I were to tell someone that something is not true just because he or she could not defend the belief in question without committing a logical fallacy, I would have succumbed to the fallacy fallacy.  Fallacious arguments alone do not necessarily mean that their conclusions themselves are false.  A conclusion can still be true even if someone has argued for it by using every logical fallacy know to humanity, as the presence of those fallacies only means that the grounds used to justify the conclusion were unsound and illogical.


Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy

"I just know that outsider is responsible for all of the problems our town has been having.  Ever since she came to us all sorts of terrible things have occurred."


Just because an event happens to coincide with the timing of another event does not mean that the latter was caused by the former.  Come on, just because a tornado starts in Kansas after I sneezed does not mean that my sneeze actually generated the tornado or caused it in any way!  And in the same way, just because a crime wave ended after a politician was elected does not mean that the politician's election and authority had anything to do with the diminishing of crime in the area.

The Fool Returns To Folly

"As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly."
--Proverbs 26:11


There are few things as frustrating to a rationalist as finding someone who, despite repeated correction, refuses to conform his or her mindset to reason.  The issue will very likely surface eventually if you try to intellectually engage other people in general.  I've experienced it many times.

On some occasions I have refuted and corrected positions on moral ontology and epistemology, the reliability of logic, gender stereotypes, and legalism, to name a few specific examples, only to find the people I corrected later lapsing back into the exact same fallacies and unsound arguments.  They returned into error after I once brought them to direct verbal admission that they were in error to begin with.  I have even heard people tell me--rarely, thank God--that they know that what I am telling them is logical, consistent, and demonstrable, but they will not amend their views to fit the truths I have explained.  Have you ever encountered this obstacle?

Why are some people so adamant about remaining in ignorance, contradiction, or error?  How do we who love truth handle someone like this?  There is no hope for the irrational mind except the deliberate internal transformation of the person who has that mind.  Unless an irrational person will consciously decide to change his or her attitude, that person will remain trapped in the chains of folly, ignorance, and fallacies.  As much as I hate the answer, we cannot do anything for such people except continue presenting reason and praying for them.  Such people must find the will and the desire to change themselves, for no person can change the mind and heart of anyone except himself or herself.  When a fool returns to his or her folly, this is one of the only strategies that you truly can rely upon.  If continual reasoning and compassion does not affect the irrational mind of a fool, then one of the only other options is to simply abandon the fool to folly and hope and pray that the fool changes.  Those who will not admit that they are logically incorrect or who will not change after conceding that they hold irrational or contradictory beliefs cannot be reasoned with.

The travesty of an irrational mind is that only it can liberate itself from irrationality, yet it is not likely to either recognize or rectify this.  There is little to do but repeat attempts to guide such a mind and then simply leave it to its own folly.

On New Testament Morals

What do Paul and Jesus mean when they refer to sexual immorality?  What is the Bible condemning when it condemns injustice?  How do we define what is sinful speech?  If you hope that the New Testament alone will enlighten you about these things, I'm sorry.  You will never obtain what you seek.  Anyone who bases his or her morality exclusively or mostly around New Testament passages is set up for ignorance, uncertainty, and subjectivity.

The New Testament is extremely vague much of the time when it comes to specific ethics.  For instance, several passages in the New Testament condemn malice, revenge, and lust.  Now, almost any conclusion about the definitions of these words will share at least a superficial overlap with the other conclusions.  But the New Testament itself rarely defines terms like lust or malice at all, much less with the kind of precision necessary to deduce a coherent and extensive moral system.  How do we know who is correct?  Some people will condemningly pull up Matthew 5:28 at the slightest hint of physical or sexual attraction and others will be alright with their spouses flirting with other people.  All of them can appeal to Matthew 5:28 as being compatible with or supportive of their positions, but who is actually right?  Some Christians oppose all capital punishment because they believe that to approve of it is to approve of revenge, which the Bible condemns (Romans 12:19).  Again, who is actually right?  Furthermore, what does "eye for eye" mean?  Jesus' reference to it in Matthew 5:38-39 alone is not going to tell anyone what the phrase even signifies to begin with.  Is it literal or is it figurative language for proportionality?  What crimes was this formula prescribed for?  The New Testament offers no illumination.

Many people are familiar with the phrase "love your neighbor as yourself."  But what does this even mean?  Good luck learning that from just the New Testament!  Some people argue that it means that the only moral obligation we have towards other people is to love them (whatever that actually means); some say it means we should not judge because judging other people is morally erroneous; others say it means that all slavery and capital punishment are wrong; still others say that it means that we should judge people and risk their irritation in order to present salvific truths to them, while others say it means something else entirely.  Of course, the phrase originally appeared in Leviticus 19:18 in Mosaic Law, a law that prescribes execution for slave traders (Exodus 21:16) but codifies consensual forms of slavery (Exodus 21:1-6), sometimes called indentured servanthood.  It is also a law that says to lawfully execute anyone who commits bestiality (Exodus 22:19) or strikes his or her parents (Exodus 21:15), which some people will subjectively feel is too harsh, while also saying to never degrade someone by giving him or her more than forty lashes (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), which some people may feel is too lenient or too cruel.  See, these issues are far too nuanced and complex to ever be understandable based on the New Testament alone.  The things people will likely conclude from the phrase "love your neighbor as yourself" will scarcely if ever conform to the actual Biblical meaning of that phrase.  Clearly the obligation to love other people did not mean that adultery isn't a capital crime (Deuteronomy 22:22) or that we should not morally judge each other.  Thus, to argue that loving one's neighbor means opposing the death penalty for adultery or not morally criticizing others is to argue for an irrational conclusion.

Basing ethics solely or mostly on New Testament principles inevitably sets people up for unanswerable questions.  How do we know, for instance, what, if any, forms of warfare, monarchy, self-defense, slavery, torture, or capital punishment are morally right and wrong?  Don't expect the New Testament to bestow grand moral revelations about these matters, because most of these things aren't even mentioned in it!  It is no surprise that many who believe that New Testament ethics somehow improve upon, supersede, or negate Old Testament moral obligations conclude that God was not ultimately concerned directly with eradicating the slave trade or extreme torture from the 1st century world and was more concerned with the subjective inner condition, thoughts, and attitudes of individuals than he was about abolishing imperialistic militarism, nationalism, emperor worship, gladiator fights, slave abuse, sexist social structures, institutionalized sadism, and a cruel legal system from the Roman Empire.  Though many will not outright articulate it like this, this is exactly what someone who thinks that the moral emphasis of and standard for God's people changed in between testaments truly believes.  This is ultimately what anyone believes who thinks that God released people from the judicial and moral standard of Mosaic Law in favor of a more introspective, heart-based ethical system.

There are many examples of the resulting subjectivity when Old Testament clarity is abandoned or forgotten.  The New Testament vaguely refers to sexual immorality in a manner that, on its own apart from the Old Testament, is impossible to interpret objectively.  Without the clarity and specificity of Mosaic Law and the Old Testament, people can read into the phrase "sexual immorality" whatever they personally find offensive or subjectively irritating in the realm of sexuality.  Similarly, any New Testament condemnation of "impure speech" will at best only be partially clarified by the New Testament itself.  Knowing Ephesians 5's prohibition of impure speech without knowledge of what God classified as verbal sin in the Old Testament will only produce people who arrive at all sorts of subjective, fallacious conclusions about what language is immoral and in what context even though they cannot all be correct simultaneously.  It always amuses me how many Christians claiming to want to honor God dismiss Old Testament ethical revelation to various conflicting degrees (when Jesus taught otherwise in Matthew 5:17-19), ignore what God said about upholding revealed obligations and not adding to them (Deuteronomy 4:2), set aside revealed obligations in favor of non-obligatory man-made rules (Matthew 15:3-9), and then submit to a kind of shifting cultural relativism that arbitrarily condemns amoral practices like profanity, social nudity, being alone with the opposite gender, drinking alcohol, and listening to secular music.

Now let's move on to justice and criminal punishment.  The most the New Testament ever clarifies about justice is that righteous governments will bring terror to the wicked and will not target the upright.  That is all Romans 13 details.  As an aside, Romans 13 is severely misinterpreted all the time.  The issue of terrestrial justice is rarely brought up at all (because God already dealt with it in a very specific manner).  So, as long as the government is a terror to criminals, it can implement whatever tactics and penalties its leaders desire?  Is justice relative to the sole objective of bringing terror to evildoers?  What sins are punishable crimes and which ones are not?  What crimes should be capital and which ones should not be?  What distinguishes just punishments from cruel and abusive, immoral punishments?  What courtroom procedure is morally mandatory and what is not?  The New Testament cannot help anyone answer these questions!

I hope that readers understand after reading this that the New Testament is not a sound foundation for ethics apart from the Old Testament it so commonly quotes.  However, there is no rift or contradiction between the two testaments.  They both illuminate the same God, a god whose nature never changes (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17, Hebrews 13:8).  Jesus did not come to abolish the legal system and interpersonal obligations he himself revealed in the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17).  The standard for objective morality did not improve or change between the testaments, because morality is part of God's nature and his nature does not change.  The reason God did not address so many moral issues in the New Testament is because he either already dealt with them in the Old Testament or because he grants us complete personal freedom in those areas as our consciences dictate (Romans 14:14).  Churches and individual Christians who emphasize New Testament ethical teachings over those from the Old Testament exchange specificity for vagueness and clarity for ambiguity, forgetting that the entire Bible is relevant and useful (2 Timothy 3:16), although the New Testament lacks a great deal of clarity and definition when it is separated from the Old Testament foundation it builds upon.  The New Testament without the Old Testament is little moral help at all in many areas.  This is simply a fact.

The Veracity Of The Apocrypha

The Bible is controversial, inside and outside of the church.  Anyone with experiential knowledge of the Bible and people's reactions to it realizes this.  Just as the Bible itself is controversial, so is a collection of books called the apocrypha which various denominations hold different stances towards.  Containing books like Judith, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, the apocryphal works remain highly controversial, partially because Catholicism allows these books into the canon of Scripture while Protestants exclude them from it.  The Old Testament apocrypha is a collection of more than ten books that people have dissented the divine origins of for centuries.  Versions of the Bible throughout history have included varying amounts of apocryphal works and have placed them in different locations throughout the Bible, sometimes after the New Testament books and sometimes in other spots.

Christians, my past self included, have labeled the apocrypha theologically false, although not completely bereft of historical insight, because it allegedly contradicts the Bible.  Now, I just admitted that I have used this argument in the past.  However, there is a major flaw in it.  That flaw is that the Bible itself, according to both non-Christians and Christians, can seem to have contradictions.  But many of the examples people often point to can be easily harmonized and therefore aren't really contradictions, just paradoxes or illusory problems or nuanced truth claims.  If the Bible can seem to possess contradictions without actually having any, then it is at least possible that the same is true about the apocrypha.

Of course the apocrypha may actually contradict the Bible, but I highly doubt that most Christians who believe that conclusion have given the same amount of thought to analyzing the alleged inconsistencies in the apocrypha as they have to figuring out if the Bible has contradictions or not.  I would need to read and study the apocrypha again before I make further specific claims about its individual books, but I have noticed that perhaps the most popular argument against the divine inspiration of the apocrypha simply isn't logically consistent with what Christians know elsewhere.  If the Bible is not full of contradictions though on a superficial level some may seem to exist, then Christians need to consider that the same is possibly true about the apocrypha.

Some of the apocrypha's books actually provide great insight into Jewish culture and attitudes.  Susanna is about how two evil men commit capital perjury against Susanna by accusing her falsely of adultery, exemplifying the process of Mosaic Law when it comes to trials, witnesses, and implementation of the Law (especially Deuteronomy 19:16-21).  1 and 2 Maccabees tell of how the Jews resolutely fought against foreign oppressors led by the historical figure Antiochus Epiphanes.  Bel and the Dragon recounts an alleged addition to the boom of Daniel where Daniel exposes the deceitful practices of a cult of the deity Bel and cleverly kills a dragon.  Either way, the apocrypha is not totally deficient of value from an academic or historical perspective.

Does the apocrypha legitimately belong in the canon of the Bible?  I do not know, but I do know that the falsity of some of its books does not mean that all of them are invalid, just as I know that the appearance of contradictions between the Bible and the apocrypha or the apocrypha and itself--or the Bible and itself--does not necessarily mean that any actual contradictions exist.  What I am about to say next is nothing more than articulation of a subjective preference, but I personally would rather appreciate the existence of books inspired by God outside of the Bible I carry around with me so frequently.  This would mean that we humans have been allowed more special revelation by God than many Christians have imagined to be the case--something I do not at all find unfavorable to me.  Though I will likely not have time to intensively read the apocrypha until the summer, I have indeed realized that some Christians, my former self included, have fallaciously and inconsistently judged the apocrypha to be false on very logically unsatisfactory grounds.  Until then, I am thankful for this realization.  It is time that Protestants at least admit their fallacies when they have resorted to unsound arguments in order to stave off an idea of the canon that is foreign and unfamiliar to them.

Game Review--Castlevania: Lords Of Shadow--Mirror Of Fate (3DS)

"Join you?  Look at me!  You've made me a monster, Father!  You've made me like you: a creature that thirsts for blood, filled with hatred.  You should have let me die that night."
--Alucard, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow--Mirror of Fate

". . . your fate has already been sealed and there is nothing you can do to change it.  I am sorry to say that you will not achieve your objective, and your wife and your son will suffer the consequences of your failure."
--The Lost Soul, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow--Mirror of Fate



My first Castlevania game was exciting to play, an epic and dark side-scrolling adventure through the rebooted Castlevania franchises' castle of Dracula.  The combat was fun.  The story arc was complex.  For specifics, see the usual categories below.


Production Values

The usually impressive graphics are aided by smooth movements and clear textures, but occasionally some pixelation occurs.  Some of the close-ups on enemy character models, especially bosses, are quite splendid, and the game's bestiary allows you to look at enemy models, some of them very detailed.  A few moments, like in Act III when an Executioner boss throws a hunchback towards the screen, even seem designed just for those who play the game with the 3D slider turned on.  Complimenting the visuals, a fitting soundtrack accompanies the player through the castle.  This may be tied with the voice acting as the aspect of the audio with the greatest quality.


Gameplay

Imagine a 2.5D God of War game.  That is Mirror of Fate.  Complete with chain-whips as weapons, quick time events, finishing moves, experience orbs, and magic attacks, Mirror of Fate is basically a marriage of the classic format and exploration of the side-scrolling Metroid games with the combat system from the God of War series.  The boss battles in particular benefit from the God of War-like gameplay, as some of them, like the fights with the Lady of the Crypt, Daemon Lord, and Dracula, culminate in quick-time events that resemble those in the renowned series about Greek mythology that helped popularize such game mechanics years ago.

Overall you get to control four characters from the Belmont family.  All of them use the same type of whip although they sometimes call them different names, meaning that the primary weapons have no true variation other than several limited additional powers you can obtain for them.  Killing enemies earns experience orbs and collecting the scrolls of dead knights provides additional experience, used to unlock more moves and combos.  Each of the three acts allows the newest character to retain the experience level and ammunition count of the previous one.  It's a nice touch, as weapons and abilities do not often transfer.

The touch screen is utilized well.  You can take written notes on the map or just place a dot on a particular area to mark something, though your quantity of notes is limited and the map for each room tells you how many items remain to be found in that particular area already, just not necessarily where.

Oh, I wanted to say that there's a part where a corpse with a note is found in a pipe, the note saying that even the dead man's brother Mario would be anxious because of the pipes, then saying the now-deceased man wanted to eat some mushrooms.  I guess Konami wanted to make Nintendo fans smile?


Story

Gabriel Belmont visits the external area around a castle to vanquish an evil presence there in the prologue, which really serves as a short tutorial.  The game skips around after this in a non-chronological manner.

Near the onset, a group called the Brotherhood of Light takes Trevor Belmont from his mother because the baby will become the only person who can stop Gabriel, who will become the infamous Dracula.  Trevor has a son named Simon who is the first playable character after Gabriel.  He wants to avenge his father's seeming death.  And thus he travels to Dracula's castle, a structure once inhabited by the Bernhard family, later to become a place where a vampire named Carmilla tortured a captive and malevolent sorcery took place.

The brief prologue centers on Gabriel Belmont as he seeks to vanquish the evil of the castle before becoming Dracula; Act I focuses on Simon trying to enter the castle and kill Dracula; Act II is about Alucard (SPOILER--a resurrected Trevor Belmont) resurrecting and seeking revenge on Dracula and helping his son Simon, an alternate take on the same period of time from Act I; Act III opens many years before Act I with Trevor going underneath a corrupted church in order to reach and investigate the castle.


Intellectual Content

Part of the intellectual content in Mirror of Fate consists of the occasional puzzle and the thinking skills of some players who backtrack to use new items to access more areas and collectibles in past rooms.  Some of the collectibles require some thought to reach even when the player clearly sees where they are on the screen or map, but many of them are not difficult to obtain.

Fate is personified by an entity called the Lost Soul which guides all three Belmonts after Gabriel into and through the castle.  The bestiary under the extras at the main menu says that "The Lost Soul is fate itself, the physical manifestation of the mirror."  Since the game starts with the events near the end of the story and then leaps back decades, the Lost Soul is first shown unable to speak, but players eventually learn that he could talk before Trevor struck him/it in a manner that shattered its mask and rendered it mute.  Its final words to Trevor before it never spoke again were as follows: "I know all.  I am here to make sure that everything happens tonight as it is supposed to happen.  I am here to guide you."  Strangely, just after explaining that it seeks to guide Trevor and Trevor dismisses his need for a guide, the Lost Soul informs him "your fate has already been sealed and there is nothing you can do to change it.  I am sorry to say that you will not achieve your objective, and your wife and your son will suffer the consequences of your failure."  Then Trevor strikes it.  Yet, although its voice was removed, fate still unfolded, inevitable and unstoppable.  The theme of fate is strong throughout the game.  The Brotherhood of Light takes baby Trevor from his mother because they foresee what Gabriel will become and want to shelter the child.  Alucard tells Dracula before their clash that fate has "given me a second chance".  The title of the game itself signals the theme of fate.  The tone of the story seems at times to emphasize the tragedy of fate, especially since you play through the story in a sequence where you know the outcome before the game ends and the final act shows how the situation developed to where it was already shown to be at the chronological finale.  Because of this, watching Trevor discover the castle and Dracula years before the chronological end of the game has more impact, as fate must be upheld.  The fact that the Lost Soul can claim that it needs to guide Trevor to his destiny and then say that fate is set no matter what Trevor does constructs a paradox of sorts, but not necessarily a logical contradiction.

Very interestingly, notes from dead knights indicate that they at least sometimes served the Brotherhood of Light out of dedication to God, even using weapons called combat crosses to fight demonic and evil creatures.  And not just a generic and undefined deity, but one with very Christian features.  I googled this to see what I could learn and it turns out that according to websites I read make it seems that God is actually prominently featured in the rebooted Castlevania: Lords of Shadow universe as a personal being who does not appear to directly interfere with human affairs.  This intrigues me, though this theme is probably far more developed in the other Lords of Shadow games.


Conclusion

I enjoyed the 12 hours and 21 minutes it took to complete Mirror of Fate at 100%.  By the way, those who find all of the collectibles will receive a bonus cinematic upon beating the game.  And this is a very atmospheric title.  It portrays a dark and bleak world.  One where fathers and their children are destined to combat each other because fate has deemed it.  A world where evil has centralized itself around a family and a location.  While I have not yet played either of the console Lords of Shadow games, playing this one was an enjoyable experience that made me wish for more such 3DS games to be made.  I would recommend this to anyone who loves Castlevania, exploration, a gothic atmosphere, and memorable enemies and bosses.


Content
1. Violence: Characters are impaled; zombies sometimes hurl their heads at the player; the hands of a boss in Act III are cut off before he is split in half.  The combat utilizes chain attacks, bombs, and magic used to defeat opponents.  A variety of finishing moves and quick-time events magnify the camera up close to show some killings.  The closest thing to gore in this game is when the boss I just referenced has his hands cut off and his body split apart.
2. Profanity:  Mild profanity like "damn" is used infrequently.
3. Nudity:  Harpy enemies that fly around above the player have exposed breasts.  Also, a scene near the end of the game shows Trevor Belmont walk into a room where multiple witches are chanting, their breasts also uncovered.
4. Sexuality:  In Act I Simon Belmont enters an area where women who appear to be prostitutes try to seduce him, with most of their bodies exposed (the body is not sexual but the context of this was), though none of their "private" parts were showing.  The leader, called the Succubus, tries to kiss Simon, turning to reveal wings before she attacks him.  The Succubus criticizes Simon for rejecting her before engaging in a semi-kiss with another woman, a portal between mouths with no actual lip contact, that creates a protective sphere around her.  Slightly later she repeats this process with more girls offscreen.  The girls make sounds of sexual excitement while creating the shields.

The Poisonous Offspring Of Complementarianism

Yesterday, thanks to the freedom of schedule spring break sometimes permits, I spent the majority of the day with my best friend, whose name is Gabi.  We enjoyed talking about many things throughout the day--memory, logic, theology, personal frustrations, and college.  During a conversation before and during lunch complementarianism came up among the multitude of topics.  Gabi recounted how a complementarian once told her that if a male and female pray together, the boy becomes the "head" of the girl and they are obligated to get married.  "Now we have to get married," I joked, leading to laughter from both of us because we had just prayed for our meal.

I found the situation humorous until I dwelt on the fact that some Christians actually believe this nonsense.  I mean, some Christians would already be uncomfortable knowing that me and Gabi are extremely close friends, hang out as frequently as possible, hang out alone, and discuss personal, spiritual, and existential matters all the time.  But the awareness that some complementarians add stupid beliefs like the idea that men and women who pray together must marry to all of this deeply irritated me as a rationalist and as a Christian and provoked thought.

While not actually part of complementarianism itself as a (mistaken) Biblical doctrine, many beliefs that complementarians individually or collectively champion or practice are poisonous to the unity and community of churches, the emotional and personal lives of individuals, marriages, and friendships.  I am going to list some of these things, but I will clarify right here that NOT ALL complementarians practice or believe some of the following ideas, though these absurd positions do damage the lives of others.


It is complementarians who, sometimes by necessity to even persuade others of their beliefs, encourage people to rely on what amounts to subjective, unshared preferences and feelings when investigating the alleged non-biological differences between men and women.

It is complementarians who can engage in extensive legalism to the point where they have incredibly bizarre thoughts about things like an unmarried man and woman praying together, as I mentioned above--or how a woman is morally bound to not work outside of the home.

It is complementarians who commonly segregate Christians based on gender for activities that do not require it at all, such as Bible studies, prayer meetings, and sometimes even driving from one location to another (logically and Biblically, there is no basis by which to even argue for gender segregation to begin with anyway).

It is complementarians who often fear or are not comfortable with the opposite gender and allow their irrational fear to guide their actions, impeding true fellowship and reconciliation between the two genders with asinine things like the Billy Graham rule [1].

It is complementarians who so frequently sexualize everything from friendship to emotional intimacy to the human body, usually with the ironic aim of preventing sexual immorality.  After they implicitly or explicitly sexualize much of human experience and interaction between males and females, they then wonder why so many people in the church are confused about sexuality and allegedly struggle with sexual sin!  These tactics often result in insecurity, jealousy, and anxiety in marriage due to the perceived overwhelming likelihood of a spouse committing adultery.

It is complementarians who are usually willing to perpetuate fallacious and untrue gender stereotypes inherited from a non-Christian society--even though other societies have held widely different gender roles and stereotypes!

It is complementarians who inconsistently say that wives should submit to husbands but both should love each other, despite Ephesians 5 not allowing for incoherent interpretation like that.  Either wives should submit to husbands--without the opposite or mutual submission ever happening--and husbands should love their wives--without the opposite or mutual love ever happening--or mutuality reigns in both regards [2].

It is complementarians who sometimes teach or imply that men have a closer or more direct spiritual status to/with God than women, though I am aware that some forms of complementarianism do not teach this.

It is complementarians who often refuse to admit when they have deviated from "Biblical" complementarianism into the subjective realm of arbitrary, unsound philosophies.


I do not reject complementarianism itself because some complementarians foolishly add to complementarianism using any or all of these beliefs.  But I do reject complementarianism for its fallacies, inconsistencies, and misinterpretation of the Bible.  Complementarianism itself is illogical and cannot truly be justified on the Biblical grounds its adherents will claim, but the ideological offspring its followers often submit to are inherently poisonous to sound theological frameworks, cross-gender relationships (both marital and non-marital), and individuals of both genders.  They say Christian men and women are brothers and sisters in Christ before falsely proclaiming how dangerous and tempting they are to each other.  They assert that they have understood God's Biblical "blueprint" for men and women and then disagree on what the applications of gender roles and differences are and even what those roles and differences are to begin with, unable to argue for their specifics apart from anecdotes, feelings, and preferences.  They claim a reliance on Scripture for their doctrine and then combine secular stereotypes and assumptions with their assumptive interpretation of the Bible.

Brothers and sisters, these things should not be.


[1].  The Billy Graham rule is an extra-Biblical legalistic rule that says men and women should never be alone with members of the opposite gender unless the people in question are their spouses.  The intent is to avert any possible "appearance of evil" in the realm of sexual immorality, but I have yet to see complementarians telling people on a large scale not to be alone with the same gender to prevent any possible homosexual acts.  Inconsistent people will just be inconsistent, I suppose.

[2].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-ephesians-5-does-not-teach-rigid.html

The Reliability Of Memory

Recently I posted an inquiry into the reliability of memory [1], and after providing myself with several days to think about the issue I have reached sound conclusions on the matter.  Memory is something that concerns us at every moment of our conscious experiences and perceptions.  After all, directly after the reliability of reason, no other faculty is so important to human learning.  Without reason we would not even be aware of our own existence or anything else at all; without memory we could never recall previously-learned knowledge.  The reliability of memory is crucial to the pursuit of truth.  If my memory did not work properly much of the time I might not even remember what I had hoped to write at the end of this paragraph or how to upload this post on my blog at all.  In fact, I might not remember how or what to eat and might unknowingly starve myself before I remember to eat again!

Verifying the reliability of our memory is a very urgent epistemic
concern.

I must remind my readers of a highly critical truth before I proceed much further.  The very fact that someone can have false memories means by necessity that the person has a memory to begin with, whether faulty or reliable.  It is impossible for someone without memory to have false memories at all.  All contemplation and discussion of the reliability of memory must acknowledge this core fact.  Now, with the existence of memory proven, confirming the reliability of it is the next objective.

If my memory was not reliable to a large extent, I would constantly be disoriented and would be unaware of my surroundings, goals, previous thoughts, and my very nature and identity.  I would be unable to consistently find my own bed at night and would fruitlessly hunt for everyday items all the time, unable to recall their locations or uses.  The fact that I am not always struggling to remember what I intended on doing when I arrived somewhere or always finding everything unfamiliar demonstrates to me that my memory is not totally or even mostly inaccurate, and the vast spectrum of information about philosophy and theology that my mind cycles through regularly indicates to me that I certainly do not have a blank mind scrambling to recall elusive or totally-illusory information.  False memory syndrome can exist in the lives of some individuals and afflict their minds.  However, someone who's memory always or usually failed would stumble around constantly in a perhaps unintelligible stupor, much like someone who could not innately grasp logic.

Besides, someone unsure of his or her memory's reliability can check certain things against evidence in the external world he or she perceives to verify or falsify them.  An example would be that someone forgetful of a password to an online account could access a written note of the password and type it into the computer or device by which he or she is trying to enter the account.  Someone memorizing a portion of a book can simply read the book and compare the actual words to the allegedly memorized ones in his or her mind.  If the perceptions of what is in the external world and the memories concur, then the consistency is the highest degree of support for the validity of a person's memory (regarding matters where this technique can be applied) one could ask for.  If two people disagree about something they both just witnessed and filmed, the best way to solve the dispute is to review the recording.

None of these facts mean that our memories are always reliable in the sense of never reporting false information, but my memory is reliable in the sense of providing me with enough information to ensure I am never totally incapable of recognizing the contents of my mind and facts about the external world.  I can demonstrate that denial of the existence of memory and belief that memory is wholly unreliable are both irrational, asinine, false positions.  Indeed, someone who argues that memory is entirely unreliable would undermine his or her own position--for if our memories are not reliable at all, he or she cannot even rely on his or her own memory to convey what the next stage of the argument is.  Like someone arguing that logic is not reliable, a person who claims that memory is entirely untrustworthy defeats himself or herself.

I hope that this information is useful, stimulating, and allows readers to experience the security that comes from knowing truth.  May those who seek truth rest in the comfort of recognizing the general validity of memory, even if occasionally it lets us down and deceives us.

We can demonstrate that we can trust our memories at least part of the
time, for we are not relentlessly stumbling around unaware and lost.

[1].  http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-enigma-of-memory.html

Media, Violence, And Women: A Sexist Combination?

"This is confusing!  Is it sexist to hit you?  Is it more sexist to not hit you?  I mean the line gets real . . . blurry!"
--Deadpool, Deadpool


Right now it is hip to criticize entertainment, especially in the form of video games or movies, that shows men inflicting violence on female characters.  As a fairly recent example of this,  X-Men: Apocalypse marketing material received this kind of illogical criticism last year when an image of the villain Apocalypse holding Jennifer Lawrence's character Mystique by the throat was used in a poster.  This is not an anomaly.  The God of War game series, which I have reviewed several installments of, has probably been criticized far more for its depictions of violence against females [1] than for the great brutality inflicted on any of the males in the games.  Other franchises have been attacked for the same reason.  Why is it that this stands out so much to some critics and consumers?  Why do some people think that it is wrong to show violence against women in media?  And are they correct?

I realize that some people will argue that this is necessitated or made a moral obligation by the fact that more women are victims of abuse and violence than men, at least in certain settings.  Despite the benevolent intentions of such an argument, that does not establish any objective moral obligation to be sexist by allowing posters or films showing male on male violence or female on male violence but not violence inflicted on a woman by a man.  That is just an argument made to appease emotion due to cultural sensitivity and does not reflect any objective, actual moral obligation.  To go beyond this into the claim that violence in media can actually cause anyone in real life to act in a certain way is to seek to support the same thesis with yet another fallacious argument--an argument even more absurd and illogical than the prior one.

Also, the visualization of an act onscreen or in a still image does not mean the material condones that act--partly because a movie or image can't condone anything (only the people in them or the people who created them can)!  Including violence in a story not only makes the story more true to life, but it can even be intended to subtly or blatantly condemn violence as a whole.  Another point is that while actual violence is largely evil, depictions of violence (or other sins) is amoral.  Where in the Bible does it say to not make or watch movies with violence?  To prohibit literature or films with violence would prohibit the Bible and any movies about it.  What else outside of divine revelation could one appeal to in order to condemn such films/posters?  Everyone will object to different quantities or types of violence in media; to ever draw a line other than the one I am outlining here and say "Past this it is too much!" is to succumb to simple logical fallacies based on subjective emotions, assumptions, and preferences.  The intentions of an author or director can be either good or evil; the internal reaction of a viewer can be either good or evil, but not the inclusion of violence itself.

But another problem--beyond the total lack of support for the position that depicting violence is in and of itself evil--with the type of feminists (I am a feminist myself depending on the definition used, as many different ideologies can claim the same title) who object to things like the poster with Apocalypse choking Mystique is that they object to entertainment very selectively and in a highly sexist manner.  I have never heard or read someone complain about violence against men as a whole in cinema.  Just violence against women.  So, do the objectors to films (or video games) with violence against women want equality or do they want to arbitrarily and inconsistently pay lip service to egalitarian gender equality while irrationally condemning depictions of violence against females while allowing or ignoring the opposite?  Each of these goals are different and mutually exclusive; they cannot be pursued at once.  Many who claim the title of feminist really want to elevate women above men under the guise of promoting equality, but you can know these hypocrites by their fruit.

Sadly, my society is extremely sensitive to any perceived threat against women but does not react identically towards abuse of men, whether by men or women.  It is considered appropriate or funny if a woman hits a man, at least in certain circumstances.  The reverse is not accepted, as recorded social experiments show.  If a man were to publicly hit a woman, people--other men especially--may probably begin aggressively challenging or even attacking him, which not only represents hypocrisy on their part but a ridiculous and sexist concern for female victims of male physical abuse that does not extend to the inverse.  But if a woman publicly hits a man, then people would probably not attack her or even urge her to stop.  The hypocrisy is blatant.  Unfortunately, this double standard extends to sexual harassment (and even rape).  Male sexual harassment of women is severely discouraged and despised, but even YouTube videos shows social experiments where women sexually harass men in public and no one objects.  Perhaps this is also related to the absolutely idiotic notion entrenched in the American mind that men always want sex but women generally desire it only with a deep, bubbly emotional connection.  I suppose that the people who believe this bullshit may view it as an explanation for why sexual harassment of women by men is near the epitome of evil but sexual harassment of men by women is funny, something the man should just accept or excitedly invite.  Then there's sexual assault.  I mean, where was the outrage when Deadpool was released and audiences saw a female character grab the penis of a man to overpower him for comedic effect?  I didn't hear anyone claim the movie was anti-men or promoted sexual assault against males, and I'm sure many found that scene funny as the creators specifically intended, yet people objected to a poster for X-Men: Apocalypse showing a villain choking a woman--an act portrayed as villainous in the movie, not as humorous!  And when it comes to rape, some Americans will viciously condemn rape of women and then laugh at jokes about rape of males in American prisons.  Female rape victims have access to great resources and social empathy, but male victims of female rapists are often overlooked, mocked, or greeted with the confusion of others about how to react.  Each of these examples is a disgrace to the goal of true gender equality.

I do not think anyone would have objected did the poster for Apocalypse show a man choking a man, a woman choking a man, or perhaps even a woman choking a woman.  Outrage over things like this merely reveal a hypocritical type of sexism against men and a logically fallacious but socially defended belief that every story that involves abuse of women is either supporting or unintentionally encouraging such abuse.  Remember, though, that I do not approve of gratuitous violence at all.  I am no pacifist, but I am certainly against all actual violence except for justified self-defense and the limited physical punishments outlined and prescribed in Mosaic Law.  That means that I hate illicit violence against both men and women, but I understand that the presence of violence against either gender in a movie or a poster does not indicate a condoning of that violence on the part of the creators or the audience.  To truly believe otherwise is to believe something that blatantly contradicts reason.

To make a movie or game that includes violence against women is in no way inherently sexist, immoral, or harmful to the goal of gender equality.  Including it in media is to acknowledge reality, avoid sexism, and hopefully use fictional examples of abuse and violence to motivate people to cease actual abuse and violence.  Are these things wrong?  I'd love to see anyone argue against those things in the name of promoting gender equality.


[1].  I find it odd that some people criticize God of War: Ascension for the way Kratos has to kill three primary female characters (the Furies), considering that I have not read a single article criticizing the way the three Furies severely tortured many individuals in their dungeon city, including Kratos!  But when he attacks and overpowers them in order to escape their relentless pursuit through which they seek to imprison him again and punish him for breaking a vow to Ares because Ares deceived him into killing his own wife and daughter, who are also women, people object because "it's violence against women!"  Logic, people.  It is helpful.

[2].  This also applies to depictions of other sins like sorcery, blasphemy, or sexual sins.  Writing about or visually depicting these things in and of itself is not good or evil.  How could it be?

The Enigma Of Memory

We are creatures that exclusively inhabit the present, yet our thoughts can often be directed towards the past or the future--although it is only the present that is directly and immediately experienced.  The past in particular can motivate us onward to change, adapt, grow, and achieve goals tied to our own personal longings and desires.  And how do we know our past?  Through the faculty called memory.  Memory is the recollection of past events stored in our minds, and it is of great cruciality to life and epistemology.  My cursory thoughts on the issue of memory are below and there is potential for more to eventually follow.

I have always drawn some degree of comfort from memories of earlier points in my life.  Nostalgia has been a major inspiration, motivation, and pleasure to me throughout my existence.  Similarly, some people's memories seem connected to their very identities, as if forgetting the past would make them forget themselves.  The question of the reliability of human memory is one that can strike at the core of our awareness of ourselves and everything else, yet it must be raised if we earnestly seek knowledge.  Whether stirred by hearing a companion recount a story about a shared experience that you remember differently, a scientist or philosopher speak about the limitations of human nature, or some other personal experience, the question will probably arise at some point in your life.  All of us, not just elderly men and women suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's, must consider this question.

Yet some who highlight the fallibility or malleability of memory might forget (sorry, I had to use this word here!) that the very fact that we can doubt our memories proves to us as individuals that memory exists as a part of our minds.  Whether my memories of my childhood are accurate or false, I know with absolute certainty that it is undeniable that I do indeed have these memories.  To deny to myself or someone else that I have a memory, whether reliable or not, is to deny something that it is impossible for me as a conscious and thinking being to not know.

Given this information about the limitations of memory, it is interesting how often the Bible exhorts people in narratives and modern readers alike to remember certain facts or events, for humans can be forgetful creatures.  What we think about strongly reveals what we treasure, and God accordingly reminded the ancient Jews in particular to never cease remembering his nature and his actions that reflected it.  What we actively try to remember can accurately indicate the priorities of our hearts and the motives of our minds.

Can we trust our memories?  How can we enhance or correct them?  How does the existence of memory establish our limitations with regard to knowledge of the future?  I hope to write about these issues more in the future upon more reflection and investigation.  Until then, ponder your memory and the things it focuses on, strives to purge, and causes you to long for, for such an exercise can reveal a great deal about yourself and your nature as both a human and as an individual.

Christianity And Entertainment

When you think of Christians, what comes to mind about their interaction with entertainment?  Distrust?  Loathing?  Mindless consumption with minimal effort to contemplate?  Arbitrary judgments not consistently applied?  Whatever your answer, I aim to present here the reasons Christians should not view entertainment--particularly movies and video games--as an enemy.  It is irrational to do so and forfeits an extraordinary opportunity to not only stimulate our own minds, but to also absorb an understanding of the ideological climate.

First, I need to establish that entertainment is far more than "escapism" no matter what some may say.  While reading books, playing video games, or watching movies is sometimes called escapism irrelevant to spiritual or "real" life, it is simply untrue that any entertainment medium or product can ever truly escape reality.  All movies and video games reflect something about ultimate reality, even if it is so simple that we may overlook it.  For instance, even playing a game as outdated and simplistic as Galaga demonstrates that choices (in this case of the player) have consequences (death or victory in this instance).  When understood properly, entertainment is one of the most significant conveyors of a society's moral, political, theological, and existential beliefs.  The reason that entertainment cannot avoid all of reality is because there is no such thing as a total escape from reality.  Philosophy manifests itself everywhere; when people do not see it, it is because they are blind to it, not because it is not existent.

Some people may wonder why I have game and movie reviews on my blog about rationalism, apologetics, and epistemology.  That is, indeed, a good inquiry.  Though I have never quite said this all in one place, I hope to explain through the content and tone of this post why I have reviewed things since the genesis of my blog.  Reviewing entertainment, like movies and video games, gives me an excuse to talk about the moral, existential, epistemological, or other issues alluded to or focused on by cinema and gaming.  A small sample of examples of movies that employ noticeable worldview themes include The Matrix (simulation hypothesis), The Dark Knight (moral objectivism and ethical dilemmas), Saw (justice and the meaning of life), Doctor Strange (naturalism and the multiverse), Terminator (determinism and artificial intelligence), Star Wars (mysticism and political oppression), and Jurassic Park (chaos theory and misuse of science).  These movies and their franchises are wildly popular, at least within their sphere of consumers.  Why should Christians not train themselves to not just enjoy entertainment as leisure or a "personal escape" but as indicators of a culture's conscience, worldview, and priorities?  It is very helpful to know a culture when one interacts with it, especially when evangelism or reform is the goal.  When a culture consistently produces entertainment of a particular kind, that communicates things about that society that Christians should not ignore or remain oblivious to.

In the same way as films, although the medium has received plenty of illogical criticism [1] video games represent a grand reflection of philosophy.  Comprising the most immersive, deep, and social medium out of all the "Big Three" (movies, video games, and books), they have unfortunately been fallaciously maligned as sinful by some Christians and illegitimate art to some in the secular world.  Yet games/series like Saw: The Video Game (morality and the weight of free will), God of War (Greek mythology and violence), and Assassin's Creed (autonomy, control, and historical revisionism) still reflect a specific worldview.  Are these ideas true?  Are they verifiable?  This is what seekers of truth who enjoy entertainment need or want to know.

I do want to specify that movies and games do not condemn or praise anything, and in fact they cannot.  They are inanimate mechanisms assembled by people with particular worldviews which also feature people with specific worldviews.  Only the characters in them can actually make judgments and claims, as a film or game is just an artificial, lifeless vehicle for a story.

As someone who has many fond memories of days spent watching films or playing video games before I became a Christian and as an embryonic Christian, I sincerely hope that other Christians come to realize, if they have not done so already, that entertainment is not some irredeemable, sinful thing [2] that Christians are obligated to avoid.  Instead, it is a wonderfully reliable thermometer that captures the worldview of a group at a particular point in time.  It is not something antithetical to a godly life and it is too valuable a tool to neglect as Christians engage cultures to ideologically transform them.  If any of my brothers and sisters in Christ have avoided entertainment out of fear or suspicion, those things were misplaced; if they have not yet decided to consciously recognize the fragments of reality embedded within entertainment they already enjoy, it is time for them to modify their approach.


[1].  The most popular criticisms against gaming include the charges that it 1) is intellectually deficient or lazy people love it, 2) it is an anti-social activity, 3) it squanders time, 4) it causes violence, and 5) it is something that is petty escapism at best and not true art.  I have addressed some of these points here (http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-artistic-legitimacy-of-gaming.html) and I would love to systematically dismantle and refute the others at a later time.  During the upcoming summer, when college classes have ceased, I will have more time to enjoy video games and critically assess them.

[2].  Anti-entertainment legalists can at best claim that humans should not participate in consumption of entertainment that features sinful activities, yet, not only are they often extremely inconsistent in applying this misguided belief, their own criterion for good entertainment would spell the end of books and movies about the Bible, much less any novel, game, or movie that accurately reflects how human reality is full of darkness, despair, and sin.  Besides, the Bible itself says not to commit certain actions, never to avoid entertainment that acknowledges or features sin.  There is no argument the legalists can resort to that does not involve extra-Biblical morality, logical fallacies, and subjective personal or cultural perceptions based upon emotions and preferences.