As long as there are political bodies, there is a need to address politics, because politics is an extension of ethics and metaphysics, and there is always a need to address ethics and metaphysics. Every person by necessity has some kind of worldview, whether rational and sophisticated or self-contradictory and asinine, and politicians, being people, inevitably govern based upon their worldviews. Yet politics is often viewed as a topic that should be left out of pedestrian talk.
Americans sometimes go so far as to make jokes about avoiding the subject of politics (as well as religion) in friendly conversations, yet a tendency to avoid confronting a controversial and significant topic is not praiseworthy when such conversation is discouraged in everyday life. Errors cannot deserve to go without refutation; assumptions cannot deserve to go without being rejected. Political errors and assumptions are no exceptions, and many people will not recognize them for what they are when their culture does not feature serious political talk.
Politics, like the topics of epistemology, theology, and sexuality, needs to be discussed honestly and rationally. When a culture does not discuss a matter openly, there is a much higher chance that its people will make and live according to mere assumptions about the subject, with only a small minority refusing to make assumptions. Since politics affects a great deal of human life, the citizens of a country must suffer the adverse effects of whatever assumptions and ignorances they do not dispel.
Talking about controversial subjects will always be either avoided or strongly discouraged in superficial societies. If someone cares about truth, then he or she will realize that a culture must not hide from an important issue, even when that issue is unpopular, divisive, and complex. There are destructive consequences that follow whenever a mass of people collectively prefer to stay silent on a significant matter, and the consequences of failing to rationally approach something as intertwined with philosophy as politics can be devastating. After all, politics shapes the very way that a society behaves.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
A Pathetic Approach To Education
The role of an educator is to educate. By definition of what an educator is, performing this task is the sole thing that makes a person an educator. Despite this, it is not uncommon for teachers, when asked even a sincere or important question by a student, to say that they want to teach someone how to think, not what to think. No one can actually teach someone how to think without teaching them what to think, of course, but there is also the fact that a teacher must forsake an educator's responsibilities in order to avoid giving actual answers.
No other profession would likely be shown the same lenience for such an obvious and incompetent cop out. If a firefighter was asked to put out a fire and only replied, "I'm here to make sure you can put out fires," refusing to put the fire out after the comment, would anyone listening think that the firefighter was truly fulfilling his or her job? Teachers are able to say similar things and avoid deserved criticism because their profession is often seen as an exception.
Furthermore, most people are far too imbecilic to ever discover significant truths on their own except by accident and in relatively infrequent cases. If someone truly expects the average person, or even the average "expert," to formulate a sound worldview on their own, then that person is deeply mistaken about the unfortunate intellectual incompetence and apathy of general humanity. If a person knows the answer to a significant question, is asked what the answer is, and refuses to share it, the one who withholds information is partly at fault for the continued ignorance of the questioner.
Even someone who seeks answers from an educator still needs to autonomously consider those answers (if they are received) and realize that an educator's reputation or credentials have nothing to do with the veracity of them. The necessity of individual reflection on what an educator says, as well as the possibility that someone can teach themselves through the use of reason and through experience, do nothing to excuse an educator from avoiding their role.
Critical thinking can be encouraged, and even taught, but its absence is never justification for withholding information. Nevertheless, the only way to directly teach critical thinking is to explicitly teach someone about the nature and sound use of the laws of logic. Ironically, it is reason that allows people to discover and prove certain things to themselves without consulting other people. Someone must already grasp the most foundational laws of logic in order to even have understandable experiences while talking to a teacher to begin with.
Proper educators will not avoid specificity and honesty. The only way to thoroughly include these in a teaching style, of course, is to actually give people answers when they need or seek them. It is one thing to try to help another person develop autonomous thinking skills. At the same time, many people are not competent enough to think autonomously, and they should not be intentionally left in ignorance when they directly ask for answers.
No other profession would likely be shown the same lenience for such an obvious and incompetent cop out. If a firefighter was asked to put out a fire and only replied, "I'm here to make sure you can put out fires," refusing to put the fire out after the comment, would anyone listening think that the firefighter was truly fulfilling his or her job? Teachers are able to say similar things and avoid deserved criticism because their profession is often seen as an exception.
Furthermore, most people are far too imbecilic to ever discover significant truths on their own except by accident and in relatively infrequent cases. If someone truly expects the average person, or even the average "expert," to formulate a sound worldview on their own, then that person is deeply mistaken about the unfortunate intellectual incompetence and apathy of general humanity. If a person knows the answer to a significant question, is asked what the answer is, and refuses to share it, the one who withholds information is partly at fault for the continued ignorance of the questioner.
Even someone who seeks answers from an educator still needs to autonomously consider those answers (if they are received) and realize that an educator's reputation or credentials have nothing to do with the veracity of them. The necessity of individual reflection on what an educator says, as well as the possibility that someone can teach themselves through the use of reason and through experience, do nothing to excuse an educator from avoiding their role.
Critical thinking can be encouraged, and even taught, but its absence is never justification for withholding information. Nevertheless, the only way to directly teach critical thinking is to explicitly teach someone about the nature and sound use of the laws of logic. Ironically, it is reason that allows people to discover and prove certain things to themselves without consulting other people. Someone must already grasp the most foundational laws of logic in order to even have understandable experiences while talking to a teacher to begin with.
Proper educators will not avoid specificity and honesty. The only way to thoroughly include these in a teaching style, of course, is to actually give people answers when they need or seek them. It is one thing to try to help another person develop autonomous thinking skills. At the same time, many people are not competent enough to think autonomously, and they should not be intentionally left in ignorance when they directly ask for answers.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Christianity And Skepticism
Reality is often far more nuanced than many people will dare to suggest. There are numerous things that can be proven in full [1], things that very little can be known about (there is no such thing as absolute ignorance about a matter, since one can always at least know that necessary truths apply to any given facet of reality), and things that rest somewhere in between these two. Many rush to claim that Christianity can be demonstrated to be true or false, overlooking the true complexity of the issue. In truth, many of the epistemological issues involved with investigating the veracity of Christianity do not lay on points of minimal knowledge or absolute certainty.
Can any component of Christianity be completely proven? Of course! There are specific examples I have cited before: the existence of an uncaused cause [2], the distinction between consciousness/soul and body [3], and the existence of a material world [4] are all things which are both central aspects of Christian theology and demonstrable from the strict exercise of rationality. Since a fact which reason demonstrates is absolutely certain, these particular aspects of Christianity cannot be false. If any of these things could not be established by wielding the laws of logic, some of the most foundational parts of Christianity would be uncertain.
What, however, of the existence of angels, the historical claims of the Bible (such as those about the reigns of particular monarchs), or the Bible's descriptions of a particular kind of afterlife? None of these things can be defended except by appealing to mere evidence, which is fallible and always falls short of actual proof. Evidence, of course, is always proof that evidence exists, but it can do nothing more than provide varying degrees of probabilistic support for a notion.
The ultimate unverifiability of certain aspects of Christianity does nothing to erase the great amount of historical evidence for its veracity. There is no cognitive dissonance in being a skeptic about the truth of Christianity's unverifiable components while being committed to living out its values in light of the extensive evidence for Christianity as a whole. In fact, this nuanced stance is the only rational position one could hold regarding Christianity. There is no such thing as a rational denial that Christianity is evidentially fortified and that parts of it can be proven; there is also no such thing as a rational claim that the entirety of Christianity is certainly true.
A Christian who believes that it is impossible for certain aspects of Christianity to be false does not understand reason or sound epistemology. There are components of Christian metaphysics and theology that could be false, though there is evidence in their favor and no evidence against their veracity. Additionally, if even a single actual internal contradiction within Christianity or a disparity between Christianity or a single external truth was discovered, at least that part of Christianity would be false and therefore untenable. General ignorance and intellectual stubbornness are the only reasons why these facts are not accepted by every Christian.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-extent-of-absolute-certainty.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-breath-of-life.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
Can any component of Christianity be completely proven? Of course! There are specific examples I have cited before: the existence of an uncaused cause [2], the distinction between consciousness/soul and body [3], and the existence of a material world [4] are all things which are both central aspects of Christian theology and demonstrable from the strict exercise of rationality. Since a fact which reason demonstrates is absolutely certain, these particular aspects of Christianity cannot be false. If any of these things could not be established by wielding the laws of logic, some of the most foundational parts of Christianity would be uncertain.
What, however, of the existence of angels, the historical claims of the Bible (such as those about the reigns of particular monarchs), or the Bible's descriptions of a particular kind of afterlife? None of these things can be defended except by appealing to mere evidence, which is fallible and always falls short of actual proof. Evidence, of course, is always proof that evidence exists, but it can do nothing more than provide varying degrees of probabilistic support for a notion.
The ultimate unverifiability of certain aspects of Christianity does nothing to erase the great amount of historical evidence for its veracity. There is no cognitive dissonance in being a skeptic about the truth of Christianity's unverifiable components while being committed to living out its values in light of the extensive evidence for Christianity as a whole. In fact, this nuanced stance is the only rational position one could hold regarding Christianity. There is no such thing as a rational denial that Christianity is evidentially fortified and that parts of it can be proven; there is also no such thing as a rational claim that the entirety of Christianity is certainly true.
A Christian who believes that it is impossible for certain aspects of Christianity to be false does not understand reason or sound epistemology. There are components of Christian metaphysics and theology that could be false, though there is evidence in their favor and no evidence against their veracity. Additionally, if even a single actual internal contradiction within Christianity or a disparity between Christianity or a single external truth was discovered, at least that part of Christianity would be false and therefore untenable. General ignorance and intellectual stubbornness are the only reasons why these facts are not accepted by every Christian.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-extent-of-absolute-certainty.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-breath-of-life.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Movie Review--Unbreakable
"I believe comics are our last link to an ancient way of passing on history."
--Elijah Glass, Unbreakable
"In a comic, you know how you can tell who the arch-villain's going to be? He's the exact opposite of the hero."
--Elijah Glass, Unbreakable
Given the release of Glass, there has never been a better time for people to revisit M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable or enjoy their first viewing of it. It is rare to find a superhero story that is not connected with the two giants of the comic industry in some way. Comic books with the names of Marvel heroes appear in some scenes, yet Unbreakable occurs within a universe of its own that is completely separate from those of Marvel and DC. It is an intimate, quiet film by comparison to more recent movies within the MCU and DCEU. Its superhero, David Dunn, initially tries to dismiss his abilities, claiming he is just a normal man. Whereas many later superhero films are origin stories that focus extensively on how the hero acquires his or her powers (one notable exception is The Incredible Hulk), Unbreakable presents a hero who has always had unnatural abilities but has struggled to identify and accept them. Like its successors Split and Glass, it is not an action movie, but is rather a film about characterization, and Unbreakable is all the more effective because of its reliance on a strong script and mostly practical effects.
Production Values
There is no grand showdown between David and a supervillain, no major use of CGI, and no superpower as dramatic as flight or shapeshifting to be found in Unbreakable. David's abilities--incredibly abnormal strength, an immunity to almost all sicknesses, and visions of someone's past triggered by physical contact with them--are all easy to portray without a large budget. Since the movie focuses on the characters of Bruce Willis' David Dunn and Samuel Jackson's Elijah Glass, the performances, not computer generated visuals, form the core of the film. Both of the lead actors are practically perfect fits for their roles; Bruce Willis adopts the persona of a confused but extraordinary man just as easily as Samuel Jackson becomes the physically fragile but mentally alert mentor figure.
Robin Wright (who appeared in the recent and excellent superhero movie Wonder Woman) contributes to some great scenes as David's wife Audrey, though she is greatly underutilized. Her role in the story is small by comparison to the two leads. Nevertheless, she makes the most of her relatively few lines. Having seen Glass, watching a younger Spencer Treat Clark play Joseph Dunn, the son of Audrey and David, shows just how skilled of an actor Spencer was even in his earlier days--Shyamalan having Spencer reprise his role in Glass was a great move. Some of the best scenes develop David's relationship with Audrey and Joseph, including a date where David and Audrey discuss their disintegrating marriage and an experiment where Joseph tests how much weight his father can lift.
Story
Spoilers!
Security guard David Dunn is the sole survivor of an accident involving the derailment of the Eastrail 177 train. Dealing with existential sadness and a stagnant marriage, David finds a letter on his car that asks him how about whether he has ever been sick. The letter was placed by an eccentric man named Elijah Glass. Elijah, the manager of a comic art store called Limited Edition, strongly suspects that David is an unaware superhero whose body is unnaturally strong and whose weakness is water (due to almost drowning as a child). Initially, David dismisses Elijah's hypothesis, even after Elijah discovers seemingly strong evidence that David possesses the ability to experience visions of someone's past or precognitions of their future: David has a suspicion that a man at a stadium has a specific gun in his clothes, and Elijah follows the man until he sees the exact model and color David expected.
However, David discovers that he can lift approximately 370 pounds, admits to Elijah that he was completely uninjured in a major vehicle accident from his college days despite faking injury, and begins exploring his powers after embracing them. He uses his visions to identify a murderer who is holding the children of a dead couple hostage, killing the man. His newfound existential peace is disrupted when Elijah shakes his hand, though, since he experiences a vision showing how Elijah engineered the train accident that he survived, as well as at least two other murderous situations. He calls the police and Elijah is placed in a psychiatric hospital, where he seemingly resides until the events of Glass.
Intellectual Content
Unbreakable introduces Elijah's comic book-centric worldview, which is developed further in Glass. Though the movie takes the cultural influence of comic books and superhero stories very seriously in one sense, its themes are somewhat complex: it warns against mistaking superhero tales for exact parallels to human existence as Elijah does while also exemplifying how even an actual superhero might mistake himself (or herself by logical extension) for an ordinary person. At the same time, Unbreakable (and its sequels) recognizes the empowering nature of fiction, as well as how even superpowers can be far more plausible than some might imagine, and yet still shows how destructive someone could become if they treat fiction as if it is completely analogous to reality. At the very least, the central characters of the Eastrail 177 trilogy, particularly the villains, have some of the most blatantly unique ideologies that have ever appeared in superhero films.
Conclusion
I love the spectacle and storytelling potential of well-crafted superhero films with a vast budget, like last year's Infinity War. Many smaller superhero films, though, like The Winter Solder, The Incredible Hulk, Wonder Woman, and Batman Begins are also among the best of the genre. However, Unbreakable goes beyond even the latter movies in terms of delivering a narrative that is rooted in originality and characterization. There was no long series of comics featuring David Dunn that preceded the movie. David Dunn was not a cultural icon with fans who had long awaited a cinematic adaption of the character. Instead, he was the result of a successful attempt to create a superhero character and story that seem plausible enough to perhaps seem to fit in our world very naturally. The Eastrail 177 trilogy might be very controversial, thanks to its final entry, but it starts with a very strong offering.
Content:
1. Violence: David and a murderer briefly fight so intensely that they leave indentations in the walls of a house.
2. Profanity: There are a few uses of relatively mild profanity.
--Elijah Glass, Unbreakable
"In a comic, you know how you can tell who the arch-villain's going to be? He's the exact opposite of the hero."
--Elijah Glass, Unbreakable
Given the release of Glass, there has never been a better time for people to revisit M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable or enjoy their first viewing of it. It is rare to find a superhero story that is not connected with the two giants of the comic industry in some way. Comic books with the names of Marvel heroes appear in some scenes, yet Unbreakable occurs within a universe of its own that is completely separate from those of Marvel and DC. It is an intimate, quiet film by comparison to more recent movies within the MCU and DCEU. Its superhero, David Dunn, initially tries to dismiss his abilities, claiming he is just a normal man. Whereas many later superhero films are origin stories that focus extensively on how the hero acquires his or her powers (one notable exception is The Incredible Hulk), Unbreakable presents a hero who has always had unnatural abilities but has struggled to identify and accept them. Like its successors Split and Glass, it is not an action movie, but is rather a film about characterization, and Unbreakable is all the more effective because of its reliance on a strong script and mostly practical effects.
Production Values
There is no grand showdown between David and a supervillain, no major use of CGI, and no superpower as dramatic as flight or shapeshifting to be found in Unbreakable. David's abilities--incredibly abnormal strength, an immunity to almost all sicknesses, and visions of someone's past triggered by physical contact with them--are all easy to portray without a large budget. Since the movie focuses on the characters of Bruce Willis' David Dunn and Samuel Jackson's Elijah Glass, the performances, not computer generated visuals, form the core of the film. Both of the lead actors are practically perfect fits for their roles; Bruce Willis adopts the persona of a confused but extraordinary man just as easily as Samuel Jackson becomes the physically fragile but mentally alert mentor figure.
Robin Wright (who appeared in the recent and excellent superhero movie Wonder Woman) contributes to some great scenes as David's wife Audrey, though she is greatly underutilized. Her role in the story is small by comparison to the two leads. Nevertheless, she makes the most of her relatively few lines. Having seen Glass, watching a younger Spencer Treat Clark play Joseph Dunn, the son of Audrey and David, shows just how skilled of an actor Spencer was even in his earlier days--Shyamalan having Spencer reprise his role in Glass was a great move. Some of the best scenes develop David's relationship with Audrey and Joseph, including a date where David and Audrey discuss their disintegrating marriage and an experiment where Joseph tests how much weight his father can lift.
Story
Spoilers!
Security guard David Dunn is the sole survivor of an accident involving the derailment of the Eastrail 177 train. Dealing with existential sadness and a stagnant marriage, David finds a letter on his car that asks him how about whether he has ever been sick. The letter was placed by an eccentric man named Elijah Glass. Elijah, the manager of a comic art store called Limited Edition, strongly suspects that David is an unaware superhero whose body is unnaturally strong and whose weakness is water (due to almost drowning as a child). Initially, David dismisses Elijah's hypothesis, even after Elijah discovers seemingly strong evidence that David possesses the ability to experience visions of someone's past or precognitions of their future: David has a suspicion that a man at a stadium has a specific gun in his clothes, and Elijah follows the man until he sees the exact model and color David expected.
However, David discovers that he can lift approximately 370 pounds, admits to Elijah that he was completely uninjured in a major vehicle accident from his college days despite faking injury, and begins exploring his powers after embracing them. He uses his visions to identify a murderer who is holding the children of a dead couple hostage, killing the man. His newfound existential peace is disrupted when Elijah shakes his hand, though, since he experiences a vision showing how Elijah engineered the train accident that he survived, as well as at least two other murderous situations. He calls the police and Elijah is placed in a psychiatric hospital, where he seemingly resides until the events of Glass.
Intellectual Content
Unbreakable introduces Elijah's comic book-centric worldview, which is developed further in Glass. Though the movie takes the cultural influence of comic books and superhero stories very seriously in one sense, its themes are somewhat complex: it warns against mistaking superhero tales for exact parallels to human existence as Elijah does while also exemplifying how even an actual superhero might mistake himself (or herself by logical extension) for an ordinary person. At the same time, Unbreakable (and its sequels) recognizes the empowering nature of fiction, as well as how even superpowers can be far more plausible than some might imagine, and yet still shows how destructive someone could become if they treat fiction as if it is completely analogous to reality. At the very least, the central characters of the Eastrail 177 trilogy, particularly the villains, have some of the most blatantly unique ideologies that have ever appeared in superhero films.
Conclusion
I love the spectacle and storytelling potential of well-crafted superhero films with a vast budget, like last year's Infinity War. Many smaller superhero films, though, like The Winter Solder, The Incredible Hulk, Wonder Woman, and Batman Begins are also among the best of the genre. However, Unbreakable goes beyond even the latter movies in terms of delivering a narrative that is rooted in originality and characterization. There was no long series of comics featuring David Dunn that preceded the movie. David Dunn was not a cultural icon with fans who had long awaited a cinematic adaption of the character. Instead, he was the result of a successful attempt to create a superhero character and story that seem plausible enough to perhaps seem to fit in our world very naturally. The Eastrail 177 trilogy might be very controversial, thanks to its final entry, but it starts with a very strong offering.
Content:
1. Violence: David and a murderer briefly fight so intensely that they leave indentations in the walls of a house.
2. Profanity: There are a few uses of relatively mild profanity.
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Bodily Autonomy Contradicts Abortion
People who defend abortion commonly use an argument for it that emphasizes the concept of bodily autonomy, claiming that a pregnant woman has a right to control her own body and that aborting a fetus is within her rights, since the fetus is inside of her womb. Sometimes this argument is even accompanied by charges of sexism against those who say it is immoral for a woman to have an abortion. However, this issue has nothing to do with sexism in itself.
A simple reflection on what sexism is completely refutes this alleged connection between being anti-abortion and sexist. Sexism encompasses regarding men and women as if they possess different metaphysical value, assuming that a person does or does not have certain psychological/personality characteristics or skills because they are a man or a woman, and discriminating against men and women in the workplace, family life, or any other dimension of human existence in a way beyond acknowledging anatomical and physiological differences. Men and women have the same moral obligations, as actual feminism/egalitarianism affirms, and one of those obligations is to not unjustly extinguish human life.
Of course, generally speaking, men and women have a moral right to bodily autonomy--but there is no justification for using one's bodily autonomy to illicitly interfere with the that of others. Abortion ironically deserves condemnation because of the very principle its very supporters affirm. Despite often being used in fallacious arguments for abortion, bodily autonomy is actually incompatible with the stance that abortion is morally permissible, since abortion tramples over the right that unborn children have for bodily autonomy of their own.
Jane, a hypothetical woman, has the moral freedom to do whatever she wishes with her body as long as she does not use it in an immoral way, just like every actual woman does. If she intentionally uses her body to physically harm another person against their will for any reason other than self-defense, military service during a just war, or the administration of a just legal penalty (i.e. just corporal punishment), no one can legitimately claim that she is only exercising her bodily autonomy and that it is immoral to condemn her behavior. The only way that a person could argue for abortion on the grounds of bodily autonomy and consistently uphold that idea is to oppose any restrictions on how a woman uses her body to harm or kill others.
Bodily autonomy contradicts the notion that abortion is not immoral; it does not support it in any way whatsoever. It couldn't! If a person does not have the right to murder, then it does not matter if the victim is located inside the body of another human being (or if the perpetrator is a woman). The location, appearance, and size of a human do not dictate whether or not he or she has human rights. If human rights exist, then simply being a human at any stage of biological development means that one has them. Nothing more is necessary to possess each of those rights.
A simple reflection on what sexism is completely refutes this alleged connection between being anti-abortion and sexist. Sexism encompasses regarding men and women as if they possess different metaphysical value, assuming that a person does or does not have certain psychological/personality characteristics or skills because they are a man or a woman, and discriminating against men and women in the workplace, family life, or any other dimension of human existence in a way beyond acknowledging anatomical and physiological differences. Men and women have the same moral obligations, as actual feminism/egalitarianism affirms, and one of those obligations is to not unjustly extinguish human life.
Of course, generally speaking, men and women have a moral right to bodily autonomy--but there is no justification for using one's bodily autonomy to illicitly interfere with the that of others. Abortion ironically deserves condemnation because of the very principle its very supporters affirm. Despite often being used in fallacious arguments for abortion, bodily autonomy is actually incompatible with the stance that abortion is morally permissible, since abortion tramples over the right that unborn children have for bodily autonomy of their own.
Jane, a hypothetical woman, has the moral freedom to do whatever she wishes with her body as long as she does not use it in an immoral way, just like every actual woman does. If she intentionally uses her body to physically harm another person against their will for any reason other than self-defense, military service during a just war, or the administration of a just legal penalty (i.e. just corporal punishment), no one can legitimately claim that she is only exercising her bodily autonomy and that it is immoral to condemn her behavior. The only way that a person could argue for abortion on the grounds of bodily autonomy and consistently uphold that idea is to oppose any restrictions on how a woman uses her body to harm or kill others.
Bodily autonomy contradicts the notion that abortion is not immoral; it does not support it in any way whatsoever. It couldn't! If a person does not have the right to murder, then it does not matter if the victim is located inside the body of another human being (or if the perpetrator is a woman). The location, appearance, and size of a human do not dictate whether or not he or she has human rights. If human rights exist, then simply being a human at any stage of biological development means that one has them. Nothing more is necessary to possess each of those rights.
Friday, January 25, 2019
The Deficiencies Of Christian Films
It usually does not require a great amount of effort to get many Christians to admit the deficiencies of Christian filmmaking at large. The atrocities of Christian cinema are renowned in both Christian and secular circles, and yet there is seemingly little done about them. There is a very small Christian presence among the creators of video games (if there is one at all). Christian authors are relatively common, and their work is often quite hit or miss when it comes to quality. In the world of film, though, Christians almost always produce horrid offerings that deserve mockery, indifference, or hostility.
At the core of the problem is the tendency for certain Christians, almost invariably conservative evangelicals, to eagerly rally around even the most pitiful movies as long as they are made with the evangelical audience in mind. Even many Christians recognize that Christian filmmakers can intentionally put subpar effort into their scripts, performances, and visuals and yet still expect the support of evangelicals to be given to them simply because they made Christian movies. Unfortunately, they often do receive evangelical support just because their movies are explicitly Christian! The generally poor production values of their works are often coupled with severe repetition: many Christian movies cover the same small handful of Biblical events or themes. In fact, it usually takes secular directors to create movies about Biblical stories that both take the stories seriously (at least as perceived mythology) and grapple with major concepts.
The most thoughtful and artistically excellent movies about Biblical events that I am aware of have not even been made by Christians--Darren Aronofsky's Noah and Ridley Scott's Exodus, for example, are vastly superior to Christian-made Biblical films not only when it comes to production values, but even also when it comes to philosophical depth. Of course, the vocal evangelical world can be quick to demonize such movies because of the additions of certain subplots that are not mentioned in the Biblical narratives, despite how clever or thematically significant they are. Whether or not this demonization is motivated by a frustration that non-Christian directors tend to handle Biblical material better than Christians themselves do is unclear, but it is not uncommon for evangelicals to reject Biblical films made by non-Christians for the most pathetic reasons they could argue from.
How should Christians who desire to create movies respond to these facts? One of the most intelligent approaches to movies for Christian filmmakers doesn't even involve the making of "Christian" movies. Doctor Strange, part of the incredibly successful Marvel Cinematic Universe, was directed by Scott Derrickson, a Christian whose film emphasized the elements of the Marvel mythos that coincide with Christian metaphysics (mind-body dualism and a denial of naturalism) and ethics (humility). It is not difficult to see how Derrickson's Christian worldview in part parallels the concepts Doctor Strange explores, but his movie is clearly not about Christianity. This is perhaps the best way for Christians to influence cinema. They do not necessarily need to make Christian movies, but should instead craft movies that present ideas which are consistent with Christianity without sacrificing artistic excellence in the process.
If Christians in general cared about using cinema to impact those outside of the church, they would refrain from endorsing Christian films of abhorrent quality. They would perhaps even contribute to the mockery of what Christian entertainment often amounts to. Instead of perpetuating abysmal standards, they would either offer their support to promising Christian projects or take the Doctor Strange approach. It is asinine to expect secular people to take Christian movies seriously when it is clear that many of the Christians who make that entertainment do not.
At the core of the problem is the tendency for certain Christians, almost invariably conservative evangelicals, to eagerly rally around even the most pitiful movies as long as they are made with the evangelical audience in mind. Even many Christians recognize that Christian filmmakers can intentionally put subpar effort into their scripts, performances, and visuals and yet still expect the support of evangelicals to be given to them simply because they made Christian movies. Unfortunately, they often do receive evangelical support just because their movies are explicitly Christian! The generally poor production values of their works are often coupled with severe repetition: many Christian movies cover the same small handful of Biblical events or themes. In fact, it usually takes secular directors to create movies about Biblical stories that both take the stories seriously (at least as perceived mythology) and grapple with major concepts.
The most thoughtful and artistically excellent movies about Biblical events that I am aware of have not even been made by Christians--Darren Aronofsky's Noah and Ridley Scott's Exodus, for example, are vastly superior to Christian-made Biblical films not only when it comes to production values, but even also when it comes to philosophical depth. Of course, the vocal evangelical world can be quick to demonize such movies because of the additions of certain subplots that are not mentioned in the Biblical narratives, despite how clever or thematically significant they are. Whether or not this demonization is motivated by a frustration that non-Christian directors tend to handle Biblical material better than Christians themselves do is unclear, but it is not uncommon for evangelicals to reject Biblical films made by non-Christians for the most pathetic reasons they could argue from.
How should Christians who desire to create movies respond to these facts? One of the most intelligent approaches to movies for Christian filmmakers doesn't even involve the making of "Christian" movies. Doctor Strange, part of the incredibly successful Marvel Cinematic Universe, was directed by Scott Derrickson, a Christian whose film emphasized the elements of the Marvel mythos that coincide with Christian metaphysics (mind-body dualism and a denial of naturalism) and ethics (humility). It is not difficult to see how Derrickson's Christian worldview in part parallels the concepts Doctor Strange explores, but his movie is clearly not about Christianity. This is perhaps the best way for Christians to influence cinema. They do not necessarily need to make Christian movies, but should instead craft movies that present ideas which are consistent with Christianity without sacrificing artistic excellence in the process.
If Christians in general cared about using cinema to impact those outside of the church, they would refrain from endorsing Christian films of abhorrent quality. They would perhaps even contribute to the mockery of what Christian entertainment often amounts to. Instead of perpetuating abysmal standards, they would either offer their support to promising Christian projects or take the Doctor Strange approach. It is asinine to expect secular people to take Christian movies seriously when it is clear that many of the Christians who make that entertainment do not.
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Evading Demands For Proof
The most unintelligent people I have ever encountered have almost always been Christians or atheists. Oftentimes, Christians characterize the issue of God's existence as if 1) it is an obvious, self-evident truth that God exists, 2) while simultaneously holding that there is still no way to actually prove that God exists (meaning, if true, that one could not actually know it and it is not self-evident) 3) and that both atheism and theism of any kind inescapably involve faith. Atheists, contrarily, often characterize the issue of God's existence as if agnosticism is equivalent to a form of atheism, erroneously equating a lack of belief in a conclusion to the belief that the conclusion in question is false.
Christians are generally willing to respond to an atheist's demand for proof of theism by merely asking "How do you know God doesn't exist?" Since most people are thoroughly unintelligent, it is no surprise that, even aside from the fallacies of their personal worldviews, they are content to make assumptions while they selectively call out the assumptions of other people. Many atheists do the same, only they are willing to make inverse assumptions. The matter of establishing God's existence is so much simpler than most people realize; at the same time, what does and does not follow from God's existence is far more complex than most people comprehend.
First of all, the existence of a deity (by deity I mean an uncaused cause) can be proven with absolute certainty, but there is only one legitimate proof of its existence [1]. Secondly, if the existence of God could not be established by strict use of logic, there would be no basis whatsoever for belief in theism or atheism. If theism was unprovable, anyone who believes in the existence of any kind of deity would be guilty of harboring a fallacious worldview. If atheism was true, one could never do anything more than show that a deity with a nature that contradicts either itself or any logical fact cannot be real [2], and thus could never prove that no deities exist.
Instead of actually reasoning these truths out, many Christians and atheists merely evade demands for proof by deflecting questions with more questions. The retort "How do you know God doesn't exist?" is one of the most pathetic responses to a request for proof of theism. Likewise, "How do you know God exists?" is one of the most pathetic responses to a request for proof of atheism. All the questions accomplish is letting another discussant see that their partner would rather avoid answering questions even if he or she even had answers to begin with.
If every form of both atheism and theism rested on faith, neither would be a sound worldview. It is far from difficult to prove that any assumption is both avoidable and intellectually reprehensible, for assumptions and knowledge cannot coexist. If someone cannot prove their claim, they need to modify the claim (for example, "Aliens don't exist" becomes "There is no evidence, much less proof, that aliens exist) or abandon it altogether. Fortunately, theism is both true and verifiable, since it is logically impossible for there to not be an uncaused cause. Christians at large cannot grasp this as long as they forsake reason for faith, and atheists cannot grasp this as long as they make assumptions of their own.
Minimal observation reveals that both groups almost always leave certain matters untouched. Does proving the existence of God also prove the existence of morality? No. Does proving the existence of God also prove by default that God seeks personal relationships with humans? No. Does the existence of an uncaused cause mean that there are no uncreated things besides that cause? No. However, a person will almost certainly not investigate such matters or at all when they don't even understand what it means to prove something to begin with, what the word "God" means, and that faith is not necessary for belief in an uncaused cause. Shallow people can at best only appraise relatively shallow truths.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[2]. For example, a deity cannot be completely merciful and completely just at the same time. A deity cannot exist and not exist at the same time. The existence of deities with these characteristics can be disproven before one even considers other gods or goddesses.
Christians are generally willing to respond to an atheist's demand for proof of theism by merely asking "How do you know God doesn't exist?" Since most people are thoroughly unintelligent, it is no surprise that, even aside from the fallacies of their personal worldviews, they are content to make assumptions while they selectively call out the assumptions of other people. Many atheists do the same, only they are willing to make inverse assumptions. The matter of establishing God's existence is so much simpler than most people realize; at the same time, what does and does not follow from God's existence is far more complex than most people comprehend.
First of all, the existence of a deity (by deity I mean an uncaused cause) can be proven with absolute certainty, but there is only one legitimate proof of its existence [1]. Secondly, if the existence of God could not be established by strict use of logic, there would be no basis whatsoever for belief in theism or atheism. If theism was unprovable, anyone who believes in the existence of any kind of deity would be guilty of harboring a fallacious worldview. If atheism was true, one could never do anything more than show that a deity with a nature that contradicts either itself or any logical fact cannot be real [2], and thus could never prove that no deities exist.
Instead of actually reasoning these truths out, many Christians and atheists merely evade demands for proof by deflecting questions with more questions. The retort "How do you know God doesn't exist?" is one of the most pathetic responses to a request for proof of theism. Likewise, "How do you know God exists?" is one of the most pathetic responses to a request for proof of atheism. All the questions accomplish is letting another discussant see that their partner would rather avoid answering questions even if he or she even had answers to begin with.
If every form of both atheism and theism rested on faith, neither would be a sound worldview. It is far from difficult to prove that any assumption is both avoidable and intellectually reprehensible, for assumptions and knowledge cannot coexist. If someone cannot prove their claim, they need to modify the claim (for example, "Aliens don't exist" becomes "There is no evidence, much less proof, that aliens exist) or abandon it altogether. Fortunately, theism is both true and verifiable, since it is logically impossible for there to not be an uncaused cause. Christians at large cannot grasp this as long as they forsake reason for faith, and atheists cannot grasp this as long as they make assumptions of their own.
Minimal observation reveals that both groups almost always leave certain matters untouched. Does proving the existence of God also prove the existence of morality? No. Does proving the existence of God also prove by default that God seeks personal relationships with humans? No. Does the existence of an uncaused cause mean that there are no uncreated things besides that cause? No. However, a person will almost certainly not investigate such matters or at all when they don't even understand what it means to prove something to begin with, what the word "God" means, and that faith is not necessary for belief in an uncaused cause. Shallow people can at best only appraise relatively shallow truths.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[2]. For example, a deity cannot be completely merciful and completely just at the same time. A deity cannot exist and not exist at the same time. The existence of deities with these characteristics can be disproven before one even considers other gods or goddesses.
Monday, January 21, 2019
The Possibility Of Redemption
Mercy, by nature of what it is, cannot be obligatory: if it was, one would have an obligation to be just and merciful simultaneously, which is logically impossible. It is astounding how many people will ignore this and still try to construct arguments for the conclusion that mercy is obligatory. Anything else results in contradictions that nullify either justice or mercy, which is ironically what many people are trying to avoid by invoking both justice and mercy at once.
One argument that we should be merciful (in other words, that we have an obligation to be merciful) to people, generally or always, cites the fact that people can change. This is true. There is not a single person who is incapable of shedding an immorality or fallacy in favor of embracing righteousness and truth. Yet the possibility of redemption does not and cannot mean that mercy is obligatory, only that an act of mercy might allow a person to seek personal redemption at a later point in time.
If people consistently showed mercy to everyone else in the hope that those treated with mercy will eventually change for the better, no one would seek actual justice (of course, justice itself, and not petty cultural ideas about justice, has authority). Life would be anarchistic at best, with there being few or no (depending on the extent of the mercy) terrestrial attempts to right wrongs or enact just punishments. Any Christian who mistakes mercy without discrimination to be a sign of Christian maturity has a deeply incorrect understanding of Christianity! Justice is demanded by the Bible; mercy is supererogatory. That is, it is good, but by no means obligatory.
If Christians truly forgave and enacted mercy only in the manner in which God does, they would withhold both until an offender requested them. God does not bestow the mercies of salvation upon anyone apart from their intentional commitment to Christ. However, there is nothing sinful about a person showing mercy apart from an offender's specific request (Deuteronomy 4:2). If only Christendom at large recognized these facts! That showing mercy to all or many people is viewed as an obligatory aspect of daily life by many evangelicals is yet another glaring indication of their massive deviations from reason and Scripture.
I am morally free to arbitrarily show mercy to whomever I wish and to withhold all mercy from whoever I wish. This is precisely because mercy is not obligatory--I cannot have an obligation to be just, therefore treating people as they deserve, and be merciful, therefore not treating people as they deserve, at once. Only one or the other can be a core obligation. The other is supererogatory at best. Justice, not mercy, is inherently obligatory. Thus, criticizing a person for rarely or never choosing mercy is to criticize without logical or moral soundness.
A person might go his or her entire life without being merciful to anyone, and there is nothing immoral about this. A person might only show mercy to a select group of people based upon arbitrary preference or relational closeness (I fall into this category), and there is nothing wrong with this. Ultimately, whenever it comes to ethics, it does not matter how a person who is given mercy will respond. The possibility of redemption is completely irrelevant to the morality of mercy.
One argument that we should be merciful (in other words, that we have an obligation to be merciful) to people, generally or always, cites the fact that people can change. This is true. There is not a single person who is incapable of shedding an immorality or fallacy in favor of embracing righteousness and truth. Yet the possibility of redemption does not and cannot mean that mercy is obligatory, only that an act of mercy might allow a person to seek personal redemption at a later point in time.
If people consistently showed mercy to everyone else in the hope that those treated with mercy will eventually change for the better, no one would seek actual justice (of course, justice itself, and not petty cultural ideas about justice, has authority). Life would be anarchistic at best, with there being few or no (depending on the extent of the mercy) terrestrial attempts to right wrongs or enact just punishments. Any Christian who mistakes mercy without discrimination to be a sign of Christian maturity has a deeply incorrect understanding of Christianity! Justice is demanded by the Bible; mercy is supererogatory. That is, it is good, but by no means obligatory.
If Christians truly forgave and enacted mercy only in the manner in which God does, they would withhold both until an offender requested them. God does not bestow the mercies of salvation upon anyone apart from their intentional commitment to Christ. However, there is nothing sinful about a person showing mercy apart from an offender's specific request (Deuteronomy 4:2). If only Christendom at large recognized these facts! That showing mercy to all or many people is viewed as an obligatory aspect of daily life by many evangelicals is yet another glaring indication of their massive deviations from reason and Scripture.
I am morally free to arbitrarily show mercy to whomever I wish and to withhold all mercy from whoever I wish. This is precisely because mercy is not obligatory--I cannot have an obligation to be just, therefore treating people as they deserve, and be merciful, therefore not treating people as they deserve, at once. Only one or the other can be a core obligation. The other is supererogatory at best. Justice, not mercy, is inherently obligatory. Thus, criticizing a person for rarely or never choosing mercy is to criticize without logical or moral soundness.
A person might go his or her entire life without being merciful to anyone, and there is nothing immoral about this. A person might only show mercy to a select group of people based upon arbitrary preference or relational closeness (I fall into this category), and there is nothing wrong with this. Ultimately, whenever it comes to ethics, it does not matter how a person who is given mercy will respond. The possibility of redemption is completely irrelevant to the morality of mercy.
Conservative Groupthink
A common criticism of liberalism that I see is the charge that its subscribers are guilty of major groupthink, the blind agreement of almost an entire group. An ideology is not incorrect because of the behaviors of its followers, yet there is a significant amount of unoriginal claims within liberalism (in this case, I mean that there are few genuine attempts to establish the tenets of liberalism through reason, which would often result in failure). Of course, it is not as if the right does not practice extensive groupthink of its own. It is noteworthy that conservatives often overlook the blatant intellectual ineptitude within their own ranks. As with liberalism, if there were more genuine attempts to establish conservatism through reason, more people would realize how flawed conservatism itself is.
There are many examples of conservative stupidity that one can discover fairly quickly. For instance, conservatives tend to collectively revere fallacious sources like Fox News and The Daily Wire and cite them with sincerity, as if their sincerity makes claims true. They perpetuate the same pathetic jokes, phrases, and arguments. As listening to conservatives shows, there is little to no autonomous thinking within conservatism. This is not exactly unusual, given that conservatism is ultimately about adhering to traditions and moving away from them only at a relatively slow pace. To expose the faults or fallacies of a tradition, one must disregard the culture that accepts it to at least some degree, meaning one must operate outside of societal groupthink (to some extent).
There is, of course, nothing wrong with unity based upon the truth. But even then, someone who agrees with a majority that is aligned with the truth for any reason besides personal verification of the claims of that majority is guilty of lacking intellectual originality. Since conservatism is irrational due to its central support of tradition, conservatives automatically argue from a flawed foundation, but many of them don't even realize that they are not even making it appear as if they don't rely on a handful of alleged authority figures for a great deal of their worldviews.
Of course, the left is replete with hypocrisies of its own, but conservatism is far from rational or Biblical, despite the evangelical world mistaking it for both. Expecting the average Christian to recognize that is often a futile thing, unfortunately. Criticize conservatism, and the same fallacious arguments are consistently vomited out by conservatives, as if they have not already been refuted. There is little effort from conservatives to rationally appraise political and ethical ideas in general. Conservative groupthink is alive and well!
There are many examples of conservative stupidity that one can discover fairly quickly. For instance, conservatives tend to collectively revere fallacious sources like Fox News and The Daily Wire and cite them with sincerity, as if their sincerity makes claims true. They perpetuate the same pathetic jokes, phrases, and arguments. As listening to conservatives shows, there is little to no autonomous thinking within conservatism. This is not exactly unusual, given that conservatism is ultimately about adhering to traditions and moving away from them only at a relatively slow pace. To expose the faults or fallacies of a tradition, one must disregard the culture that accepts it to at least some degree, meaning one must operate outside of societal groupthink (to some extent).
There is, of course, nothing wrong with unity based upon the truth. But even then, someone who agrees with a majority that is aligned with the truth for any reason besides personal verification of the claims of that majority is guilty of lacking intellectual originality. Since conservatism is irrational due to its central support of tradition, conservatives automatically argue from a flawed foundation, but many of them don't even realize that they are not even making it appear as if they don't rely on a handful of alleged authority figures for a great deal of their worldviews.
Of course, the left is replete with hypocrisies of its own, but conservatism is far from rational or Biblical, despite the evangelical world mistaking it for both. Expecting the average Christian to recognize that is often a futile thing, unfortunately. Criticize conservatism, and the same fallacious arguments are consistently vomited out by conservatives, as if they have not already been refuted. There is little effort from conservatives to rationally appraise political and ethical ideas in general. Conservative groupthink is alive and well!
Saturday, January 19, 2019
The Mind-Body "Problem" Is Not A Problem
The fact that I perceive anything at all necessitates that I am a conscious mind, and the fact that I experience physical sensations necessitates that I have some sort of physical body [1]. I do not know the actual appearance or shape of my body, yet I know for sure that I have one nonetheless, for the mere existence of matter is not a speculative idea. Two of the most asinine metaphysical systems in all of philosophical history, materialism and idealism, deny either the existence of mind or the existence of matter, often by equating the two and erroneously misdefining one as nothing but a function of the other.
The arguments for either of these mistaken metaphysical notions usually rely on the "mind-body problem," which emphasizes that there is at least some degree of mystery regarding how an immaterial mind would interact with a physical body or vice versa. According to the arguments, an inability for the two to have a causal relationship means that there either is no such thing as immaterial consciousness (materialism/naturalism; there is not anything immaterial at all according to strict materialism) or there is no such thing as matter (idealism). As I will address later, materialism is already false because there are other things besides consciousness that are immaterial, so immaterial existents could be proven even if consciousness was not separate from matter. Idealism, however, can only be refuted by showing that matter of some kind does exist.
The myth that it is impossible or unlikely for something immaterial and something material to share causal connections rests on nothing but false assumptions. There is no actual mind-body "problem." The exact manner by which consciousness and matter interact has yet to be exposed, but the fact that I experience both mental and physical sensations proves that they do. Every time that my mind registers a physical feeling, my body, whatever it is like beyond the veil of perception, has causally impacted my mind. Every time that my mind wills for my legs to walk, my arms to be raised in the air, or my mouth to produce speech, my mind has causally impacted my body. Thus, it is not that mind and matter cannot affect each other, but that I do not know how they do so.
Ignorance of how nonphysical consciousnesses and physical bodies have causal relationships does nothing to hide that there is a fully provable causal relationship between them. Since one can establish that both consciousness and matter exist without resorting to faith in the existence of either, one can demonstrate that the two do coexist. This is a brute fact that can be discovered by anyone who exercises thorough rationality. Furthermore, reason exposes how the folly of materialism and idealism is greater than the mere denial that either mind or matter exists: neither acknowledges that there is far more to reality than just consciousness or physical substance.
There is the pathetic but persistent error that treats all things as if they are either mind or matter, when there are other immaterial things besides consciousness [2], some of which depend on neither matter nor consciousness, whether human or divine, for their existences. The laws of logic, space, and time are external to consciousness and not comprised of matter (thus one can entirely refute materialism without even demonstrating the immateriality of consciousness). In fact, there are ways that immaterial and material things interact that have nothing to do with a mind-body connection. The laws of logic govern all things, including matter. Matter cannot even exist without space to hold it. Events could not occur in the external world without time.
Substance dualism alone does not acknowledge all that exists. It is unfortunate that debates about the mind-body "problem" are often accompanied by the assumption that everything is somehow reducible to either consciousness or matter, when that idea is antithetical to the truth. However, any denial of mind-body interaction can only be the product of stupidity and ignorance. I have a mind and a body and they are both capable of causing phenomena that involves each.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/10/substance-dualism-is-not-whole-of.html
The arguments for either of these mistaken metaphysical notions usually rely on the "mind-body problem," which emphasizes that there is at least some degree of mystery regarding how an immaterial mind would interact with a physical body or vice versa. According to the arguments, an inability for the two to have a causal relationship means that there either is no such thing as immaterial consciousness (materialism/naturalism; there is not anything immaterial at all according to strict materialism) or there is no such thing as matter (idealism). As I will address later, materialism is already false because there are other things besides consciousness that are immaterial, so immaterial existents could be proven even if consciousness was not separate from matter. Idealism, however, can only be refuted by showing that matter of some kind does exist.
The myth that it is impossible or unlikely for something immaterial and something material to share causal connections rests on nothing but false assumptions. There is no actual mind-body "problem." The exact manner by which consciousness and matter interact has yet to be exposed, but the fact that I experience both mental and physical sensations proves that they do. Every time that my mind registers a physical feeling, my body, whatever it is like beyond the veil of perception, has causally impacted my mind. Every time that my mind wills for my legs to walk, my arms to be raised in the air, or my mouth to produce speech, my mind has causally impacted my body. Thus, it is not that mind and matter cannot affect each other, but that I do not know how they do so.
Ignorance of how nonphysical consciousnesses and physical bodies have causal relationships does nothing to hide that there is a fully provable causal relationship between them. Since one can establish that both consciousness and matter exist without resorting to faith in the existence of either, one can demonstrate that the two do coexist. This is a brute fact that can be discovered by anyone who exercises thorough rationality. Furthermore, reason exposes how the folly of materialism and idealism is greater than the mere denial that either mind or matter exists: neither acknowledges that there is far more to reality than just consciousness or physical substance.
There is the pathetic but persistent error that treats all things as if they are either mind or matter, when there are other immaterial things besides consciousness [2], some of which depend on neither matter nor consciousness, whether human or divine, for their existences. The laws of logic, space, and time are external to consciousness and not comprised of matter (thus one can entirely refute materialism without even demonstrating the immateriality of consciousness). In fact, there are ways that immaterial and material things interact that have nothing to do with a mind-body connection. The laws of logic govern all things, including matter. Matter cannot even exist without space to hold it. Events could not occur in the external world without time.
Substance dualism alone does not acknowledge all that exists. It is unfortunate that debates about the mind-body "problem" are often accompanied by the assumption that everything is somehow reducible to either consciousness or matter, when that idea is antithetical to the truth. However, any denial of mind-body interaction can only be the product of stupidity and ignorance. I have a mind and a body and they are both capable of causing phenomena that involves each.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/10/substance-dualism-is-not-whole-of.html
Friday, January 18, 2019
Movie Review--Glass
"I specialize in those individuals who believe they are superheroes."
--Ellie Staple, Glass
Given the modern cinematic climate, Glass is a very relevant movie. Many superhero movies have been scheduled for a 2019 release, from Avengers: Endgame and Shazam! to Captain Marvel and Dark Phoenix, but Glass is the year's first offering of the genre. It certainly is a superhero movie, and it calls attention to this more than once. Yet it acknowledges the cliches of the superhero genre primarily to sidestep them. The movie caters to expectations that have been fortified by years of similar storytelling devices in films based on comic characters, only to disregard them in a series of clever but polarizing twists. There is not just one twist, and there are not even just two; Glass has three significant revelations that add worldbuilding depth to the universe of M. Night Shyamalan's Eastrail 177 trilogy, but not everyone will find them satisfying.
Production Values
As one might expect from a project with James McAvoy, Samuel Jackson, and Bruce Willis as the leads, the performances in Glass are consistently strong. McAvoy once again showcases the range of his acting ability, playing at least six different personas of dissociative identity disorder sufferer Kevin Crumb, some of whom were already explored in Split. As with before, scenes where he cycles between multiple personalities represent the pinnacle of his contribution to the film. Jackson and Willis both continue their roles from Unbreakable in a very natural way. The character of Elijah Price allows viewers to see a more mild version of Jackson's screen presence, with David Dunn serving as the opposite of Elijah: Elijah's bones are abnormally prone to break, while David possesses incredible physical strength.
Newcomer character Ellie Staple is presented by Sarah Paulson to great effect. Staple's dismissal of superpowers is ironic but fitting in an era dominated by superhero stories, just as the themes of Glass are both ironic and fitting. Though the supporting cast members all exhibit splendid acting, Anya Taylor-Joy stands out in particular. Taylor-Joy, who has already demonstrated her superb skills as an actress in The Witch and Split, perhaps needed more screen time. After all, some of the most powerful scenes are those that emphasize the positive relationship between Casey (played by Taloy-Joy) and Kevin after he almost killed her in the preceding film. Despite these moments being executed well, the script's greatest weakness is that it can be slow at times. Viewers who expect a story filled with action are better off waiting for the other superhero movies of the year.
Story
Spoilers!
Around three weeks after the finale of Split, David Dunn investigates the abduction of several girls by the Horde, an assembly of personalities occupying the mind of Kevin Crumb (whose DID following severe childhood abuse birthed the Horde). David tracks Kevin to a factory, where he frees the kidnapping victims and fights the Beast, Kevin's 24th and final personality, who can crawl on ceilings and survive gunshots. The melee results in both of them being caught by police and taken to a psychiatric institution led by Dr. Ellie Staple.
The villainous Elijah Price, otherwise known as Mr. Glass, happens to be confined in this same institution, where he is supposed to be kept under very heavy, consistent sedation to prevent him from outsmarting the guards. Of course, he eventually does just that, but only after Ellie repeatedly attempts to persuade him, David, and Kevin that they do not have superhuman abilities. Glass partners with the Beast in an effort to show the existence of superhumans to the world--but I will refrain from divulging more of the plot in order to keep the twists as guarded as I can.
Intellectual Content
In one sense, the very plot structure of Glass is worth analyzing for its timely commentary on the superhero genre as a whole. That aside, though, the core theme of the story is only exposed near the end. Translated from the film's universe to ours, the central idea of the narrative is that there is no need for us to look to fictional stories in order to know superheroes, as "ordinary" humans, left to themselves, are capable of seemingly superhuman feats. Human social conventions suppress our recognition of our own abilities, according to Elijah. This concept is intentionally meant to be obscured until a great deal of the movie has already gone by, yet earlier dialogue suggests that Elijah aimed to emphasize this idea all along. He recognizes that even if an extraordinary human accomplishment is scientifically possible, many contemporary "authorities" will deny, ignore, or misunderstand it. The ultimate antagonist of the story seeks to eliminate superpowers because a superhero's existence is often accompanied by that of an opposite, a supervillain, somewhere in the world, with the clashes that could result being potentially catastrophic.
Conclusion
Glass will likely remain a very polarizing film for years. Its subversion of popular tropes alone will make the story intriguing to many people, but many others might strongly dislike the fact that the script teases the tropes as a way to distract viewers from deciphering its true goal too early. Even if a person is not a fan of superhero stories, though, McAvoy's brilliant performance justifies watching Glass at some point. Anyone who appreciated Split will definitely want to watch the sequel. Despite the mixed reactions to it, the movie concludes one of the most unique film trilogies in cinema history up to this point.
Content:
1. Violence: A man has his throat cut with a piece of glass. In various scenes, the Beast squeezes or hurls people to their deaths. A gunshot results in a fairly bloody wound.
--Ellie Staple, Glass
Given the modern cinematic climate, Glass is a very relevant movie. Many superhero movies have been scheduled for a 2019 release, from Avengers: Endgame and Shazam! to Captain Marvel and Dark Phoenix, but Glass is the year's first offering of the genre. It certainly is a superhero movie, and it calls attention to this more than once. Yet it acknowledges the cliches of the superhero genre primarily to sidestep them. The movie caters to expectations that have been fortified by years of similar storytelling devices in films based on comic characters, only to disregard them in a series of clever but polarizing twists. There is not just one twist, and there are not even just two; Glass has three significant revelations that add worldbuilding depth to the universe of M. Night Shyamalan's Eastrail 177 trilogy, but not everyone will find them satisfying.
 |
|
Production Values
As one might expect from a project with James McAvoy, Samuel Jackson, and Bruce Willis as the leads, the performances in Glass are consistently strong. McAvoy once again showcases the range of his acting ability, playing at least six different personas of dissociative identity disorder sufferer Kevin Crumb, some of whom were already explored in Split. As with before, scenes where he cycles between multiple personalities represent the pinnacle of his contribution to the film. Jackson and Willis both continue their roles from Unbreakable in a very natural way. The character of Elijah Price allows viewers to see a more mild version of Jackson's screen presence, with David Dunn serving as the opposite of Elijah: Elijah's bones are abnormally prone to break, while David possesses incredible physical strength.
Newcomer character Ellie Staple is presented by Sarah Paulson to great effect. Staple's dismissal of superpowers is ironic but fitting in an era dominated by superhero stories, just as the themes of Glass are both ironic and fitting. Though the supporting cast members all exhibit splendid acting, Anya Taylor-Joy stands out in particular. Taylor-Joy, who has already demonstrated her superb skills as an actress in The Witch and Split, perhaps needed more screen time. After all, some of the most powerful scenes are those that emphasize the positive relationship between Casey (played by Taloy-Joy) and Kevin after he almost killed her in the preceding film. Despite these moments being executed well, the script's greatest weakness is that it can be slow at times. Viewers who expect a story filled with action are better off waiting for the other superhero movies of the year.
Story
Spoilers!
Around three weeks after the finale of Split, David Dunn investigates the abduction of several girls by the Horde, an assembly of personalities occupying the mind of Kevin Crumb (whose DID following severe childhood abuse birthed the Horde). David tracks Kevin to a factory, where he frees the kidnapping victims and fights the Beast, Kevin's 24th and final personality, who can crawl on ceilings and survive gunshots. The melee results in both of them being caught by police and taken to a psychiatric institution led by Dr. Ellie Staple.
The villainous Elijah Price, otherwise known as Mr. Glass, happens to be confined in this same institution, where he is supposed to be kept under very heavy, consistent sedation to prevent him from outsmarting the guards. Of course, he eventually does just that, but only after Ellie repeatedly attempts to persuade him, David, and Kevin that they do not have superhuman abilities. Glass partners with the Beast in an effort to show the existence of superhumans to the world--but I will refrain from divulging more of the plot in order to keep the twists as guarded as I can.
Intellectual Content
In one sense, the very plot structure of Glass is worth analyzing for its timely commentary on the superhero genre as a whole. That aside, though, the core theme of the story is only exposed near the end. Translated from the film's universe to ours, the central idea of the narrative is that there is no need for us to look to fictional stories in order to know superheroes, as "ordinary" humans, left to themselves, are capable of seemingly superhuman feats. Human social conventions suppress our recognition of our own abilities, according to Elijah. This concept is intentionally meant to be obscured until a great deal of the movie has already gone by, yet earlier dialogue suggests that Elijah aimed to emphasize this idea all along. He recognizes that even if an extraordinary human accomplishment is scientifically possible, many contemporary "authorities" will deny, ignore, or misunderstand it. The ultimate antagonist of the story seeks to eliminate superpowers because a superhero's existence is often accompanied by that of an opposite, a supervillain, somewhere in the world, with the clashes that could result being potentially catastrophic.
Conclusion
 |
|
Glass will likely remain a very polarizing film for years. Its subversion of popular tropes alone will make the story intriguing to many people, but many others might strongly dislike the fact that the script teases the tropes as a way to distract viewers from deciphering its true goal too early. Even if a person is not a fan of superhero stories, though, McAvoy's brilliant performance justifies watching Glass at some point. Anyone who appreciated Split will definitely want to watch the sequel. Despite the mixed reactions to it, the movie concludes one of the most unique film trilogies in cinema history up to this point.
Content:
1. Violence: A man has his throat cut with a piece of glass. In various scenes, the Beast squeezes or hurls people to their deaths. A gunshot results in a fairly bloody wound.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Unity In The Truth
Too many Christians strive for unity at the expense of anything that might stifle it. In doing so, they hold the only legitimate basis for unity in low regard. If a group of people, much less an assembly of Christians, seeks relational oneness on any ground besides that of truth, the harmony is shallow, weak, and without significance. Any Christian who sacrifices truth or knowledge for the sake of a comparatively superficial thing like church unity dishonors the very foundation of Christianity.
There is nothing of value to be gained from solidarity in deception or error, for neither can be reconciled with any aspect of reality. The idea that Christianity prizes unity for the sake of unity itself is gravely mistaken. A oneness in error brings with it a destructive toleration of stupidity and evil, things contrary to a religion/philosophy that thoroughly emphasizes truth. Even a superficial reading of the Bible reveals that it is far more concerned with matters of truth than it is with the coexistence of one ideological party and another.
Inevitably, the Christians (whether nominal or actual Christians) who elevate unity over all else must, in order to maintain their vulnerable peace, begin to contradict their own claims or goals. Perhaps they will be intolerant of intolerance, or perhaps they will oppose the moral and intellectual excellence demanded by the Bible they think they are unifying around. Whatever the contradiction, the disregard for truth is easily apparent. It is impossible to simultaneously pursue both social peace and truth in all situations.
A group of people who are united in their awareness of demonstrable truths can be a deeply powerful thing. Contrarily, a group of people rallied around a lie or an assumption can only have illusory power or the illicit power that might come from sincere commitment to a delusion. There is nothing praiseworthy about the latter form of unity, and no Christian should ever pursue unity at the expense of a complete devotion to truth. It is unity in the truth that the Bible prescribes, not any other form of ecclesial oneness.
There is nothing of value to be gained from solidarity in deception or error, for neither can be reconciled with any aspect of reality. The idea that Christianity prizes unity for the sake of unity itself is gravely mistaken. A oneness in error brings with it a destructive toleration of stupidity and evil, things contrary to a religion/philosophy that thoroughly emphasizes truth. Even a superficial reading of the Bible reveals that it is far more concerned with matters of truth than it is with the coexistence of one ideological party and another.
Inevitably, the Christians (whether nominal or actual Christians) who elevate unity over all else must, in order to maintain their vulnerable peace, begin to contradict their own claims or goals. Perhaps they will be intolerant of intolerance, or perhaps they will oppose the moral and intellectual excellence demanded by the Bible they think they are unifying around. Whatever the contradiction, the disregard for truth is easily apparent. It is impossible to simultaneously pursue both social peace and truth in all situations.
A group of people who are united in their awareness of demonstrable truths can be a deeply powerful thing. Contrarily, a group of people rallied around a lie or an assumption can only have illusory power or the illicit power that might come from sincere commitment to a delusion. There is nothing praiseworthy about the latter form of unity, and no Christian should ever pursue unity at the expense of a complete devotion to truth. It is unity in the truth that the Bible prescribes, not any other form of ecclesial oneness.
Saturday, January 12, 2019
A Manifestation Of Depression
Emotional numbness, though it might refer to a reduced capacity for or experience of emotions, can refer to the miserable state of having no emotions at all. This empty condition can accompany depression, despite the latter often being primarily conceived of as a deep sadness. Someone with emotional numbness might very well prefer deep sadness to a total absence of emotion.
Otherwise sound advice for people with the deepest form of emotional numbness resulting from depression (or some other mental disorder or trauma) might treat emotional numbness as if a simple change in lifestyle or attitude will reverse it, when this involves the mere assumption that those suffering from a lack of emotion already have emotions that can be heightened. If a person feels no emotions, them talking about or focusing on their predicament will probably do nothing whatsoever to alleviate the problem. In order to remedy an issue, people have to first take the problem seriously and properly identify what it consists of.
Despite some denial, there is nothing logically impossible about experiencing a complete absence of emotions, even if one still experiences basic thoughts, physical sensations, and other sensory perceptions. Mere outward behaviors can't establish that someone is actually feeling the emotions their facial expressions and gestures seem to suggest. For example, someone who smiles isn't necessarily feeling fulfilled, content, or happy. They might only be smiling out of habit or because it is expected of them. Even if they lack the experience of emotion, they can still be upset, worried, or happy. This is because being upset, for instance, does not require that one feel upset.
Emotions can certainly impact one's body: feelings of sadness or loss can lead to tears, feelings of anger can lead to a rapid beating of the heart, and feelings of sexual attraction can lead to physiological arousal, to list just a few examples. However, an emotion is not a bodily reaction. It is a mental/phenomenological phenomenon. A rapidly beating heart is not fear; fear is the feeling of being frightened. A consciousness without a body is entirely capable of feeling emotions, though there is no physical body for those emotions to stimulate. In the same way, experiencing bodily sensations does not mean that one also has emotions at a given time.
It is possible for someone to feel no emotions, but it is also possible for the brain to be physically stimulated in a way that reawakens emotions as mental experiences. Even if there was not one current medication or treatment capable of remedying the problem, there would be nothing impossible about a future breakthrough revealing a cure. Fortunately, there is hope for those who suffer from the various forms of emotional numbness. An emotionless life would likely lose practically all of its appeal very quickly, yet the emotionally numb are not necessarily doomed to live with a permanent absence of feelings, experiencing nothing but largely blank consciousness.
Otherwise sound advice for people with the deepest form of emotional numbness resulting from depression (or some other mental disorder or trauma) might treat emotional numbness as if a simple change in lifestyle or attitude will reverse it, when this involves the mere assumption that those suffering from a lack of emotion already have emotions that can be heightened. If a person feels no emotions, them talking about or focusing on their predicament will probably do nothing whatsoever to alleviate the problem. In order to remedy an issue, people have to first take the problem seriously and properly identify what it consists of.
Despite some denial, there is nothing logically impossible about experiencing a complete absence of emotions, even if one still experiences basic thoughts, physical sensations, and other sensory perceptions. Mere outward behaviors can't establish that someone is actually feeling the emotions their facial expressions and gestures seem to suggest. For example, someone who smiles isn't necessarily feeling fulfilled, content, or happy. They might only be smiling out of habit or because it is expected of them. Even if they lack the experience of emotion, they can still be upset, worried, or happy. This is because being upset, for instance, does not require that one feel upset.
Emotions can certainly impact one's body: feelings of sadness or loss can lead to tears, feelings of anger can lead to a rapid beating of the heart, and feelings of sexual attraction can lead to physiological arousal, to list just a few examples. However, an emotion is not a bodily reaction. It is a mental/phenomenological phenomenon. A rapidly beating heart is not fear; fear is the feeling of being frightened. A consciousness without a body is entirely capable of feeling emotions, though there is no physical body for those emotions to stimulate. In the same way, experiencing bodily sensations does not mean that one also has emotions at a given time.
It is possible for someone to feel no emotions, but it is also possible for the brain to be physically stimulated in a way that reawakens emotions as mental experiences. Even if there was not one current medication or treatment capable of remedying the problem, there would be nothing impossible about a future breakthrough revealing a cure. Fortunately, there is hope for those who suffer from the various forms of emotional numbness. An emotionless life would likely lose practically all of its appeal very quickly, yet the emotionally numb are not necessarily doomed to live with a permanent absence of feelings, experiencing nothing but largely blank consciousness.
Divine Simplicity
The phrase divine simplicity might eventually surface in one's philosophical and theological discussions, and it is ironically a simple matter to expose the folly of the concept. Divine simplicity holds that there is no distinction between categories or components of God's nature. Furthermore, it entails the idea that God is his characteristics, meaning that God does not have them. For instance, according to divine simplicity God does not merely exist, but is existence, and all "other" aspects of God (his immateriality, his moral perfection, and so on) are not separate from each other, as they form one completely unified whole. This notion is both logically erroneous and contrary to Biblical
teachings, and I will address it in that order, first by utilizing
reason alone and then by bringing in Scripture.
First, the idea that God does not possess characteristics is asinine. God cannot be existence itself! This would either mean that everything that exists is God, which lapses into a kind of pantheism, or that nothing can exist without God, yet it is impossible for either of these things to be true. If everything was God, then there would be no metaphysical distinction between the laws of logic, space, matter, time, contingent minds (human minds, angelic minds, and animal minds), and God's mind. It takes only a few moments to realize that these things cannot possibly be synonymous. Some of them are immaterial (logic, space, time, minds), and some are not (matter); some are contingent on God (contingent minds, time, and matter), and some are not (logic and space). The things that are not contingent on God's existence do not require God to exist [1], and thus the idea that God is existence is refuted again.
Biblically and logically speaking, if divine simplicity was true, it would be impossible to ultimately distinguish one aspect of God's character or nature from another, as there would be no aspects to distinguish. All of God's character and nature would be identical to all "other parts" of God. Therefore, since we can distinguish between God's mercy, grace, and wrath, and since the Bible does the same, divine simplicity is not compatible with actual Christian theology. All throughout Scripture there are references to particular, different aspects of God's moral character and metaphysical nature.
Despite it being endorsed by several allegedly "brilliant" theologians of the past (like Aquinas), divine simplicity is ironically heretical under Christianity, in that it contradicts the Bible's own description of God. The worldviews of revered historical philosophers/theologians, many of whom would assert the aforementioned impossibility that all things that exist are contingent on God's own existence, are often dramatically incomplete and plagued by miscellaneous fallacies. It is ironic that many who ostensibly defined Christianity throughout history were often guilty of easily avoidable fallacies, assumptions, and Biblical errors.
Divine simplicity is an inherently mistaken concept that cannot possibly be true, whether or not it is appraised within the context of the Christian worldview. The fact that it is not a particularly complex doctrine simplifies the process of identifying and dismantling its flaws. Its only appeal is for those who do not understand the actual implications of divine simplicity or who respect traditional authorities, and neither ignorance nor tradition are sound foundations for any philosophy.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-refutation-of-naturalism-part-2.html
First, the idea that God does not possess characteristics is asinine. God cannot be existence itself! This would either mean that everything that exists is God, which lapses into a kind of pantheism, or that nothing can exist without God, yet it is impossible for either of these things to be true. If everything was God, then there would be no metaphysical distinction between the laws of logic, space, matter, time, contingent minds (human minds, angelic minds, and animal minds), and God's mind. It takes only a few moments to realize that these things cannot possibly be synonymous. Some of them are immaterial (logic, space, time, minds), and some are not (matter); some are contingent on God (contingent minds, time, and matter), and some are not (logic and space). The things that are not contingent on God's existence do not require God to exist [1], and thus the idea that God is existence is refuted again.
Biblically and logically speaking, if divine simplicity was true, it would be impossible to ultimately distinguish one aspect of God's character or nature from another, as there would be no aspects to distinguish. All of God's character and nature would be identical to all "other parts" of God. Therefore, since we can distinguish between God's mercy, grace, and wrath, and since the Bible does the same, divine simplicity is not compatible with actual Christian theology. All throughout Scripture there are references to particular, different aspects of God's moral character and metaphysical nature.
Despite it being endorsed by several allegedly "brilliant" theologians of the past (like Aquinas), divine simplicity is ironically heretical under Christianity, in that it contradicts the Bible's own description of God. The worldviews of revered historical philosophers/theologians, many of whom would assert the aforementioned impossibility that all things that exist are contingent on God's own existence, are often dramatically incomplete and plagued by miscellaneous fallacies. It is ironic that many who ostensibly defined Christianity throughout history were often guilty of easily avoidable fallacies, assumptions, and Biblical errors.
Divine simplicity is an inherently mistaken concept that cannot possibly be true, whether or not it is appraised within the context of the Christian worldview. The fact that it is not a particularly complex doctrine simplifies the process of identifying and dismantling its flaws. Its only appeal is for those who do not understand the actual implications of divine simplicity or who respect traditional authorities, and neither ignorance nor tradition are sound foundations for any philosophy.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-refutation-of-naturalism-part-2.html
Friday, January 11, 2019
The Nonsense Of "Complementary" Egalitarianism
I have noticed a very conceptually bizarre kind of egalitarianism, which I call bizarre because it is far from having consistent veracity. This type of egalitarianism holds that there are innate/non-conditioned differences between (most) men and women that go beyond the appearances and functions of their bodies. For the sake of convenience, I will call this "complementary" egalitarianism, since it still retains elements of a complementarian mindset. It is a selective merging of baseline complementarianism and egalitarianism, in that it posits complementary gender traits while still holding that men and women who are the exceptions should not be barred from living out their individual characteristics in their occupations and family lives.
All consistent egalitarians realize that there is no nonphysical trait (nothing besides anatomy and physiology) that one possesses simply by virtue of being a man or a woman. There are nonphysical trait differences between individuals and other individuals, and there are are traits considered "masculine" or "feminine" by a given culture at large, but that is all. No personality trait is masculine or feminine; some traits are merely encouraged or expected to show themselves in men or women by ignorant members of various societies. That men and women have somewhat different bodies does not prove or even suggest that there are differences in the personalities of men and women.
It does not follow from one man or woman having a personality characteristic, skill, or desire that all men and women have it; it does not follow from one being a man or a woman that one has any particular personality characteristic or talent at all. Logic, by exposing that anyone who says otherwise must use the fallacy of composition and the non sequitur fallacy, refutes the idea that there are nonphysical gender-specific traits a priori. This means that even if a person who believes in gender stereotypes is surrounded by people who behave in accordance with those stereotypes, he or she is still without excuse for making the enormous and false assumptions behind the belief.
Because logic uproots anything that contradicts strict individualism, the notion of gender differences outside of anatomy and physiology is disproven irrespective of psychological studies and everyday experiences. But even if complementary egalitarianism was true, how could a person distinguish between conditioned differences and natural ones? There would be no way to tell one from the other! Thus, even complementary egalitarians are forced to adopt wholly arbitrary, illogical beliefs that lack any ability to be verified. Since refuting even a single gender stereotype refutes all of them at once (the refutations are identical for different stereotypes), complementary egalitarianism can only be nonsense, albeit not to the same degree as actual complementarianism.
All consistent egalitarians realize that there is no nonphysical trait (nothing besides anatomy and physiology) that one possesses simply by virtue of being a man or a woman. There are nonphysical trait differences between individuals and other individuals, and there are are traits considered "masculine" or "feminine" by a given culture at large, but that is all. No personality trait is masculine or feminine; some traits are merely encouraged or expected to show themselves in men or women by ignorant members of various societies. That men and women have somewhat different bodies does not prove or even suggest that there are differences in the personalities of men and women.
It does not follow from one man or woman having a personality characteristic, skill, or desire that all men and women have it; it does not follow from one being a man or a woman that one has any particular personality characteristic or talent at all. Logic, by exposing that anyone who says otherwise must use the fallacy of composition and the non sequitur fallacy, refutes the idea that there are nonphysical gender-specific traits a priori. This means that even if a person who believes in gender stereotypes is surrounded by people who behave in accordance with those stereotypes, he or she is still without excuse for making the enormous and false assumptions behind the belief.
Because logic uproots anything that contradicts strict individualism, the notion of gender differences outside of anatomy and physiology is disproven irrespective of psychological studies and everyday experiences. But even if complementary egalitarianism was true, how could a person distinguish between conditioned differences and natural ones? There would be no way to tell one from the other! Thus, even complementary egalitarians are forced to adopt wholly arbitrary, illogical beliefs that lack any ability to be verified. Since refuting even a single gender stereotype refutes all of them at once (the refutations are identical for different stereotypes), complementary egalitarianism can only be nonsense, albeit not to the same degree as actual complementarianism.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
The Treatment Of Mental Illness
Pretending like mental illness does not exist is a horrendous strategy for dealing with it. The same is true of either trivializing or mischaracterizing it. Fortunately, modern neuroscience has made great progress when it comes to understanding, diagnosing, and combating mental illness. After all, the treatment of mental illness is one of the most significant ramifications of neuroscience and psychology. Many other uses of information from these disciplines are trivial by comparison.
Despite this progress, some Christians who suffer from various mental illnesses might discourage themselves from taking advantage of modern breakthroughs, or perhaps others discourage them from doing so. Part of this issue stems from ignorance about the nature of mental illnesses and how many people suffer from them, while part of it might come from a gratuitous fear of looking to something other than prayer, or anything besides some other other strictly spiritual thing, for deliverance from mental disorders.
The Bible never condemns using neuroscience to treat mental illness. Furthermore, it would be contradictory for God to fashion the nervous system so that certain physical inputs/activities lead to certain phenomenological results, only to oppose using these causal relationships for a benevolent purpose. There is nothing about seeking professional help with addressing mental illness that is contrary to Christian life. Some Christians might even suppose that consulting a psychiatrist, doctor, or neuroscientist somehow disregards God's ability to heal someone, as if God would never enable the healing of mental illness through something like medication.
God certainly could remove someone's mental illness on his own, be it depression, anhedonia, an anxiety disorder, or something else--but it is harmful to go months or years hoping that God will rectify the problem(s) when a medicative/prescription solution will resolve even a part of the issue. There is nothing to gain from postponing or never seeking human help. Existence can be grueling enough as it is without mental illness contributing to personal misery.
From a Christian standpoint, there is even more reason to pursue all legitimate solutions to mental illness, since Christianity is deeply supportive of all aspects of human flourishing. Christians need to collectively forsake myths and stigmas around mental disorders. Additionally, they need to be prepared to offer help to anyone suffering from them, including themselves. Furthermore, they also need to express support for legitimate medicative remedies. If Christendom as a whole would pursue these objectives, Christians suffering from mental illness could more easily find whatever relief and liberation they can obtain.
Despite this progress, some Christians who suffer from various mental illnesses might discourage themselves from taking advantage of modern breakthroughs, or perhaps others discourage them from doing so. Part of this issue stems from ignorance about the nature of mental illnesses and how many people suffer from them, while part of it might come from a gratuitous fear of looking to something other than prayer, or anything besides some other other strictly spiritual thing, for deliverance from mental disorders.
The Bible never condemns using neuroscience to treat mental illness. Furthermore, it would be contradictory for God to fashion the nervous system so that certain physical inputs/activities lead to certain phenomenological results, only to oppose using these causal relationships for a benevolent purpose. There is nothing about seeking professional help with addressing mental illness that is contrary to Christian life. Some Christians might even suppose that consulting a psychiatrist, doctor, or neuroscientist somehow disregards God's ability to heal someone, as if God would never enable the healing of mental illness through something like medication.
God certainly could remove someone's mental illness on his own, be it depression, anhedonia, an anxiety disorder, or something else--but it is harmful to go months or years hoping that God will rectify the problem(s) when a medicative/prescription solution will resolve even a part of the issue. There is nothing to gain from postponing or never seeking human help. Existence can be grueling enough as it is without mental illness contributing to personal misery.
From a Christian standpoint, there is even more reason to pursue all legitimate solutions to mental illness, since Christianity is deeply supportive of all aspects of human flourishing. Christians need to collectively forsake myths and stigmas around mental disorders. Additionally, they need to be prepared to offer help to anyone suffering from them, including themselves. Furthermore, they also need to express support for legitimate medicative remedies. If Christendom as a whole would pursue these objectives, Christians suffering from mental illness could more easily find whatever relief and liberation they can obtain.
Friday, January 4, 2019
Movie Review--Hereditary
"My mother was a very secretive and private woman."
--Annie Graham, Hereditary
A phenomenal debut film, Hereditary is one of the most haunting and effective horror films of recent years. Instead of bombarding viewers with supernatural imagery, it builds up a powerful family drama before diving into the horror at the heart of the script, culminating in a very intense final 20 minutes. The emotional development of the characters proves as potent as the atmosphere of terror that erupts near the finale. To the film's credit, many genre cliches are avoided. That Hereditary is such a splendid movie might be somewhat expected, given that A24, the production and distribution company behind Hereditary, also released The Witch [1], It Comes at Night, and The Monster, other horror movies that focus on atmosphere and characterization instead of shallow dialogue and rapid jump scares.
Production Values
A great deal of the effects are practical, and they are used to great effect. The unfolding of the script allows for the more dramatic effects to be reserved for the end of the film, something that only heightens the impact. The director relies mostly on spectacular performances, writing, music, and cinematography to establish and develop the horror. There is a lot of foreshadowing woven into the script. Upon a second viewing, a great deal of the plot's ultimate thrust seems rather obvious, yet only one viewing is enough to see how successfully Hereditary merges its two distinct story elements. The dialogue itself is fantastic, emphasizing the grief and confusion of a family in the midst of tragic suffering, but it is the acting that catapults the execution of the script to such heights. Toni Collette in particular offers a deeply realistic performance as Annie Graham. Her grief and vulnerability alone hold up any scene in which they appear. Child actors can be very hit or miss, but Milly Shapiro does an excellent job with her limited but vital presence in the movie as Charlie Graham. Even the supporting actors and actresses play their roles in a very organic way, with the movie benefiting from the consistency of the quality acting.
Story
Spoilers!
Annie Graham and her family, consisting of her husband, son, and daughter, attend the funeral of her mother. Her mom suffered from dissociative identity disorder, with mental illness of various sorts running in the family. Charlie, Annie's daughter, has an allergy to nuts that soon results in a chain of events that culminates in her death, which cripples the Graham family. Each family member struggles with sadness or regret, but Annie meets a new friend named Joan. Elated, Joan soon tells Annie of her allegedly successful attempt to communicate with the spirit of her own deceased family member and then shows Annie the process.
Annie replicates the seance, hoping to be reunited with Charlie in some way. But the next attempt frightens her son Peter, who has been dealing with disturbing phenomena in the wake of Charlie's death, to the point of hearing noises she used to make. The discovery of a book links Joan with Annie's dead mother. She was a prominent figure in a private cult, working to have the demon king Paimon (a demon whose name appears in literature that predates the film) indwell Peter's body. After a series of tragic happenings, Peter is left vulnerable enough to be possessed by Paimon, and Joan, referring to him as Charlie, elaborates on how he can now reveal hidden knowledge to her secret coven.
Intellectual Content
At one point, Annie's husband thinks that she has descended into mental illness when she tells him about her plan to prevent a supernatural entity from harming her son further. Demonic activity (or behavioral reactions to demonic activity) and mental disorders could be very easily mistaken for each other. They both can involve dramatic, wild outbursts, after all. Hereditary expertly portrays how the two could even coexist, since the Graham family matriarch seems to have passed on both demonic woes and mental illness to her offspring.
Of course, Western entertainment often fails to acknowledge that anything that is not made of physical matter is supernatural by definition, including the laws of logic, basic consciousness of any sort, and the very space that holds matter. Entertainment is even likely part of the reason that people tend to only regard things like unembodied consciousnesses (like demons) or divine activity as supernatural. The truth is that the supernatural is in some way woven into every aspect of reality, since logic governs all things, as well as since it is impossible for both logic and space to not exist. No one needs to experience demonic or divine activities to know that the supernatural exists; they only need to recognize the nature of reason, their own consciousness (mind/spirit), and space itself.
Conclusion
In recent years, there has been a resurgence of atmospheric horror films that emphasize characterization and themes. Hereditary ranks among these movies. It exemplifies how terror can be gradually but effectively increased until it explodes into a volatile twist ending, how strong characters can amplify the impact of scares, and how there is a great need for deep emotion in horror. Cinema needs more horror stories of this quality, for they demonstrate how impactful and personal the genre can be.
Content:
1. Violence: A woman slowly slices her head off of her torso. Violent imagery is used even when there people are not inflicting brutality on themselves or others, as in the case of corpses.
2. Profanity: Words like "shit" and "fuck" are used throughout the story.
3. Nudity: Several male and female cult members are shown fully nude near the end of the movie. The nudity is completely nonsexual.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/movie-review-witch.html
--Annie Graham, Hereditary
A phenomenal debut film, Hereditary is one of the most haunting and effective horror films of recent years. Instead of bombarding viewers with supernatural imagery, it builds up a powerful family drama before diving into the horror at the heart of the script, culminating in a very intense final 20 minutes. The emotional development of the characters proves as potent as the atmosphere of terror that erupts near the finale. To the film's credit, many genre cliches are avoided. That Hereditary is such a splendid movie might be somewhat expected, given that A24, the production and distribution company behind Hereditary, also released The Witch [1], It Comes at Night, and The Monster, other horror movies that focus on atmosphere and characterization instead of shallow dialogue and rapid jump scares.
 |
|
Production Values
A great deal of the effects are practical, and they are used to great effect. The unfolding of the script allows for the more dramatic effects to be reserved for the end of the film, something that only heightens the impact. The director relies mostly on spectacular performances, writing, music, and cinematography to establish and develop the horror. There is a lot of foreshadowing woven into the script. Upon a second viewing, a great deal of the plot's ultimate thrust seems rather obvious, yet only one viewing is enough to see how successfully Hereditary merges its two distinct story elements. The dialogue itself is fantastic, emphasizing the grief and confusion of a family in the midst of tragic suffering, but it is the acting that catapults the execution of the script to such heights. Toni Collette in particular offers a deeply realistic performance as Annie Graham. Her grief and vulnerability alone hold up any scene in which they appear. Child actors can be very hit or miss, but Milly Shapiro does an excellent job with her limited but vital presence in the movie as Charlie Graham. Even the supporting actors and actresses play their roles in a very organic way, with the movie benefiting from the consistency of the quality acting.
Story
Spoilers!
Annie Graham and her family, consisting of her husband, son, and daughter, attend the funeral of her mother. Her mom suffered from dissociative identity disorder, with mental illness of various sorts running in the family. Charlie, Annie's daughter, has an allergy to nuts that soon results in a chain of events that culminates in her death, which cripples the Graham family. Each family member struggles with sadness or regret, but Annie meets a new friend named Joan. Elated, Joan soon tells Annie of her allegedly successful attempt to communicate with the spirit of her own deceased family member and then shows Annie the process.
Annie replicates the seance, hoping to be reunited with Charlie in some way. But the next attempt frightens her son Peter, who has been dealing with disturbing phenomena in the wake of Charlie's death, to the point of hearing noises she used to make. The discovery of a book links Joan with Annie's dead mother. She was a prominent figure in a private cult, working to have the demon king Paimon (a demon whose name appears in literature that predates the film) indwell Peter's body. After a series of tragic happenings, Peter is left vulnerable enough to be possessed by Paimon, and Joan, referring to him as Charlie, elaborates on how he can now reveal hidden knowledge to her secret coven.
Intellectual Content
At one point, Annie's husband thinks that she has descended into mental illness when she tells him about her plan to prevent a supernatural entity from harming her son further. Demonic activity (or behavioral reactions to demonic activity) and mental disorders could be very easily mistaken for each other. They both can involve dramatic, wild outbursts, after all. Hereditary expertly portrays how the two could even coexist, since the Graham family matriarch seems to have passed on both demonic woes and mental illness to her offspring.
Of course, Western entertainment often fails to acknowledge that anything that is not made of physical matter is supernatural by definition, including the laws of logic, basic consciousness of any sort, and the very space that holds matter. Entertainment is even likely part of the reason that people tend to only regard things like unembodied consciousnesses (like demons) or divine activity as supernatural. The truth is that the supernatural is in some way woven into every aspect of reality, since logic governs all things, as well as since it is impossible for both logic and space to not exist. No one needs to experience demonic or divine activities to know that the supernatural exists; they only need to recognize the nature of reason, their own consciousness (mind/spirit), and space itself.
Conclusion
 |
|
In recent years, there has been a resurgence of atmospheric horror films that emphasize characterization and themes. Hereditary ranks among these movies. It exemplifies how terror can be gradually but effectively increased until it explodes into a volatile twist ending, how strong characters can amplify the impact of scares, and how there is a great need for deep emotion in horror. Cinema needs more horror stories of this quality, for they demonstrate how impactful and personal the genre can be.
Content:
1. Violence: A woman slowly slices her head off of her torso. Violent imagery is used even when there people are not inflicting brutality on themselves or others, as in the case of corpses.
2. Profanity: Words like "shit" and "fuck" are used throughout the story.
3. Nudity: Several male and female cult members are shown fully nude near the end of the movie. The nudity is completely nonsexual.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/movie-review-witch.html
How Annihilation Is Analogous To Capital Punishment
I have never met a single evangelical who would likely pretend for even a moment that a government execution is not a punishment. In fact, evangelicals would probably respond to anyone who suggested this lunacy with laughter or confusion. A punishment is a consequence for an offense, real or perceived, and the infliction of death can clearly be used as a punishment. Anyone who denies either of these facts can only either be joking or stupid.
Nevertheless, ask evangelicals if annihilation in hell is a genuine punishment, and they might very quickly dismiss the idea that something short of everlasting torment could possibly be such a thing. This is an obvious example of cognitive dissonance. Not all evangelicals make such an inept mistake, but enough of them do for the point to need emphasis. The hostility and ridicule directed towards annihilationism in conservative Christian circles are often enough to deter many from challenging the contradictions and errors of the traditional stance on hell. When a large number of Christians refuse to consider annihilationism, straw men accusations like the idea that annihilation is not a punishment can easily arise.
Permanent death of the soul is itself a weighty punishment. But annihilation entails more than the mere cessation of existence: it also necessitates an exclusion from every joy and benefit that comes with eternal life. If a person is annihilated, there is no longer any hope for restoration to God. How is this, too, not a weighty punishment? Any of these two aspects of annihilation is grave on its own, but the combination of both is a tremendous penalty for the unsaved. Annihilation itself is nothing but cosmic capital punishment that precludes eternal life.
Upon realizing that annihilation is a penalty, evangelicals might begin denying that it is a just penalty. To do so, they must contradict the consistent doctrine of proportionate punishments found all throughout Mosaic Law, but they must also regard their subjective feelings (or those of another person) as authoritative. Since the Bible does not teach eternal conscious torment for all unsaved beings (Satan, the beast, and the false prophet are described as exceptions in Revelation 20:10), they cannot possibly have actual Biblical teachings support them. They can only look to the arbitrary pitfalls of conscience, consensus, or tradition.
Though it might be mischaracterized as if it edits the gospel, annihilationism leaves the gospel intact. That the Bible teaches annihilationism does not mean that it does not teach that there is a great punishment that awaits the wicked. If execution is a punishment, then so is the destruction of the soul--in fact, the two are completely analogous! Evangelicals readily admit the former. The only reason they might reject the latter is a bias against the clear teachings of the Bible regarding hell, as they contradict the traditions that have held sway over the majority of Christians.
Nevertheless, ask evangelicals if annihilation in hell is a genuine punishment, and they might very quickly dismiss the idea that something short of everlasting torment could possibly be such a thing. This is an obvious example of cognitive dissonance. Not all evangelicals make such an inept mistake, but enough of them do for the point to need emphasis. The hostility and ridicule directed towards annihilationism in conservative Christian circles are often enough to deter many from challenging the contradictions and errors of the traditional stance on hell. When a large number of Christians refuse to consider annihilationism, straw men accusations like the idea that annihilation is not a punishment can easily arise.
Permanent death of the soul is itself a weighty punishment. But annihilation entails more than the mere cessation of existence: it also necessitates an exclusion from every joy and benefit that comes with eternal life. If a person is annihilated, there is no longer any hope for restoration to God. How is this, too, not a weighty punishment? Any of these two aspects of annihilation is grave on its own, but the combination of both is a tremendous penalty for the unsaved. Annihilation itself is nothing but cosmic capital punishment that precludes eternal life.
Upon realizing that annihilation is a penalty, evangelicals might begin denying that it is a just penalty. To do so, they must contradict the consistent doctrine of proportionate punishments found all throughout Mosaic Law, but they must also regard their subjective feelings (or those of another person) as authoritative. Since the Bible does not teach eternal conscious torment for all unsaved beings (Satan, the beast, and the false prophet are described as exceptions in Revelation 20:10), they cannot possibly have actual Biblical teachings support them. They can only look to the arbitrary pitfalls of conscience, consensus, or tradition.
Though it might be mischaracterized as if it edits the gospel, annihilationism leaves the gospel intact. That the Bible teaches annihilationism does not mean that it does not teach that there is a great punishment that awaits the wicked. If execution is a punishment, then so is the destruction of the soul--in fact, the two are completely analogous! Evangelicals readily admit the former. The only reason they might reject the latter is a bias against the clear teachings of the Bible regarding hell, as they contradict the traditions that have held sway over the majority of Christians.
The Presence Of Emotion
Emotion, like every aspect of reality, is often misunderstood. It tends to be regarded in one of two contrary ways: its importance is usually either overstated or trivialized. Both of these errors are deadly. Treating emotion as if it holds a greater power than the intellect is an asinine blunder that can destroy a person's worldview, but failing to appreciate emotion can produce emptiness. In conditions of extreme emotional pain, some might even wish to be permanently rid of their feelings. I suspect that few (if any) would find a completely emotionless existence fulfilling.
Without emotions of any sort, it would easily seem as if there is no immediate incentive to continue living, much less to endure a life of perils for the sake of distant objectives. Emotionalism is a destructive plague, but emotion itself drives many people forward, as the depth of human feelings can be an enchanting and empowering thing. People pursue emotional fulfillment because experience without emotion resembles a kind of blank consciousness. It is difficult to find motivation within a mind devoid of all emotions; some sort of emotion is almost always involved in a decision to continue living.
Emotion should be savored by Christians, who should wholeheartedly live out the theological ideas that emotion is good (Genesis 1:31) and that Christian life can be exceptionally fulfilling on a personal level (John 10:10). A love of God and truth might naturally be accompanied by emotional passion. Furthermore, there is nothing anti-rationalistic about celebrating the full spectrum of human psychological feelings, as there is nothing exclusive about emotional and intellectual depth.
Enjoying human existence without some degree of emotionality is a challenge. Vibrant feelings, therefore, are worthy of the attention of those who seek to enjoy their existences. Emotions must be controlled, yes; this does not mean that they must be ignored or silenced. Christians should be among the first to relish and emphasize emotions, since they are an integral component of what God fashioned human life to be. Emotion itself is not an enemy of reality.
Without emotions of any sort, it would easily seem as if there is no immediate incentive to continue living, much less to endure a life of perils for the sake of distant objectives. Emotionalism is a destructive plague, but emotion itself drives many people forward, as the depth of human feelings can be an enchanting and empowering thing. People pursue emotional fulfillment because experience without emotion resembles a kind of blank consciousness. It is difficult to find motivation within a mind devoid of all emotions; some sort of emotion is almost always involved in a decision to continue living.
Emotion should be savored by Christians, who should wholeheartedly live out the theological ideas that emotion is good (Genesis 1:31) and that Christian life can be exceptionally fulfilling on a personal level (John 10:10). A love of God and truth might naturally be accompanied by emotional passion. Furthermore, there is nothing anti-rationalistic about celebrating the full spectrum of human psychological feelings, as there is nothing exclusive about emotional and intellectual depth.
Enjoying human existence without some degree of emotionality is a challenge. Vibrant feelings, therefore, are worthy of the attention of those who seek to enjoy their existences. Emotions must be controlled, yes; this does not mean that they must be ignored or silenced. Christians should be among the first to relish and emphasize emotions, since they are an integral component of what God fashioned human life to be. Emotion itself is not an enemy of reality.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
The Flaws Of Dueling
I usually mock groups like Intellectual Takeout without directly
involving myself in their shallowness and illogicality, but I happened
to unintentionally discover a rather amusing but at least somewhat unironic
article [1] written by IT's co-founder. In it, the author gives a
positive description of dueling, where one person challenges another to
exchange gunshots that might result in death. He elaborates on the
potential deterrence that might accompany dueling without ever
acknowledging that deterrence has nothing to do with whether or not
something is morally permissible. According to the author, gossip,
slander, and moral laziness would suddenly decline if dueling made a
comeback. The article goes so far as to assert that "America has not
seen its last duel," claiming that the practice will return as America
regains an arbitrary sense of honor.
What exactly is this practice supposed to demonstrate other than that one person has a better aim or speed than another? Dueling proves only that one person is more skilled or luckier than someone else when it comes to using a weapon. It establishes nothing about the legitimacy of the motivations or causes for which the duelists fight, yet some have historically looked to it as if it is an intrinsically honorable, upright thing. How does it in any way demonstrate moral superiority? It can't! It only means that the participants are willing to engage in extra-legal rituals intended to result in death. Of course, there is the glaring moral issue of killing (or attempting to kill someone) outside of the Bible's prescriptions for capital punishment and war or allowances for self-defense.
Only an intellectual insect is unable to see through the obvious fallacies behind the very concept of "legitimate dueling." Though Intellectual Takeout claims to have a high regard for the Bible (as other articles evidence), it seems to literally endorse the idea of dueling over petty perceptions of honor, despite the fact that this would easily involve injuring or killing someone. Mosaic Law only permits the infliction of injury or death in select cases of self-defense, warfare, and corporal or capital punishment, and yet the Bible even emphasizes precise moral limitations governing each of these things.
Even when the Bible does prescribe or permit violence, there are always stark limitations on how that violence can be pursued. When it comes to defense of themselves or even of another person, people are disallowed from seizing the genitalia of the opposite gender (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) or harming bystanders (Exodus 21:22). War is not intrinsically wrong, but it must be preceded by sincere attempts to avoid bloodshed (Deuteronomy 20:10). Furthermore, corporal punishment using lashes is explicitly limited to 40 strokes (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), with flogging someone to death being a crime (Exodus 21:20); Biblical capital punishment is restricted to specific crimes and particular methods.
The Bible, including both the Old and New Testament, is far from a pacifist book, but it is thoroughly against casual, gratuitous violence like that of a duel. Every instance of violence that it prescribes exists solely in the context of self-preservation or justice. Either Intellectual Takeout (more like Intellectual Fakeout) is ignorant of the positions of its co-founder, which is very unlikely, or it does not care about them being so flawed. In both cases, it is willing to have an article written by its co-founder actually claim that something like dueling is necessary to resurrect a vague and undefined notion of honor. There is a word for killing someone outside of just self-defense, warfare, or capital punishment: murder.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/dueling-time-bring-it-back
What exactly is this practice supposed to demonstrate other than that one person has a better aim or speed than another? Dueling proves only that one person is more skilled or luckier than someone else when it comes to using a weapon. It establishes nothing about the legitimacy of the motivations or causes for which the duelists fight, yet some have historically looked to it as if it is an intrinsically honorable, upright thing. How does it in any way demonstrate moral superiority? It can't! It only means that the participants are willing to engage in extra-legal rituals intended to result in death. Of course, there is the glaring moral issue of killing (or attempting to kill someone) outside of the Bible's prescriptions for capital punishment and war or allowances for self-defense.
Only an intellectual insect is unable to see through the obvious fallacies behind the very concept of "legitimate dueling." Though Intellectual Takeout claims to have a high regard for the Bible (as other articles evidence), it seems to literally endorse the idea of dueling over petty perceptions of honor, despite the fact that this would easily involve injuring or killing someone. Mosaic Law only permits the infliction of injury or death in select cases of self-defense, warfare, and corporal or capital punishment, and yet the Bible even emphasizes precise moral limitations governing each of these things.
Even when the Bible does prescribe or permit violence, there are always stark limitations on how that violence can be pursued. When it comes to defense of themselves or even of another person, people are disallowed from seizing the genitalia of the opposite gender (Deuteronomy 25:11-12) or harming bystanders (Exodus 21:22). War is not intrinsically wrong, but it must be preceded by sincere attempts to avoid bloodshed (Deuteronomy 20:10). Furthermore, corporal punishment using lashes is explicitly limited to 40 strokes (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), with flogging someone to death being a crime (Exodus 21:20); Biblical capital punishment is restricted to specific crimes and particular methods.
The Bible, including both the Old and New Testament, is far from a pacifist book, but it is thoroughly against casual, gratuitous violence like that of a duel. Every instance of violence that it prescribes exists solely in the context of self-preservation or justice. Either Intellectual Takeout (more like Intellectual Fakeout) is ignorant of the positions of its co-founder, which is very unlikely, or it does not care about them being so flawed. In both cases, it is willing to have an article written by its co-founder actually claim that something like dueling is necessary to resurrect a vague and undefined notion of honor. There is a word for killing someone outside of just self-defense, warfare, or capital punishment: murder.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
[1]. https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/dueling-time-bring-it-back
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Sexism And Racism
People who wish to avoid even the slightest hint of actual racism might
be quick to defend a thoroughly sexist belief or practice rooted in tradition. The
evangelical church, for instance, is eager to denounce racism and promote racial
reconciliation wherever it is needed--yet it hesitates or objects to
doing the same with sexism! It is ironic that those who lament racism
are sometimes the very people intentionally perpetuating sexism, whether
or not they know their own cognitive dissonance.
Though both sexism and racism are illogical and immoral for the same basic reasons, one of them is objectively worse than the other because it affects, or at least can affect, more people. If every racist person was absolutely consistent with their racism, they might horrendously mistreat a large number of people with their words or behaviors, but a sexist person who is absolutely consistent in living out sexism will negatively affect far more people. This is why sexism can be far more devastating than racism.
Despite this, some complain more about racial injustices from decades and centuries ago than they do about sexism that persists in the present. It is refreshing to see even conservative Christians denounce discrimination according to ethnicity, but too many do not go far enough: they do not even call attention to how deeply sexist ideas are rooted into both secular and Christian cultures.
Call a black person a probable thief or murderer because he or she is black, and you will likely be despised by many. Call a man a probable sexual harasser or brute because he is a man, and some of the same people who would furiously condemn extrapolating from one black person to another will either be silent or join in. Yet if one is illogical, so is the other; if one is immoral, how can the other not be? Both charges are the result of intellectual ineptitude and moral failure.
Consistency is instrumental in living rightly. All too often, people focus on one aspect of morality in a way that excludes taking other aspects into consideration. If something is evil, then all analogous things must by necessity also be evil. The person who selectively condemns what is irrational or immoral is inevitably plagued by ignorance or selfishness. It is rather easy for one to fuel the other, perpetuating or deepening even simple moral errors.
Though both sexism and racism are illogical and immoral for the same basic reasons, one of them is objectively worse than the other because it affects, or at least can affect, more people. If every racist person was absolutely consistent with their racism, they might horrendously mistreat a large number of people with their words or behaviors, but a sexist person who is absolutely consistent in living out sexism will negatively affect far more people. This is why sexism can be far more devastating than racism.
Despite this, some complain more about racial injustices from decades and centuries ago than they do about sexism that persists in the present. It is refreshing to see even conservative Christians denounce discrimination according to ethnicity, but too many do not go far enough: they do not even call attention to how deeply sexist ideas are rooted into both secular and Christian cultures.
Call a black person a probable thief or murderer because he or she is black, and you will likely be despised by many. Call a man a probable sexual harasser or brute because he is a man, and some of the same people who would furiously condemn extrapolating from one black person to another will either be silent or join in. Yet if one is illogical, so is the other; if one is immoral, how can the other not be? Both charges are the result of intellectual ineptitude and moral failure.
Consistency is instrumental in living rightly. All too often, people focus on one aspect of morality in a way that excludes taking other aspects into consideration. If something is evil, then all analogous things must by necessity also be evil. The person who selectively condemns what is irrational or immoral is inevitably plagued by ignorance or selfishness. It is rather easy for one to fuel the other, perpetuating or deepening even simple moral errors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)