Time to delve deeper into the flawed nature of Trinitarianism! It's been a while since I started this series [1], but Trinitarianism is an important issue to understand. To read about why it is important for Christians to contemplate the concept and understand its flaws, see the previous post. Otherwise, I will continue where I left off. I will show the illogical nature of the Trinity and point out some Biblical errors.
As with many of my other posts, my comments here will be highly controversial and I want readers to carefully distinguish what I am saying from what I am not saying. For instance, I am not arguing here in any way that Christ does not have a divine nature, but that he is simply not the Father (and the Holy Spirit is not either), meaning that the idea that there are "three persons in one" is nonsense if it means to say that three different beings are truly one being. The Trinity, despite the claims of its adherents, is inescapably polytheistic, and I am simply demonstrating why a somewhat polytheistic understanding of Christ and Yahweh in particular is the only logical one.
I want to show up front that Matthew 28:19 is not the Biblical confirmation of the Trinity that some represent it as.
Matthew 28:19--"'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.'"
At most this verse rightly states that Christianity features three important divine beings; it does not say that they are identical persons yet not identical or contradict anything I am about to say. The traditional doctrine of the Trinity is not made clear in this, as if the three beings mentioned here are all divine and distinct then it is saying that three divine beings, not one, exist.
What does the Bible say that actually falsifies the idea of the Trinity as popularly conveyed? Several obvious differences between Yahweh and Christ exist. Jesus has a body while Yahweh does not. Jesus could not have died unless he had a body, much less have eaten after his resurrection (Luke 24) or been physically touched by others:
John 1:1, 14--"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."
John 4:21, 24--"Jesus declared . . . 'God is spirit . . .'"
Jesus did not know the hour or day of his return, but Yahweh did:
Matthew 24:30, 36--"'At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory . . . No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.'"
Jesus and Yahweh have different wills:
Luke 22:39-42--"Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. On reaching the place, he said to them, 'Pray that you will not fall into temptation.' He withdrew about a stone's throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 'Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will but your will be done.'"
At least three objective Biblical differences between Jesus and Yahweh exist, therefore: 1) Jesus has a body and Yahweh does not, 2) Jesus did not know the hour of his return but Yahweh did, and 3) Jesus and Yahweh have their own autonomous wills. They are not the same and thus the Bible teaches that there are at least two divine beings.
Only someone truly irrational would, after being presented these points, insist that Christ and Yahweh are somehow truly the same. Whether Christ was coeternal alongside Yahweh (meaning there is not just one uncaused cause) or Yahweh created Jesus prior to creating the material world as Arianism holds, Jesus still holds a divine status that ontologically separates him from humans, angels, and other objects of creation. He certainly existed before the material world (John 8:58, Colossians 1:16). It does not follow even from this aspect of Arianism that Christ is not divine. After all, it is logically possible for God to create a being that shares his attributes of power but that, of course, is not without a beginning and has its own will. Note that I am speaking in hypotheticals to show what does and does not follow from the proposition that Yahweh created Christ--I am not saying that he did, although there are some passages that I can see people deriving this from (Colossians 1:15 [2], John 3:16, etc.), and I can also see how the very words "Father" and "Son" can imply that the Son had a beginning of sorts.
I will now state examples of the three laws of logic (law of identity, law of non-contradiction, and law of excluded middle). A is A. Something is not both A and not A in the same way at the same time. Something is either A or not A. Now, let's apply these inviolable laws of logic [3] to the person of Christ. Jesus is Jesus. Something is not both Jesus and not Jesus in the same way at the same time. Something is either Jesus or not Jesus. Thus, if Jesus is not Yahweh, Jesus and Yahweh are not identical beings. If there is any need to distinguish between Jesus and Yahweh as the Bible obviously does so often throughout the gospels, then the two are objectively different ontological entities. That is not to say that Jesus has no divine nature--he is also credited with cocreating the world with Yahweh.
This concept of the Trinity clearly violates the law of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. Since logic cannot be false and Trinitarianism contradicts all three laws of logic and thus it necessarily follows inescapably that it cannot be true! If Yahweh is not Christ, then the two are not identical and thus are not the same being; if Yahweh and Christ are the same, then there would be no such thing as distinguishing between them. Unsurprisingly, otherwise rational people have admitted to me after conversations about the Trinity, in which I challenged Trinitarianism, that the Trinity defies logic and thus is not a rational belief. But some of them have said they would opt to believe in it anyway. When it gets down to it, it is rather easy to demonstrate that the Trinity is logically and mathematically impossible. Different things are not the same; three is not one.
I want to mention how someone could still use the term "Trinity" and not be an illogical or unbiblical theologian. As long as a person does not mean by the word Trinity that Christ, Yahweh, and the Holy Spirit are identical yet separate--"three in one"--then use of the word does not contradict any of the logical facts addressed in this article.
I also want to explain the ultimate triviality of belief in Trinitarianism in terms of everyday life. Yes, believing in the Trinity is illogical and unbiblical, but Trinitarianism also scarcely impacts the actual lives of people I know who believe it. People who believe in false ideas like legalism, complementarianism, eternal conscious torment, or atheism may act very differently than they would if they did not believe in those things. But I cannot think of a single way that Trinitarianism objectively, universally changes one's worldview or lifestyle simply by nature of the belief itself. It at most externally amounts to, in the lives of Trinitarians I know, a complicated belief invoked in vague ways that Trinitarians don't really know how to explain or handle. In my own life, the way I pray, evangelize, think, and generally live has not changed in any noticeable way because I have abandoned Trinitarianism and become what I call a "Christian polytheist".
I hope that this information makes sense to readers, and I also hope that this information can liberate Christians who realize the illogicality of the Trinity as defined and explained by popular theology and yet affirm the truth of Christianity itself. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful burden that can foster intellectual shallowness, unnecessary guilt, and a generally inconsistent worldview.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/a-refutation-of-trinitarianism-part-1.html
[2]. The phrase "firstborn over all creation" could clearly be a title of cosmic authority and not one that indicates that Christ was created first and then cocreated other created things with Yahweh (the "Father"). I am only saying that I see how this verse, isolated, could seem to teach an Arian belief.
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-infallibility-of-logic.html
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Friday, September 22, 2017
The Destruction Of The Soul
I saw a particularly stupid comment on social media asking where the Bible even says that humans have an immaterial component called a soul, the comment responding to a post highlighting how someone the poster knows claimed that God cannot destroy the soul because of its immateriality, in order to argue for eternal conscious torment over annihilationism. Of course, God cannot destroy the soul if the soul doesn't exist, and I cannot have a soul if there is nothing immaterial about my being.
Because God cannot destroy an immaterial soul unless that soul exists, I want to continue by first reexplaining the differences between the mind and body, and then I will show how the soul and mind at the very least overlap, and next show that the Bible does teach both that humans have immaterial souls and that God can destroy the souls of the unsaved.
I've proven elsewhere that a mind is objectively distinct from a body [1], regardless of whether or not a mind dies with its body or whether or not a mind will exist apart from a body in actuality--I say in actuality because it is logically possible for a mind to exist by itself with no body or senses. The two are different, the mind being the seat of consciousness that perceives, thinks, reasons, and wills, with the body being a physical structure made of matter, with the body also being entirely inanimate without the mind and its consciousness. Mind is nonphysical and consciousness and conscious experiences (qualia) are intangible. In Christian theology the soul, at the very least, is a part of consciousness that survives or can survive the death of the body. For the purposes of this post, I will from now on use the words mind and soul interchangeably.
And God can destroy both a body and the mind that animates it. Firstly, to say that God can destroy a body but not a mind because it is immaterial is not only an unbiblical and illogical assertion, but it also could follow from this that God cannot torment a mind/soul. This is one of the most asinine arguments for eternal conscious torment I have ever seen [2]! If the soul is untouchable by even God, then it follows that God cannot interact with it in ways that inflict torment that does not eventually annihilate it. Secondly, the Bible clearly says that God can destroy both body and soul.
Matthew 10:28--"'Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.'"
God cannot destroy what does not exist, and thus if the Bible says God either can or will destroy the soul of any being then it follows inescapably that the Bible teaches that at least some beings have souls that are immaterial. Matthew 10:28 is not the only passage in Scripture that clearly distinguishes between the physical body and the soul. For another example, see James 2:26:
James 2:26--"As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."
So logically and Biblically speaking, it is totally asinine to deny a difference between mind and body, to say or imply that the Bible never says humans have an immaterial component to their being, or to claim that God cannot destroy the soul. To deny any of these things is to deny things that the Bible clearly teaches and that logic proves to either be infallibly true or entirely possible. I honestly am still surprised that someone would challenge the idea that the Bible says humans have immaterial souls!
As dumb as it is, the argument that God cannot destroy a soul because of its immateriality is just one of the many examples of fallacious, contra-Biblical arguments defenders of ECT (eternal conscious torment) must resort to in order to deny the Biblical truth that God will annihilate unsaved humans in hell.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-immateriality-of-consciousness.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
[2]. Here I present the logical and Biblical verification of annihilationism:
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-annihilationism.html
Because God cannot destroy an immaterial soul unless that soul exists, I want to continue by first reexplaining the differences between the mind and body, and then I will show how the soul and mind at the very least overlap, and next show that the Bible does teach both that humans have immaterial souls and that God can destroy the souls of the unsaved.
I've proven elsewhere that a mind is objectively distinct from a body [1], regardless of whether or not a mind dies with its body or whether or not a mind will exist apart from a body in actuality--I say in actuality because it is logically possible for a mind to exist by itself with no body or senses. The two are different, the mind being the seat of consciousness that perceives, thinks, reasons, and wills, with the body being a physical structure made of matter, with the body also being entirely inanimate without the mind and its consciousness. Mind is nonphysical and consciousness and conscious experiences (qualia) are intangible. In Christian theology the soul, at the very least, is a part of consciousness that survives or can survive the death of the body. For the purposes of this post, I will from now on use the words mind and soul interchangeably.
And God can destroy both a body and the mind that animates it. Firstly, to say that God can destroy a body but not a mind because it is immaterial is not only an unbiblical and illogical assertion, but it also could follow from this that God cannot torment a mind/soul. This is one of the most asinine arguments for eternal conscious torment I have ever seen [2]! If the soul is untouchable by even God, then it follows that God cannot interact with it in ways that inflict torment that does not eventually annihilate it. Secondly, the Bible clearly says that God can destroy both body and soul.
Matthew 10:28--"'Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.'"
God cannot destroy what does not exist, and thus if the Bible says God either can or will destroy the soul of any being then it follows inescapably that the Bible teaches that at least some beings have souls that are immaterial. Matthew 10:28 is not the only passage in Scripture that clearly distinguishes between the physical body and the soul. For another example, see James 2:26:
James 2:26--"As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."
So logically and Biblically speaking, it is totally asinine to deny a difference between mind and body, to say or imply that the Bible never says humans have an immaterial component to their being, or to claim that God cannot destroy the soul. To deny any of these things is to deny things that the Bible clearly teaches and that logic proves to either be infallibly true or entirely possible. I honestly am still surprised that someone would challenge the idea that the Bible says humans have immaterial souls!
As dumb as it is, the argument that God cannot destroy a soul because of its immateriality is just one of the many examples of fallacious, contra-Biblical arguments defenders of ECT (eternal conscious torment) must resort to in order to deny the Biblical truth that God will annihilate unsaved humans in hell.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-immateriality-of-consciousness.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
[2]. Here I present the logical and Biblical verification of annihilationism:
https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-annihilationism.html
Sex Is Sacred, But . . .
Sex is certainly sacred in the Christian worldview. That claim itself sparks little controversy, if any. But dig deeper and many Christians draw false and illogical conclusions from this fact, conclusions that hurt people. At the root of many misunderstandings about sexuality one can often find either worship or fear of it--both of which are utterly inadequate reactions to the nature of sexuality. And sexuality encompasses far more than just sex; sex is only an activity people can engage in with their bodies but sexuality encompasses all the mental, emotional, personal, and existential aspects of being a sexual being. Someone can experience sexuality and what it means to be a sexual being without ever having sex. One is but a subset within the other. And sex is indeed sacred--but let me explain some things that do not follow from this. I want to summarize why sex is not ultimately taboo topic, sexual legalism is erroneous, sex is not everything and not in everything, and why it is nothing to either worship or fear.
Sex is sacred, but there is no logical or Biblical reason to make open discussion about sexuality and sexual issues and morality taboo. This is actually very stupid because pretending like these discussion topics are taboo intentionally creates an environment that allows and perhaps even encourages assumptions, errors, and questions regarding sexuality to go undetected and therefore unidentified and, as a result, unaddressed. No, the Bible does not prohibit talk about these matters. And why would it? Sexual feelings and desires are objectively good in themselves (apart from forms of these desires which are explicitly defined as sinful by Scripture and what follows purely logically from its contents) according to accurate Christian theology and the Bible never treats sexuality as a taboo subject or says to not talk about it in public, in church, in mixed company, and so on. Indeed, it is rather open about discussing sexuality, as I suspect many more people would be if they feared ignorance and error more than petty social judgments made against them for doing something that doesn't meet the approval of people's arbitrary, subjective, trivial emotional preferences.
Sex is sacred, but sexual legalism is still built on fallacies and contra-Biblical principles. Out of an admirable desire to emphasize a Biblical truth, some Christians resort to very unbiblical measures to do so. They impose arbitrary extra-Biblical rules on others that are not grounded in reality. God has revealed what is defined as sexual immorality and has commanded us to not add to his revelation (Deuteronomy 4:2), yet both permissible sexual and nonsexual behaviors get targeted by sexual legalists [1]. Behaviors that are not sinful in themselves, like masturbation [2], and that are not even sexual in themselves, like admiring nudity (whether in art or real life), are claimed to be evil or dangerous by those who straw man the concepts and know little of either reason or Scripture. All the emotional appeals, appeals to tradition, appeals to popularity, non sequiturs, circular reasoning, and question-begging of every sexual legalist will not change that things that are not morally wrong are not morally wrong.
Sex is sacred, but it is not everything. And it is not in everything. Not everyone needs to get married, and not everyone elevates sex to a status where everything else revolves around it. I'm tired of the bullshit legalism that implicitly teaches this. After all, it is no wonder that Christians who see everything, or even many things, as involving an actual or likely sexual component begin to fear sexuality and unleash a legion of non sequiturs and extra-Biblical idiotic beliefs--that men and women can't or shouldn't be friends, that they shouldn't be alone together (unless married), that they shouldn't look at or admire each other, that the human body is wicked and sinful, that people want to sleep with every attractive member of the opposite gender they see, and so forth. These Christians may begin to hallucinate imaginary ways that sexuality motivates nonsexual acts and see it everywhere. In truth, the only thing that is objectively sexual is a sex act. Nothing else is sexual by default--but that doesn't keep American culture and some American churches, unfortunately, from sexualizing just about every damn thing. Really, life is objectively more difficult and confining when you try to avoid reality by coming up with this nonsense.
Sex is sacred, but it is not something to worship or fear. Sex is a created thing; it is not the uncaused cause and thus not God. Sex was created by God to be pleasurable and of great spiritual significance, and thus it is not something to fear. People who worship or fear sexuality may find themselves exhausted and drained by the way that their attitudes towards it simply do not align with the nature of sexuality itself. The highest function of sexuality is to help illustrate something more. Sexuality is one of many things that can remind humans of their mental/spiritual side. The intimacy and desires associated with sexuality are but, in a sense, spiritual foreplay for far greater pleasures to come. The sacredness of sex does not render sex in particular or sexuality in general something that needs to be feared or worshipped.
I hope that society and the church as a whole will come to the point where they understand each of these things. The sacredness of something does not mean that a thing has to be judged as indecent for conversation, as appearing everywhere, or as an object of fright.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/sexual-legalism.html
[2]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/sexual-self-stimulation.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/myths-about-masturbation.html
Sex is sacred, but there is no logical or Biblical reason to make open discussion about sexuality and sexual issues and morality taboo. This is actually very stupid because pretending like these discussion topics are taboo intentionally creates an environment that allows and perhaps even encourages assumptions, errors, and questions regarding sexuality to go undetected and therefore unidentified and, as a result, unaddressed. No, the Bible does not prohibit talk about these matters. And why would it? Sexual feelings and desires are objectively good in themselves (apart from forms of these desires which are explicitly defined as sinful by Scripture and what follows purely logically from its contents) according to accurate Christian theology and the Bible never treats sexuality as a taboo subject or says to not talk about it in public, in church, in mixed company, and so on. Indeed, it is rather open about discussing sexuality, as I suspect many more people would be if they feared ignorance and error more than petty social judgments made against them for doing something that doesn't meet the approval of people's arbitrary, subjective, trivial emotional preferences.
Sex is sacred, but sexual legalism is still built on fallacies and contra-Biblical principles. Out of an admirable desire to emphasize a Biblical truth, some Christians resort to very unbiblical measures to do so. They impose arbitrary extra-Biblical rules on others that are not grounded in reality. God has revealed what is defined as sexual immorality and has commanded us to not add to his revelation (Deuteronomy 4:2), yet both permissible sexual and nonsexual behaviors get targeted by sexual legalists [1]. Behaviors that are not sinful in themselves, like masturbation [2], and that are not even sexual in themselves, like admiring nudity (whether in art or real life), are claimed to be evil or dangerous by those who straw man the concepts and know little of either reason or Scripture. All the emotional appeals, appeals to tradition, appeals to popularity, non sequiturs, circular reasoning, and question-begging of every sexual legalist will not change that things that are not morally wrong are not morally wrong.
Sex is sacred, but it is not everything. And it is not in everything. Not everyone needs to get married, and not everyone elevates sex to a status where everything else revolves around it. I'm tired of the bullshit legalism that implicitly teaches this. After all, it is no wonder that Christians who see everything, or even many things, as involving an actual or likely sexual component begin to fear sexuality and unleash a legion of non sequiturs and extra-Biblical idiotic beliefs--that men and women can't or shouldn't be friends, that they shouldn't be alone together (unless married), that they shouldn't look at or admire each other, that the human body is wicked and sinful, that people want to sleep with every attractive member of the opposite gender they see, and so forth. These Christians may begin to hallucinate imaginary ways that sexuality motivates nonsexual acts and see it everywhere. In truth, the only thing that is objectively sexual is a sex act. Nothing else is sexual by default--but that doesn't keep American culture and some American churches, unfortunately, from sexualizing just about every damn thing. Really, life is objectively more difficult and confining when you try to avoid reality by coming up with this nonsense.
Sex is sacred, but it is not something to worship or fear. Sex is a created thing; it is not the uncaused cause and thus not God. Sex was created by God to be pleasurable and of great spiritual significance, and thus it is not something to fear. People who worship or fear sexuality may find themselves exhausted and drained by the way that their attitudes towards it simply do not align with the nature of sexuality itself. The highest function of sexuality is to help illustrate something more. Sexuality is one of many things that can remind humans of their mental/spiritual side. The intimacy and desires associated with sexuality are but, in a sense, spiritual foreplay for far greater pleasures to come. The sacredness of sex does not render sex in particular or sexuality in general something that needs to be feared or worshipped.
I hope that society and the church as a whole will come to the point where they understand each of these things. The sacredness of something does not mean that a thing has to be judged as indecent for conversation, as appearing everywhere, or as an object of fright.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/12/sexual-legalism.html
[2]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/sexual-self-stimulation.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/myths-about-masturbation.html
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Movie Review--Wonder Woman
"Long ago, when time was new and all of history was still a dream, the gods ruled the earth. Zeus king among them. Zeus created beings over which the gods would rule. Beings born in his image . . . He called his creation man, and mankind was good."
--Hippolyta, Wonder Woman
"The war. The war to end all wars. Four years, 27 countries, 25 million dead, soldiers and civilians."
--Steve Trevor, Wonder Woman
What a wonderful movie, pardon my pun! Wonder Woman succeeds as a superhero movie, a period piece, an action film, a comedy, and a romance . . . practically every aspect of it is expertly delivered! Also, it is not stuffed with random events and references to set up future installments in DC's shared film universe, which may strike some viewers as refreshing in the current cinematic environment.
Production Values
I must applaud Gal Gadot for the fantastic performance she offered. She so skillfully portrays someone fierce yet naive, a person who rarely hesitates in living out her values and who must confront the fact that very few share that same moral impulse. A character who is presented as this exceptionally noble may not seem to have room for significant character development, yet Diana's arc contains the exact character growth that makes her seem to really change. Gal Gadot and Chris Pine have great chemistry--Chris Pine acts superbly as well, with his Steve Trevor providing a great companion for Diana, romantic and otherwise. The two flirt and fight alongside each other very convincingly. Really, everyone is acted well, although not every character is developed much.
The action scenes look great, and the World War I period piece atmosphere remains intact for the whole movie. From early 1900s London to European battlefield trenches, the tone is fairly grounded in history once Diana leaves the secluded paradisal island of Themyscira. And I don't recall a single scene that didn't further the story or pay off in some way. That latter comment is a high compliment that not many movies can legitimately receive. I also think that I have never seen a more appropriate usage of exposition than the scene where Hippolyta explains the creation of humanity and the fall of Olympus. That a multi-minute exposition scene could be so effective testifies to the quality of the screenplay.
Story
(Spoilers are below)
Diana Prince grows up in Themyscira, an island hidden from the human world and populated by a race of female beings called Amazons created by Zeus to temper the flaws of humans. As Diana ages, she is told of how at the beginning of time the Olympian deities watched as Zeus created humans in his image, how the god of war Ares charged humans with corruption, how the Amazons were created, and how Zeus eventually defeated Ares for a time.
When a British spy crashes a stolen plane through the veil of protection around the island, he is chased by Germans, whom the native Amazons repel quickly. Once Steve tells of a massive war engulfing the world that has killed 25 million people, including women and children, Diana decides to leave with Steve and stop Ares, whom she believes is behind this catastrophe. She brings her shield, lasso, and sword. But the outside world proves very different. Diana finds women are discriminated against in some ways and that people live quite differently. She passionately complains about how generals would knowingly sacrifice the lives of their soldiers, how inefficient human politics can be, and about the way that Steve and his band are content to just walk past atrocities and evils both minor and large.
She and Steve assemble a little group of mercenaries to try to prevent the use of a gas developed by the German Luddendorf and his chief chemist Dr. Poison, a psychopathic woman who seems to enjoy her work. Ludendorff is suspected as Ares, and Diana eventually is able to kill him, shocked that the war did not end with Ludendorff's death. Diana is shattered when she realizes that no god of war is necessary for humans to lapse into gratuitous warfare, cruelty, and selfishness. A rather clever villain reveal shows that there was an Ares, a British politician, yet he admits to nothing more than providing ideas and opportunities for human warfare, saying he does not actually make anyone carry out the actions Diana has been repulsed by. Ares is soon defeated, Trevor seemingly dead, and Diana finds her naivety changed, yet she remains committed to the ideal of love.
Intellectual Content
Greek mythology itself is not quite this "Christian." This movie's summary of how Zeus created humanity and the Amazons and how Ares revolted against Olympus and corrupted humans has a very distinctly Christianized tone. From Zeus making humans in his image and creation being called good to Ares embodying a Satan figure, Wonder Woman's version of Greek polytheistic theology doesn't really resemble the mythology from Hesiod or Homer very much, much less other contemporary takes on Greek mythology, like the God of War video game series. Other than the Olympian brand of polytheism and story of the Amazons presented, this is an overtly Christian story of human origins and corruption.
The overlap with Christian ideas continues deep into the third act. Ares, the god of war and perhaps the only surviving remnant of Olympus and its lineage other than Diana (I do not recall hearing what happened to Zeus), says several things that form a very honest description of humankind. He says that he never actually overrides the wills of humans when he entices them into evil, he merely plants ideas. During a poignant scene before he is revealed in which Diana and Steve wonder if there even ever was an Ares, the two share an important revelation about human nature. Diana, thinking she has killed Ares, asks aloud how the war has not ended, and Steve tells her the sobering truth that the people themselves may not need external influence to practice evil. "What if it's them?" he asks. Diana almost retreats from helping defeat Germany over this, partly brought back by Steve's insistence that what matters is not what people deserve but what one believes. Wonder Woman tells Ares soon after that she believes in love and will not destroy humans over their capacity for deep flaws.
Now, love is not contrary to justice (giving people what they deserve) and no one can deserve to be the recipient of an evil act like someone with immense power choosing to not abolish a world war. I strongly dislike how the last scenes of the movie tried to pit love (which is not the same as mercy) against justice, as if 1) giving people what they deserve involves doing morally erroneous acts (like letting World War I continue out of disdain for human nature), as if 2) love is based on subjective sentiments, and as if 3) everyone deserves to be terrestrially destroyed for their sins. Mosaic Law clearly disagrees with all three. The movie did begin to preach a form of vague and emotionalistic ideology near the end--but that does not nullify how much of the film's theology and anthropology agrees to a surprising (to me) extent with Christianity. Although love is spoken of by Diana in a loose, undefined, sentimental way around the very end, she does again echo a quasi-Christian idea when she says that only love can save the world.
Now on to gender equality! In a story about a character known for being a feminist icon--and no, feminism is not itself misandry, though various people may hijack the term for, ironically, sexist purposes--Diana and Steve are presented as equals in their relationship. The movie never puts down Steve to elevate Diana or vice versa. Ares even highlights that men and women alike are susceptible to corruption and evil by using Dr. Poison, a woman, as his specific example of selfish malevolence that can lurk in the human heart. Both men and women commit acts of heroism and atrocities throughout the movie, and never does the story attempt to divide human nature down into arbitrary social consensus on "male" and "female" nature. This film is an egalitarian's dream! My egalitarian mind also relished the fact that a woman directed this outstandingly crafted superhero movie.
Conclusion
Wonder Woman certainly breaks the cycle of crappy recent DC movies and has hopefully saved the DCEU. Interestingly, it shares some of Logan's strengths: a largely self-contained story, excellent acting, a great script, and perhaps not a single useless scene. If only more superhero movies could be like Logan and Wonder Woman, giving more than just cheap comedy quips and unsubtle foreshadowing for sequels--giving stories about characters with depth who effectively reflect human nature. I am extremely excited about the confirmed sequel and that Patty Jenkins will return to direct again!
Content:
1. Violence: Mostly bloodless (at least I never noticed any obvious blood) wartime combat is shown in a handful of scenes, but deaths are never graphic.
2. Profanity: Very rarely one may hear a few slight words used as profanity.
3. Sexuality: While on a boat Diana and Steve talk suggestively but not in explicitly detail about sexual anatomy and pleasure. There is one other scene where Diana admires and inquires about Steve's naked body, though no total nudity is actually shown (hence why I didn't put it in a separate category). It has a flirtatious atmosphere, though, this isn't a particularly sexualized scene. It is more a scene about playful, humorous flirtation.
--Hippolyta, Wonder Woman
"The war. The war to end all wars. Four years, 27 countries, 25 million dead, soldiers and civilians."
--Steve Trevor, Wonder Woman
What a wonderful movie, pardon my pun! Wonder Woman succeeds as a superhero movie, a period piece, an action film, a comedy, and a romance . . . practically every aspect of it is expertly delivered! Also, it is not stuffed with random events and references to set up future installments in DC's shared film universe, which may strike some viewers as refreshing in the current cinematic environment.
Production Values
I must applaud Gal Gadot for the fantastic performance she offered. She so skillfully portrays someone fierce yet naive, a person who rarely hesitates in living out her values and who must confront the fact that very few share that same moral impulse. A character who is presented as this exceptionally noble may not seem to have room for significant character development, yet Diana's arc contains the exact character growth that makes her seem to really change. Gal Gadot and Chris Pine have great chemistry--Chris Pine acts superbly as well, with his Steve Trevor providing a great companion for Diana, romantic and otherwise. The two flirt and fight alongside each other very convincingly. Really, everyone is acted well, although not every character is developed much.
The action scenes look great, and the World War I period piece atmosphere remains intact for the whole movie. From early 1900s London to European battlefield trenches, the tone is fairly grounded in history once Diana leaves the secluded paradisal island of Themyscira. And I don't recall a single scene that didn't further the story or pay off in some way. That latter comment is a high compliment that not many movies can legitimately receive. I also think that I have never seen a more appropriate usage of exposition than the scene where Hippolyta explains the creation of humanity and the fall of Olympus. That a multi-minute exposition scene could be so effective testifies to the quality of the screenplay.
Story
(Spoilers are below)
Diana Prince grows up in Themyscira, an island hidden from the human world and populated by a race of female beings called Amazons created by Zeus to temper the flaws of humans. As Diana ages, she is told of how at the beginning of time the Olympian deities watched as Zeus created humans in his image, how the god of war Ares charged humans with corruption, how the Amazons were created, and how Zeus eventually defeated Ares for a time.
When a British spy crashes a stolen plane through the veil of protection around the island, he is chased by Germans, whom the native Amazons repel quickly. Once Steve tells of a massive war engulfing the world that has killed 25 million people, including women and children, Diana decides to leave with Steve and stop Ares, whom she believes is behind this catastrophe. She brings her shield, lasso, and sword. But the outside world proves very different. Diana finds women are discriminated against in some ways and that people live quite differently. She passionately complains about how generals would knowingly sacrifice the lives of their soldiers, how inefficient human politics can be, and about the way that Steve and his band are content to just walk past atrocities and evils both minor and large.
She and Steve assemble a little group of mercenaries to try to prevent the use of a gas developed by the German Luddendorf and his chief chemist Dr. Poison, a psychopathic woman who seems to enjoy her work. Ludendorff is suspected as Ares, and Diana eventually is able to kill him, shocked that the war did not end with Ludendorff's death. Diana is shattered when she realizes that no god of war is necessary for humans to lapse into gratuitous warfare, cruelty, and selfishness. A rather clever villain reveal shows that there was an Ares, a British politician, yet he admits to nothing more than providing ideas and opportunities for human warfare, saying he does not actually make anyone carry out the actions Diana has been repulsed by. Ares is soon defeated, Trevor seemingly dead, and Diana finds her naivety changed, yet she remains committed to the ideal of love.
Intellectual Content
Greek mythology itself is not quite this "Christian." This movie's summary of how Zeus created humanity and the Amazons and how Ares revolted against Olympus and corrupted humans has a very distinctly Christianized tone. From Zeus making humans in his image and creation being called good to Ares embodying a Satan figure, Wonder Woman's version of Greek polytheistic theology doesn't really resemble the mythology from Hesiod or Homer very much, much less other contemporary takes on Greek mythology, like the God of War video game series. Other than the Olympian brand of polytheism and story of the Amazons presented, this is an overtly Christian story of human origins and corruption.
The overlap with Christian ideas continues deep into the third act. Ares, the god of war and perhaps the only surviving remnant of Olympus and its lineage other than Diana (I do not recall hearing what happened to Zeus), says several things that form a very honest description of humankind. He says that he never actually overrides the wills of humans when he entices them into evil, he merely plants ideas. During a poignant scene before he is revealed in which Diana and Steve wonder if there even ever was an Ares, the two share an important revelation about human nature. Diana, thinking she has killed Ares, asks aloud how the war has not ended, and Steve tells her the sobering truth that the people themselves may not need external influence to practice evil. "What if it's them?" he asks. Diana almost retreats from helping defeat Germany over this, partly brought back by Steve's insistence that what matters is not what people deserve but what one believes. Wonder Woman tells Ares soon after that she believes in love and will not destroy humans over their capacity for deep flaws.
Now, love is not contrary to justice (giving people what they deserve) and no one can deserve to be the recipient of an evil act like someone with immense power choosing to not abolish a world war. I strongly dislike how the last scenes of the movie tried to pit love (which is not the same as mercy) against justice, as if 1) giving people what they deserve involves doing morally erroneous acts (like letting World War I continue out of disdain for human nature), as if 2) love is based on subjective sentiments, and as if 3) everyone deserves to be terrestrially destroyed for their sins. Mosaic Law clearly disagrees with all three. The movie did begin to preach a form of vague and emotionalistic ideology near the end--but that does not nullify how much of the film's theology and anthropology agrees to a surprising (to me) extent with Christianity. Although love is spoken of by Diana in a loose, undefined, sentimental way around the very end, she does again echo a quasi-Christian idea when she says that only love can save the world.
Now on to gender equality! In a story about a character known for being a feminist icon--and no, feminism is not itself misandry, though various people may hijack the term for, ironically, sexist purposes--Diana and Steve are presented as equals in their relationship. The movie never puts down Steve to elevate Diana or vice versa. Ares even highlights that men and women alike are susceptible to corruption and evil by using Dr. Poison, a woman, as his specific example of selfish malevolence that can lurk in the human heart. Both men and women commit acts of heroism and atrocities throughout the movie, and never does the story attempt to divide human nature down into arbitrary social consensus on "male" and "female" nature. This film is an egalitarian's dream! My egalitarian mind also relished the fact that a woman directed this outstandingly crafted superhero movie.
Conclusion
Content:
1. Violence: Mostly bloodless (at least I never noticed any obvious blood) wartime combat is shown in a handful of scenes, but deaths are never graphic.
2. Profanity: Very rarely one may hear a few slight words used as profanity.
3. Sexuality: While on a boat Diana and Steve talk suggestively but not in explicitly detail about sexual anatomy and pleasure. There is one other scene where Diana admires and inquires about Steve's naked body, though no total nudity is actually shown (hence why I didn't put it in a separate category). It has a flirtatious atmosphere, though, this isn't a particularly sexualized scene. It is more a scene about playful, humorous flirtation.
Dating: Friendship First
As opposed to rushing into a dating relationship, becoming friends with a potential romantic partner before dating can provide opportunities to avert possible difficulties later on. There are at least two difficulties which might be avoided or softened by this approach to dating. I am not saying that people have some moral obligation to date exactly according to this method (the Bible does not prescribe this). Nor am I saying that the things aided by the benefits of this dating approach cannot come about otherwise. But there are some aspects of it to consider.
What might some of these possible benefits be? For starters, this method extends the period of time where you could get to know that person without having the dynamics of an actual open romantic attachment interfering. No, romantic feelings do not intrinsically cloud judgment of someone's character and personality--but people who are more susceptible to this may truly need to take some time to learn about and assess others before actually beginning to date them. It does not follow from the existence of such feelings that objectivity in judging the person who is the object of those feelings cannot exist. Obviously, it is entirely possible for someone to make a correct judgment about a person whom he or she harbors romantic attraction towards, yet for the uncertain this strategy might truly aid the process of more clearly getting to know someone's actual nature. Besides, perhaps during this pre-dating friendship phase a person realizes that the one he or she has/had feelings for really wouldn't make a preferable match. This gives time for discovery and reflection to occur in a less romantically charged atmosphere.
Also, it might greatly increase the probability of a less awkward relationship if dating someone doesn't work out. If two people are already friends and attempt dating only to discover that they are not sufficiently romantically attracted to each other or otherwise compatible for that kind of relationship, staying friends and avoiding awkwardness are much more easily ensured. This approach might really help alleviate or thwart such awkwardness and confusion entirely! Just this aspect of the "friendship first approach" to dating by itself could easily spare a lot of gratuitous and preventable awkward interactions, as a man and woman who find dating each other isn't optimal could just revert back into the friendship they had before. Whereas some people panic upon seeing someone they dated (even for a very comparatively short period of time), even going as far as to be eager to be as far away from that person as possible, a couple who takes this approach could still enjoy a post-dating friendship.
So, instead of charging into a dating relationship with a man or woman you are romantically interested in, perhaps get to know that person in a different way first! You may find something that makes you not wish to date him or her, realize you don't really want to date this person but still want friendship, develop a much stronger foundation from which to launch into dating, save yourself from awkwardness in the future, and have the benefit of entering dating with much more clarity. This is not an objective moral obligation--but it may prove very helpful indeed.
What might some of these possible benefits be? For starters, this method extends the period of time where you could get to know that person without having the dynamics of an actual open romantic attachment interfering. No, romantic feelings do not intrinsically cloud judgment of someone's character and personality--but people who are more susceptible to this may truly need to take some time to learn about and assess others before actually beginning to date them. It does not follow from the existence of such feelings that objectivity in judging the person who is the object of those feelings cannot exist. Obviously, it is entirely possible for someone to make a correct judgment about a person whom he or she harbors romantic attraction towards, yet for the uncertain this strategy might truly aid the process of more clearly getting to know someone's actual nature. Besides, perhaps during this pre-dating friendship phase a person realizes that the one he or she has/had feelings for really wouldn't make a preferable match. This gives time for discovery and reflection to occur in a less romantically charged atmosphere.
Also, it might greatly increase the probability of a less awkward relationship if dating someone doesn't work out. If two people are already friends and attempt dating only to discover that they are not sufficiently romantically attracted to each other or otherwise compatible for that kind of relationship, staying friends and avoiding awkwardness are much more easily ensured. This approach might really help alleviate or thwart such awkwardness and confusion entirely! Just this aspect of the "friendship first approach" to dating by itself could easily spare a lot of gratuitous and preventable awkward interactions, as a man and woman who find dating each other isn't optimal could just revert back into the friendship they had before. Whereas some people panic upon seeing someone they dated (even for a very comparatively short period of time), even going as far as to be eager to be as far away from that person as possible, a couple who takes this approach could still enjoy a post-dating friendship.
So, instead of charging into a dating relationship with a man or woman you are romantically interested in, perhaps get to know that person in a different way first! You may find something that makes you not wish to date him or her, realize you don't really want to date this person but still want friendship, develop a much stronger foundation from which to launch into dating, save yourself from awkwardness in the future, and have the benefit of entering dating with much more clarity. This is not an objective moral obligation--but it may prove very helpful indeed.
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Movie Review--Saw III
"I don't condone murder, and I despise murderers."
--Jigsaw, Saw III
Before October 27th and the release of Jigsaw, I hope to finish reviewing the Saw series, starting with this review of Saw III, which I had skipped over last year due to not having access to watching it for the first time. Now that I've seen it, I think it ranks as one of the best in the series. This movie presents a horror villain very unique among the pack. Focusing on dying serial killer Jigsaw (John Kramer) and his unstable apprentice Amanda, it (ironically) explores Jigsaw's ironic dislike for revenge and murder.
Production Values
Saw III has a noticeably clearer aesthetic than its predecessors, a testament to its larger budget than the movies before it. It benefits from a fitting script and the commitment of its star actor. Tobin Bell is the perfect Jigsaw as usual. Really, I will find it strange if there's no impactful cameo of him in the upcoming movie bearing the name of his media alias! Confined to a bed for the entirety of the movie besides flashbacks, dying of cancer, and saddened by the misbehavior of his apprentice, Bell's John Kramer is still memorable despite the limitations on the character due to his condition and setting. Many of the best scenes in the later sequels were the scene that show flashbacks of Tobin Bell's character although he dies in this installment. And unlike in some horror series, when the villain dies, the villain dies.
Shawnee Smith offers a good effort as the conflicted Amanda Young who struggles between wanting to please and preserve the life of her mentor and wanting to revert back to her old lifestyle before she was "saved". Angus Macfadyen plays his character Jeff very well, capturing the spirit of a depressed, vengeful, emotionally-crippled father.
Not too many horror movie sequels focus on a careful story, but this movie's creators carefully branched off of the first two films before boldly taking the story into territory that might be drastically different in another popular horror franchise. Saw is, after all, a series based on story and characters, despite the misunderstandings of some who haven't watched it. Charlie Clouser also contributed a fitting score with some great pieces that evolve out of earlier tracks from the series, including multiple remixes of the classic Zepp track--and he's returning for Jigsaw according to what I've read online. I'm very excited!
Story
(Some spoilers below)
Detective Eric Matthews struggles to escape the bathroom Amanda, the revealed accomplice to the Jigsaw Killer, locked him in at the end of Saw II, freeing himself from a shackle by breaking his foot. Detective Allison Kerry tries to find him, joining a group of detectives and police officers in a school where remains of a Jigsaw trap are discovered. But Kerry notes that the doors are welded shut and had to be cut open to access the room where the trap occurred. This contradicts Jigsaw's strict modus operandi, which, in the past, has always offered an avenue of escape and survival.
Kerry herself is abducted by Pigface and placed in a trap of her own, which does not release her even when she obtains and uses the key. In the aftermath of her death, Amanda kidnaps a doctor named Lynn Denlon and pressures her into operating on a bedridden Jigsaw to keep him alive and in as little pain as possible during a series of tests for a man named Jeff. Lynn wears a shotgun collar that will destroy her skull if Jigsaw's heart rate flatlines or if she travels a certain distance away.
Jeff begins his games in a suspended crate, tasked by Jigsaw with overcoming his obsessive desire for vengeance after a drunk driver killed his son Dylan. As he plays the game he encounters an unhelpful witness to the tragedy, the judge who lightly sentenced the drunk driver, and the driver himself. The witness, Danica Scott, hangs naked in a room of freezing temperature as water is squirted onto her until she freezes to death; Judge Halden is locked in place at the bottom of a vat filling up with liquid pig carcasses and is freed; Timothy Young, the driver (no relation to Amanda Young), is strapped into a mechanical device that twists his limbs and head. Jeff slowly becomes more willing to actually help these individuals as he progresses with some encouragement from Jigsaw and the victims themselves.
John eventually tells Amanda to release Lynn, and when Amanda refuses, Jigsaw reveals to her that he was testing her too, as she had shown great error in creating the inescapable traps from the beginning. Amanda complains about how nobody actually changes, despite her seeming rebirth after her own test, and shoots Lynn contrary to the protests of Jigsaw. Jeff enters the room, shoots her, and is offered a chance to forgive Jigsaw. Lynn is actually his wife, and he panics upon discovering her here. He says he forgives Jigsaw before killing him, unwittingly dooming Lynn to death via the shotgun collar.
Intellectual Content
As expected, the moral ideologies presented and practiced by John Kramer and his follower(s) (viewers see from Saw IV onward that the network of Jigsaw apprentices was far more vast than it initially appeared) are prominent.
In Saw II, John tells Detective Matthews that he is not truly a murderer because he allows people to choose to live or die, echoing Doctor Gordon's comment in the first Saw that "Technically speaking he's not really a murderer. He never killed anyone." Interestingly, John says here that he does not condone murder and despises those who murder, and these are exactly the things he criticizes Hoffman for in a Saw V flashback. Of course, he and his accomplices still kidnap people and insert them into very dangerous situations. Amanda eventually tells John before her death that "What you do is no different than murder. You torture people. You watch them die." Still, the quasi-religious themes of John's philosophy are particularly on display as he uses somewhat religious language about the salvation of his victims, quotes the Golden Rule and Matthew 7:12 in a tape, and respects the autonomy of individuals to make their own choice to pursue what he views as redemption or damnation.
Despite the traps, Saw III actually presents a message about how vengeance can bring those who surrender to it to the point where they fail to see the humanity of others. When Jeff initially seems to want to allow Danica Scott to freeze in her trap, she reminds that "I'm human. I'm human just like your son was." John insists to Jeff through a tape that even Timothy Young is a human being--and a Saw VI flashback even shows John subtly challenge Hoffman for callously treating Timothy's unconscious body before putting him in his trap. To commit atrocities, people must often dehumanize their victims. The process provides an excuse for not treating someone as one would treat others. And intriguingly, although John values life--or at least thinks he does--it seems that few to none of his successors and accomplices actually share his values, as at least two of them made inescapable traps (Amanda and Hoffman) at various points. He believes he is cleansing and changing people, yet they mostly appear to become even less eager for the redemption of others than he is.
And the transformation of his subjects is indeed Jigsaw's objective. But although John thinks surviving one of his games will bring automatic rehabilitation, Amanda, his example survivor so seemingly transformed by her test that she joins Jigsaw in his work, reverts back into old habits. She had cut herself in acts of self-harm before meeting John but allegedly renounced that behavior, yet during one scene she walks away from Lynn and John, lowers her pants, and places a knife on her thigh next to multiple other previous cut marks. Before dying she also complains to John: "I'll tell you she hasn't changed because nobody fucking changes. Nobody is reborn. It's all bullshit! It's all a fucking lie!" She demands for John to fix her, one of the only "evidences" of the utilitarian success of his projects undone. Can people truly change? Of course! And people do not always need to face kidnapping and torture/execution devices to change! All of the usual internal consistency of John's worldview does not change the fact that the very core of his "work" is based upon fallacious errors--that people need to face death to decide to truly live and that someone can indirectly murder another without really having committed murder.
Conclusion
It is impressive that a series built around John Kramer could last five movies after his death, yet we are almost upon the fifth sequel since Saw III, which ended with the death of a cinematic legend. Of all the horror series I've heard of, Saw alone boasts a character-driven story that unfolds and deepens over the course of its current seven movies (although Saw: The Final Chapter was mostly a major letdown). Saw III is still remembered as one of the best entries in the franchise. And though it shows the death of horror icon John Kramer, it sets up the natural growth of the series so that it progresses to the point seen in the recent social media marketing for this year's Jigsaw--Jigsaw was just one man, but now many men and women seem to view him as a savior and moral beacon, having become smaller pieces of a larger jigsaw puzzle in his name. I'm hoping Jigsaw becomes the greatest in the series thus far!
Content:
1. Violence: There are some gory traps in this one! A woman's ribs get torn out of her body, part of Jigsaw's skull is removed during a surgery, a man's head is twisted entirely backwards, a woman's skull explodes when hit by multiple shotgun shells offscreen (though the results are shown directly onscreen).
2. Profanity: Many f-bombs and some "lesser" profanities, especially concentrated near the end.
3. Nudity: The first of Jeff's tests involves a nude woman hanging in a freezing environment. Her entire torso is visible but her pubic region is obscured somewhat.
--Jigsaw, Saw III
Before October 27th and the release of Jigsaw, I hope to finish reviewing the Saw series, starting with this review of Saw III, which I had skipped over last year due to not having access to watching it for the first time. Now that I've seen it, I think it ranks as one of the best in the series. This movie presents a horror villain very unique among the pack. Focusing on dying serial killer Jigsaw (John Kramer) and his unstable apprentice Amanda, it (ironically) explores Jigsaw's ironic dislike for revenge and murder.
Production Values
Saw III has a noticeably clearer aesthetic than its predecessors, a testament to its larger budget than the movies before it. It benefits from a fitting script and the commitment of its star actor. Tobin Bell is the perfect Jigsaw as usual. Really, I will find it strange if there's no impactful cameo of him in the upcoming movie bearing the name of his media alias! Confined to a bed for the entirety of the movie besides flashbacks, dying of cancer, and saddened by the misbehavior of his apprentice, Bell's John Kramer is still memorable despite the limitations on the character due to his condition and setting. Many of the best scenes in the later sequels were the scene that show flashbacks of Tobin Bell's character although he dies in this installment. And unlike in some horror series, when the villain dies, the villain dies.
Shawnee Smith offers a good effort as the conflicted Amanda Young who struggles between wanting to please and preserve the life of her mentor and wanting to revert back to her old lifestyle before she was "saved". Angus Macfadyen plays his character Jeff very well, capturing the spirit of a depressed, vengeful, emotionally-crippled father.
Not too many horror movie sequels focus on a careful story, but this movie's creators carefully branched off of the first two films before boldly taking the story into territory that might be drastically different in another popular horror franchise. Saw is, after all, a series based on story and characters, despite the misunderstandings of some who haven't watched it. Charlie Clouser also contributed a fitting score with some great pieces that evolve out of earlier tracks from the series, including multiple remixes of the classic Zepp track--and he's returning for Jigsaw according to what I've read online. I'm very excited!
Story
(Some spoilers below)
Detective Eric Matthews struggles to escape the bathroom Amanda, the revealed accomplice to the Jigsaw Killer, locked him in at the end of Saw II, freeing himself from a shackle by breaking his foot. Detective Allison Kerry tries to find him, joining a group of detectives and police officers in a school where remains of a Jigsaw trap are discovered. But Kerry notes that the doors are welded shut and had to be cut open to access the room where the trap occurred. This contradicts Jigsaw's strict modus operandi, which, in the past, has always offered an avenue of escape and survival.
Kerry herself is abducted by Pigface and placed in a trap of her own, which does not release her even when she obtains and uses the key. In the aftermath of her death, Amanda kidnaps a doctor named Lynn Denlon and pressures her into operating on a bedridden Jigsaw to keep him alive and in as little pain as possible during a series of tests for a man named Jeff. Lynn wears a shotgun collar that will destroy her skull if Jigsaw's heart rate flatlines or if she travels a certain distance away.
Jeff begins his games in a suspended crate, tasked by Jigsaw with overcoming his obsessive desire for vengeance after a drunk driver killed his son Dylan. As he plays the game he encounters an unhelpful witness to the tragedy, the judge who lightly sentenced the drunk driver, and the driver himself. The witness, Danica Scott, hangs naked in a room of freezing temperature as water is squirted onto her until she freezes to death; Judge Halden is locked in place at the bottom of a vat filling up with liquid pig carcasses and is freed; Timothy Young, the driver (no relation to Amanda Young), is strapped into a mechanical device that twists his limbs and head. Jeff slowly becomes more willing to actually help these individuals as he progresses with some encouragement from Jigsaw and the victims themselves.
John eventually tells Amanda to release Lynn, and when Amanda refuses, Jigsaw reveals to her that he was testing her too, as she had shown great error in creating the inescapable traps from the beginning. Amanda complains about how nobody actually changes, despite her seeming rebirth after her own test, and shoots Lynn contrary to the protests of Jigsaw. Jeff enters the room, shoots her, and is offered a chance to forgive Jigsaw. Lynn is actually his wife, and he panics upon discovering her here. He says he forgives Jigsaw before killing him, unwittingly dooming Lynn to death via the shotgun collar.
Intellectual Content
As expected, the moral ideologies presented and practiced by John Kramer and his follower(s) (viewers see from Saw IV onward that the network of Jigsaw apprentices was far more vast than it initially appeared) are prominent.
In Saw II, John tells Detective Matthews that he is not truly a murderer because he allows people to choose to live or die, echoing Doctor Gordon's comment in the first Saw that "Technically speaking he's not really a murderer. He never killed anyone." Interestingly, John says here that he does not condone murder and despises those who murder, and these are exactly the things he criticizes Hoffman for in a Saw V flashback. Of course, he and his accomplices still kidnap people and insert them into very dangerous situations. Amanda eventually tells John before her death that "What you do is no different than murder. You torture people. You watch them die." Still, the quasi-religious themes of John's philosophy are particularly on display as he uses somewhat religious language about the salvation of his victims, quotes the Golden Rule and Matthew 7:12 in a tape, and respects the autonomy of individuals to make their own choice to pursue what he views as redemption or damnation.
Despite the traps, Saw III actually presents a message about how vengeance can bring those who surrender to it to the point where they fail to see the humanity of others. When Jeff initially seems to want to allow Danica Scott to freeze in her trap, she reminds that "I'm human. I'm human just like your son was." John insists to Jeff through a tape that even Timothy Young is a human being--and a Saw VI flashback even shows John subtly challenge Hoffman for callously treating Timothy's unconscious body before putting him in his trap. To commit atrocities, people must often dehumanize their victims. The process provides an excuse for not treating someone as one would treat others. And intriguingly, although John values life--or at least thinks he does--it seems that few to none of his successors and accomplices actually share his values, as at least two of them made inescapable traps (Amanda and Hoffman) at various points. He believes he is cleansing and changing people, yet they mostly appear to become even less eager for the redemption of others than he is.
And the transformation of his subjects is indeed Jigsaw's objective. But although John thinks surviving one of his games will bring automatic rehabilitation, Amanda, his example survivor so seemingly transformed by her test that she joins Jigsaw in his work, reverts back into old habits. She had cut herself in acts of self-harm before meeting John but allegedly renounced that behavior, yet during one scene she walks away from Lynn and John, lowers her pants, and places a knife on her thigh next to multiple other previous cut marks. Before dying she also complains to John: "I'll tell you she hasn't changed because nobody fucking changes. Nobody is reborn. It's all bullshit! It's all a fucking lie!" She demands for John to fix her, one of the only "evidences" of the utilitarian success of his projects undone. Can people truly change? Of course! And people do not always need to face kidnapping and torture/execution devices to change! All of the usual internal consistency of John's worldview does not change the fact that the very core of his "work" is based upon fallacious errors--that people need to face death to decide to truly live and that someone can indirectly murder another without really having committed murder.
Conclusion
It is impressive that a series built around John Kramer could last five movies after his death, yet we are almost upon the fifth sequel since Saw III, which ended with the death of a cinematic legend. Of all the horror series I've heard of, Saw alone boasts a character-driven story that unfolds and deepens over the course of its current seven movies (although Saw: The Final Chapter was mostly a major letdown). Saw III is still remembered as one of the best entries in the franchise. And though it shows the death of horror icon John Kramer, it sets up the natural growth of the series so that it progresses to the point seen in the recent social media marketing for this year's Jigsaw--Jigsaw was just one man, but now many men and women seem to view him as a savior and moral beacon, having become smaller pieces of a larger jigsaw puzzle in his name. I'm hoping Jigsaw becomes the greatest in the series thus far!
Content:
1. Violence: There are some gory traps in this one! A woman's ribs get torn out of her body, part of Jigsaw's skull is removed during a surgery, a man's head is twisted entirely backwards, a woman's skull explodes when hit by multiple shotgun shells offscreen (though the results are shown directly onscreen).
2. Profanity: Many f-bombs and some "lesser" profanities, especially concentrated near the end.
3. Nudity: The first of Jeff's tests involves a nude woman hanging in a freezing environment. Her entire torso is visible but her pubic region is obscured somewhat.
Saturday, September 16, 2017
The Cause Of Sexual Objectification
It is one of Western culture's stubborn but easily-refutable myths: someone can devalue himself or herself (though honestly this is usually said more about women) by merely exposing his or her body to certain extents, the person in question allegedly "objectifying" and diminishing the "dignity" of himself or herself. I find that this horrendously illogical (and unbiblical!) idea that someone devalues his or her dignity by wearing revealing or minimal clothing still needs to be defeated within my sphere of contact with others, since some people have not yet admitted the truth of the matter. Secular people have no basis to make judgments about dignity, value, or morality by, so their comments are totally irrelevant, and Christians cannot rally around the Bible here unless they want to quote some nonexistent verse.
There is no amount of clothing or lack of clothing that affects the objective value of an individual. Human dignity does not have anything to do with clothing, but everything to do with bearing God's image. A man without a shirt on a beach and a man wearing one on a beach do not have different degrees of "dignity". A woman wearing a bikini on a beach (even a very small one) and a woman wearing a one-piece swimsuit on a beach do not have differing degrees of dignity. A clothed person and a naked person do not differ in their dignity.
It doesn't matter what someone wears--bikini, speedo, thong, nothing at all--besides all the reasons why modesty teachings are bullshit Biblically and logically [1], the idea that some clothing carries more "dignity" than others is based entirely on subjective, arbitrary cultural or individual constructs and has nothing to do with reason or Scripture. Then there's the stupid double standards that condemn women for exposing body parts that men can expose without social outcry (example: male and female breasts are equally not sex organs, yet people freak out at female breasts as if they are), made even more asinine by the fact that women are generally attracted to men just as men are generally attracted to women [2].
It may be helpful to yet again define objectification to see what its true source is.
If a man sees an attractive woman or a woman sees an attractive man and experiences a sensation of physical attraction, no objectification has occurred. Marital status is entirely irrelevant. If a man sees a woman in a bikini or a woman sees a shirtless man and finds pleasure in observing that person, no objectification has occurred. If a man sees an attractive nude woman or a woman sees an attractive nude man and notices that person's body, no objectification has occurred. If the man or woman feels attraction, no objectification has occurred. Even if the man or woman experiences physical sexual arousal (which can be involuntary and does not logically indicate mental sexual desire), no objectification has occurred. One can experience this without ignoring or denying the full humanity of the other person, without violating that person's human dignity. But if that man or woman mentally reduces the attractive person to nothing but an attractive body that exists for his or her viewing pleasure, then objectification has occurred; if that man or woman treats the attractive person as if he or she is not a full human being with a mind, emotions, an autonomous will, and so forth--dimensions beyond just a beautiful body--then objectification has occurred.
Objectification and dignity have nothing whatsoever to do with either clothing or its absence. It has everything to do with the mind of a person who does not respect the full humanity of another person. A person does not objectify himself or herself by wearing or not wearing clothing; some people objectify others because of their own lack of respect for them. The problem of sexual objectification has never existed because of clothing or the human body. And if someone objectifies another person, sexually or otherwise, the human dignity of the objectified person has not changed. Again, people have dignity by nature of bearing God's image, not a kind derived from clothing.
People objectify people, not clothing. Bikinis and other clothes do not affect or have anything to do with human dignity. Logic, people. It is helpful.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-folly-of-modesty-part-2.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/bikinis-are-not-sinful.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/women-are-visual.html
There is no amount of clothing or lack of clothing that affects the objective value of an individual. Human dignity does not have anything to do with clothing, but everything to do with bearing God's image. A man without a shirt on a beach and a man wearing one on a beach do not have different degrees of "dignity". A woman wearing a bikini on a beach (even a very small one) and a woman wearing a one-piece swimsuit on a beach do not have differing degrees of dignity. A clothed person and a naked person do not differ in their dignity.
It doesn't matter what someone wears--bikini, speedo, thong, nothing at all--besides all the reasons why modesty teachings are bullshit Biblically and logically [1], the idea that some clothing carries more "dignity" than others is based entirely on subjective, arbitrary cultural or individual constructs and has nothing to do with reason or Scripture. Then there's the stupid double standards that condemn women for exposing body parts that men can expose without social outcry (example: male and female breasts are equally not sex organs, yet people freak out at female breasts as if they are), made even more asinine by the fact that women are generally attracted to men just as men are generally attracted to women [2].
It may be helpful to yet again define objectification to see what its true source is.
If a man sees an attractive woman or a woman sees an attractive man and experiences a sensation of physical attraction, no objectification has occurred. Marital status is entirely irrelevant. If a man sees a woman in a bikini or a woman sees a shirtless man and finds pleasure in observing that person, no objectification has occurred. If a man sees an attractive nude woman or a woman sees an attractive nude man and notices that person's body, no objectification has occurred. If the man or woman feels attraction, no objectification has occurred. Even if the man or woman experiences physical sexual arousal (which can be involuntary and does not logically indicate mental sexual desire), no objectification has occurred. One can experience this without ignoring or denying the full humanity of the other person, without violating that person's human dignity. But if that man or woman mentally reduces the attractive person to nothing but an attractive body that exists for his or her viewing pleasure, then objectification has occurred; if that man or woman treats the attractive person as if he or she is not a full human being with a mind, emotions, an autonomous will, and so forth--dimensions beyond just a beautiful body--then objectification has occurred.
Objectification and dignity have nothing whatsoever to do with either clothing or its absence. It has everything to do with the mind of a person who does not respect the full humanity of another person. A person does not objectify himself or herself by wearing or not wearing clothing; some people objectify others because of their own lack of respect for them. The problem of sexual objectification has never existed because of clothing or the human body. And if someone objectifies another person, sexually or otherwise, the human dignity of the objectified person has not changed. Again, people have dignity by nature of bearing God's image, not a kind derived from clothing.
People objectify people, not clothing. Bikinis and other clothes do not affect or have anything to do with human dignity. Logic, people. It is helpful.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-folly-of-modesty-part-1.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-folly-of-modesty-part-2.html
C. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/bikinis-are-not-sinful.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/women-are-visual.html
The Errors Of Scientism
Scientism is one of the most asinine, illogical, destructive ideologies of the 21st century. It is the belief that science alone reveals truth. Scientism is not science; it is not logical; it is a drastic misrepresentation of reality. This error both contradicts itself and denies aspects of reality that both cannot be false and have nothing to do with even legitimate science. Here I will explain some of the limitations of science and the utter folly of scientism!
I need to define the scientific method to present science as it is. The scientific method involves the formulation of a hypothesis to be investigated, the conduction of experiments, observation of the results, and potential modification to the hypothesis, continuing in a repeated circle as necessary. For something to lay within the boundaries of science it must be empirically testable with the senses, repeatable, and measurable. These parameters mean that many human experiences are extra-scientific and that not all events, experiences, or disciplines could be considered "scientifically supported". An example is psychology, which, at least when it deals with things like the alleged "subconscious" [1], cannot be considered an actual science because it focuses its attention on things which are not directly measurable and repeatable, much less testable through empirical observation.
Science, by the very nature of its system of empirical observations and conclusions, is incapable of proving anything, except perhaps in the present moment that a certain thing is being observed during an experiment. Science cannot prove anything about the past or the future. Since historical events cannot be repeated exactly, history is outside the domain of science and historical claims are entirely "ascientific". No scientific experiment can even prove to me that I'm not a brain in a vat or being deceived by a demon or God into perceiving false sensory stimuli, meaning that no scientific experiment can even demonstrate that the senses I use to engage in scientific pursuits are even seeing the external world as it is! Without this certain, I cannot know if science even reveals anything about external reality at all. As you hopefully see, science can prove very little, if anything at all.
Before I proceed much further, I want to point out just how intellectually pathetic scientism is. Scientism holds that science alone reveals truth, anything outside the boundaries of science either unknowable or nonexistent. To refute this in full, I could do one of two things: 1) give numerous examples of varied things which science can say nothing about, or 2) mention that science cannot verify that only science can reveal truth. Right here I will exploit scientism's major contradiction up front before elaborating on the many aspects of reality which science cannot touch or reveal. Since scientism cannot be verified by science it fails its own criterion, is objectively false, and since science has nothing to do with anything separate from the scientific method, it cannot verify or falsify anything outside of its limited boundaries whatsoever. Therefore scientism is nothing but intellectual folly and logical fallacies combined.
Amusingly, science relies on external disciplines which do not rely on it. For instance, apart from logic no one could even intelligibly record or interpret a scientific experiment. Logic is required by science, yet it is not itself science and does not require science to exist or function. Mathematics is required to be able to count and interact with scientific observations, yet mathematics, like logic, is true independent of science and does not rely on it. Science also relies on certain beliefs about the external world--that it exists and is knowable. One can know that an external world exists [2], yet no person with my limitations can prove to himself or herself much more than that about the external world. Not only are these beliefs ultimately philosophical and not strictly scientific in nature, but science also cannot actually verify them. I know some sort of external world exists through logic and immediate experience. I know I have a body through methods of verification that have nothing to do with laboratories, peer reviews, observations of nature, or scientific experiments as a whole [3]. It seems that many scientists simply assume these things (that they have bodies and that the external world is knowable)!
Whether or not morality and beauty exist are issues that are totally beyond the possible scope of science, meaning that no scientific experiment verifies or falsifies any claim at all about ethics or aesthetics--or values as a whole, including meaning. Science (or just empirical observation and experience in general--not all experience involves the scientific method) may be able to tell me that, say, physical abuse has certain effects on the bodies and wellbeing of its victims. But science cannot tell me that it is wrong to physically abuse someone. It has nothing to offer someone inquiring whether or not existence has meaning.
The very fact that truth exists is not known to me through scientific means. If truth does not exist, then neither scientism nor the scientific method can be true. The existence of truth is grasped by my rational mind, which realizes that some things are true (that I am perceiving, thinking, and so on) and that if truth did not exist it would be true that truth does not exist, a self-refuting impossibility. Truth's existence is one example of a set of facts I call axioms which cannot be false [4], known purely through the intellect and not through the senses or science.
It is reason and science itself that reveal to me that science has limitations and what those limitations are. All of this together means that science is of no usefulness whatsoever to those who want to verify a very large variety of philosophical claims. Some react to the limitations of science by claiming that if something cannot be scientifically tested or known then it cannot be true or cannot be known. This is extremely fallacious--not only do I know many things totally apart from anything involving science, but no scientific experiment demonstrates that science alone reveals truth (making scientism laughably self-refuting). The only things I know with absolute certainty have nothing to do with science; they have to do with logic and introspection, which I could respectively grasp and engage in without ever partaking in scientific experiments--without even opening my eyes or using my senses at all. Even if I were an unembodied mind with no physical body or senses, logic and introspection would still be available to me, but not science!
Scientism may be prevalent in my culture in some ways, yet popularity does not reveal truth. If adherents of scientism challenged their philosophy, they would quickly see its intrinsic flaws, inconsistencies, and errors. And ironically, scientism is a philosophy, despite the way that some current scientists act as if science is separate from philosophy and is superior to it, when any belief system is a philosophy and philosophy encompasses so much more than science ever could, for philosophy is all-encompassing. Any adherent of scientism willing to legitimately discuss science could easily be brought to awareness that scientism is self-refuting and that things like logic, first principles, mathematics, introspection, and immediate experiences (the things knowable with absolute certainty) are not known by the scientific method, though science can only exist because of them--and that disciplines like ethics, aesthetics, theology, and history are entirely outside of the ability of science to comment on one way or the other.
Since science cannot prove anything except at most a very limited set of facts only about the present moment, the phrase "scientifically proven" is a misleading and useless phrase thrown around by the ignorant and fallacious. Only logic and math can prove anything with utter finality and immutability. Undiluted logic and its counterpart mathematics (which is basically numeric logic) is final, infallible, and accessible to everyone; science is intrinsically, vastly limited. A person who relies on science to dictate a worldview to him or her is steeped in irrationality. Science may lead to the practical benefits of everyday technology that simplifies and enhances our lives, but, as far as knowledge of reality is concerned, it is actually quite useless in many ways, and scientism is nothing but a fallacious crutch for those too irrational to admit the nature of reality.
Summary of observations:
1. Science deals only with phenomena that are empirically observable, testable, measurable, and repeatable; anything outside of these criteria is not involved with the scientific method.
2. To claim that science alone reveals truth is to make a claim that science itself cannot verify, meaning the system itself is inherently self-defeating and therefore it objectively cannot be true.
3. Many disciplines, aspects of reality, and avenues to knowledge have nothing to do with science, including, but not limited to, logic, mathematics, introspection, memory, linguistics, ethics, aesthetics, history, metaphysics, and theology.
4. Science relies on logic, mathematics, and philosophy, but none of those things rely on science. Even if I had no body or senses and thus no ability to use the scientific method, I could still know certain truths through logic, math, introspection, and philosophy.
5. Science cannot prove anything; only logic and mathematics can.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-subconscious.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-external-world.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html
I need to define the scientific method to present science as it is. The scientific method involves the formulation of a hypothesis to be investigated, the conduction of experiments, observation of the results, and potential modification to the hypothesis, continuing in a repeated circle as necessary. For something to lay within the boundaries of science it must be empirically testable with the senses, repeatable, and measurable. These parameters mean that many human experiences are extra-scientific and that not all events, experiences, or disciplines could be considered "scientifically supported". An example is psychology, which, at least when it deals with things like the alleged "subconscious" [1], cannot be considered an actual science because it focuses its attention on things which are not directly measurable and repeatable, much less testable through empirical observation.
Science, by the very nature of its system of empirical observations and conclusions, is incapable of proving anything, except perhaps in the present moment that a certain thing is being observed during an experiment. Science cannot prove anything about the past or the future. Since historical events cannot be repeated exactly, history is outside the domain of science and historical claims are entirely "ascientific". No scientific experiment can even prove to me that I'm not a brain in a vat or being deceived by a demon or God into perceiving false sensory stimuli, meaning that no scientific experiment can even demonstrate that the senses I use to engage in scientific pursuits are even seeing the external world as it is! Without this certain, I cannot know if science even reveals anything about external reality at all. As you hopefully see, science can prove very little, if anything at all.
Before I proceed much further, I want to point out just how intellectually pathetic scientism is. Scientism holds that science alone reveals truth, anything outside the boundaries of science either unknowable or nonexistent. To refute this in full, I could do one of two things: 1) give numerous examples of varied things which science can say nothing about, or 2) mention that science cannot verify that only science can reveal truth. Right here I will exploit scientism's major contradiction up front before elaborating on the many aspects of reality which science cannot touch or reveal. Since scientism cannot be verified by science it fails its own criterion, is objectively false, and since science has nothing to do with anything separate from the scientific method, it cannot verify or falsify anything outside of its limited boundaries whatsoever. Therefore scientism is nothing but intellectual folly and logical fallacies combined.
 |
| No scientific experiment can verify the dogma of scientism and establish that science is the greatest or only tool for discovering truth. Scientism is logically impossible. |
Amusingly, science relies on external disciplines which do not rely on it. For instance, apart from logic no one could even intelligibly record or interpret a scientific experiment. Logic is required by science, yet it is not itself science and does not require science to exist or function. Mathematics is required to be able to count and interact with scientific observations, yet mathematics, like logic, is true independent of science and does not rely on it. Science also relies on certain beliefs about the external world--that it exists and is knowable. One can know that an external world exists [2], yet no person with my limitations can prove to himself or herself much more than that about the external world. Not only are these beliefs ultimately philosophical and not strictly scientific in nature, but science also cannot actually verify them. I know some sort of external world exists through logic and immediate experience. I know I have a body through methods of verification that have nothing to do with laboratories, peer reviews, observations of nature, or scientific experiments as a whole [3]. It seems that many scientists simply assume these things (that they have bodies and that the external world is knowable)!
Whether or not morality and beauty exist are issues that are totally beyond the possible scope of science, meaning that no scientific experiment verifies or falsifies any claim at all about ethics or aesthetics--or values as a whole, including meaning. Science (or just empirical observation and experience in general--not all experience involves the scientific method) may be able to tell me that, say, physical abuse has certain effects on the bodies and wellbeing of its victims. But science cannot tell me that it is wrong to physically abuse someone. It has nothing to offer someone inquiring whether or not existence has meaning.
The very fact that truth exists is not known to me through scientific means. If truth does not exist, then neither scientism nor the scientific method can be true. The existence of truth is grasped by my rational mind, which realizes that some things are true (that I am perceiving, thinking, and so on) and that if truth did not exist it would be true that truth does not exist, a self-refuting impossibility. Truth's existence is one example of a set of facts I call axioms which cannot be false [4], known purely through the intellect and not through the senses or science.
It is reason and science itself that reveal to me that science has limitations and what those limitations are. All of this together means that science is of no usefulness whatsoever to those who want to verify a very large variety of philosophical claims. Some react to the limitations of science by claiming that if something cannot be scientifically tested or known then it cannot be true or cannot be known. This is extremely fallacious--not only do I know many things totally apart from anything involving science, but no scientific experiment demonstrates that science alone reveals truth (making scientism laughably self-refuting). The only things I know with absolute certainty have nothing to do with science; they have to do with logic and introspection, which I could respectively grasp and engage in without ever partaking in scientific experiments--without even opening my eyes or using my senses at all. Even if I were an unembodied mind with no physical body or senses, logic and introspection would still be available to me, but not science!
 |
| I know many things totally apart from science through avenues of knowledge like logic and introspection. Science requires logic and mathematics (they are separate disciplines that do not rely on science in any way), cannot verify or falsify value claims, has nothing to say about historical claims, does not reveal if future events will operate according to currently held scientific laws, cannot tell me if I am perceiving the external world as it is, and is utterly incapable of proving anything (except perhaps in the present moment). The limitations of science are many. |
Scientism may be prevalent in my culture in some ways, yet popularity does not reveal truth. If adherents of scientism challenged their philosophy, they would quickly see its intrinsic flaws, inconsistencies, and errors. And ironically, scientism is a philosophy, despite the way that some current scientists act as if science is separate from philosophy and is superior to it, when any belief system is a philosophy and philosophy encompasses so much more than science ever could, for philosophy is all-encompassing. Any adherent of scientism willing to legitimately discuss science could easily be brought to awareness that scientism is self-refuting and that things like logic, first principles, mathematics, introspection, and immediate experiences (the things knowable with absolute certainty) are not known by the scientific method, though science can only exist because of them--and that disciplines like ethics, aesthetics, theology, and history are entirely outside of the ability of science to comment on one way or the other.
Since science cannot prove anything except at most a very limited set of facts only about the present moment, the phrase "scientifically proven" is a misleading and useless phrase thrown around by the ignorant and fallacious. Only logic and math can prove anything with utter finality and immutability. Undiluted logic and its counterpart mathematics (which is basically numeric logic) is final, infallible, and accessible to everyone; science is intrinsically, vastly limited. A person who relies on science to dictate a worldview to him or her is steeped in irrationality. Science may lead to the practical benefits of everyday technology that simplifies and enhances our lives, but, as far as knowledge of reality is concerned, it is actually quite useless in many ways, and scientism is nothing but a fallacious crutch for those too irrational to admit the nature of reality.
Summary of observations:
1. Science deals only with phenomena that are empirically observable, testable, measurable, and repeatable; anything outside of these criteria is not involved with the scientific method.
2. To claim that science alone reveals truth is to make a claim that science itself cannot verify, meaning the system itself is inherently self-defeating and therefore it objectively cannot be true.
3. Many disciplines, aspects of reality, and avenues to knowledge have nothing to do with science, including, but not limited to, logic, mathematics, introspection, memory, linguistics, ethics, aesthetics, history, metaphysics, and theology.
4. Science relies on logic, mathematics, and philosophy, but none of those things rely on science. Even if I had no body or senses and thus no ability to use the scientific method, I could still know certain truths through logic, math, introspection, and philosophy.
5. Science cannot prove anything; only logic and mathematics can.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-subconscious.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-external-world.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html
Thursday, September 14, 2017
The Compatibility Of Evolution And Theism
Is evolution logically compatible with theism? To answer this question, two types of evolution must be distinguished: 1) microevolution, a process consisting of smaller and more local variations that develop among some members of a species (to facilitate adaption to a particular environment), and 2) macroevolution, a set of larger variations that lead to the development of a new species. I have been frustrated in the past by the tendency of some to refer to macroevolution as a thing which logically excludes theism, the belief in the existence of a deity.
Allow me to be clear that I am not a theistic evolutionist. I am not endorsing theistic evolution here, and I am certainly not saying that the Bible teaches such a thing. My concern here is that people can be ignorant of how evolution does not not threaten theism itself in any way. Charles Darwin articulated his thoughts on species, nature, and “the struggle for existence” (32) in his influential work The Origin of Species and there he largely focuses on the theory of evolution itself and not atheism, though he does mention a Creator.
Upon discussing the nature of the eye, Darwin posed the following questions, directly referencing some Creator: “But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?” (73-74). And when addressing the creation of species he says that “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator . . .” (104), yet again referencing a seemingly godlike being.
What exactly Darwin meant by the term “Creator” is not fully developed in these passages, but at the very least these sentences imply acknowledgment of some deistic entity. But whether or not Darwin identified as a theist, atheist, or agnostic of some sort has nothing to do with whether or not macroevolution is logically compatible with theism. I must clarify the distinction. But at the very least Darwin uses occasional language that not only suggests that he may not have meant by his theory what some may represent him as meaning, but also directly states that he did mentally assent to belief in some cosmic creator.
Microevolution is less controversial and accepted by a large amount of theists. It is entirely logically compatible with theism and I have never heard of one person who disputed this. Macroevolution, though, receives far more negative attention. Now, even if macroevolution were true and some species had evolved from “lesser” ones, the material world would still require an uncaused cause, as logic reveals [1], meaning that if one calls the uncaused cause “God” then macroevolution is a serious red herring to the issue of God’s existence and does not in any way compete with or discredit theism. If macroevolution occurred on this planet, then God exists; if macroevolution did not occur on this planet, then God exists; either way, an uncaused cause exists by logical necessity. I have seen, on too many occasions, evolution get presented as a belief that represents the total antithesis of theism, as if the veracity of macroevolution would entirely shatter the intellectual basis for generic theism. This position rests on non sequiturs and straw men, not on sound and valid reasoning.
Really, the so-called "evolution vs. creation debate" is a massive waste of time as far as general theism is concerned, as if the real contesters were atheism and theism. There is a God regardless of whether or not macroevolution was or is an actual phenomenon. Where Christians in particular, and not theists in general, may get more defensive is when people interpret Genesis 1-2 in a way that reads theistic evolution into the text, when, at least on a cursory examination, that deviates from what the text actually says. But this does not change that God's existence is wholly unrelated to the issue of macroevolution and thus evolution of either a micro or macro type cannot be legitimately held up against theism as a completely alternative possibility for the origins of certain species.
In short, macroevolution might be legitimately viewed as something foreign to the Biblical text of Genesis, but it is erroneous to say that it opposes all possible forms of theism, for nothing about either concept would negate the other. It is logically valuable to note this because the identification, refutation, and prevention of straw men are things necessary to rational inquiry into the nature of reality. When people do not create and battle straw men, they have more time and energy to focus into investigating actual falsities.
Selections from Darwin’s The Origin of Species. Darwin, Charles. Ed. Maistrellis, Nicholas. Santa Fe: Green Lion Press, 2009. Print.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
Allow me to be clear that I am not a theistic evolutionist. I am not endorsing theistic evolution here, and I am certainly not saying that the Bible teaches such a thing. My concern here is that people can be ignorant of how evolution does not not threaten theism itself in any way. Charles Darwin articulated his thoughts on species, nature, and “the struggle for existence” (32) in his influential work The Origin of Species and there he largely focuses on the theory of evolution itself and not atheism, though he does mention a Creator.
Upon discussing the nature of the eye, Darwin posed the following questions, directly referencing some Creator: “But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?” (73-74). And when addressing the creation of species he says that “To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator . . .” (104), yet again referencing a seemingly godlike being.
What exactly Darwin meant by the term “Creator” is not fully developed in these passages, but at the very least these sentences imply acknowledgment of some deistic entity. But whether or not Darwin identified as a theist, atheist, or agnostic of some sort has nothing to do with whether or not macroevolution is logically compatible with theism. I must clarify the distinction. But at the very least Darwin uses occasional language that not only suggests that he may not have meant by his theory what some may represent him as meaning, but also directly states that he did mentally assent to belief in some cosmic creator.
Microevolution is less controversial and accepted by a large amount of theists. It is entirely logically compatible with theism and I have never heard of one person who disputed this. Macroevolution, though, receives far more negative attention. Now, even if macroevolution were true and some species had evolved from “lesser” ones, the material world would still require an uncaused cause, as logic reveals [1], meaning that if one calls the uncaused cause “God” then macroevolution is a serious red herring to the issue of God’s existence and does not in any way compete with or discredit theism. If macroevolution occurred on this planet, then God exists; if macroevolution did not occur on this planet, then God exists; either way, an uncaused cause exists by logical necessity. I have seen, on too many occasions, evolution get presented as a belief that represents the total antithesis of theism, as if the veracity of macroevolution would entirely shatter the intellectual basis for generic theism. This position rests on non sequiturs and straw men, not on sound and valid reasoning.
Really, the so-called "evolution vs. creation debate" is a massive waste of time as far as general theism is concerned, as if the real contesters were atheism and theism. There is a God regardless of whether or not macroevolution was or is an actual phenomenon. Where Christians in particular, and not theists in general, may get more defensive is when people interpret Genesis 1-2 in a way that reads theistic evolution into the text, when, at least on a cursory examination, that deviates from what the text actually says. But this does not change that God's existence is wholly unrelated to the issue of macroevolution and thus evolution of either a micro or macro type cannot be legitimately held up against theism as a completely alternative possibility for the origins of certain species.
In short, macroevolution might be legitimately viewed as something foreign to the Biblical text of Genesis, but it is erroneous to say that it opposes all possible forms of theism, for nothing about either concept would negate the other. It is logically valuable to note this because the identification, refutation, and prevention of straw men are things necessary to rational inquiry into the nature of reality. When people do not create and battle straw men, they have more time and energy to focus into investigating actual falsities.
Selections from Darwin’s The Origin of Species. Darwin, Charles. Ed. Maistrellis, Nicholas. Santa Fe: Green Lion Press, 2009. Print.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
A Warning To Teachers
Beware, teachers, for "we who teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1). In this case I do not mean teachers in general education, although this warning could easily apply to them. I mean teachers in the church and people who teach in the name of Christianity. The very book Christian teachers hopefully derive many of their teachings from carries a strict warning to them: they can expect a more intense judgment from God due to their status as teachers.
Yes, it is the intellectual responsibility (and moral responsibility, by Biblical standards [1]) of someone being taught to not merely accept what is stated by teachers. I, as a rational, autonomous being, ultimately do not have to believe something just because I am told to by someone in a certain church or social position. It indeed is a sign of fallacious reasoning and beliefs in someone's life if that person listens to a human teacher over reason or Scripture. A teacher is only useful inasmuch as he or she teaches in alignment with logic and the Bible, and, because of this, should be regarded as a legitimate teacher only to the extent that he or she is rational, consistent, truthful, and Biblical.
Just because individuals under teachers are responsible for their own intellectual and spiritual growth does not mean that teachers have a lenient position. They still are commanded by God to represent truth clearly, accurately, consistently, and to the best of their abilities. A Christian teacher who hopes for leniency in judgment from God seeks something that does not exist within the Christian worldview.
Laypeople in churches need to keep in mind that, just as a government is only legitimate to the extent that it operates within God's revealed moral obligations, a teacher is only reliable and worth supporting if that teacher is sound. God is not behind any church leader who does not operate within rational and Biblical parameters or teach truth, at least not fully. Do not mistakenly think something different.
[1]. See 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Proverbs 19:2, Acts 17:11, and 1 Peter 3:15.
Yes, it is the intellectual responsibility (and moral responsibility, by Biblical standards [1]) of someone being taught to not merely accept what is stated by teachers. I, as a rational, autonomous being, ultimately do not have to believe something just because I am told to by someone in a certain church or social position. It indeed is a sign of fallacious reasoning and beliefs in someone's life if that person listens to a human teacher over reason or Scripture. A teacher is only useful inasmuch as he or she teaches in alignment with logic and the Bible, and, because of this, should be regarded as a legitimate teacher only to the extent that he or she is rational, consistent, truthful, and Biblical.
Just because individuals under teachers are responsible for their own intellectual and spiritual growth does not mean that teachers have a lenient position. They still are commanded by God to represent truth clearly, accurately, consistently, and to the best of their abilities. A Christian teacher who hopes for leniency in judgment from God seeks something that does not exist within the Christian worldview.
Laypeople in churches need to keep in mind that, just as a government is only legitimate to the extent that it operates within God's revealed moral obligations, a teacher is only reliable and worth supporting if that teacher is sound. God is not behind any church leader who does not operate within rational and Biblical parameters or teach truth, at least not fully. Do not mistakenly think something different.
[1]. See 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Proverbs 19:2, Acts 17:11, and 1 Peter 3:15.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Lucid Dreaming: A Godlike World
In contemplating consciousness, I have recently approached the issue of lucid dreaming. As I have defined elsewhere, dreaming is an activity of the mind while asleep, a collection of mental images perceived by the mind as the body, unless it is sleepwalking, stays largely inactive. Lucid dreaming is a step beyond this: it involves both conscious awareness that one is dreaming and intentional control of one's dream, not just a passive experience of it. This phenomenon is of interest to study of consciousness, the mind, and the will.
In such a dream where one has achieved a "lucid" state, one's dream self could manipulate the images of the surrounding dream environment, conduct a conversation with a dream character, practice a task in anticipation of engaging in that task the next day, do otherwise lethal things without dying, and so on. One could find freedom to discard scientific laws at will. But it is totally untrue to say that there are "no limitations" on what one can imagine or do in a lucid dream, for things which are logically impossible remain both impossible to come about and impossible to conceive of in the mind. A door in a dream can't be open and closed at the same time; my mind can't perceive and not perceive a lucid dream at the same time; I cannot be flying and walking on the ground at the same time. Logical facts govern all of reality, including a dream otherwise totally dictated to someone by his or her own self [1].
One way others claim to have been able to distinguish between a dream and state of awakeness is to attempt things which are impossible while awake, such as pushing one hand through the other. An actual hand would prevent another hand from passing through it due to the properties of matter, but in a dream, a realm composed of mental images and not matter, such a feat could be possible. An action or thought intended to distinguish an experience in a lucid dream from that of being awake is called a reality check. Other examples might include things like coughing without shaking or hearing certain external sounds while covering the ears. The goal is to contrast the occurrences in the dream world, governed only by logic and one's will, with those in the external world we perceive while awake, which is governed additionally by scientific laws like gravity.
The characters in the popular Christopher Nolan movie Inception, a film where characters entered the dreams of other people, have their own type of reality check--they brought little items like tops into the dream and would spin them on a surface. If the item continued spinning beyond a natural length of time, they would believe they were in a dream; if not, they would consider themselves awake. Philosophically and logically, though, neither spinning a top nor any of the other reality checks I mentioned previously actually prove that one is dreaming or awake. It would always remain possible that the dream world behaves much like or just like the real world, rendering many reality checks epistemologically useless. But there is a way to logically prove to oneself one way or the other if one is awake--see a previous article of mine on the subject [2].
Dream characters, also called dream figures, could be fashioned originally or be based upon recalled individuals who exist outside of the dream. I have yet to sort through debates about the role of the subconscious in projecting and animating dream figures. But dream figures do not control lucid dreams; the dreamer does. In a lucid dream, one could behave in a practically godlike fashion--not that the ability to lucid dream actually makes one divine or that powers displayed in lucid dreams translate into waking life in the external world. Of course, this fact could provoke many questions about the nature of reality, metaphysics, epistemology, and general philosophy and theology.
Lucid dreaming indeed opens the pathway to questions about a variety of philosophical and ethical issues. Is having sex in a lucid dream sinful? What does lucid dreaming convey about free will? Does ontological idealism find unexpected support in lucid dreaming? I do not have the time or space to elaborately and precisely answer these questions now, but perhaps I will return to them in the future. Although I have not yet actually attempted to lucid dream, meaning I have not yet been able to experience successful lucid dreaming, I do hope to attempt it sometime! After all, being able to use telekinesis seems fun to me!
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/conceivability-is-possibility.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
In such a dream where one has achieved a "lucid" state, one's dream self could manipulate the images of the surrounding dream environment, conduct a conversation with a dream character, practice a task in anticipation of engaging in that task the next day, do otherwise lethal things without dying, and so on. One could find freedom to discard scientific laws at will. But it is totally untrue to say that there are "no limitations" on what one can imagine or do in a lucid dream, for things which are logically impossible remain both impossible to come about and impossible to conceive of in the mind. A door in a dream can't be open and closed at the same time; my mind can't perceive and not perceive a lucid dream at the same time; I cannot be flying and walking on the ground at the same time. Logical facts govern all of reality, including a dream otherwise totally dictated to someone by his or her own self [1].
One way others claim to have been able to distinguish between a dream and state of awakeness is to attempt things which are impossible while awake, such as pushing one hand through the other. An actual hand would prevent another hand from passing through it due to the properties of matter, but in a dream, a realm composed of mental images and not matter, such a feat could be possible. An action or thought intended to distinguish an experience in a lucid dream from that of being awake is called a reality check. Other examples might include things like coughing without shaking or hearing certain external sounds while covering the ears. The goal is to contrast the occurrences in the dream world, governed only by logic and one's will, with those in the external world we perceive while awake, which is governed additionally by scientific laws like gravity.
The characters in the popular Christopher Nolan movie Inception, a film where characters entered the dreams of other people, have their own type of reality check--they brought little items like tops into the dream and would spin them on a surface. If the item continued spinning beyond a natural length of time, they would believe they were in a dream; if not, they would consider themselves awake. Philosophically and logically, though, neither spinning a top nor any of the other reality checks I mentioned previously actually prove that one is dreaming or awake. It would always remain possible that the dream world behaves much like or just like the real world, rendering many reality checks epistemologically useless. But there is a way to logically prove to oneself one way or the other if one is awake--see a previous article of mine on the subject [2].
Dream characters, also called dream figures, could be fashioned originally or be based upon recalled individuals who exist outside of the dream. I have yet to sort through debates about the role of the subconscious in projecting and animating dream figures. But dream figures do not control lucid dreams; the dreamer does. In a lucid dream, one could behave in a practically godlike fashion--not that the ability to lucid dream actually makes one divine or that powers displayed in lucid dreams translate into waking life in the external world. Of course, this fact could provoke many questions about the nature of reality, metaphysics, epistemology, and general philosophy and theology.
Lucid dreaming indeed opens the pathway to questions about a variety of philosophical and ethical issues. Is having sex in a lucid dream sinful? What does lucid dreaming convey about free will? Does ontological idealism find unexpected support in lucid dreaming? I do not have the time or space to elaborately and precisely answer these questions now, but perhaps I will return to them in the future. Although I have not yet actually attempted to lucid dream, meaning I have not yet been able to experience successful lucid dreaming, I do hope to attempt it sometime! After all, being able to use telekinesis seems fun to me!
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/conceivability-is-possibility.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
A Study On Religious People
One false representation of religious people in general is that they are ignorant of science and reason. Not only does this charge, at the very least, not apply to all religious people, but some make non sequitur and red herring claims about religion, religious people, atheism, and science after hearing such claims. An article on Big Think that I saw recently explained how Finnish scientists at the University of Helsinki concluded that religious people fail to comprehend basic issues about the material world. I want to analyze a couple of excerpts from the brief article and explain what conclusions can't be logically drawn from them.
I will begin with this quote:
"The Finnish scientists also concluded that not only did they not understand nature and the biological world clearly, religious people tended to anthropomorphize, ascribing human qualities like feelings to inanimate objects such as rocks, wind and the like. They would agree with statements like 'stones sense the cold'."
It is just objectively illogical to say that religious people have a very flawed grasp of science simply by being religious. Now, they may object to contemporary theories about origins or what lies beyond the domain of science, but this does not mean that they do not themselves understand anything about nature or biology with clarity.
I have never met a single religious person who told me that objects which seem inanimate have minds that perceive and experience mental states--and, logically speaking, my inability to perceive a conscious mind in many material objects does not prove they don't have that mental dimension. Christianity, at the very least, does not teach that stones experience qualia (qualia refers to subjective, conscious mental experiences). Also, this excerpt seems to contain an admission that mind-body dualism is true!
The article then brings up studies which it claims presented evidence that religious people are less intelligent than the non-religious:
"Previous studies also concluded that religious people were, in general, less analytical and might have lower IQs, but also tended to be happier and more generous than non-believers."
Whether or not this is true, it is a total red herring to the veracity of any particular religion. The claimed stupidity of some religious people (some of them are certainly unintelligent, but not all) has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, whether or not any theological system can be known to be true, or whether or not reason is compatible with any religion or type of theism. Yes, I'm all for identifying and exposing the stupidity of some religious (and non-religious) people! But I'm not going to commit fallacies as I do so.
Studies like this one are sometimes broadcasted on the Internet as some trump card in a debate about theism. But really, they are at most of very little relevance to actual philosophy and logic. People need to be careful to not extrapolate information from these studies to stereotype all people of a certain group--if the conclusions about the test group are even true to begin with--and they need to remember what does and does not follow from them.
[1]. http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/study-religious-people-struggle-to-understand-the-physical-world?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1505140881
I will begin with this quote:
"The Finnish scientists also concluded that not only did they not understand nature and the biological world clearly, religious people tended to anthropomorphize, ascribing human qualities like feelings to inanimate objects such as rocks, wind and the like. They would agree with statements like 'stones sense the cold'."
It is just objectively illogical to say that religious people have a very flawed grasp of science simply by being religious. Now, they may object to contemporary theories about origins or what lies beyond the domain of science, but this does not mean that they do not themselves understand anything about nature or biology with clarity.
I have never met a single religious person who told me that objects which seem inanimate have minds that perceive and experience mental states--and, logically speaking, my inability to perceive a conscious mind in many material objects does not prove they don't have that mental dimension. Christianity, at the very least, does not teach that stones experience qualia (qualia refers to subjective, conscious mental experiences). Also, this excerpt seems to contain an admission that mind-body dualism is true!
The article then brings up studies which it claims presented evidence that religious people are less intelligent than the non-religious:
"Previous studies also concluded that religious people were, in general, less analytical and might have lower IQs, but also tended to be happier and more generous than non-believers."
Whether or not this is true, it is a total red herring to the veracity of any particular religion. The claimed stupidity of some religious people (some of them are certainly unintelligent, but not all) has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, whether or not any theological system can be known to be true, or whether or not reason is compatible with any religion or type of theism. Yes, I'm all for identifying and exposing the stupidity of some religious (and non-religious) people! But I'm not going to commit fallacies as I do so.
Studies like this one are sometimes broadcasted on the Internet as some trump card in a debate about theism. But really, they are at most of very little relevance to actual philosophy and logic. People need to be careful to not extrapolate information from these studies to stereotype all people of a certain group--if the conclusions about the test group are even true to begin with--and they need to remember what does and does not follow from them.
[1]. http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/study-religious-people-struggle-to-understand-the-physical-world?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1505140881
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Can Nature Teach Morality?
Can observation of nature enable me to discover moral truths? Poet William Wordsworth seems to think so in his poem The Tables Turned. When one carefully examines the content and fallacies of this claim, though, it becomes quickly apparent that this is a totally absurd epistemological position.
"Books! 'tis a dull and endless strife" (81), Wordsworth proclaims, recommending that the reader "Let Nature be your teacher. / She has a world of ready wealth" (82). But he goes so far as to insist that "One impulse from vernal wood / May teach you more of man; / Of moral evil and of good, / Than all the sages can" (82).
Really? How can observing a forest or countryside, or any other environment for that matter, tell me if rape, pride, sexism, murder, or greed is wrong, much less if moral obligations even exist? It can't! Nature can at most inform me of what my senses perceive and how nature operates, but it will never tell me how things should be, only how they are. This claim suffers from the non sequitur fallacy (it does not follow from observing nature that something is right or wrong), the naturalistic fallacy (something is not necessarily good just because it is natural and one cannot derive an ought from an is), and begging the question (just how nature allegedly communicates moral truths is not clarified).
It also must be acknowledged that the natural world contains some animals which eat their mates (female preying mantises kill their male partners during sex and eat them), rape children (sea otters rape baby seals), and kill representatives of other species for food (lions). If observe spousal abuse, cannibalism, and rape in the animal kingdom, have I in any way found evidence that spousal abuse, cannibalism, and rape are good or bad? Not at all! Wordsworth not only commits a slew of fallacies, but he also doesn't even confront or hint at the brutality and cruelty in the natural world!
Perhaps I can find some examples of actions worth imitating in the animal kingdom (like the discipline of ants), yet nature itself can neither tell me if morality exists nor, if it does, what exactly is good and what is evil. At most I can discover examples of virtue in nature after learning of their existence and nature elsewhere. The idea that nature can reveal prescriptive moral obligations is a position logically indefensible, theologically erroneous, and based on subjective and fallacious extrapolations from anecdotal perceptions.
Lyrical Ballads. Wordsworth, William. Trans. Stafford, Fiona. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.
"Books! 'tis a dull and endless strife" (81), Wordsworth proclaims, recommending that the reader "Let Nature be your teacher. / She has a world of ready wealth" (82). But he goes so far as to insist that "One impulse from vernal wood / May teach you more of man; / Of moral evil and of good, / Than all the sages can" (82).
Really? How can observing a forest or countryside, or any other environment for that matter, tell me if rape, pride, sexism, murder, or greed is wrong, much less if moral obligations even exist? It can't! Nature can at most inform me of what my senses perceive and how nature operates, but it will never tell me how things should be, only how they are. This claim suffers from the non sequitur fallacy (it does not follow from observing nature that something is right or wrong), the naturalistic fallacy (something is not necessarily good just because it is natural and one cannot derive an ought from an is), and begging the question (just how nature allegedly communicates moral truths is not clarified).
It also must be acknowledged that the natural world contains some animals which eat their mates (female preying mantises kill their male partners during sex and eat them), rape children (sea otters rape baby seals), and kill representatives of other species for food (lions). If observe spousal abuse, cannibalism, and rape in the animal kingdom, have I in any way found evidence that spousal abuse, cannibalism, and rape are good or bad? Not at all! Wordsworth not only commits a slew of fallacies, but he also doesn't even confront or hint at the brutality and cruelty in the natural world!
Perhaps I can find some examples of actions worth imitating in the animal kingdom (like the discipline of ants), yet nature itself can neither tell me if morality exists nor, if it does, what exactly is good and what is evil. At most I can discover examples of virtue in nature after learning of their existence and nature elsewhere. The idea that nature can reveal prescriptive moral obligations is a position logically indefensible, theologically erroneous, and based on subjective and fallacious extrapolations from anecdotal perceptions.
Lyrical Ballads. Wordsworth, William. Trans. Stafford, Fiona. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.
Monday, September 11, 2017
On Confirmation Bias
I want to settle this issue once and for all: no, not everyone has or will retain some bias, even only a slight one. It irritates me when people say otherwise. Why? Because not only is such a claim inherently irrational (and simply false), it provides a perfect way for people who do rely on confirmation bias to project their own failures and errors onto other people. I have seen this confirmation bias--a tendency to assume a position and then not rightly confront or yield to contrary proofs or evidences, explaining them away in a manner not consistent with reality--get cited as a universal problem, sometimes invoked as a hopeless weakness of all humans.
But is this true?
It is utterly illogical to say that everyone struggles with confirmation bias or that everyone succumbs to it just by nature of being a sentient thinking being. Think everyone has it just because you think everyone you've encountered displays it? That argument commits the fallacy of composition and suffers from begging the question and non sequiturs. Just because some are biased doesn't mean all are; if you suffer from confirmation bias, it does not follow that anyone else you meet is; nothing logically necessitates that one must have bias simply by being a thinking being, and anyone who disagrees begs the question overtly.
I find it very suspiciously ironic that the people I see complain the most about the alleged "universality" or "invisibility" of confirmation bias often use confirmation bias themselves. One could easily feign or misdirect a sense of humility by pretending like all humans have immovable biases entrenched in their thinking, and one could also, as I alluded to above, easily project their errors onto others. Any people who say or implies that because they're human they inevitably are attracted to some bias or set of biases are not only illogical, but they are possibly engaging in an intellectually dangerous game of deflecting away legitimate refutations of their beliefs, because, according to them, "We all have our biases". This can also be used as a way to argue for total epistemological skepticism, a self-refuting impossible conclusion.
The extent to which one aligns himself or herself with reason itself is the extent to which someone's reasoning and arguments are infallible. The solution, then, to confirmation bias is simple: learn and live by logic. Is this truly so difficult? At least for me as an individual, no. I want the entirety of my life to stand as a testament, a monument of sorts, to reason and its illumination. In the process of pursuing reason over the past few years, I have discovered just how simple it is to grasp logic. Do not fear some imaginary bias; identify true fallacies and expose them.
Logic, people. It is helpful--and it is true whether or not you admit it, care about it, or believe it is.
But is this true?
It is utterly illogical to say that everyone struggles with confirmation bias or that everyone succumbs to it just by nature of being a sentient thinking being. Think everyone has it just because you think everyone you've encountered displays it? That argument commits the fallacy of composition and suffers from begging the question and non sequiturs. Just because some are biased doesn't mean all are; if you suffer from confirmation bias, it does not follow that anyone else you meet is; nothing logically necessitates that one must have bias simply by being a thinking being, and anyone who disagrees begs the question overtly.
I find it very suspiciously ironic that the people I see complain the most about the alleged "universality" or "invisibility" of confirmation bias often use confirmation bias themselves. One could easily feign or misdirect a sense of humility by pretending like all humans have immovable biases entrenched in their thinking, and one could also, as I alluded to above, easily project their errors onto others. Any people who say or implies that because they're human they inevitably are attracted to some bias or set of biases are not only illogical, but they are possibly engaging in an intellectually dangerous game of deflecting away legitimate refutations of their beliefs, because, according to them, "We all have our biases". This can also be used as a way to argue for total epistemological skepticism, a self-refuting impossible conclusion.
The extent to which one aligns himself or herself with reason itself is the extent to which someone's reasoning and arguments are infallible. The solution, then, to confirmation bias is simple: learn and live by logic. Is this truly so difficult? At least for me as an individual, no. I want the entirety of my life to stand as a testament, a monument of sorts, to reason and its illumination. In the process of pursuing reason over the past few years, I have discovered just how simple it is to grasp logic. Do not fear some imaginary bias; identify true fallacies and expose them.
Logic, people. It is helpful--and it is true whether or not you admit it, care about it, or believe it is.
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Examining The Meditations (Part 8): The Natural Light
Entries in this series:
Examining The Meditations (Part 1): The Religion Of Descartes --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-1-religion.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 2): Cartesian Doubt --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-2-cartesian.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 3): Descent Into Skepticism --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-3-descent.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 4): Illusion And Reality --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-4-illusion.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 5): "I am, I exist" --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-5-i-am-i.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 6): Mind-Body Dualism --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 7): Classifying Thoughts --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-7.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 8): The Natural Light
I left off last time where Descartes realizes that all ideas of his have one of three points of origin: 1) innate, 2) acquired, 3) created by him. Having proven that sensory perceptions demonstrate to him that the perceptions exist as ideas in his mind, he sets about trying to discover if his ideas of external objects prove that material objects truly do exist objectively outside of his own mind.
He wonders where certain ideas about the external world come from:
"But the chief question at this point concerns the ideas which I take to be derived from things existing outside me: what is my reason for thinking that they resemble these things? Nature has apparently taught me to think this. But in addition I know by experience that these ideas do not depend on my will, and hence they do not depend simply on me. Frequently I notice them even when I do not want to: now, for example, I feel the heat whether I want to or not, and this is why I think that this sensation or idea of heat comes to me from something other than myself, namely the heat of the fire by which I am sitting." (26)
I may walk around outside on a cold day and wish in my mind for the cold to vanish, yet my inner will does not affect my sense of thermoception (sense of temperature); I still feel the cold of the air regardless. One's inability to control external sensations may seem like very strong evidence that the sensations are caused by objective external phenomena and not one's own mind. Still, as Descartes will soon acknowledge, this alone does not prove their origin in the external world; it currently only proves that the ideas of external objects exist in his mind and that he cannot will his sensory perceptions away with his mind. In part six of this series I did explain how a person can know if he or she has a body, though, and one does not need to demonstrate that God exists to know this, as Descartes seems to currently believe. It is much easier to logically verify if any external world exists at all from that point [1], an explanation that I have given elsewhere and will save for a later point in this series. But Descartes sees that reason does not yet verify an external world:
"When I say 'Nature taught me to think this', all I mean is that a spontaneous impulse leads me to believe it, not that its truth has been revealed to me by some natural light. There is a big difference here. Whatever is revealed to me by the natural light - for example that from the fact I am doubting it follows that I exist, and so on - cannot be in any way open to doubt." (27)
The natural light spoken of here seems to be the illumination of reason, a thing which, when used without fallacies, is infallibly reliable, for reason itself is infallible and one's human ability to reason is infallible to the extent that it is aligned with reason itself. Descartes says here that it still is not apparent by use of reason that the source of his ideas of external objects is an external world that he can know exists by logical necessity (it is an untested spontaneous impulse), for although he has certain ideas of external objects it does not follow from his mental awareness of these ideas that they were impressed on him from an outside source. To use that as an argument would have belief in the external world hang on an unverifiable non sequitur. This spontaneous impulse that compels him without as-of-yet proven reason to believe his ideas of external objects must originate from the external world does not have the natural light on its side, and thus it cannot yet be known to be true, for only what the natural light demonstrates is true by necessity. It is not that no one can doubt what reason, the natural light, reveals, but that whatever the natural light (logic) truly reveals must be true and cannot be false.
Descartes then offers a possible explanation for the origin of his ideas of external objects:
"Then again, although these ideas do not depend on my will, it does not follow that they must come from things located outside me. Just as the impulses which I was speaking of a moment ago seem opposed to my will even though they are within me, so there may be some other faculty not yet fully known to me, which produces these ideas without any assistance from external things; this is, after all, just how I have always thought ideas are produced in me when I am dreaming." (27)
Here Descartes hypothesizes that perhaps he has an unknown subconscious part of his mind which generates ideas of external sensations, with his conscious mind directly perceiving them, free to will them to disappear in vain. When dreaming, unless one is lucid dreaming, one's mind perceives images without having any conscious control over what images appear and without the senses being active. This analogy is a very valid comparative illustration of what Descartes means here. Without yet having identified a logical proof that some sort of material external world exists, he continues investigating his ideas and holding up the possibilities against reason, the infallible natural light.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-external-world.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 1): The Religion Of Descartes --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-1-religion.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 2): Cartesian Doubt --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-2-cartesian.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 3): Descent Into Skepticism --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-3-descent.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 4): Illusion And Reality --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-4-illusion.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 5): "I am, I exist" --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/examining-meditations-part-5-i-am-i.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 6): Mind-Body Dualism --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-6-mind-body.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 7): Classifying Thoughts --https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/examining-meditations-part-7.html
Examining The Meditations (Part 8): The Natural Light
I left off last time where Descartes realizes that all ideas of his have one of three points of origin: 1) innate, 2) acquired, 3) created by him. Having proven that sensory perceptions demonstrate to him that the perceptions exist as ideas in his mind, he sets about trying to discover if his ideas of external objects prove that material objects truly do exist objectively outside of his own mind.
He wonders where certain ideas about the external world come from:
"But the chief question at this point concerns the ideas which I take to be derived from things existing outside me: what is my reason for thinking that they resemble these things? Nature has apparently taught me to think this. But in addition I know by experience that these ideas do not depend on my will, and hence they do not depend simply on me. Frequently I notice them even when I do not want to: now, for example, I feel the heat whether I want to or not, and this is why I think that this sensation or idea of heat comes to me from something other than myself, namely the heat of the fire by which I am sitting." (26)
I may walk around outside on a cold day and wish in my mind for the cold to vanish, yet my inner will does not affect my sense of thermoception (sense of temperature); I still feel the cold of the air regardless. One's inability to control external sensations may seem like very strong evidence that the sensations are caused by objective external phenomena and not one's own mind. Still, as Descartes will soon acknowledge, this alone does not prove their origin in the external world; it currently only proves that the ideas of external objects exist in his mind and that he cannot will his sensory perceptions away with his mind. In part six of this series I did explain how a person can know if he or she has a body, though, and one does not need to demonstrate that God exists to know this, as Descartes seems to currently believe. It is much easier to logically verify if any external world exists at all from that point [1], an explanation that I have given elsewhere and will save for a later point in this series. But Descartes sees that reason does not yet verify an external world:
"When I say 'Nature taught me to think this', all I mean is that a spontaneous impulse leads me to believe it, not that its truth has been revealed to me by some natural light. There is a big difference here. Whatever is revealed to me by the natural light - for example that from the fact I am doubting it follows that I exist, and so on - cannot be in any way open to doubt." (27)
The natural light spoken of here seems to be the illumination of reason, a thing which, when used without fallacies, is infallibly reliable, for reason itself is infallible and one's human ability to reason is infallible to the extent that it is aligned with reason itself. Descartes says here that it still is not apparent by use of reason that the source of his ideas of external objects is an external world that he can know exists by logical necessity (it is an untested spontaneous impulse), for although he has certain ideas of external objects it does not follow from his mental awareness of these ideas that they were impressed on him from an outside source. To use that as an argument would have belief in the external world hang on an unverifiable non sequitur. This spontaneous impulse that compels him without as-of-yet proven reason to believe his ideas of external objects must originate from the external world does not have the natural light on its side, and thus it cannot yet be known to be true, for only what the natural light demonstrates is true by necessity. It is not that no one can doubt what reason, the natural light, reveals, but that whatever the natural light (logic) truly reveals must be true and cannot be false.
Descartes then offers a possible explanation for the origin of his ideas of external objects:
"Then again, although these ideas do not depend on my will, it does not follow that they must come from things located outside me. Just as the impulses which I was speaking of a moment ago seem opposed to my will even though they are within me, so there may be some other faculty not yet fully known to me, which produces these ideas without any assistance from external things; this is, after all, just how I have always thought ideas are produced in me when I am dreaming." (27)
Here Descartes hypothesizes that perhaps he has an unknown subconscious part of his mind which generates ideas of external sensations, with his conscious mind directly perceiving them, free to will them to disappear in vain. When dreaming, unless one is lucid dreaming, one's mind perceives images without having any conscious control over what images appear and without the senses being active. This analogy is a very valid comparative illustration of what Descartes means here. Without yet having identified a logical proof that some sort of material external world exists, he continues investigating his ideas and holding up the possibilities against reason, the infallible natural light.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-external-world.html
Movie Review--The Witch
"Black Philip says I can do as I like."
--Mercy, The Witch
"What is amiss on this farm? . . . It's not natural."
--Katherine, The Witch
What a spectacular period piece! Robert Egger's historically authentic and wonderfully-executed slow burn horror film is one of the most splendid horror movies in years. Yes, I will repeat again that this is a slow-burn. While The Witch (sometimes spelled The VVitch) certainly might frighten some viewers, it relies on mounting psychological suspense as opposed to depictions of gore for shock value. A dark story, it truly lives up to its subtitle A New England Folktale.
Production Values
Every cast member--I mean every cast member--portraying one of the members of the family The Witch depicts offers a performance nothing short of lifelike and phenomenal. Even the child actors playing a pair of young twins don't ever seem overshadowed by the adolescent and young adult actors and actresses, one of whom (Ralph Ineson) has appeared in Game of Thrones. Anya Taylor-Joy, who plays the character Thomasin (and also rocked in this year's Split), excellently acts a young girl fighting a false accusation amidst very difficult family times. This was her breakout role, and I hope she has a great future in cinema!
The dialogue, language, and props all seem taken straight from 1600s New England. In fact, at the beginning of the credits text appears saying that the movie "was inspired by many folktales, fairytales and written accounts of historical witchcraft, including journals, diaries and court records," adding that "Much of the dialogue comes directly from these sources". It's not just the manner of speaking and wording used by the characters that is so historically impactful; the very atmosphere was crafted around careful historical investigation.
The eerie soundtrack also amplified the intended creepiness, haunting one of the first scenes and adding a great atmospheric tone. Also, the movie avoids standard horror cliches like gratuitous jump scares, favoring a much more focused and sometimes subtle kind of horror. All in all, this movie has stellar production values all the way up to some sub-standard CGI effects in the very last scene. Other than that, it is difficult to find something to criticize about the care and precision imbued into the film!
Story
A family of New England settlers--William the father, Katherine the mother, Thomasin the oldest daughter, Caleb the next oldest son, and Mercy and Jonas the young twins--are expelled from a small civilization due to some theological dispute William has with the local governance. William is a committed Christian who says to his condemners that "I cannot be judged by false Christians, for I have done nothing save preach Christ's true Gospel". Despite his insistence on his innocence, his family is banished and travels some distance away where they build a house and farm.
(SPOILERS are below)
The family's newborn baby Samuel is kidnapped in an act that occurs with superhuman swiftness, a hooded figure carrying the baby away into the forest. The baby is implicitly killed and crushed into a bloody pulp for use in a witch's ritual. Things begin to spiral downward after this, with the family experiencing crop failure, Mercy and Jonas singing songs about the family goat Black Phillip, and William and Caleb being unable to hunt a rabbit that may have a supernatural nature.
Out by a calm stream, Mercy plays around and says "I be the witch of the Wood", claims to Thomasin and Caleb that a witch stole Samuel, that the witch ventures about in the forest sometimes, and that Black Phillip speaks to her; Thomasin jokes with her and claims to be the witch who abducted the baby, scaring her off. But family life is no joking matter when Katherine laments how the family will starve and that Thomasin must be sent to live with another family. Caleb leaves on a night adventure, caught and joined by Thomasin before he can depart, saying he will return the next day. What ultimately results is not their return as planned but Caleb's encounter with a strange woman in the forest, with Thomasin wandering home before him and eventually finding him stumbling back to the house later on, ill and unclothed.
Once Caleb chokes up an entire Apple from his mouth and speaking to himself, Katherine judges this to be the result of witchcraft, Mercy accusing Thomasin of identifying as a witch, saying she stole Samuel (and Katherine agrees with her charge). But Thomasin calls Black Phillip, whom the twins converse with, Lucifer, and says that Mercy once identified as a witch, though it seemed like a jest at the time. Caleb dies from his condition.
William, unsure of what else to do, plans to move the family away the next day and places Thomasin, Mercy and Jonas in a little barn structure to confine them, nailing boards up to keep them inside. Mercy and Jonas do not answer when asked if they speak with Black Phillip. That night, a witch supernaturally enters the structure and attacks Mercy and Jonas. The next morning William finds the boards he nailed up torn open and almost everything inside the barn dead except for Thomasin. Black Phillip gores and kills William, Katherine accuses Thomasin yet again of witchcraft and Thomasin has to kill her in self-defense.
She sleeps afterward from exhaustion and awakes that night to head to the barn, where she asks Black Phillip to speak to her, and, hearing nothing, turns around. The goat transforms (offscreen) into a demonic figure with the shape of a man and speaks, implying that she can "live deliciously" and "see the world" if she signs a book. She is commanded to remove her clothes, denuded herself, signs the book, and walks into the forest, where she finds a group of similarly nude witches dancing and chanting around a fire, the goat form of Black Phillip following her. In the final shot Thomasin's facial expressions indicate a pleasurable surrender to some intoxicating foreign energy.
Intellectual Content
William, in a move not uncommon to religious people I have known of in general, when asked if he will continue to violate the New England colony's church and social laws, says "If my conscience sees it fit". As I have addressed many times before, both conscience and social laws have no trustworthiness whatsoever and and inherently unreliable in themselves. Religious people, who often rightly understand morality to be grounded in God's nature, can still fall back on the fallacies involved with viewing their own consciences as somehow informing them of accurate moral information from their respective gods. The movie scarcely provided any details about the exact nature of his dispute with the local clergy or politicians, and I wish it had developed the theme of the subjectivity of conscience better.
And now I'm going to address the infamous Exodus 22:18 verse, which says "Do not allow a sorceress to live". Exodus 22:18 can come under fire from some websites, and while the mere practice of magic (if magic is defined a certain way) does not mean that a witch practices murder or abduction (which the Bible also classifies as capital crimes too; see Exodus 21:12-14 and Exodus 21:16 respectively), this movie, as I actually referenced in an earlier post on the possible malevolence of witches [1], portrays just what some in history have feared witches for. When the Bible says to execute sorceresses (and sorcerers in Leviticus 20:27), there is no evidence that it means to prescribe execution for anything less than actual sorcery, not for pretending to harness sorcerous powers or just for feigning some psychic ability.
Still, although I totally understand both why modern "witches" (Wiccans [2]) are not necessarily included in the capital prescription of Exodus 22:18 and why a genuine witch might be feared, I want to draw attention to some humorous stuff in history about witches. According to what I have seen written about a 1487 witch-hunting manual titled Malleus Maleficarum (meaning "Hammer of Witches"), witches were accused of stealing penises, keeping them (somehow independently alive, as if they have their own consciousness) confined in nests, and feeding them oats . . . as if they were personal pets! The Bible never describes such things as being affiliated with sorcery!
While The Witch shows that witches could be highly malevolent and dangerous individuals, it also portrays a warning about hysteria without rational grounding--when Katherine accuses Thomasin of being a witch, she only resorts to fallacies (post hoc ergo propter hoc, non sequitur, begging the question) to condemn her, whereas William initially insists "I'll have proof, or heaven help thee." At least he refuses to condemn without far more evidence, yet after Caleb's death he begins to suspect her. Still, I appreciated how the film did not avoid showing both the dangerous nature of witches and how one cannot simply jump aboard a witch hunting train without sufficient evidence.
Conclusion
In The Witch I see hope for the production of a new generation of horror movies that focus on atmosphere, acting, and story, forgoing cliches and jump scares and other such things that can drag down the genre. Robert Egger delivered an excellent final product, and I hope he can continue to direct as his skills lead him. I remember watching The Witch in theaters multiple times upon its theatrical release in early 2016 and being impressed by the potency of its acting, especially regarding Anya Taylor-Joy, who has since starred in Split and is set to star in next year's upcoming X-Men film New Mutants. It is my wish that just as the The Witch initiated the acting career of Taylor-Joy, The Witch signals a time of refocus for horror.
Content:
1. Violence: A witch kills and implicitly grinds up a baby (the acts occur unseen) and then smears its blood on her body (onscreen). A dream of one character involves a bird pecking her breast and producing blood. A goat gores a man's stomach. Thomasin kills her mother in self-defense, releasing blood.
2. Nudity: The witch who kidnaps the baby, an old woman, is shown naked from the rear and rubs blood on her nude body near the very beginning of the movie; while rubbing the blood a breast is visible (but female breasts are not sex organs or body parts which have any objectively sexual nature). In the final scene a coven of witches dances nude around a fire, with Thomasin approaching and joining them, herself nude and seen from the rear.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/a-defense-of-exodus-2218.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/an-introduction-to-wicca.html
--Mercy, The Witch
"What is amiss on this farm? . . . It's not natural."
--Katherine, The Witch
What a spectacular period piece! Robert Egger's historically authentic and wonderfully-executed slow burn horror film is one of the most splendid horror movies in years. Yes, I will repeat again that this is a slow-burn. While The Witch (sometimes spelled The VVitch) certainly might frighten some viewers, it relies on mounting psychological suspense as opposed to depictions of gore for shock value. A dark story, it truly lives up to its subtitle A New England Folktale.
 |
|
Production Values
Every cast member--I mean every cast member--portraying one of the members of the family The Witch depicts offers a performance nothing short of lifelike and phenomenal. Even the child actors playing a pair of young twins don't ever seem overshadowed by the adolescent and young adult actors and actresses, one of whom (Ralph Ineson) has appeared in Game of Thrones. Anya Taylor-Joy, who plays the character Thomasin (and also rocked in this year's Split), excellently acts a young girl fighting a false accusation amidst very difficult family times. This was her breakout role, and I hope she has a great future in cinema!
The dialogue, language, and props all seem taken straight from 1600s New England. In fact, at the beginning of the credits text appears saying that the movie "was inspired by many folktales, fairytales and written accounts of historical witchcraft, including journals, diaries and court records," adding that "Much of the dialogue comes directly from these sources". It's not just the manner of speaking and wording used by the characters that is so historically impactful; the very atmosphere was crafted around careful historical investigation.
The eerie soundtrack also amplified the intended creepiness, haunting one of the first scenes and adding a great atmospheric tone. Also, the movie avoids standard horror cliches like gratuitous jump scares, favoring a much more focused and sometimes subtle kind of horror. All in all, this movie has stellar production values all the way up to some sub-standard CGI effects in the very last scene. Other than that, it is difficult to find something to criticize about the care and precision imbued into the film!
Story
A family of New England settlers--William the father, Katherine the mother, Thomasin the oldest daughter, Caleb the next oldest son, and Mercy and Jonas the young twins--are expelled from a small civilization due to some theological dispute William has with the local governance. William is a committed Christian who says to his condemners that "I cannot be judged by false Christians, for I have done nothing save preach Christ's true Gospel". Despite his insistence on his innocence, his family is banished and travels some distance away where they build a house and farm.
(SPOILERS are below)
The family's newborn baby Samuel is kidnapped in an act that occurs with superhuman swiftness, a hooded figure carrying the baby away into the forest. The baby is implicitly killed and crushed into a bloody pulp for use in a witch's ritual. Things begin to spiral downward after this, with the family experiencing crop failure, Mercy and Jonas singing songs about the family goat Black Phillip, and William and Caleb being unable to hunt a rabbit that may have a supernatural nature.
Out by a calm stream, Mercy plays around and says "I be the witch of the Wood", claims to Thomasin and Caleb that a witch stole Samuel, that the witch ventures about in the forest sometimes, and that Black Phillip speaks to her; Thomasin jokes with her and claims to be the witch who abducted the baby, scaring her off. But family life is no joking matter when Katherine laments how the family will starve and that Thomasin must be sent to live with another family. Caleb leaves on a night adventure, caught and joined by Thomasin before he can depart, saying he will return the next day. What ultimately results is not their return as planned but Caleb's encounter with a strange woman in the forest, with Thomasin wandering home before him and eventually finding him stumbling back to the house later on, ill and unclothed.
Once Caleb chokes up an entire Apple from his mouth and speaking to himself, Katherine judges this to be the result of witchcraft, Mercy accusing Thomasin of identifying as a witch, saying she stole Samuel (and Katherine agrees with her charge). But Thomasin calls Black Phillip, whom the twins converse with, Lucifer, and says that Mercy once identified as a witch, though it seemed like a jest at the time. Caleb dies from his condition.
William, unsure of what else to do, plans to move the family away the next day and places Thomasin, Mercy and Jonas in a little barn structure to confine them, nailing boards up to keep them inside. Mercy and Jonas do not answer when asked if they speak with Black Phillip. That night, a witch supernaturally enters the structure and attacks Mercy and Jonas. The next morning William finds the boards he nailed up torn open and almost everything inside the barn dead except for Thomasin. Black Phillip gores and kills William, Katherine accuses Thomasin yet again of witchcraft and Thomasin has to kill her in self-defense.
She sleeps afterward from exhaustion and awakes that night to head to the barn, where she asks Black Phillip to speak to her, and, hearing nothing, turns around. The goat transforms (offscreen) into a demonic figure with the shape of a man and speaks, implying that she can "live deliciously" and "see the world" if she signs a book. She is commanded to remove her clothes, denuded herself, signs the book, and walks into the forest, where she finds a group of similarly nude witches dancing and chanting around a fire, the goat form of Black Phillip following her. In the final shot Thomasin's facial expressions indicate a pleasurable surrender to some intoxicating foreign energy.
Intellectual Content
William, in a move not uncommon to religious people I have known of in general, when asked if he will continue to violate the New England colony's church and social laws, says "If my conscience sees it fit". As I have addressed many times before, both conscience and social laws have no trustworthiness whatsoever and and inherently unreliable in themselves. Religious people, who often rightly understand morality to be grounded in God's nature, can still fall back on the fallacies involved with viewing their own consciences as somehow informing them of accurate moral information from their respective gods. The movie scarcely provided any details about the exact nature of his dispute with the local clergy or politicians, and I wish it had developed the theme of the subjectivity of conscience better.
And now I'm going to address the infamous Exodus 22:18 verse, which says "Do not allow a sorceress to live". Exodus 22:18 can come under fire from some websites, and while the mere practice of magic (if magic is defined a certain way) does not mean that a witch practices murder or abduction (which the Bible also classifies as capital crimes too; see Exodus 21:12-14 and Exodus 21:16 respectively), this movie, as I actually referenced in an earlier post on the possible malevolence of witches [1], portrays just what some in history have feared witches for. When the Bible says to execute sorceresses (and sorcerers in Leviticus 20:27), there is no evidence that it means to prescribe execution for anything less than actual sorcery, not for pretending to harness sorcerous powers or just for feigning some psychic ability.
Still, although I totally understand both why modern "witches" (Wiccans [2]) are not necessarily included in the capital prescription of Exodus 22:18 and why a genuine witch might be feared, I want to draw attention to some humorous stuff in history about witches. According to what I have seen written about a 1487 witch-hunting manual titled Malleus Maleficarum (meaning "Hammer of Witches"), witches were accused of stealing penises, keeping them (somehow independently alive, as if they have their own consciousness) confined in nests, and feeding them oats . . . as if they were personal pets! The Bible never describes such things as being affiliated with sorcery!
While The Witch shows that witches could be highly malevolent and dangerous individuals, it also portrays a warning about hysteria without rational grounding--when Katherine accuses Thomasin of being a witch, she only resorts to fallacies (post hoc ergo propter hoc, non sequitur, begging the question) to condemn her, whereas William initially insists "I'll have proof, or heaven help thee." At least he refuses to condemn without far more evidence, yet after Caleb's death he begins to suspect her. Still, I appreciated how the film did not avoid showing both the dangerous nature of witches and how one cannot simply jump aboard a witch hunting train without sufficient evidence.
Conclusion
In The Witch I see hope for the production of a new generation of horror movies that focus on atmosphere, acting, and story, forgoing cliches and jump scares and other such things that can drag down the genre. Robert Egger delivered an excellent final product, and I hope he can continue to direct as his skills lead him. I remember watching The Witch in theaters multiple times upon its theatrical release in early 2016 and being impressed by the potency of its acting, especially regarding Anya Taylor-Joy, who has since starred in Split and is set to star in next year's upcoming X-Men film New Mutants. It is my wish that just as the The Witch initiated the acting career of Taylor-Joy, The Witch signals a time of refocus for horror.
Content:
1. Violence: A witch kills and implicitly grinds up a baby (the acts occur unseen) and then smears its blood on her body (onscreen). A dream of one character involves a bird pecking her breast and producing blood. A goat gores a man's stomach. Thomasin kills her mother in self-defense, releasing blood.
2. Nudity: The witch who kidnaps the baby, an old woman, is shown naked from the rear and rubs blood on her nude body near the very beginning of the movie; while rubbing the blood a breast is visible (but female breasts are not sex organs or body parts which have any objectively sexual nature). In the final scene a coven of witches dances nude around a fire, with Thomasin approaching and joining them, herself nude and seen from the rear.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/09/a-defense-of-exodus-2218.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/an-introduction-to-wicca.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)