Evangelical Hypocrisy Regarding Conscience

Evangelicals are quick to dismiss certain objections to eternal conscious torment for all unsaved beings on the grounds of moral intuitions, declaring the sense of fairness appealed to by the objections to be faulty.  Humans are said to deserve endless suffering simply by committing the slightest moral offense.  The Bible is said to contradict any sense of justice that is repulsed by eternal conscious torment.  Now, there is nothing problematic about disregarding conscience.  In fact, this can be a sign of great moral development, since it means that one cares about morality itself and not one's feelings about it.  The actual errors in this evangelical position have to do with other things: the Bible does teach proportionality in a way that contradicts the evangelical stance on hell, and evangelicals arbitrarily hold conscience in high regard when it comes to different issues.

Those in the evangelical church, on one hand, realize that conscience is not necessarily accurate, though they are wrong to characterize annihilationism and conditional immortality as unbiblical.  They realize that a person's conscience might conflict with actual theological truths.  On the other hand, they will be among the first to endorse the asinine claim that conscience is a sacred thing that brings moral knowledge.  After all, appeals to conscience are their first responses to moral skepticism or moral nihilism (and are ultimately what their moral epistemology reduces down to).  But which one is it?  Is conscience valid, or is it not?  It cannot be both, for an unreliable thing cannot also be accurate at the same time.  Either conscience is purely subjective, or its impulses correspond to proven moral obligations.

It takes very little time to realize that the former of these options is true.  Conscience is nothing but a subjective network of moral emotions.  It is a sign of hypocrisy that evangelicals will literally denounce the belief that one's conscience is reliable in one case before treating it as authoritative in another.  Even if conscience was only partially arbitrary, and not totally subjective, it would be impossible to distinguish an accurate judgment of conscience from an inaccurate one.  There is nothing surprising about this evangelical inconsistency, to be sure, given that the whole of evangelicalism is a house of arbitrarily placed cards.  All it takes to dismantle their epistemological, metaphysical, and Biblical errors is a gentle breeze.

The greatest irony here is that evangelicals think they are upholding a Biblical truth by denouncing the idea that humans cannot deserve infinite torment, when the Bible's teachings on hell make it clear that unsaved humans will perish--they will cease to exist instead of experiencing pain endlessly [1].  Evangelicalism's view of conscience is one that shifts in accordance with whatever preferences its adherents have, and they happen to regard eternal conscious torment as inherently just on some level.  Ultimately, hypocrisy puts evangelicalism in direct conflict with the Bible it claims to revere.  I am not an annihilationist because my conscience approves of annihilationism.  I am an annihilationist because the Bible is explicitly clear that the human soul is not inherently immortal and that disproportionate punishments are grievous injustices.


[1].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-annihilationism.html
  B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/eternal-fire-common-assumption.html

Originality In Storytelling

There are two forms of originality.  The first involves autonomous, independent discovery of facts or ideas.  Though they may have been previously discovered by others, no external aid was used in the process of learning them.  The second is the introduction or development of an idea for the first time (or one of the first times) in human history.  Because of the manner in which philosophy and storytelling have respectively developed up until this point, intellectual originality is very much alive in the second sense as well as in the first, since there are numerous details of reality that have very rarely been acknowledged [1], while originality in storytelling is much more limited.

Given the vast number of stories that have been created using different mediums, there are perhaps no completely original stories that a person can invent, in the sense that there is always another story (at this point in time) with at least a passing similarity.  That similarity may take the form of something as relatively minor as a name or something as significant as a character type or plot structure.  Nevertheless, it is extremely difficult, at best, to not find overt narrative commonalities in stories separated by geography, time, or various cultures.

Of course, a person who devises a narrative without being aware that it shares similarities with other stories also expresses originality, but in a different sense than the person who first uses a story element does (as aforementioned).  This form of originality is available to all people, regardless of what era or society they are born into.  The passage of time, however, inevitably brings about the shrinking of other manifestations of originality.  Despite this, contemporary and upcoming storytellers have no need to feel discouraged!

They can certainly always discover narrative structures and elements without knowing where else those elements might have appeared, meaning it is still as if they formalized those ideas on their own--and then they can always bring familiar concepts into new settings.  The latter is the closest thing to the introduction of something completely new to storytelling.  Even if there are no new story elements to discover, it is still possible to combine them, representing them in new ways.  The intimately familiar can seem novel.

For example, basic story elements can seem bold and new simply by being inserted into different genres.  Alternatively, telling familiar stories while placing an emphasis on aspects that are usually not emphasized can breathe new life into narratives that are already known.  There is usually a way to take the expected and revise how it is conveyed so that it comes across as unexpected.

Some stories are far more unique than others.  Even so, many of their individual components can be seen in other works of entertainment, spanning mediums and centuries.  The key to coming as close to the first of the two kinds of storytelling originality as is possible is to repackage these components: this is the new application of established concepts.  When stories are constructed in this way, some people might be surprised at what familiar things suddenly come across as foreign.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html

The Durability Of Polyamorous Relationships

According to some, polyamorous marriages are likely to experience more fractures and difficulties than monogamous ones.  It is hardly abnormal for the concept of polyamorous relationships to be viewed with suspicion, loathing, or fear in a largely monogamous culture.  Some might feel threatened by the mere thought that polyamory is perhaps a legitimate approach to romantic and sexual relationships, since such a thing, if true, would feed their own subjective feelings of insecurity.  This insecurity makes their opposition of polyamory seem righteous.

It becomes clear, upon examination, that the arguments against polyamory are nothing but arbitrary condemnations originating from conscience or societal conditioning.  There are many straw man representations of non-monogamous lifestyles, which sometimes even fail to distinguish between open marriages and polyamorous marriages featuring lifelong commitment.  Many charges against polyamory, like the claim that it is not conducive to lasting relationships, are nothing but empty accusations meant to demonize what the accusers do not understand.

There is nothing about a polyamorous relationship that is naturally weaker or less sincere than a strictly monogamous relationship.  After all, relationships last or dissolve because of how the individuals involved handle them, not because the people in the relationships have one spouse or multiple spouses.  How many monogamous relationships end due to selfishness?  Being monogamous in no way grants one's relationship a special preservative power.  It is also true that being polyamorous in no way sets up an inevitable relationship failure.

If Western society ceased its misunderstanding of polyamory, people with the suitable personalities would feel able to acknowledge and act upon polyamorous desires.  In such a scenario, observers would be able to see that there is nothing dangerous about merely allowing those with a natural gravitation towards multiple spouses to live in accordance with that gravitation.  Polyamorous marriages are not inherently plagued with difficulties, and monogamous marriages are not inherently stable.  It takes only a few moments of deductive reasoning to discover both of these truths.

A Pragmatic Flaw Of Torturing For Information

When a person is subjected to significant physical or psychological pain in the attempt to elicit information, there may come a point where he or she is willing to give false but persuasive information simply to end the agony.  For some victims, that point may be reached quickly, whereas others might be tortured for prolonged periods before they reach it.  Regardless of what intensity or duration of pain is needed to bring them to that point, it is likely that most people could be harmed enough to say something so that the suffering will cease.

Suppose that two factions are engaged in open combat.  One side, seeking military intelligence, captures several enemy combatants.  The war captives are tortured in an effort to force them to explain the locations and plans of their group.  Not only is any information they give not guaranteed to be true, but it could also result in greater loss.  War captives who are tortured into betraying the locations of their fellow soldiers might tell their torturers what they want to hear even if it is false, and acting upon the information could lead to more gratuitous deaths.  The attempt to secure information via torture can backfire.

Furthermore, a torture victim might be so traumatized by his or her suffering that they are no longer aware of whether or not they are divulging true or deceptive information.  Someone could genuinely be so overwhelmed by pain that their memories and communicative abilities are affected, meaning that they might give answers with little grasp of what they are actually saying, much less whether or not it is true.  If torturing someone for information is itself evil, it does not matter how successful it might be.  However, as the previous points demonstrate, there is a major pragmatic flaw with abusing someone in order to learn the contents of their mind.

There are only a few tortures allowed/prescribed by the Bible, and none of them are related to the extraction of information.  In fact, the Biblical requirement of two or three witnesses for criminal sentencing excludes forced confessions of guilt, something comparable to torture for the sake of obtaining military intelligence (or any other kind of knowledge).  Outside of a small range of scenarios where the infliction of physical pain is used as a just penalty for particular offenses, torture is an illicit, atrocious activity.  The utilitarian goal of acquiring information cannot justify torture, irrespective of who the victim is.  Still, the results of doing this are up in the air even whenever ethics is set aside.

Memory And The Senses

The senses are capable of perceiving a vast amount of information, but a being must possess both an intellect (which grasps the laws of logic) and a working memory in order for its sensory perceptions to be useful.  The former is required to even comprehend that one is experiencing sensory perceptions, while the latter is what enables future expectations about phenomena in the external world to be constructed.

Suppose that a hypothetical person named Amanda observes for the first time that water can extinguish fire if a proper amount of it is used (whether that water comes from artificial or natural sources).  As she notices this, she does not need to recall any past precedent to make sense of her findings, as this is the first time she has seen this occurrence; memory is not needed to perceive something in the present moment.

Does Amanda truly know that water will be capable of putting out fires in the future?  Certainly not, since the laws of nature, unlike the laws of logic, are not necessarily fixed.  However, she now has a basis for believing that it seems likely that this phenomenon is repeatable.  She does know that there is at least some evidence that this is the case.

Her memories of watching water and fire interact are themselves evidence that water will probably be able to quench fire in the future.  This example highlights a crucial point about memory: apart from recollections of past experiences with the external world, information gained by the senses is practically useless.  The senses cannot independently provide any basis for future expectations.

Memory is vital to the basic epistemological aspects of everyday interaction with the external world, for without it there can be no awareness of any sensory perceptions except those which are experienced in the present.  It is unfortunate that the subject of memory does not appear to be addressed very thoroughly or frequently by many philosophers, as our interactions with external objects hinge on it almost entirely.

The Victories Of Villains

Entertainment both reflects the status of a culture and shapes that culture all at once.  It is hardly surprising that the norms of a society make regular appearances in cinema, gaming, and literature, nor is it surprising that the entertainment in turn reinforces those norms.  As a result, a work that deviates from certain thematic expectations can hold a unique power.

One such expectation is that protagonists will triumph over villains.  While there are works of entertainment where protagonists do not ultimately gain the upper hand (Saw and Game of Thrones are easy examples), they are in a very small minority.  The consumption of entertainment where villains win can be a haunting experience because of its rarity.  These kinds of stories are contrary to the norms of entertainment at large, and because of this they can force people to confront the fact that being a genuinely good person does not guarantee victory in life, nor does it guarantee that one will not suffer immensely.

There is a need for more stories of this type, for they remind people of sobering truths that they might otherwise turn away from.  Indeed, one of entertainment's greatest abilities is to hold up a mirror that highlights unpleasant or precise truths that people in general avoid.  Even some who initially reject an idea upon considering it might find themselves willing to reexamine a concept that is integrated into a well-crafted work of entertainment.  Many people seem eager to ask questions about why malevolent, selfish people can walk around without any seeming divine or (sometimes) human opposition, yet there are few stories that portray this phenomenon in some of its most extreme forms.

The victories of villains are some of the most realistic things that could be included in a narrative, and yet they are often excluded.  If Western entertainment featured these victories more frequently, perhaps the emotion-based expectation that depraved people will inevitably be scorned or defeated during their lifetimes would lose prominence.  Not everyone has this expectation--but it is rooted into Western culture enough to dominate much of its entertainment.

The Cognitive Dissonance Of Many Complementarians

In practice, complementarian ideas can manifest themselves in different ways in the lives of various couples.  The irony of this fact is that it means many spouses, while professing complementarianism, might live in subtly egalitarian ways.  There is no variation in spousal behaviors apart from variation in personalities and circumstances, after all.  Complementarians can't approve of couples living out complementarianism differently without directly or indirectly approving the idea that personalities, situations, and consequences should determine how couples live.

Every individualistic lifestyle in a complementarian marriage already contains the seeds of an egalitarian relationship within it.  Many complementarians do not realize that they only live out complementarian ideas selectively, tailoring the impact of their beliefs on their actions to a variety of factors.  Evidencing this is the way that couples often practice the submission of wives to husbands and male leadership in rather differing ways.  This lack of universality in approaches to marriage exemplifies a key problem with complementarianism pertaining to how its adherents live.

Left without any non-arbitrary place to draw the line (other than at wives having no obligation to submit to husbands who tell them to sin), complementarians are forced to apply their beliefs in arbitrary ways that differ from couple to couple.  If these applications can legitimately differ from couple to couple, then it follows that there is no right way to apply the unilateral submission of wives to husbands (or the leading of wives by husbands).  However, this would mean that there is no ultimate standard for how complementarians should live beyond a superficial notion of vague roles.  The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that complementarianism fails on the pragmatic level, as well as on the ideological level.

That many complementarians have cognitive dissonance between their worldview and actions is hardly remarkable on its own, considering that many people of numerous worldviews do not consistently live as their worldviews dictate.  It is significant, though, for how it illustrates that a number of complementarian couples already understand the basic elements of egalitarianism.  Instead of recognizing and celebrating them, these couples simply go about their lives without realizing the contradictions therein.

Complementarian ideas are by nature arbitrary.  There is no reason to expect a wife to enjoy staying at home or forsaking equality simply because she is a woman, for example; likewise, there is no reason to expect a husband to be qualified to make all major family decisions or to want to do such a thing simply because he is a man.  The same is true of the ways in which complementarian ideas are practiced: they are inevitably arbitrary as well.  The very fact that the Bible does not detail any particular way for couples to apply the allegedly Biblical ideas of male-centric leadership and female submission should, on its own, cause complementarians to hesitate.

An Application Of Deuteronomy 19

It is unfortunate that many potential friendships between married men and women have probably been dissolved at an early stage by accusations of infidelity.  It is even more abominable that many people who call themselves Christians are likely to contribute to an environment where these friendships are erroneously viewed as adulterous.  Of course, there are those who rightly live without concern for the petty perceptions other people have of them.  But not everyone is unaffected by social pressures.  Many people are prone to avoid something that will bring about a negative reputation, even if that thing is completely innocent.  The fostering of unease about nonsinful activities is one of the most effective tools of legalists in evangelical Christendom.

Treating friendship between separately married men and women as adulterous is to egregiously misrepresent--and trivialize--both friendship and adultery.  Beyond this, there is another reason why Christians should not accuse married opposite gender friends of betraying their spouses.  The Bible defines adultery as nothing but extramarital intercourse where at least one person is separately married, classifying it as a capital offense in Deuteronomy 22:22.  Deuteronomy also commands the execution of a person who falsely accuses another of a capital crime (19:16-21).

Within the Biblical framework of ethics, false accusations of adultery are not only irrational, hurtful, and petty; they are deserving of death.  This is how gravely the Bible regards them.  Death is the same punishment assigned to those who falsely accuse others of offenses like rape, murder, and kidnapping--there is nothing trivial about this penalty.  Evangelicals ironically spend so much time fretting about imaginary false rape accusations against men that they do not recognize their own general tendency to suspect someone of behaving adulterously when he or she has done nothing wrong.

If an evangelical Christian says or implies that separately married men and women are behaving adulterously simply by being friends, perhaps showing them that Deuteronomy 19:16-21 prescribes death for false accusations of adultery is called for.  It is amusing how evangelicals claim to have a high regard for the Bible and yet misunderstand or misapply almost every idea in it.  Someone who truly cares about Biblical morality would abstain from ever making or encouraging unfounded rumors of adultery based upon this fact alone.  If someone claims to love the Bible and still discourages opposite gender friendships between married people, they are either ignorant or hypocritical, but they must be at least one of these things.

God Of The Gaps

"God of the gaps" arguments are fallacious attempts to argue for the existence of God based upon a lack of knowledge about a given thing, especially a lack of knowledge about the natural world.  The phrase is derived from the manner in which some theists identify a "gap" in knowledge, assert that the unexplained phenomenon in question is confirmation of God's existence, and then treat God's existence as if it is something obvious from a cursory examination of nature.  Appeals to ignorance such as this are inescapably unsound.  No matter how they are described by their adherents, they always involve belief in something on grounds that are uncertain.

All design arguments reduce down to god of the gaps claims, simply because it does not follow from the appearance of design that design is present or that a designer exists.  As I have explained before [1], design arguments for the existence of God have to assume that a designer exists to even posit that nature is designed to begin with.  Since the existence of a designer must first be proven for the existence of design to be established, design arguments are inherently circular, since they try to approach God's existence the other way around.

Typically, proponents of design arguments will try to subjectively persuade someone that a designer exists by giving example after example of allegedly "unexplainable" things.  If pressed, they might admit that their arguments do not amount to logical proofs, but this does not dissuade them from pretending like design arguments are rational.  Oftentimes, they will even deny that they are using god of the gaps fallacies at all.

The irony is that they consider those who do not regard design as obvious to be irrational, as if to demonstrate the errors in design arguments is an offense against reality.  Even when their supporters fail to grasp their mistakes, god of the gaps errors are at the forefront of design arguments, since those who advocate such arguments are merely assuming that design exists because they perceive orderly behaviors of matter.  In other words, though it does not follow from observing order in the natural world that the natural world must have been fine-tuned by God, these particular theists claim that a lack of verifiable alternatives clearly means that God exists.

Every argument from seeming design to designer fails.  To prove that a designer exists, one must prove that there is an uncaused cause [2] and then show that this entity is a designer.  Any other sequence is riddled with fallacies.  There is only one legitimate proof of God's existence, and it does not start with metaphysical assumptions or fallible scientific judgments about the natural world.  Demonstrating the existence of God as an uncaused cause is a relatively simple thing, but god of the gaps fallacies and the erroneous persuasion that order must signify design have nothing to do with it.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html

Denial Of Conscience

A large number of Christian apologists try to "prove" the existence of objective morality by appealing to their subjective moral feelings, with this lunacy being only one of many examples of how the pursuit of moral knowledge is often tainted and hindered by conscience.  Fear, stupidity, and ignorance are all factors that might drive someone into the delusion that moral intuitions or emotions can provide any illumination about ethical truths.  Nevertheless, denial that conscience has any authority is the start of legitimate moral epistemology; though painful for some, this is a vital and necessary step.

A high regard for conscience is far from being equivalent to a concern for morality.  If a person genuinely cares about morality, and not about arbitrary perceptions of morality, he or she will not revere conscience.  In fact, conscience can be completely ignored by a serious moralist because it has nothing to do with morality in either an epistemological or metaphysical sense.  The existence of conscience does not necessitate the existence of morality, and a subjective feeling is incapable of establishing anything but its own existence (as well as the existence of a perceiver).

Rational people do not settle for mere appearances when it comes to their worldviews, but instead seek to understand things as they are.  Where morality is concerned, this means ignoring, suppressing, or violating conscience as needed.  If this strikes anyone as extreme, it is only because the basic fact that a thriving conscience is still purely subjective is almost universally overlooked.  There is no connection between conscience and moral knowledge, so the person who relies on conscience is not only irrational, but also morally dangerous: they would do anything as long as their conscience compels them.

Thorough moralists will not consult their consciences to expose ethical truths.  Instead of looking to a meaningless, subjective tool for moral guidance, a sound moralist seeks to understand morality itself, which does not depend upon human preferences or awareness.  Denying the validity and usefulness of conscience is the result of a sincere quest for moral knowledge.  It is not necessarily an indicator of moral apathy or decay.  Contrarily, it can be the most significant sign of moral growth.

Familiarity With The Bible

If someone reads the Bible thoroughly and completely, there will by necessity come a point where there is no explicitly new content for them to discover.  There may be some specific passages that fade from memory, but there is such a thing as having nothing more from the Bible to incorporate into one's worldview, although reaching this point is not a quick endeavor.  Unsurprisingly, conveying this fact is often interpreted as showing a disregard for the Bible.  On the contrary, this position alone rightly regards all of the Bible's crucial messages as being understandable and applicable.

Is there a need to scrutinize the Bible after one has become aware of each of its major doctrines (and by this I mean its actual doctrines, not the misrepresentations that evangelical and liberal theologians conjure up)?  There is not.  Ironically, Christians who think they are obligated to continually probe the Bible even after reaching this aforementioned awareness have not realized that the Bible does not demand that a person fixate on reading it after absorbing its content.  Those who think otherwise are like those who mistakenly hold that attending church on Sundays is a mark of spiritual excellence: they confuse traditions for actual authority.  The Bible does not prescribe either.

Evangelicals are prone to devise extra-Biblical spiritual/moral goals, pursue them, and characterize people who do not join them as being spiritually apathetic.  The expectation that a person will continually scour the Bible well after mastering its contents is a prominent example of this legalism.  There are two negative effects that often come about from this, the first being a false sense of spiritual security in those who adhere and the second being a false sense of moral failing in those who do not.  In both cases, Christians are adversely impacted by an erroneous construct of tradition.

It is certainly vital for Christians to become very intimately familiar with the Bible, but it is not vital for them to constantly pore over it once intimate familiarity is achieved, as if its words will change from one reading to the next.  It is possible to understand every one of the Bible's central teachings and thus have no need to revisit the Bible on a frequent basis.  A person should read the Bible often when reaching the point of deep familiarity.  There is simply no need to do so after attaining that objective.  Fortunately, we are capable of massive spiritual growth: we can amass knowledge of Scripture that is far more extensive than many Christians like to admit.

How Complementarianism Injures Men

There is no such thing as sexism towards one gender that does not also entail sexism towards the other gender at the same time.  We hear much about the historic and contemporary sexism that has been directed towards women, but what of the sexism that has been systematically directed towards men?  Complementarianism of both a religious and secular kind injures men deeply on many levels, hurting both individual men and the collective reputation that men in general have all at the same time.  On one hand, complementarians will often straw man feminist concepts as being sexist towards men, even though misandry is not actual feminism, and minimal intelligence is required to discover this; on the other hand, they will actively perpetuate myths, gender roles, and social norms that have a grievous effect on men.

Among these myths and norms are things that disregard men's emotions.  When men are encouraged, if not outright demanded, to suppress basic emotions and act as if they cannot be sensitive, empathetic, or sad, they are shunned or belittled by various complementarians when they fail to do so.  The reactions might go so far as to deny that the men in question are "true men," when a person's biological status and that alone dictates if a person is a "true man" or a "true woman."  Arbitrary societal expectations have nothing to do with whether a person is a man.  Because some men wish to avoid mockery for not having the personalities or behavioral traits expected of them by religious and secular complementarianism, they might simply keep silent about their struggles and emotional wounds.  These expectations are (at least in part) at the root of everything from the denial that women can sexually abuse men [1] to the asinine belief that men don't cry.  At the heart of these myths, as well as others, is a trivialization of male pain.  That these injustices have endured even into a more egalitarian America reveals how deep the stupidity of complementarian can grow.

Another area where complementarianism hurts men concerns leadership, which is very ironic, considering that complementarianism elevates male leadership!  Just as women have been historically kept away from leadership positions regardless of their individual abilities, men have been expected to assume the role of leader in the domestic, corporate, and social spheres.  Numerous men have likely been pressured into conforming to cultural ideas that thrust them into different forms of leadership, even when they did not have conducive personalities or the desire to be in such positions.  These arrangements could hurt a person very deeply, since he must pretend to be something he is not.  It is probable that many men have suffered from having roles forced upon them even if they are not personally qualified or eager for them.  Furthermore, it is not entirely uncommon to see men mocked if they submit to a female leader in certain ways.  There is a deep unease and outrage among complementarians at a man willingly following a woman.

A third arena of sexism against men is almost anything pertaining to sexuality.  Men are widely expected to behave like sexual deviants, and so those of a complementarian mindset are almost surprised when a man never once commits or wishes to commit an act of sexual immorality.  Men are even viewed with suspicion or hostility for expressing their sexuality in completely permissible ways.  Accompanying the heinously irrational, sexist, and unbiblical idea that men are hopelessly fixated on sex is the idea that women are passive sexual creatures that do not tend to have deep, powerful sexual impulses of their own.  Wherever one is found, the other is not far away: the sexist ideology that regards women as asexual or demisexual beings that must be guarded from male aggression also regards men as if they are hypersexual beings practically on the brink of raping or seducing almost any woman they encounter.  This, as is immediately apparent to actual thinkers, is thoroughly damaging to men.

The influence of modern complementarianism must be abolished if men, as well as women, are to truly be allowed to flourish in individualistic fashion.  Complementarians, especially Christian complementarians, who condemn egalitarianism/feminism as sexist towards men are often guilty of the very thing they falsely imagine feminists to practice, since they are prone to treat men who challenge or do not fit into their fallacious gender roles horribly.  For instance, a man who stays at home while his wife works would likely receive harsh ridicule and opposition for doing something that the Bible is not against in any way (Deuteronomy 4:2)--Proverbs 31 even gives an example of a similar scenario, and is often ignored by complementarians as a result.  Of course, if the genders were reversed, there would be no uproar from them.  Hypocrisies like this expose complementarians as the deluded sexists that they are.  Complementarian sexism is a poison to men and women alike, and both reason and Scripture reject the whole of it.


[1].  See here:
  A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/06/when-women-rape-men.html
  B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/an-erection-is-not-consent.html

The Exercise Of Social Power

As recently as three and a half years ago, I expected people to eagerly detach themselves from erroneous or unverifiable beliefs as soon as they were confronted about them.  It did not take long for me to realize that very few people are like this.  For a rationalist, finding a person who loves truth instead of constructs and assumptions is like discovering a pool of water in a scorching desert.  The truth is that the vast majority of people are not intelligent (though they could improve if they chose to) and do not yield to reason when their follies are exposed.  However, even people who do not respond to refutations and proofs in a rational way will often respond to something else: power.

Although power is often associated with violence or political authority, power does not have to take the form of physical, military, or political might.  It can also be manifested in how someone affects the emotions of another person.  The few people who possess both intelligence and social skills have the ability to manipulate others with ease.  Manipulation is not inherently about using someone as if they are nothing more than a means to an end; it is not itself immoral [1].  Thus, using social power to emotionally pressure or coerce those who are not aligned with reason--through everything from mockery to emotional coldness--cannot be wrong on its own.

There is nothing wrong with even directing emotional and social brutality towards moral inferiors, something which does not itself involve the dehumanization of anyone.  Nevertheless, it can involve a great degree of sincere harshness, but harshness alone is not necessarily unjust.  Social power and manipulation can hold great pragmatic power when someone will not submit to reason and morality, since some will feel coerced by social and emotional factors into doing the right thing, even if they have no care for it otherwise.  This only makes them more deserving of the harsh treatment they receive, but it can be better for them to externally pretend to care for rationality and ethics due to emotional coercion than for them to not even pretend at all.

And why should a rationalist not treat such people harshly?  As long as no actual moral obligations are violated--as long as nothing slanderous is said and no immoral physical behaviors are engaged in--there can be nothing unethical about emotional brutality, social manipulation, and mockery.  Any objections are rooted in meaningless, subjective preferences.  It is not as if people who reject reason deserve to be treated as equals by those who embrace it.  The person who refuses to be rational and upright has no legitimate complaint when he or she is treated as inferior to those who do otherwise.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/what-is-manipulation.html

Clarifying The Nature Of Affirmative Action

Business, like any other aspect of human life, is not an amoral thing.  At times, fierce ideological conflict appears because of this, with affirmative action being one such source of ethical controversy.  Affirmative action is an intentional effort to include people in an organization or industry who might not otherwise be able to become parts of it.  In American society, it is aimed at allowing women and racial minorities access to various jobs.  Some misunderstand or despise it, claiming that it is hypocritical (I will elaborate below), while others treat the matter as a very complex one with no apparent answers.  The issue is nowhere near as complicated as some make it out to be, as usual, for reason simplifies the navigation of controversial waters.

There is a dangerous myth, sometimes perpetuated by conservatives in particular, that affirmative action is itself inherently sexist or racist, thus involving the very injustices it is supposed to eradicate.  This is a rather blatant misrepresentation of what affirmative action (at least legitimate affirmative action) is intended to bring about.  It is not conducted so that white men will be forced out of the corporate world, but so that certain groups that have been historically discriminated against on a systematic level will have the opportunity to enter the corporate world.

The objective is to enable qualified women or members of racial minorities to obtain positions they might otherwise be excluded from, not to reverse historic norms so that industries are dominated by women and exclude men in the same way they once excluded women, or so that there is only a handful of white people in a given business.  Are women or racial minorities who want to participate in an industry being discouraged or excluded?  Then affirmative action in those industries is just.  Is a business or industry that caters to a broad ethnic range being systematically run by only those from one ethnicity in a way that prohibits leaders from representing the clients accurately?  Then affirmative action in that business or industry is just.

Affirmative action only becomes sexist or racist when it is applied longer than there is need for it.  If a firm persists, after the aforementioned two kinds of imbalance have been corrected, in hiring people on the basis of gender or race (even if those people are qualified), then the hiring mechanism of that firm is guilty of sexism and racism.  This is not the same as using affirmative action when there is a genuine need for it, since it might be what dissolves barriers of worthless traditions.  Of course, getting conservatives to distinguish one use from the other can be quite frustrating.

Correcting the social mistakes of past generations is not always a pleasant process, since many who cling to the mistakes might think the errors are actually good, or they might recognize them as errors without having the desire to actively oppose them.  Sometimes even egregious evils are tolerated or prolonged because the process of eliminating them is considered too costly, difficulty, or upsetting.  Avoiding what is right because it is difficult is a sign of intellectual or moral inferiority, not a sign that moral progress should be postponed or ignored.  If affirmative action is called for in a specific case, then it is obligatory to uproot sexist or racist attitudes or hiring tendencies, even if the corrections will be mislabeled sexist or racist by ignorant detractors.

The Necessity Of Righteous Motives

The person who looks to the first sign of positive behavior from someone else and immediately concludes that the observed must be righteous has a heinously simplistic, incomplete understanding of morality.  It is rather easy to deceive the average person, as minimal social experience can reveal.  Many people will not sincerely question first impressions or mere appearances.  However, since any moral truths that exist do not hinge on human awareness or preference, even the mass misperception that someone is righteous for only behaving rightly cannot make it so.  It takes far more than outward conformance with morality to be an upright person.

After all, someone could engage in highly benevolent activities, like giving to the poor or opposing tyranny, without consideration for the goodness of such things.  There is not any righteous deed that cannot be performed with illegitimate intentions.  Even something as noble as upholding justice (which cannot be known on the basis of something as pathetically useless as conscience, being the purely arbitrary and subjective tool that it is) can be done merely to obtain social favor, allegiance, or other rewards of a material or nonphysical kind.  Of course, it is better for someone to do the right thing because of secondary, pragmatic incentives than for them to not do the right thing at all, but their seeming righteousness is nothing more than a facade.

Upon realizing these basic facts about motivations, some erroneously think that motives, not deeds themselves, must dictate ethics.  Christians who trivialize the intrinsic importance of behaving in a just way cannot do so without succumbing to this irrational idea.  On the contrary, good motives without righteous deeds can be just as incomplete and morally useless as righteous deeds without good motives.  A person who treats people justly only in order to manipulate them is in error, but so is a person who desires to treat people justly but endorses unjust actions or fails to do that which is just.

Carrying out good actions alone does not make a person good; something more is required.  People must commit morally good actions with the correct motivations.  At the same time, they must not think that they are without moral blemish simply for wanting to do the right thing.  It could be easy for some to mistake a yearning for moral excellence as all the confirmation they need to demonstrate to themselves that they are good people.  In reality, far more is needed than this yearning: anything whatsoever could be illicitly excused, regardless of how abominable it is, because of the doer's intent.

There is a great need to emphasize the moral necessity of right motives coupled with right actions.  Anything short of this union, however it may appear, can only be morally incomplete and therefore worthy of condemnation.  Morality demands of us our behaviors and motivations alike.  Since there is no legitimate divorcing of one from the other, the fact that there is not a single moral obligation that is beyond the human capacity to live out can serve as a great comfort.

What Is Spirituality?

When words are defined with precision and when language is used consistently, many confusions will vanish.  This is true of confusion about many subjects, but spirituality is a prominent example, since ambiguous and careless definitions are often used in discussions about spiritual/theological issues.  Correctly identifying the nature of spirituality is of particular importance, as it is related to the only facets of reality which can ground objective meaning.

Spirituality is an emphasis on the human spirit (consciousness) with, in many cases, a particular affinity for theological matters.  Contrary to the derisive comments of some religious people, it is certainly possible to be "spiritual but not religious," although there is nothing to gain by ignoring theology in favor of non-theological spirituality.  It is a brute fact that there is an uncaused cause [1] (a deity), and thus anyone who is not concerned with discovering a possible personal nature of this uncaused cause, if such a thing can be known, ignores the very thing that serves as the reference point for the significance of human existence.

Some might say that the temporality of human life means that spiritual pursuits are not worth striving for, but human life being finite can only make the pursuit of spirituality and theology all the more urgent.  Certainly, spirituality can be complex, and theology can strike some as intimidating.  Yet complexity does not render the discovery of spiritual truths either impossible or irrelevant to life.  If there is no theological purpose, there is no meaning in any aspect of human existence--spirituality is therefore relevant to every aspect of our lives, since the significance of anything hinges upon it.

One myth about spirituality treats it as if it has no place in modern life.  However, this is utterly false.  That at least one's own spirit exists is self-evident, because its existence can only be denied due to the fact that it exists.  That an uncaused cause exists is fully demonstrable (and is nothing short of absolutely certain, despite the ridiculous assertions of many apologists to the contrary).  That issues of existential meaning are inherently spiritual is also fuly demonstrable.

Spirituality is at the very foundation of human existence.  Recognition of this might vary from person to person and civilization to civilization, but it remains true even if denied by the most influential people of a culture.  The ramifications of spirituality might be unpleasant or foreign to some, but they are there for every willing person to discover.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html

The Empowerment Of Rationalism

It should be readily apparent that rationalism can grant one person significant power over another [1], for the ability to deconstruct erroneous worldviews is the ability to strike others at their very cores.  Likewise, rationalism brings with it an inner liberation from falsehood that allows someone to experience the deepest individual empowerment: that of possessing knowledge in a world where few even recognize what knowledge itself is.  The source of this empowerment is the stability granted by genuinely knowing truths.

It is the rationalist alone, after all, who observes everything else from the right vantage point.  Only a rationalist can properly comprehend how the pieces of reality interlock to form the different aspects of the truth, for a person who does not seek the light of reason in all things is adrift in epistemological darkness.  Only rationalists have the ability to consider any particular truth in light of all the others, since it is reason that permits a correct understanding of both precise facts on an individual level and the relationship between them.

A non-rationalist can at best stumble upon isolated truths by sheer happenstance, operating without the light of the only intrinsically valid epistemological tool that exists.  The non-rationalist does not know of the empowering effects of submission to reason and cannot know of them apart from that submission.  Many will claim to have a high regard for truth, yet only a tiny minority will choose to submit to the authority of reason, which brings clarity and stability wherever it is embraced.  Grasping that clarity can be one of the most fulfilling and energizing things that one can experience.

Rationalism illuminates external truths, but it also provides an internal empowerment.  Without it, there is nothing but arbitrary belief in the uncertain; with it, there is certainty and immutable firmness.  Only a hypocritical fool rejects rationalism and pretends like he or she cares about truth anyway.  Furthermore, only a fool would regard the world to not be full of such hypocrites.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot/com/2018/12/the-power-of-rationalism.html

The Greatest Accomplishments Of Science

The idea that science can illuminate more than a miniscule window of knowledge about reality is a myth, and a powerless one at that.  It is treated as if it is a powerful idea by many modern people, when there is nothing that can genuinely defend it.  When someone mistakenly believes that science is an unassailable epistemic tool, they likely regard it as something that has uncovered legions of facts about reality, though the most significant things to come about from the scientific method are things other than awareness of ultimate truths.

The greatest contributions of science to humanity have nothing to do with any grand knowledge about metaphysics; indeed, science cannot even demonstrate that the external world required for scientific experiments exists in the first place (it is logic that does so [1]), and it likewise cannot even demonstrate that a person is perceiving the external world as it is in actuality.  Epistemologically, science contains so many inherent limitations that the only thing that can be definitively established using science is that certain phenomena are being perceived in the external world at a given point in time--there is no guarantee that scientific laws will remain static.  Only logic has inherent, universal epistemic authority and infallibility.

Nevertheless, the safety and convenience of many aspects of human life have benefited immensely from scientific progress, at least in the Western world: modern medicine, entertainment, and travel particularly hinge on science.  Science does deserve recognition for its role in bringing about a connected world that enjoys unprecedented wonders of technology and disease treatment.  It is every other category--epistemology, ethics, spirituality, and so on--that science cannot illuminate.  We might be able to live longer because of scientific discoveries, and our lives might be more pleasant and relaxing because of them, but science can reveal nothing about issues of an existential, moral, or metaphysical nature.

Metaphysics is required for scientific inquiry to function, since there can be no scientific efforts without an external world of matter that is observed, at least one consciousness to do the observing of perceived phenomena in the external world, and the laws of logic which govern all things (including the material world) and allow observers to have intelligible experiences to begin with.  However, logic and the contents of one's own consciousness are immediately grasped without any involvement of the scientific method whatsoever, and, as aforementioned, the very existence of the external world in which scientific pursuits are conducted can only be confirmed apart from the scientific method.  Science can prove nothing about the existence or nonexistence of anything at all; only reason and phenomenology can do so.

Considering these facts, the only rational stance towards science is one that credits it with many aspects of human flourishing while constantly highlighting its epistemological and metaphysical inabilities.  The greatest accomplishments of science have nothing to do with it independently enabling a greater understanding of objective reality, since reason exposes its numerous epistemological flaws; instead, the triumphs of science have to do with the pragmatic simplification of human life.  Convenience and safety are not minor things, of course, since they make human existence exponentially more desirable for many people, yet they tell us little about reality when left to themselves.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/07/science-and-the-external-world.html

Pray Without Ceasing

Sometimes the content of a Biblical command might be inaccurately or misleadingly conveyed in contemporary English Bibles.  An example of this is Paul's charge to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17), an instruction which means something other than what some English translations suggest.  The Bible does not prescribe endless prayer, as if people are not permitted to focus on other things or perform other tasks, as the original wording and other Biblical passages demonstrate.

First and foremost, before linguistics is given attention, one needs to see if a concept itself has any logical flaws.  If the Bible is true and if there is a logical problem with an idea that is claimed to be Biblical, then one does not need to investigate Hebrew or Greek words to refute the idea in question, since reason deconstructs it on its own.  Reason shows that the Bible could not prescribe ceaseless prayer without contradicting another Biblical fact.

There is at least one time when humans cannot pray: during sleep.  God could not rationally expect for beings whom he engineered to require sleep to constantly communicate with him, never ceasing for even a moment.  If God demanded such a thing, he would be instructing humans to do something that is impossible for them, which would make God irrational.  Thus, Paul's command can only either be hyperbole or have an alternate meaning in the original language of his epistles.

Indeed, the Greek wording does not necessarily refer to a perpetual prayer without any pauses, but to a regular habit of prayer.  The former would quickly prove exhausting and detrimental to one's overall health, much less to one's spiritual health, whereas the latter can be deeply refreshing and rejuvenating.  In addition to it being irrational to demand the impossible of someone, it would also be also counterproductive for a deity who wants a relationship with individuals to demand that those individuals do something that would put strain on their relationships with him.

There is not a single command in the Bible that is beyond the human ability to obey.  To say otherwise is to contradict the Bible's tenet that God is just, for it is senseless to punish or condemn someone for not doing something that is impossible for them to accomplish.  Obedience to God is not an unattainable thing.  Thankfully, God is both just and consistent (Malachi 3:6); he does not assign unreachable goals.

Mathematical Platonism

Contemporary mathematical Platonism is not the Platonism of Plato, which advocates for the existence of many "forms" that include moral virtues, colors, and ideas.  The former merely holds that mathematical truths exist independent of human perception, and nothing more, whereas the latter holds that there are abstract "forms" of everything from chairs to colors.  It is clear that the two doctrines are not identical.  Plato's Platonism is utterly doomed on epistemological grounds [1], and it also fails to be metaphysically valid (though I have yet to explain why there is no "form" of a chair, I have already deconstructed moral Platonism).  Mathematical Platonism, on the other hand, is correct.

Nevertheless, the explanations given for why it is correct are often lacking, and they do not go far enough in detailing either the reason why mathematical truths exist apart from the human mind or how they actually exist independent of all minds and matter.  Regarding the first of these matters, mathematics is nothing but numeric logic, and so has to exist, since logic has to exist.  Regarding the second, logic exists in the absence of all other things, not merely the human mind.  There is a massive distinction between what I mean when I say that logic exists independent of all other things (a truth yet to be elaborated upon by even a single academic "authority," as far as I am aware [2]) and what mathematical Platonists mean when they say that math transcends human awareness.

Logic is far broader and more foundational than mathematics alone is.  Mathematics reduces to logic, but logic does not reduce to mathematics; numbers cannot exist apart from the laws of logic.  Also, mathematical Platonism merely holds that mathematical truths exist without the human mind, but there is an enormous difference between an existence that is independent of human perception and existence that is independent of all other things.  As such, even mathematical Platonism falls short of affirming some of the most important truths about logic, truths that are among those that only an extremely small minority ever discover on their own.

Non-rationalistic Christians often claim that mathematical truths exist in the absence of human minds but not in the absence of the divine mind.  They are grievously mistaken: if there was no deity, there would be zero gods.  Numbers exist without God because they are rooted in logic, and logic exists by intrinsic necessity.  In the same way, the nonexistence of God would mean that it is true that there is no God, meaning that truth exists independent of God--and every law of logic would likewise remain true by necessity in God's absence.  The fact that God could cease to exist [2], leaving only the necessary and uncreated laws of logic (accompanied by mathematical truths) and empty space as creation vanishes, is scarcely emphasized at all, yet it remains true.

The independence of logic from all other things continues to be ignored, denied, or overlooked, even by mathematical Platonists.  They do not tend to go far enough.  Of course, few ever do when philosophical pursuits are concerned.  There is no "form of reason," as an adherent of Plato's Platonism might suppose; there is only reason itself.  Furthermore, regarding mathematical Platonism, not only do mathematical truths exist apart from everything other than the laws of logic, not just human minds, but the laws of logic also exist apart from everything other than themselves.  Reason is the necessary existent, the one thing that cannot not exist, regardless of what else does not, and this and this alone is why numbers exist necessarily.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-circular-reasoning-of-platonism.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html

No Distinction Between Philosophical And Everday Beliefs

Faced with epistemological difficulties or limitations, some might posit that there are philosophical beliefs and everyday beliefs, and that one can always fall back on the latter if the former proves too difficult.  That this division is a myth does not mean that no one derives a sense of security from it.  Not only is such a distinction impossible, since philosophy encompasses everything about reality, but the only legitimate epistemological security comes from reason, not the everyday assumptions of the common person.

Since nothing is outside of philosophy (and nothing could be outside of it), there cannot be a divide between the philosophical and the everyday.  Often, this idea is used to avoid the philosophical considerations that permeate basic existence as a human being.  However, anyone who contemplates philosophy for even a brief amount of time should quickly realize that there is no avoiding what has no boundaries.

There is no distinction between "philosophical beliefs" and "everyday beliefs"; everyday practices hinge on philosophical truths.  At the same time, many beliefs that people would generally consider the "everyday" sort are utterly unverifiable, meaning there is no justification for people holding those beliefs to begin with.  For example, there is no justification for believing that other minds exist, since they cannot be proven to exist.  Yet many assume this as they go about daily activities.

Epistemology is omnipresent in human experiences.  In some way, it is at the core of every behavior, every thought, and every intention.  There is nowhere that one can hide from it, and no amount of dislike or ignorance can make it vanish.  The person who thinks they don't need or don't interact with epistemology is a fool.  Someone might hate it, or fear it, but it is there, a thing that exists as long as there is even a single consciousness that perceives anything at all.

The Bipartisan Giants

Voting for either of America's major parties no matter what candidates they produce is a sign of vast philosophical and political ignorance.  Voting for either of them without exception because one thinks that the Bible unswervingly endorses the party betrays an enormous ignorance of reason and Biblical ethics, for neither reason nor Scripture supports the entire ideology of either party.  It is not logically impossible for a single party to represent the whole of rationality and morality, but the conservative and liberal parties represent neither.  From an independent logical standpoint, as well as a Biblical one, the flaws of the parties are deep; the bipartisan giants are easy to philosophically slay.

It is a simple matter to expose the logical errors, arbitrary positions, and theological problems at the heart of conservatism and liberalism.  Likewise, refuting Christians who regard either as a beacon of Christian ideas is a simple matter.  There are many nuances to reality that people are often willing to overlook.  It is not that either of the major American parties are wholly evil, or wholly righteous; the truth is that there are elements of Biblical teachings scattered about conservatism and liberalism, though the cores of each party are inherently fallacious and unbiblical.

Subscribing to evangelical ideology, Christian conservatives often pride themselves on upholding a Biblical stance on a small handful of about two to five issues (at the forefront of these issues are abortion and homosexuality), yet they are quick to abandon Biblical ideas elsewhere.  Some of them are even willing to view ethics in a utilitarian light, encouraging or defending the use of unbiblical forms of torture as long as it provides "security."  A host of other contra-Biblical ideas permeate general conservative stances.

For instance, just as the Bible does not condemn alcohol use, but does condemn drunkenness, the Bible does not condemn use of certain drugs, given that a person does not abuse them; despite this, Christian conservatives often harshly condemn recreational drug use to the point of desiring laws that punish it.  Then there is the sexism of the right: since conservatism by definition involves the upholding of tradition for tradition's sake, it is no surprise that many individual conservatives believe that men and women have intrinsic psychological differences.  The Bible contradicts this nonsense with its many stories of men and women who defy ancient and modern gender stereotypes.

The liberal left is more than willing, contrary to the right's usual absolutist emphasis on erroneous or inconsistent ethical stances, to revise its ethical stances as it goes along in a relativistic manner.  The liberal party as a whole is supportive of both abortion and homosexual relationships, activities that the Bible is opposed to.  Whereas some conservatives trivialize poverty or stereotype the poor, liberals might hold up involuntary wealth redistribution as the solution to poverty.

Then, as if the former issues were not significant enough, there is the reverse racism advocated by certain liberals.  In short, the liberal party has no claim to Biblical support, just like the conservative party.  However, liberalism is not as directly perceived to be affiliated with Christian values, when conservatism is often equated by many with the ideal Christian political framework.  Liberalism (like conservatism) is far from Biblical, but at least its adherents don't claim utter Biblicality as often as conservatives do.

Neither of the predominant American political parties seek to consistently apply Biblical values.  At best, both conservatives and liberals alike are quite selective adherents to Biblical commands, and both operate on a framework of fallacies.  One party clings to tradition and does not consistently maintain its small government tenet, while the other pursues an arbitrary, ever-shifting goalpost of "progress."  Anyone who thinks that either conservatism or liberalism is rational scarcely understands either; anyone who thinks that either conservatism or liberalism is Biblical only compounds their errors.

Analogies For The Trinity

Anyone who has tried to devise an analogy for the traditional notion of the Trinity in front of the average Christian knows how quickly they might lash out with charges of heresy.  Discussing the Trinity can easily become an annoying experience, as Trinitarians are quick to either dismiss or condemn any attempts at a comparison between the Trinity and anything else.  The fact that they oppose analogies reveals something very important about their belief and they themselves.

Analogies have a unique ability to illuminate concepts, yet Trinitarians cannot use any without contradicting themselves.  There is no analogy for the Trinity that they tend to accept because the notion of classical Trinitarianism is an illogical thing that has no analogy rooted in reality, since everything in reality is governed by logic.  When someone makes an analogy that only succeeds if Yahweh and Jesus are distinct beings (the Biblical position), they hide behind false accusations of heresy.

Many Christians do not understand what makes an idea heretical.  No matter how controversial, unappealing, or foreign an idea is, whether or not it is heresy is determined solely by whether or not the Bible actually denies it.  Instead of looking to a rationalistic/exegetical understanding of Scripture, many Christians call something heretical if dead theologians called it the same.  This betrays an emphasis on tradition instead of truth.

Trinitarians cannot appeal to anything but consensus without distorting the thing they appeal to.  If they dared to pursue reason and strict Biblical exegesis, they would find that not only is it logically impossible for three beings to be one person, but the Bible itself also rejects any idea that equates Jesus with Yahweh (Matthew 24:36, Luke 22:39-42, John 14:28 [1], John 4:24 compared with Luke 22:19).  Instead, they are content to hide in the worthless shadows of tradition, crying out "Heresy!" at every person who begins to deconstruct their madness.

Something can only be a heresy if it contradicts a Biblical teaching, and something can only be true if it does not defy logic.  Classical Trinitarianism, ironically, is itself heretical, because it contradicts the plain Biblical descriptions of Yahweh and Jesus being separate, distinct entities; furthermore, even if the Bible did teach it, classical Trinitarianism certainly cannot be true, because it contradicts the necessary truths of logic.  Trinitarians know that their doctrine is nonsense.  That's why they declare the Trinity a "mystery" beyond reason, even if they are inane enough to say that it is not contrary to reason.

The defensiveness behind the reactions for Trinity-related analogies is driven by the desperation that comes from endorsing an impossibility, as well as the passion of blind zeal.  Even when faced with the truth, many would rather cling to what is comfortable and familiar.  Since there are very few Christian theologians who have affirmed that the traditional concept of the Trinity is logically impossible, the average Christian will do little to challenge the position.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/10/exegeting-john-1428.html

Is Skepticism Of Other Minds Demeaning?

One of the most basic, clear facts about phenomenology is that humans can only gaze into their own minds, a limitation that not only leaves one incapable of seeing the thoughts of others, but also leaves one incapable of even demonstrating the existence of a single other mind in the first place.  The fact that there is great evidence for other minds, that it seems as if they exist, falls short of proving anything more than that it seems like there are other consciousnesses.  This is one of the most foundational truths about the intersection between epistemology and phenomenology.

Some have contended that skepticism about the very existence of other minds is an arrogant stance that demeans others.  Intellectual humility, ironically, is only achieved when one admits to oneself that one does not know what one cannot know; it is actually arrogant to mistakenly believe that one knows what one does not or cannot, since this entails thinking more highly of oneself than one's epistemological status permits.  To believe in an unverified or unverifiable thing is intellectual arrogance, since one presumes to know what is at least currently unknown.

A person who does not think of himself or herself more highly than he or she should cannot be guilty of arrogance.  Many things that are considered arrogant have nothing to do with pride, and it is easy to demonize a position by merely accusing its holders of being arrogant.  Instead of retreating behind the suspicion that controversial or original ideas are borne of arrogance, a rational person accepts that even actual arrogance does not disqualify a claim from being true (the opposite belief commits the genetic fallacy).

As for the charge that skepticism about other minds is demeaning to others, there is nothing impossible about loving a person even if one cannot know that he or she exists as an independent being.  There is nothing exclusive about caring or having affection for someone and not knowing if there are any minds other than one's own consciousness.  That neither opposes the other is a simple matter, one that can be quickly and easily realized.  Thus, there is nothing about withholding belief in other minds that necessarily entails a belittling attitude towards any other minds that might exist.

If denying that other minds can be known to exist was arrogant, then it would follow that it would be rational to be arrogant.  Similarly, if it was degrading to accept that the only mind one sees into is one's own, then this would necessarily mean that it would be rational to harbor degrading attitudes towards others--but these things are not the case.  Even if they were, they would do nothing to discredit or refute skepticism about other minds, but the fact of the matter is that there is no connection between this skepticism and a lack of humility.

Bikinis Do Not Sexualize Children

If something is not immoral, then it does not matter if children do it.  Whatever the activity (examples might include the use of profanity or the playing of violent video games), this remains true, for amoral things are amoral and innocent things are innocent without respect to the ages of various individuals.  This is not a complicated truth.  Overlooking this fact, many parents mistake the criterion for their children to engage in such activities to be some randomly selected age instead of the intellectual and spiritual maturity of an individual child.

Indeed, the last resort of many ethical arguments is an appeal to the wellbeing of children.  The emptiness of these appeals is even more evident when it is clear that the one making them is merely using them in an attempt to emotionally manipulate listeners.  It is easy for someone with a fiercely irrational moral framework to present an asinine ethical claim and still look like a person of character: many people are not intelligent enough to see through such facades.

As if age is in any way relevant to the matter, theological or political conservatives might posit that bikinis should not be worn by young girls because they somehow sexualize the kids who wear them.  The phrase "I wouldn't let my daughter wear that" is treated as if it contains any authority at all, when it strictly expresses an arbitrary, meaningless preference.  It would not be unusual for this position to reflect a disdain for bikinis or the human body in general, and it is likely that this is accompanied by a misidentification of other nonsexual things as sexual.  The claim that bikinis sexualize female children is erroneous on all fronts, and this is easy to demonstrate.

Bikinis can't sexualize children because there is no inherent connection between any type of clothing clothing and sexual expression.  Perceptions associating certain clothes with sexuality are purely subjective or culturally instilled, and there is no other alternative; clothing itself is entirely nonsexual (even lingerie [1]).  People can sexualize children--ironically, this is exactly what those who complain about bikinis allegedly sexualizing children are doing!  They are the ones regarding children in a sexual way, not the children themselves.  Rational people see right through their false moralism.

Some adult women might at least partly wear bikinis to show off their bodies with sexual intentions, just like some men might forgo shirts to show off their bodies with sexual intentions.  However, it is very unlikely that young girls have this in mind when they wear bikinis in public settings, to say the least!  Children, having not necessarily yet internalized arbitrary cultural norms and beliefs about clothing, can easily understand that there is nothing sexual about a either a swimsuit or the male/female body.

Aside from the fact that there are no moral implications to merely wearing a bikini, there are reasons why wearing bikinis is objectively helpful in certain contexts.  The pragmatic benefits alone can serve as an excellent basis for young girls to wear them: bikinis facilitate certain bathroom activities, among other things.  But no one needs to bring up pragmatism to show that there is nothing problematic about bikinis.  Neither onlookers nor parents have a right to pretend like there is anything sexual about either a young child or a grown woman wearing one to swim.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/lingerie-is-not-sexual.html

Game Review--Velocity 2X Critical Mass Edition (PS Vita)

"I should be horrified by what has happened to me but I'm strangely calm, and I have hope to cling to.  Perhaps I'll even have a chance at vengeance.  As I lie beneath the sterile lights I look up at the ceiling and clench my fist."
--Lieutenant Kai Tana, Velocity 2X


Velocity 2X shares a lot of DNA with Metroid: both feature a blonde human woman who fights against an oppressive alien species (seriously, the Vokh of Velocity 2X even look like Space Pirates), solves environmental puzzles, and obtains weapon upgrades as she progresses.  This works to the former's advantage, since it allows players something that might strike them as an inventive combination of the familiar and the unique.  Kai Tana makes for a fitting protagonist, and comparisons to Samus Aran are almost unavoidable for experienced gamers.  The Critical Mass Edition features additional content that takes the form of three expansions and a documentary about the game's creation.  It is the ideal way to enjoy the title on the Vita, as it is a complete offering.

Production Values

The graphics are a great fit for the arcade atmosphere of Velocity 2X, from the colorful environments and objects to the character design of Kai.  Despite being simple, the art style is handled consistently throughout the entirety of the game, benefiting from the vibrancy of the colors.  Never once did any slowdown occur.  The audio complements the visuals very well, with the soundtrack and weapon noises highlighting the game's arcade-like elements.  There is no dialogue; however, the sound that is present accentuates the gameplay and aesthetics.

Gameplay

The gameplay consists of two formats.  In the first, players control Kai's ship, shooting switches that deactivate shields that block new areas, fighting off enemies, and freeing prisoners of the Vokh, an aggressive species that celebrate brutality and militarism.  In the second, players control Kai directly, and the game goes from a space shooter that looks directly down on her ship to a side-scrolling platformer-shooter hybrid (reinforcing the Metroid comparisons, Kai even looks like Samus does in her Zero Suit!).  Regardless of the format, teleportation and destroying generators in a specific sequence are standard activities.

Though every level is not necessarily more complicated than each one that precedes it, the general complexity increases steadily as one accesses new levels.  The manner in which levels are unlocked is somewhat abnormal.  Instead of accessing a level by the mere completion of the one before it, one must accumulate a certain amount of XP to proceed.  The factors that allow a player to obtain XP after a level are completion speed, collection rate (there are two main kinds of collectibles), and point quantity.  It is possible to finish a level without acquiring a high number of experience points, so unlocking the later parts of the story could be a tough endeavor for some.

As the level design becomes more complex, the challenge increases exponentially.  Dying might be a frequent occurrence near the end of the story, but dying does not penalize players very much.  Kai and her ship quickly respawn, so the consequences of death have more to do with slowing players down, making their completion time higher, than with forcing them to restart a level.  Even at its most difficult, however, the game provides at least enough hints for observant players to navigate their way through serpentine locations.

Story

The narrative follows a human pilot, Lieutenant Kai Tana, as she fights against a cruel species: the Vokh, known for their tendency to brutalize or enslave other races.  Kai befriends Hijun Ralan III, a member of an oppressed species called the Jitinda that, unfortunately, has a genetic modification that renders them pacifists.  She encounters and bests Vokh General Glaive on multiple occasions, but her opponents retaliate when they destroy the Jitinda homeworld.  Ultimately, Kai confronts the Vokh Empress.

Intellectual Content

As players get further into the game, Velocity 2X can become quite challenging.  Pickups that unlock bonus levels are scattered throughout some of the main levels--and obtaining them is not always an easy matter.  Later on, the collection process involves precise uses of Kai's teleportation ability, both on foot and in her ship.  Even making progress through the core game can involve quite a bit of forethought.  In particular, the use of teleportation pods while flying Kai's ship around a network of open spaces gets rather elaborate.


Conclusion

Considering that so many aspects of the game are executed well, Velocity 2X is a great recommendation for people looking for a Metroid-type experience on a Sony platform.  The art style, level design, and varying 1-10 minute level completion times feel right at home on the Vita.  This is a great title for a portable system in particular, though it is available on other systems.  Any Vita users who seek a game that challenges their reflexes and swiftness should certainly try Velocity 2X.


Content:
1. Violence:  Kai can use an arm cannon, a rifle, and her ship's weaponry to destroy enemies, all of which are either spacecrafts, turrets, or alien beings.